John Slidell to James Buchanan, January 28, 1861

SENATE CHAMBER, January 28, 1861.

Sir: I have been requested by the gentlemen to whom, with myself, the accompanying letter from Colonel Isaac W. Hayne was addressed, to communicate the same to you.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

JOHN SLIDELL.

His EXCELLENCY JAMEs BUCHANAN,

President of the United States.

SOURCE: John Bassett Moore, Editor, Works of James Buchanan, Volume 11, p. 132

Isaac W. Hayne to James Buchanan, January 31, 1861

WASHINGTON, January 31, 1861.

SIR: I had the honor to hold a short interview with you on the 14th instant, informal and unofficial. Having previously been informed that you desired that whatever was official should be, on both sides, conducted by written communications, I did not at that time present my credentials, but verbally informed you that I bore a letter from the governor of South Carolina, in regard to the occupation of Fort Sumter, which I would deliver the next day under cover of a written communication from myself. The next day, before such communication could be made, I was waited upon by a senator from Alabama, who stated that he came on the part of all the senators then in Washington from the States which had already seceded from the United States, or would certainly have done so before the first day of February next. The senator from Alabama urged that he and they were interested in the subject of my mission in almost an equal degree with the authorities of South Carolina. He said that hostilities commenced between South Carolina and your government would necessarily involve the States represented by themselves in civil strife: and fearing that the action of South Carolina might complicate the relations of your government to the seceded and seceding States, and thereby interfere with a peaceful solution of existing difficulties, these senators requested that I would withhold my message to yourself until a consultation among themselves could be had. To this I agreed, and the result of the consultation was the letter of these senators addressed to me, dated January 15, a copy of which is in your possession. To this letter I replied on the 17th, and a copy of that reply is likewise in your possession. This correspondence, as I am informed, was made the subject of a communication from Senators Fitzpatrick, Mallory, and Slidell, addressed to you, and your attention called to the contents. These gentlemen received on the — day of January a reply to their application, conveyed in a letter addressed to them dated — —, signed by the Hon. J. Holt, Secretary of War ad interim. Of this letter you of course have a copy. This letter from Mr. Holt was communicated to me under cover of a letter from all the senators of the seceded and seceding States who still remained in Washington, and of this letter, too, I am informed you have been furnished with a copy.

This reply of yours, through the Secretary of War ad interim, to the application made by the senators was entirely unsatisfactory to me. It appeared to me to be not only a rejection in advance of the main proposition made by these senators, to wit: that “an arrangement should be agreed on” between the authorities of South Carolina and your government, “at least until the 15th of February next,” by which time South Carolina and the States represented by the senators  “might in convention devise a wise, just, and peaceable solution of existing difficulties.” “In the meantime,” they say, “we think,” that is, these senators, “that your State (South Carolina) should suffer Major Anderson to obtain necessary supplies of food, fuel, or water, and enjoy free communication, by post or special messenger, with the President, upon the understanding that the President will not send him reenforcements during the same period;” but, besides this rejection of the main proposition, there was, in Mr. Holt’s letter, a distinct refusal to make any stipulation on the subject of re-enforcement, even for the short time that might be required to communicate with my government. This reply to the senators was, as I have stated, altogether unsatisfactory to me, and I felt sure would be so to the authorities whom I represented. It was not, however, addressed to me, or to the authorities of South Carolina; and as South Carolina had addressed nothing to your government, and had asked nothing at your hands, I looked not to Mr. Holt's letter, but to the note addressed to me by the senators of the seceded and seceding States. I had consented to withhold my message at their instance, provided they could get assurances satisfactory to them that no re-enforcemcnts would be sent to Fort Sumter in the interval, and that the peace should not be disturbed by any act of hostility.

The senators expressed in their note to me of the 23d instant their entire confidence “that no re-enforcements will be sent to Fort Sumter, nor will the public peace be disturbed within the period requisite for full communication between you (myself) and your (my) government,” and renewed their request that I would withhold the communication with which I stood charged, and await further instructions.

This I have done. The further instructions arrived on the 30th instant, and bear date the 26th. I now have the honor to make to you my first communication as special envoy from the government of South Carolina. You will find enclosed the original communication to the President of the United States from the governor of South Carolina, with which I was charged in Charleston on the 12th day of January instant, the day on which it bears date. I am now instructed by the governor Of South Carolina to say that his opinion as to the propriety of the demand which is contained in this letter “has not only been confirmed by the circumstances which your (my) mission has developed but is now increased to a conviction of its necessity. The safety of the State requires that the position of the President should be distinctly understood. The safety of all seceding States requires it as much as the safety of South Carolina. If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as Property, then, as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United States can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina you are (I am) authorized to give.” “If Fort Sumter is not held as property, it is held,” say my instructions, “as a military post, and such a post within the limits of South Carolina will not be tolerated.” You will perceive that it is upon the presumption that it is solely as property that you continue to hold Fort Sumter that I have been selected for the performance of the duty upon which I have entered. I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State — its attorney general — to claim for the State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise from the exercise of the claim.

South Carolina, as a separate, independent sovereign, assumes the right to take into her own possession everything within her limits essential to maintain her honor or her safety, irrespective of the question of property, subject only to the moral duty requiring that compensation should be made to the owner. This right she cannot permit to be drawn into discussion. As to compensation for any property, whether of an individual or a government, which she may deem it necessary for her honor or safety to take into her possession, her past history gives ample guarantee that it will be made, upon a fair accounting, to the last dollar.

The proposition now is that her law officer should, under authority of the governor and his council, distinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such compensation in regard to Fort Sumter, and its appurtenances and contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property of the United States delivered over to the authorities of South Carolina by your command. I will not suppose that a pledge like this can be considered insufficient security. Is not the money value of the property of the United States in this fort, situated where it cannot be made available to the United States for any one purpose for which it was originally constructed, worth more to the United States than the property itself? Why then, as property, insist on holding it by an armed garrison? Yet such has been the ground upon which you have invariably placed your occupancy of this fort by troops — beginning prospectively with your annual message of the 4th December, again in your special message of the 9th January, and still more emphatically in your message of the 28th January. The same position is set forth in your reply to the senators, through the Secretary of War ad interim. It is there virtually conceded that Fort Sumter “is held merely as property of the United States, which you deem it your duty to protect and preserve.” Again, it is submitted that the continuance of an armed possession actually jeopards the property you desire to protect. It is impossible but that such a possession, if continued long enough, must lead to collision. No people not completely abject and pusillanimous could submit indefinitely to the armed occupation Of a fortress in the midst of the harbor of its principal city, and commanding the ingress and egress Of every ship that enters the port — the daily ferry-boats that ply upon its waters moving but at the sufferance of aliens. An attack upon this fort would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result; and if captured, it would no longer be the subject of account. To protect Fort Sumter merely as property, it is submitted that an armed occupancy is not only unnecessary, but that it is manifestly the worst possible means which can be resorted to for such an object.

Your reply to the senators, through Mr. Holt, declares it to be your sole object “to act strictly on the defensive, and to authorize no movement against South Carolina, unless justified by a hostile movement on their part.” Yet, in reply to the proposition of the senators — that no re-enforcements should be sent to Fort Sumter, provided South Carolina agrees that during the same period no attack should be made — you say “it is impossible for me (your Secretary) to give you (the senators) any such assurance;” that “it would be manifest violation of his (your) duty, to place himself (yourself) under engagements that he (you) would not perform the duty, either for an indefinite or a limited period.” In your message of the 28th instant, in expressing yourself in regard to a similar proposition, you say: “However strong may be my desire to enter into such an agreement, I am convinced that I do not possess the power. Congress, and Congress alone, under the war-making power, can exercise the discretion of agreeing to abstain ‘from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms’ between this and any other government. It would, therefore, be a usurpation for the Executive to attempt to restrain their hands by an agreement in regard to matters over which he has no constitutional control. If he were thus to act, they might pass laws which he should be bound to obey, though in conflict with his agreement.” The proposition, it is suggested, was addressed to you under the laws as they now are, and was not intended to refer to a new condition of things arising under new legislation. It was addressed to the executive discretion, acting under existing laws. If Congress should, under the war-making power, or in any other way, legislate in a manner to affect the peace of South Carolina, her interests, or her rights, it would not be accomplished in secret; South Carolina would have timely notice, and she would, I trust, endeavor to meet the emergency.

It is added, in the letter of Mr. Holt, that “ at the present moment it is not deemed necessary to re-enforce Major Anderson, because he makes no such request, and feels quite secure in his position;” “but should his safety require it, every effort will be made to supply re-enforccments.” This would seem to ignore the other branch of the proposition made by the senators, viz: that no attack was to be made on Fort Sumter during the period suggested, and that Major Anderson should enjoy the facilities of communication, &c., &c. I advert to this point, however, for the purpose of saying that to send re-enforcements to Fort Sumter could not serve as a means of protecting and Warning Mulberry; for, as must be known to your government, it would inevitably lead to immediate hostilities, in which property on all sides would necessarily suffer. South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public peace, and feels, I am sure, in full force, those high “ Christian and moral duties" referred to by your Secretary; and it is submitted that on her part there is scarcely any consideration of mere property, apart from honor and safety, which could induce her to do aught to jeopard that peace, still less to inaugurate a protracted and bloody civil war. She rests her position on something higher than mere property. It is a consideration of her own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to demand that this property should not longer be used as a military post by a government she no longer acknowledges. She feels this to be an imperative duty. It has, in fact, become an absolute necessity of her condition.

Repudiating, as you do, the idea of coercion, avowing peaceful intentions, and expressing a patriot's horror for civil war and bloody strife among those who once were brethren, it is hoped that, on further consideration, you will not, on a mere question of property, refuse the reasonable demand of South Carolina, which honor and necessity alike compel her to vindicate. Should you disappoint this hope, the responsibility for the result surely does not rest with her. If the evils of war are to be encountered, especially the calamities of civil war, an elevated statesmanship would seem to require that it should be accepted as the unavoidable alternative of something still more disastrous, such as national dishonor, or measures materially affecting the safety or permanent interests of a people; that it should be a choice deliberately made, and entered upon as war, and of set purpose. But that war should be the incident or accident attendant on a policy professedly peaceful, and not required to effect the object which is avowed, as the only end intended, can only be excused where there has been no warning given as to the consequences.

I am further instructed to say that South Carolina cannot, by her silence, appear to acquiesce in the imputation that she was guilty of an act of unprovoked aggression in firing on the “Star of the West.” Though an unarmed vessel, she was filled with armed men, entering her territory against her will with the purpose of re-enforcing a garrison held within her limits against her protest. She forbears to recriminate by discussing the question of the propriety of attempting such a re-enforcement at all, as well as of the disguised and secret manner in which it was intended to be effected; and on this occasion she will say nothing as to the manner in which Fort Sumter was taken into the possession of its present occupants. The interposition of the senators who have addressed you was a circumstance unexpected by my government, and unsolicited certainly by me. The governor, while he appreciates the high and generous motives by which they were prompted, and while he fully approves the delay which, in deference to them, has taken place in the presentation of this demand, feels that it cannot longer be withheld.

I conclude with an extract from the instructions just received by me from the government of South Carolina. “The letter of the President, through Mr. Holt, may be received as the reply to the question you were instructed to ask, as to his assertion of his right to send re-enforcements to Fort Sumter. You were instructed to say to him, if he asserted that right, that the State of South Carolina regarded such a right, when asserted, or with an attempt at its exercise, as a declaration of war. If the President intends it shall not be so understood, it is proper, to avoid any misconception hereafter, that he should be informed of the manner in which the governor will feel bound to regard it. If the President, when you have stated the reasons which prompt the governor in making the demand for the delivery of Fort Sumter, shall refuse to deliver the fort upon the pledge you have been authorized to make, you will communicate that refusal without delay to the governor. If the President shall not be prepared to give you an immediate answer, you will communicate to him that his answer may be transmitted within a reasonable time to the governor at this place, (Charleston, South Carolina.) The governor does not consider it necessary that you (I) should remain longer in Washington than is necessary to execute this, the closing duty of your (my) mission in the manner now indicated to you, (me.) As soon as the governor shall receive from you information that you have closed your mission, and the reply, whatever it may be, of the President, he will consider the conduct which will be necessary on his part.”

Allow me to request that you would as soon as possible inform me whether, under these instructions, I need await your answer in Washington. And if not, I would be pleased to convey from you to my government information as to the time when an answer may be expected in Charleston.

With consideration, I have the honor to be, very respectfully,

ISAAC W. HAYNE,

Special Envoy.

His EXCELLENCY JAMES BUCHANAN, President.

SOURCE: John Bassett Moore, Editor, Works of James Buchanan, Volume 11, p. 132-7

John L. Motley to Anna Lothrop Motley, November 29, 1861

Vienna,

December, 1, 1861.

My Dearest Mother: Your letter of November 5 reached us a few days ago. It is always a great delight to me to receive a note, however short, from your hand, and this time it was a nice, long, and very interesting letter. God knows how long we shall be able to correspond at all, for what I have been dreading more than anything else since our Civil War began seems now, alas! inevitable. Before this reaches you the Southerners have obtained an advantage which all their generals and diplomatists would not have procured for them in twenty years — the alliance of England and the assistance of her fleets and armies. As a technical point, I shall ever remain of opinion that a merchant ship like the Trent is no portion of neutral soil, and that therefore it is no asylum for any individual against a ship of war exercising its belligerent rights on the high seas. The jurisdiction of English merchant vessels is municipal and extends only to their own subjects. It cannot legally protect the enemies of the United States against the United States government. The law of nations prevails on the ocean, and the law of war is a part of that code. The law of war allows you to deal with your enemy where you can find him, and to intercept an ambassador on his passage to a neutral country, provided you can do it without violating neutral soil. A ship of war is deemed a portion of its sovereign's soil; a merchantman is not; so that if the Trent was not a ship of war, and was not within three miles of a neutral coast, I should say that the arrest of Mason and Slidell was legal according to public laws and to the decisions of English admiralty, and according to the uniform practice of the English cruisers throughout the early part of this century. We know too well how many of our sailors were taken from our merchant vessels and compelled to serve against nations at peace with us. But all this signifies nothing.

The English crown lawyers have decided that the arrest was illegal, and it is certainly not in accordance with the principles which we formerly sustained, although it is with the English practice. So England has at last the opportunity which a very large portion of its inhabitants (although not the whole, nor perhaps even a majority) have been panting for, and they step into the field with the largest fleet which the world has ever seen as champions and allies of the Southern Confederacy. If the commander of the Jacinto acted according to his instructions, I hardly see how we are to extricate ourselves from this dilemma, and it remains nevertheless true that Mason and Slidell have done us more damage now than they ever could have done as diplomatists. I am sorry to have taken up the whole of my letter with this theme. Our thoughts are of nothing else, and our life is in telegrams. I never expect another happy hour, and am almost brokenhearted. My whole soul was in the cause of the United States government against this pro-slavery mutiny, and I never doubted our ultimate triumph; but if the South has now secured the alliance of England, a restoration of the Union becomes hopeless.

We are on very good terms with the English ambassador here and Lady Bloomfield, and they, as well as most of the members of the embassy, have always expressed themselves in the most frank and sympathetic language in regard to our government and our cause, and even now that this incident has occurred, Lord Bloomfield, in discussing the matter with me last night, expressed the deepest regret, together with the most earnest hope that the affair might be arranged, although neither he nor I can imagine how such a result is to be reached. We are, as you may suppose, very unhappy, and have really nothing to say about our life here. If Vienna were paradise it would be gloomy under such circumstances. Mary and Lily are both well, and join me in much love to you and my father and all the family.

I shall write by the next steamer, if only a single page like this. Perhaps the communications will be stopped before your answer can arrive.

God bless you. And believe me

Your ever-affectionate son,

J. L. M.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 218-20

Fitz-Greene Halleck to Mrs. Rush, November 21, 1861

Guilford, Conn., Nov. 21, 1861.

My DEar Mrs. Rush: I am very grateful for your continued kind remembrance of me, and for the courtesy of your promise to like my next war-song, notwithstanding the rejection of my last as one of the unlucky twelve hundred, and I think it my bounden duty, while generously declining to put your good-nature to so severe a test, to tell you frankly a melancholy truth. Sir Walter Scott once said to a clerical friend of his: “I am afraid that I am fast losing my memory, for I listened attentively to your yesterday's sermon, and to-day I have forgotten every word of it.” So in my case, I owe a like compliment to the poetry of Mrs. Browning and Mr. Tennyson; I have read many of them over and over, and have been told that they are all exceedingly beautiful, and yet I have not at this moment a single line of them by heart! I am certain, therefore, that you, whose endurance of my intoning of remembered rhymes won for you of old the reputation of being the most lady-like of listeners, will agree with me in admitting that my memory is gone, and that I cannot conscientiously hereafter ask others to remember my rhymes while confessing my inability to remember theirs. Moreover, sadly and seriously, is this Southern, this sin-born war of ours, worthy of a poet's consecration? a poet, whose art, whose attribute it is to make the dead on fields of battle, alike the victors and the vanquished, look beautiful in the sunbeams of his song. On the contrary, it is but a mutiny, a monster mutiny, whose ringleaders are a dozen crime-worn politicians, determined to keep themselves in power, and will sooner or later find its Nemesis in the blood and tears of a servile insurrection.

If, however (to end my letter cheerfully), the recent entrapping of my old acquaintance, John Slidell, should bring us a war with England, a foe “worthy of our steel” and stanzas, I will make the attempt you so flatteringly request; and, as Homer won his laurels by singing the wrath of Achilles for the loss of his sweetheart, I will strive to win mine by singing the wrath of John Bull for the captivity of John Slidell.

SOURCE: James Grant Wilson, The life and letters of Fitz-Greene Halleck, 523-5

Stephen R. Mallory to James D. Bulloch, May 6, 1863

Confederate States of America,

Navy Department,

Richmond, May 6th, 1863.

Sir,—

Herewith you will receive copy of a Secret Act of Congress appropriating £2,000,000 for the construction of ironclad ships-of-war in Southern Europe, which Act was induced by the belief that we can have such vessels constructed and equipped in France and delivered to us upon the high seas or elsewhere. The President has selected you as the agent of the Government to accomplish the important object thus provided for by Congress. In view of the great improvements which theory and experiment have produced in the construction and equipment of armoured ships in France and England, as well as of your thorough knowledge of the subject and your means of observation, it is deemed expedient to leave to your judgment, untrammelled by instructions, the size and details of the vessels, subject to the consideration that in draft of water, speed and power, they must be able to enter and navigate the Mississippi river; that their first trial must be a long ocean voyage; that their antagonists carry 11-inch and 15-inch guns; and that they must be completed and delivered at the earliest day practicable.  . . . You will regard the £2,000,000 as the only fund for building, equipping, manning, providing, and furnishing the vessels for one year's service. Your immediate attention to this subject is important, and every effort must be made to have the ships completed at the earliest day practicable. To this end I suggest to you a conference with Mr. Slidell.

I am, etc.,

(Signed)

S. R. Mallory.

SOURCE: James D. Bulloch, The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe, Volume 2, p. 30-1

Diary of Lieutenant-Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes: Saturday, December 21, 1861

A cold, bright winter day. Sent a dispatch home to Lucy. Paymaster here getting ready to pay our men. The James D. (Devereux) Bulloch* was a good friend of mine at Middletown, Connecticut, (Webb's school) in 1837-8 from Savannah, Georgia — a whole-hearted, generous fellow. A model sailor I would conjecture him to be. Rebel though he is, I guess him to be a fine fellow, a brave man, honorable and all that.

It is rumored that Great Britain will declare war on account of the seizure of Slidell and Mason. I think not. It will blow over. First bluster and high words, then correspondence and diplomacy, finally peace. But if not, if war, what then? First, it is to be a trying, a severe and dreadful trial of our stuff. We shall suffer, but we will stand it. All the Democratic element, now grumbling and discontented, must then rouse up to fight their ancient enemies the British. The South, too, will not thousands then be turned towards us by seeing their strange allies? If not, shall we not with one voice arm and emancipate the slaves? A civil, sectional, foreign, and servile war — shall we not have horrors enough? Well, I am ready for my share of it. We are in the right and must prevail.

Six companies paid today. Three months' pay due not paid. A “perfectly splendid” day — the seventeenth!!

_______________

* Pasted in the Diary is the following clipping from the Richmond News of November 30: — “Captain James D. Bulloch, who lately successfully ran the blockade while in command of the steamship Fingal, has arrived in Richmond. He thinks there is a likelihood of Lord Palmerston's proving indifferent to the question involved in the seizure, by Captain Wilkes, on the high seas, from a British vessel, of Messrs. Mason and Slidell.”

Captain James D. Bulloch was the “Naval Representative of the Confederate States in Europe” during the Civil War. It was under his direction and through his energy that the Alabama and other cruisers were built and equipped to prey on American commerce. In 1883 Captain Bulloch published in two volumes a most interesting narrative, entitled “The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe, or How the Confederate Cruisers Were Equipped.” It may also be recalled that Captain Bulloch was a brother of President Roosevelt's mother.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 164-5

Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut: September 9, 1861

CAMDEN, S. C. — Home again at Mulberry, the fever in full possession of me. My sister, Kate, is my ideal woman, the most agreeable person I know in the world, with her soft, low, and sweet voice, her graceful, gracious ways, and her glorious gray eyes, that I looked into so often as we confided our very souls to each other.

God bless old Betsey's yellow face! She is a nurse in a thousand, and would do anything for “Mars Jeems' wife.” My small ailments in all this comfort set me mourning over the dead and dying soldiers I saw in Virginia. How feeble my compassion proves, after all.

I handed the old Colonel a letter from his son in the army. He said, as he folded up the missive from the seat of war, “With this war we may die out. Your husband is the last — of my family.” He means that my husband is his only living son; his grandsons are in the army, and they, too, may be killed — even Johnny, the gallant and gay, may not be bullet-proof. No child have I.

Now this old man of ninety years was born when it was not the fashion for a gentleman to be a saint, and being lord of all he surveyed for so many years, irresponsible, in the center of his huge domain, it is wonderful he was not a greater tyrant — the softening influence of that angel wife, no doubt. Saint or sinner, he understands the world about him — au fond.

Have had a violent attack of something wrong about my heart. It stopped beating, then it took to trembling, creaking and thumping like a Mississippi high-pressure steamboat, and the noise in my ears was more like an ammunition wagon rattling over the stones in Richmond. That was yesterday, and yet I am alive. That kind of thing makes one feel very mortal.

Russell writes how disappointed Prince Jerome Napoleon was with the appearance of our troops, and “he did not like Beauregard at all.” Well! I give Bogar up to him. But how a man can find fault with our soldiers, as I have seen them individually and collectively in Charleston, Richmond, and everywhere — that beats me.

The British are the most conceited nation in the world, the most self-sufficient, self-satisfied, and arrogant. But each individual man does not blow his own penny whistle: they brag wholesale. Wellington — he certainly left it for others to sound his praises — though Mr. Binney thought the statue of Napoleon at the entrance of Apsley House was a little like “‘Who killed Cock Robin?’ ‘I, said the sparrow, with my bow and arrow.’” But then it is so pleasant to hear them when it is a lump sum of praise, with no private crowing — praise of Trafalgar, Waterloo, the Scots Greys.

Fighting this and fighting that, with their crack corps stirs the blood and every heart responds — three times three! Hurrah!

But our people feel that they must send forth their own reported prowess: with an, “I did this and I did that.” I know they did it; but I hang my head.

In those Tarleton Memoirs, in Lee's Memoirs, in Moultrie's, and in Lord Rawdon's letters, self is never brought to the front. I have been reading them over and admire their modesty and good taste as much as their courage and cleverness. That kind of British eloquence takes me. It is not, “Soldats! marchons, gloire!” Not a bit of it; but, “Now, my lads, stand firm!” and, “Now up, and let them have it!”

Our name has not gone out of print. To-day, the Examiner, as usual, pitches into the President. It thinks Toombs, Cobb, Slidell, Lamar, or Chesnut would have been far better in the office. There is considerable choice in that lot. Five men more utterly dissimilar were never named in the same paragraph.

SOURCE: Mary Boykin Chesnut, Edited by Isabella D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary, A Diary From Dixie, p. 127-9

Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut: August 27, 1861

Theodore Barker and James Lowndes came; the latter has been wretchedly treated. A man said, “All that I wish on earth is to be at peace and on my own plantation,” to which Mr. Lowndes replied quietly, “I wish I had a plantation to be on, but just now I can't see how any one would feel justified in leaving the army.” Mr. Barker was bitter against the spirit of braggadocio so rampant among us. The gentleman who had been answered so completely by James Lowndes said, with spitefulness: “Those women who are so frantic for their husbands to join the army would like them killed, no doubt.”

Things were growing rather uncomfortable, but an interruption came in the shape of a card. An old classmate of Mr. Chesnut's — Captain Archer, just now fresh from California — followed his card so quickly that Mr. Chesnut had hardly time to tell us that in Princeton College they called him “Sally” Archer he was so pretty — when he entered. He is good-looking still, but the service and consequent rough life have destroyed all softness and girlishness. He will never be so pretty again.

The North is consolidated; they move as one man, with no States, but an army organized by the central power. Russell in the Northern camp is cursed of Yankees for that Bull Run letter. Russell, in his capacity of Englishman, despises both sides. He divides us equally into North and South. He prefers to attribute our victory at Bull Run to Yankee cowardice rather than to Southern courage. He gives no credit to either side; for good qualities, we are after all mere Americans! Everything not '' national '' is arrested. It looks like the business of Seward.

I do not know when I have seen a woman without knitting in her hand. Socks for the soldiers is the cry. One poor man said he hid dozens of socks and but one shirt. He preferred more shirts and fewer stockings. We make a quaint appearance with this twinkling of needles and the everlasting sock dangling below.

They have arrested Wm. B. Reed and Miss Winder, she boldly proclaiming herself a secessionist. Why should she seek a martyr's crown? Writing people love notoriety. It is so delightful to be of enough consequence to be arrested. I have often wondered if such incense was ever offered as Napoleon's so-called persecution and alleged jealousy of Madame de Stael.

Russell once more, to whom London, Paris, and India have been an every-day sight, and every-night, too, streets and all. How absurd for him to go on in indignation because there have been women on negro plantations who were not vestal virgins. Negro women get married, and after marriage behave as well as other people. Marrying is the amusement of their lives. They take life easily; so do their class everywhere. Bad men are hated here as elsewhere.

“I hate slavery. I hate a man who — You say there are no more fallen women on a plantation than in London in proportion to numbers. But what do you say to this — to a magnate who runs a hideous black harem, with its consequences, under the same roof with his lovely white wife and his beautiful and accomplished daughters? He holds his head high and poses as the model of all human virtues to these poor women whom God and the laws have given him. From the height of his awful majesty he scolds and thunders at them as if he never did wrong in his life. Fancy such a man finding his daughter reading Don Juan. ‘You with that immoral book!’ he would say, and then he would order her out of his sight. You see Mrs. Stowe did not hit the sorest spot. She makes Legree a bachelor.” “Remember George II and his likes.”

“Oh, I know half a Legree — a man said to be as cruel as Legree, but the other half of him did not correspond. He was a man of polished manners, and the best husband and father and member of the church in the world.” “Can that be so?”

“Yes, I know it. Exceptional case, that sort of thing, always. And I knew the dissolute half of Legree well. He was high and mighty, but the kindest creature to his slaves. And the unfortunate results of his bad ways were not sold, had not to jump over ice-blocks. They were kept in full view, and provided for handsomely in his will.”

“The wife and daughters in the might of their purity and innocence are supposed never to dream of what is as plain before their eyes as the sunlight, and they play their parts of unsuspecting angels to the letter. They profess to adore the father as the model of all saintly goodness.” “Well, yes; if he is rich he is the fountain from whence all blessings flow.”

“The one I have in my eye — my half of Legree, the dissolute half — was so furious in temper and thundered his wrath so at the poor women, they were glad to let him do as he pleased in peace if they could only escape his everlasting fault-finding, and noisy bluster, making everybody so uncomfortable.” “Now — now, do you know any woman of this generation who would stand that sort of thing? No, never, not for one moment. The make-believe angels were of the last century. We know, and we won't have it.”

"The condition of women is improving, it seems." "Women are brought up not to judge their fathers or their husbands. They take them as the Lord provides and are thankful."

“If they should not go to heaven after all; think what lives most women lead.” “No heaven, no purgatory, no — the other thing? Never. I believe in future rewards and punishments.”

“How about the wives of drunkards? I heard a woman say once to a friend of her husband, tell it as a cruel matter of fact, without bitterness, without comment, ‘Oh, you have not seen him! He has changed. He has not gone to bed sober in thirty years.’ She has had her purgatory, if not ‘the other thing,’ here in this world. We all know what a drunken man is. To think, for no crime, a person may be condemned to live with one thirty years.” “You wander from the question I asked. Are Southern men worse because of the slave system and the facile black women?” “Not a bit. They see too much of them. The barroom people don't drink, the confectionery people loathe candy. They are sick of the black sight of them.”

“You think a nice man from the South is the nicest thing in the world?” “I know it. Put him by any other man and see!”

Have seen Yankee letters taken at Manassas. The spelling is often atrocious, and we thought they had all gone through a course of blue-covered Noah Webster spellingbooks. Our soldiers do spell astonishingly. There is Horace Greeley: they say he can't read his own handwriting. But he is candid enough and disregards all time-serving. He says in his paper that in our army the North has a hard nut to crack, and that the rank and file of our army is superior in education and general intelligence to theirs.

My wildest imagination will not picture Mr. Mason¹ as a diplomat. He will say chaw for chew, and he will call himself Jeems, and he will wear a dress coat to breakfast. Over here, whatever a Mason does is right in his own eyes. He is above law. Somebody asked him how he pronounced his wife's maiden name: she was a Miss Chew from Philadelphia.

They say the English will like Mr. Mason; he is so manly, so straightforward, so truthful and bold. “A fine old English gentleman,” so said Russell to me, “but for tobacco.” “I like Mr. Mason and Mr. Hunter better than anybody else.” “And yet they are wonderfully unlike.” “Now you just listen to me,” said I. “Is Mrs. Davis in hearing — no? Well, this sending Mr. Mason to London is the maddest thing yet. Worse in some points of view than Yancey, and that was a catastrophe.”

_______________

¹ James Murray Mason was a grandson of George Mason, and had been elected United States Senator from Virginia in 1847. In 1851 he drafted the Fugitive Slave Law. His mission to England in 1861 was shared by John Slidell. On November 8, 1861, while on board the British steamer Trent, in the Bahamas, they were captured by an American named Wilkes, and imprisoned in Boston until January 2, 1862. A famous diplomatic difficulty arose with England over this affair. John Slidell was a native of New York, who had settled in Louisiana and became a Member of Congress from that State in 1843. In 1853 he was elected to the United States Senate.

SOURCE: Mary Boykin Chesnut, Edited by Isabella D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary, A Diary From Dixie, p. 112-7

Diary of Judith W. McGuire: December 18, 1861

“The Briars,” — Sadly negligent of my diary lately. Nothing new has occurred. We pleasantly pursue the even tenor of our way, but are now preparing to go to my brother's, in Hanover, next week. We have been to "Mountain View" for a couple of days, on a farewell visit to the family. The Bishop has sent his study-carpet to the camp, along with every thing he could possibly spare, for the soldiers' comfort. He looks cheerfully upon our prospects, and is now listening to “Motley's Dutch Republic” with “infinite zest.” It is read to him by his daughter-in-law, on these long winter nights. His manner of life is certainly most amiable, as well as pleasant to himself and instructive to others.

Newspapers have just come, giving an account of a fight at Cheat Mountain, on the 13th of December, in which we were successful. Rumours also of a fight on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal; and another rumour that England has demanded the restoration of “Mason and Slidell,” and in case of non-compliance with the demand, that Lord Lyons should demand his passports. How ardently I do wish that England would break up the blockade!

SOURCE: Judith W. McGuire, Diary of a Southern Refugee, During the War, p. 73-4

James Russell Lowell to James T. Fields, January 1, 1862

Elmwood, Jan. 1, 1862.

My dear Fields, — I sent number two to Mr. Nichols this morning. If I am not mistaken it will take. ’Tis about Mason and Slidell, and I have ended it with a little ballad with a refrain that I hope has a kind of tang to it.

Do you want any more literary notices? I have some Calderon translations I should like to say a few words about.

I wish you and Ticknor a Happy New Year, and remain

Truly yours,

J. R. Lowell

SOURCE: Charles Eliot Norton, Editor, Letters of James Russell Lowell, Volume 1, p. 357

Diary of Edward Bates, December 31, 1861 – First Entry

Ever since last date, the weather has been mild and beautiful. . . .

I do wonder at the slowness of our military movements. Byrnside's expedition has not yet sailed.⁵⁷ He says he is ready, he says he is ready and yet he does not go — And the Naval men say that they are ready, and yet they do not go—

And just so with Butler's expedition⁵⁸ — It does not go. Meanwhile, all this charming weather is lost, and I fear that, at last, they will start just in time to catch the storms of winter.

I hear that a Reg[imen]t. of Caval[r]y has been sent to Sherman, in S. Carolina.⁵⁹

[Marginal Note.] Jan.y. 4 [1862]. I hear today, that Gen Sherman has taken a point on the Charleston and Savanna[h] R. R. near to Charleston[.]

We are expecting daily important news from the West. A great battle is imminent, near Bowling Green K.y. between the insurgents under A. S. Johns[t]on⁶⁰ and Buckner⁶¹ and our army under Buell.⁶² If Halleck⁶³ can only cooperate, and simultaneously, move upon Columbus, we may [stand] to win advantages decisive of the war. But I fear that their arrangements are not as perfect as they ought to be.

There is an evident lack of system and concentrated intelligence — Of course, I did not expect exact system and method in so large an army raised so suddenly, but surely, many of the deficiencies ought before now, to have been corrected.

For months past (and lately more pressingly) I have urged upon the President to have some military organization about his own person — appoint suitable aid[e]s — 2 — 3 — or 4 — to write and carry his orders, to collect information, to keep the needful papers and records always at hand, and to do his bidding generally, in all Military and Naval affairs. I insisted that, being “Commander in chief” by law, he must command — especially in such a war as this. The Nation

requires it, and History will hold him responsible.

In this connexion, it is lementable [sic] that Gen McClellan — the General in chief, so called — is, and for some time has been incapacitated by a severe spell of illness (and Genl. Marcy,⁶⁴ his chief of Staff — and father in law, is sick also[)]. It now appears that the Genl. in chief has been very reticent — kept his plans absolutely to himself, so that the strange and dangerous fact exists, that the Sec of War and the Prest. are ignorant of the condition of the army and its intended operations!

I see no reason for having a Genl. in chief at all. It was well enough to call the veteran Lieut. Genl. Scott so, when we had no enemies in the [sic] in the field, and no army but a little nucleus

of 15.000 men. But now that we have several mighty armies and active operations spreading over half a continent, there seems to me no good sense in confiding to one general the command of the whole; and especially, as we have no general who has any experience in the handling of large armies — not one of them ever commanded 10.000 under fire, or has any personal knowledge of the complicated movements of a great army.

If I were President, I would command in chief — not in detail, certainly — and I would know what army I had, and what the high generals (my Lieutenants) were doing with that army.⁶⁵

As to the Slidell and Mason affair, see my notes, elsewhere, at large.⁶⁶

__________

⁵⁷ See supra, Nov. 29, 1861.

⁵⁸ See loc. cit.

⁵⁹ See supra, Nov. 13, 1861.

⁶⁰ Albert S. Johnston, West Point graduate of 1826 who had served in the U. S. Army, 1826-1834, in the Texas Army, 1836-1837, in the Mexican War, and again in the U. S. Army from 1849 until he resigned when Texas seceded. He served with distinction in high command in the Confederate Army until he was killed in battle on April 6, 1862. At this time he was commanding in Kentucky.

⁶¹ Simon B. Buckner of Kentucky, West Point graduate of 1844, had served in the Army in Mexico and on the frontier, but had resigned in 1855. He had organized an effective Kentucky militia in 1860-1S61 and commanded Kentucky's troops during the period of her neutrality. He tried to keep both Confederate and Union forces out of Kentucky, but when this failed he threw in his lot with the Confederates, became a brigadier-general, and at this time was fighting under Johnston.

⁶² Don Carlos Buell of Indiana: West Point graduate of 1841 who had served in Mexico; officer in the Army, 1841-1861; brigadier-general of volunteers in 1861. He had been sent by McClellan to command the Army of the Ohio and to organize the Union forces in Kentucky. He marched on Bowling Green on February 6, 1862, and drove the Confederates temporarily back into Tennessee.

⁶³ Supra, Nov. 13, 1861, note 37.

⁶⁴ Randolph B. Marcy, West Point graduate of 1832 who had served In Mexico, on the frontier, and in Florida. He was McClellan's chief-of-staff until McClellan was displaced and then he was sent to the West on inspection duty.

⁶⁵ For an interesting study of this problem of the assumption of supreme military command by Lincoln see Sir Frederick Maurice's Robert E. Lee, the Soldier, 73-75, 223-224, and his Statesmen and Soldiers of the Civil War, 59-117.

⁶⁶ Supra, Nov. 16, Nov. 27, Dec. 25, 1861.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, The Diary of Edward Bates, published in The Annual Report Of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930 Volume 4, p. 217-9

Sensible to the Last

The Democrat cannot endorse the Democratic address recently promulgated by Vallandigham and thirteen other pro-slavery members of Congress.  Good for Dick!  It is a vile production and we cannot see how any man having a particle of loyalty in his heart can give in his adhesion to such a document.  The Democrat does not, however, seem to object to the substance of the address so much as to the fact of it having so few signatures.  If he will wait awhile until Jeff. Davis, Floyd, Toombs, Wise and all those other chaps get a squint at it, and Mason and Slidell return from their excursion to Europe, it will get plenty of signatures.  Our neighbor has been a long time in getting his cue how to act in the premises, but having taken his stand we hope he will maintain it.  We had intended to fulminate an article against this address, but if even the Democrat cannot endorse it, it would be a waste of ammunition and we forbear.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Saturday Morning, May 17, 1862, p. 2

Brigadier General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Meade, December 27, 1861

CAMP PIERPONT, VA., December 27, 1861.

You have doubtless seen in the papers the enemy's account of the Dranesville fight. From their own showing they had a larger force than we, and chose their own position and time of attack, and yet were not only beaten, but most ignominiously driven off the field. It is without doubt one of the most brilliant and successful affairs of the war, and the only success that has been accomplished as yet by the Grand Army of the Potomac.

You are mistaken in calling Ord a civilian. He is a West Pointer, having graduated some four or five years after me, and has always been in the artillery, of which branch of the service he has always been considered a distinguished officer. Unfortunately for him, McCall's appearance on the field, just at the close of the affair, has given an opportunity to the latter to carry off the lion's share of the glory; but Ord was the man. I do not now remember what I wrote to you, but I should be sorry to do injustice to our men, and the fact is not to be disguised, that they behaved better than we expected.

The weather continues very boisterous and cold, rendering life in camp proportionately uncomfortable. I do not mind the cold, because exercise by day and plenty of blankets by night will remedy it; but the terrible wind, which penetrates and searches into everything, shaking your tent and making you believe each moment it is coming down, filling it with smoke from your chimney, so that half the time you cannot keep any fire — this is what renders us so uncomfortable. Still we get along and preserve our health wonderfully.

How strange it is and how little we can anticipate events! Do you remember when you accompanied me to Washington, about the 1st of September, that I was nervous for fear Washington might be attacked before you reached it — then, after being assigned to McCall, how nervous I was lest a battle should come off before I got my brigade? And now four months have elapsed without matters changing their aspect materially.

I infer from the tone of the public press that the war with England will be avoided, if concession on our part can keep it off, and that Mason and Slidell will be given up, and Wilkes's act disavowed, unless the ultras are too strong for Seward¹ and the President, or unless they see that England is determined to fight us and there is no use in trying to avoid the conflict.

__________

¹ William H. Seward, secretary of state of the United States.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 1, p. 239-40

Brigadier General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Meade, December 25, 1861

CAMP PIERPONT, VA., December 25, 1861.

I write a few lines on this day of rejoicing and festivity, to let you know I am well, and though absent from you in the body, that I am with you and my dear children in spirit and thought. As this day is the anniversary commemorating the great promise held out to all mankind, let us hope it may promise speedy peace and happiness to us in this world as well as the one to come. God grant it may be so!

I see you are greatly concerned about the foreign news. I doubt that there will be a war with England, because I think I see symptoms of backing out on the part of our Government, notwithstanding all their bluster, and this shows the impropriety of our making such boasts and bragging, passing votes of thanks to Captain Wilkes¹ for an act we may be forced to disavow. A war with England would be nothing less than self-destruction on our part, amounting to madness. Our only course is to yield to England's demands under protest, as to an acknowledged superior force, settle the rebellion, and then, when our hands are free, call on England for an apology or fight her. This course will not dishonor us, and will enable us to continue operations against the South unembarrassed by a foreign war.

__________

¹ Captain Charles Wilkes, U. S. N., in command of the frigate San Jacinto, captured Mason and Slidell on board the British steamer Trent.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 1, p. 239

Brigadier General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Meade, December 9, 1861

CAMP PIERPONT, VA., December 9, 1861.

Most persons here pooh-pooh the news from England, but I think it very serious, as it confirms my apprehension that England would feel herself compelled to intervene in our domestic troubles, and would seize the first plausible pretext for doing so. There is no earthly doubt but that we were justified by the laws of nations in arresting Mason and Slidell. It is, however, a question whether it was done in the right mode, and whether Wilkes ought not to have captured the vessel and carried it into port, where an admiralty judge could have settled the legal points involved, and have ordered the release of the prisoners, in case their arrest was contrary to national law. This I understand is the point England now makes, viz.: that no naval officer is empowered to decide on the spot questions of international law — which can only be settled by admiralty courts.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 1, p. 234-5

General Robert E. Lee to Mary Custis Lee, December 25, 1861

COOSAWHATCHIE, S. C, December 25, 1861.

I cannot let this day of grateful rejoicing pass without some communion with you. I am thankful for the many among the past that I have passed with you, and the remembrance of them fills me with pleasure. As to our old home, if not destroyed it will be difficult ever to be recognized. Even if the enemy had wished to preserve it, it would almost have been impossible. With the number of troops encamped around it, the change of officers, the want of fuel, shelter, etc., and all the dire necessities of war, it is vain to think of its being in a habitable condition. I fear, too, the books, furniture, and relics of Mount Vernon will be gone. It is better to make up our minds to a general loss. They cannot take away the remembrances of the spot, and the memories of those that to us rendered it sacred. That will remain to us as long as life will last and that we can preserve. In the absence of a home I wish I could purchase Stratford. It is the only other place I could go to now acceptable to us, that would inspire me with pleasure and local love. You and the girls could remain there in quiet. It is a poor place, but we could make enough corn-bread and bacon for our support, and the girls could weave us clothes. You must not build your hopes on peace on account of the United States going to war with England. The rulers are not entirely mad, and if they find England is in earnest, and that war or a restitution of the captives* must be the consequence, they will adopt the latter. We must make up our minds to fight our battles and win our independence alone. No one will help us.

__________

* Mason and Slidell.

SOURCES: John William Jones, Life and Letters of Robert Edward Lee: Soldier and Man, p. 153; Fitzhugh Lee, General Lee, p. 129

Brigadier General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Meade, November 17, 1861

CAMP PIERPONT, VA., November 17, 1861.

I went into town yesterday to attend to my Lake Survey accounts at the Treasury, which I believe are now all explained satisfactorily, so that should anything happen to me, you will remember that my public accounts are all settled, and that my vouchers, etc., are in a tin box in Major Woodruff's office, Topographical Bureau.

People who think the war is about to close, because we have achieved one signal success, are very short-sighted. I agree with you in thinking it has only just begun. Think of Percy Drayton¹ firing into a fort commanded by his own brother!² Is not this enough to make one heartsick? We hear the news of the capture of Messrs. Mason and Slidell.³ I hope their being taken out of a British mail packet will not bring us into trouble with John Bull. If it is true that he is disposed to quarrel with us, this gives him a very pretty chance to begin.

November 17—9 P. M.

The foregoing part of my letter was written this A. M. General Brooks dined with us, we having a nice green goose for dinner. General McCall paid me a visit during the afternoon, but had no news to communicate. Every one is speculating, but no one knows what is going to be done; all we can do is to wait patiently.

I am very much pleased with Hamilton Kuhn. He is a gentleman and intelligent, and it is quite refreshing to have him for an associate.

__________

¹ Percival Drayton commanded the Pocahontas in the Port Royal, S. C., expedition November 7, 1861.

² Thomas F. Drayton, brigadier-general C. S. A. Led the Confederate troops in the Port Royal expedition.

³ Commissioners from the Confederate States Government sent to Great Britain and France, and captured by the United States Government on the British steamer Trent, November 8, 1862.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 1, p. 228

War with England

Shall we have a war with England?  Nothing but a speedy settlement of the difficulties with the South will prevent it.  The rebels are now hemmed in on every side, and vigorous attacks from various points must result in their overwhelming defeat.  The longer the Southern Confederacy stands, the stronger is it becoming in the eyes of foreign nations.  There is no way in which hostilities with England can be prevented, but by the speedy subjugation of the South.  If this war continues six months longer, we shall have old England, with perhaps one or two allied powers, upon us.

The telegraph informs us that the governments of England, France and Spain are mediating an early recognition of the Confederate States.  Their plea is said to be that of “humanity” – a plea that our Government might have used with a thousand fold more plausibility toward either Ireland or the Indies.  Since the rendition of Mason and Slidell, England has been vigorously preparing for war.  Her North American colonies are especially the object of her solicitude.  They have been more strongly fortified, while one hundred thousand men have been raised to protect them from aggression.

Our Government is aware of the preparations that this power has been making for war.  It knows that they are not all intended for the conquering of Mexico, and it must know that there is no way left under heaven to prevent hostilities with England, but the speedy suppression of the rebellion now raging in our own country.  Knowing all this, why there has not been a general advance of the Federal troops ere this time, is more than we can fathom. – But we “possess our souls in patience,” hoping each day that the next will bring us news that the belligerents which have so long been threatening one another on the Potomac have at last concluded to measure strength.  We have the confidence in McClellan to believe that the news of an advance of the Federal troops under his Generalship would be akin to the heralding of a great victory and the postponing of the recognition by humane England of the rebel confederacy.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Tuesday Morning, February 4, 1862, p. 2

The Rebel Emissaries At Bermuda

The British steamer Rinaldo, with Mason and Slidell on board, arrived at Bermuda on the 7th.  The Rinaldo was to have taken the Commissioners to Halifax to enable them to take passage in the Cunard steamer for England.  She however, having met with such exceedingly bitter weather, ice having formed in thick masses around her hull, on her deck and some distance up her rigging, and having had several of her crew frost bitten, the Captain, though at one time within fifty miles of Halifax, was reluctantly compelled to bear up for Bermuda.  On the day the Rinaldo arrived at Bermuda the Naval Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Sir Alexander Milne, entertained a party at dinner, and Commander Hewitt (of the Rinaldo), and four Southern gentlemen, his guests, were invited to Clarence Hill, where they spent the evening.

It appears that Mr. Slidell in Bermuda was a blatant blusterer, even at the British Admiral’s table, but Sir Alexander Milne, who is too old to be caught with bombast, determined to allow no latitude of this kind, and took care to stop it when it became obtrusive.  Mr. Mason is described as being a perfect gentleman, and appears to have satisfied The English Admiral in every way.  It is a general rule with Admiral Milne not to allow matters involving such heavy responsibilities to be talked over at the dinner table, more particularly as it was a spirit of generous hospitality alone which prompted him to invite the rebels.  On their arrival at Camber, and before leaving Bermuda, Mason is described as looking depressed, careworn and dejected – no doubt arising from the fact that he was now a world-wide wanderer, after proving a rebel to his country and a traitor to its Constitution.  Slidell wore the appearance of a man possessing a stern, forward and uncontrollable temper, which nothing can daunt or subdue. – On the 10th inst. the Rinaldo left with the Commissioners and their Secretaries for the Island of St. Thomas.  She endeavored to land at Halifax, but was prevented by the weather. – They left Bermuda as they came – without a solitary cheer from the crowd or the slightest mark of public enthusiasm being tendered them.

The rebel agents were evidently disappointed at the absence of éclat or fuss which attended the surrender.  They complain of the “crazy” tug boat in which they were forwarded to the Rinaldo, of the manner in which the master of the boat addressed Queen Victoria’s naval officers.  “I say, man, are you the skipper of this ere craft?” And of the danger of drowning to which they were exposed had the storm overtaken the tug.  The Bermuda papers seem to adopt this strain, and condemn the manner in which the restoration was conducted.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, February 1, 1862, p. 2

Later From Europe

Arrival of the Anglo Saxon.

PORTLAND, MAINE, Jan. 30. – The Anglo Saxon from Liverpool, 16th, via Queenstown, 17th, arrived here this morning.  Her dates are five days later.

The steamship Teutonia, from New York, arrived at Southampton on the 12th, with the steamship America, from New York, and the Novascotian arrived at Liverpool on the 14th.  The Edinburg, from New York arrived at Liverpool on the 15th.

The news by the Anglo Saxon is unimportant.

It was rumored that the rebel steamer Nashville had been sold to English ship owners.  The Tuscarora continued to blockade her.

Corn, easy, market closed steady, with an upward tendency for wheat.  Provisions, quiet.

Consols, for money, 93¼.

The London Globe announces that the Washington Cabinet had given orders for the release of the two Americans taken from the English schooner Eugenie and the steamer Santiago de Cuba.

But little business was doing at Loyd’s [sic] in war risks.  There was continued activity in all the departments at the Portsmouth dock yard.

It was stated that the Tuscarora’s movement in leaving her moorings on the 13th inst., was to prevent the Nashville from getting under way for 24 hours.  It was understood that the Tuscarora’s orders were never to leave sight of the Nashville, to blockade her in Southampton, and if she should leave, to chase her as long as she is at sea.  In addition to the Frigate Dauntless, the war steamer Argus, had been placed at the mouth of the Southampton docks, to watch the movements of the two vessels.

The London Times says that mercantile letters from New York represent that the cry for promoting insurrection among the slaves was gaining force, and looking at the threatened horrors, whispers were at length heard of a wish that for the sake of humanity European intervention might be fount practicable.

Additional correspondence had been published in regard to the Trent affair, including Lord John Russell’s reply to Mr. Seward’s dispatch, dated January 11th.  It expresses much satisfaction at the conclusion arrived at by the Washington Government, which it considers most favorable to the maintenance of most friendly relations.  The English Government, however, differs from Mr. Seward in some of his conclusions, and as it may lead to a better understanding on several points of international law.  Lord John Russell proposes in a few days to write another dispatch on the subject.  In the mean time he says that it is desirable that the commanders of United States cruisers shall be instructed not to repeat acts for which the British Government will have to ask redress, and which the United States government can not undertake to justify.  Lord Lyons is thanked for his discretion.

Mason and Slidell had been expected by the America, and a good deal of interest was felt as to the reception they would get at Liverpool. – Various expedients were adopted to secure anything but a flattering one.

There has been no reply to the strictures on the stone blockade of Charleston.

The extra workmen at the dock yards will be discharged at the end of the financial year.

The Shipping Gazette says that war of further diplomatic strife is certain between England and America.

Liverpool Breadstuffs. – W. N. & Co. and others, report flour dull and declined 6d@1s, wheat declined 1d@2d – red 11s@12s 4d, white western 12s 6d@12s 9d, white southern 12s 9d@13s 3d.  Corn easier, mixed 31s@31s 6d.

(Latest via Londonderry.)

Liverpool, 17. – Flour steady, wheat active with an upward tendency, corn quiet but steady, provisions ditto.

LONDON, Jan, 17. – Consols for money 93¼.  I. C. shares 42 7/8 @ 43 1/8 disc., Erie shares 28 N. Y. C. 71@73.

The Times predicts a speedy collapse in America under the suspension of specie payment. – It also published extracts from Mr. Russell’s diary to the 3d of January.  He says it requires an augmentory faith to believe there will be any success in subjugating the South, for the army of the North will be stricken down for the want of means.  The troops sent to points along the coast are suffering from sickness.  The pretense of there being Union men at the South is fast vanishing.  Mr. Russell sees an extraordinary lack of ordinary political common sense in American Journals.

Capt. Symmes of the Confederate States Navy, and commander of the Sumter has addressed a letter to the Times defending his ship against the insinuations of the Secretary of the Federal Navy who in his official report describes the Sumter as a piratical rover.

Paris Bourse steady.  Rentes quoted 69f 20c.

The French journals generally compliment the Washington Cabinet for their action in the Trent affair.

PRUSSIA. – The King of Prussia, in his speech at the opening of the Chambers rejoiced at the happy issue of the Anglo American difficulties.

SPAIN. – The privateer Sumter continued at the port of Cadiz.

London Money Market. – Consols experienced a further decline of ½ per cent.  Money very easy.

The publication of the correspondence in relation to the Trent affair, has lead to some very bitter strictures on the dispatch of Mr. Seward, particularly as regards that part of it where it is announced that the prisoners, Mason & Slidell would have been retained had the interests of the Union required it.

The London Times doubts whether any nation ever committed a blunder so palpable and so enormous.

The London Morning Post says it is clear that the law of the stronger is the only law ruling in the United States.

The London Herald says that the last four lines of Mr. Seward’s dispatch is the only part of it that can be accepted as an answer to British Demands.

(Very Latest per Anglo Saxon.  Telegraphed to Londonderry.)

Liverpool, Jan. 17. – Notwithstanding the rumored sale of the Nashville she continued to fly the Confederate flag.  No sale has been registered at the Admiralty.

Berlin, Jan. 17. – It is reported that England has no objection to examine the question of guarantee for the rights of neutrals by diplomatic correspondence, but would be opposed to a Congress on the question.

Several members of Parliament had been addressing their constituents.  America was the main topic.  Mr. Gladiator made a speech at Leith.  He was very friendly towards America, and hoped the concession of the American Government would be conceived in a most generous spirit and irritation not to be increased by minute criticism.  He thought the North had undertaken a task which would prove too much for them.

Mr. Gilpin, of Northampton, declared that the lack of sympathy with the North was because the North had not identified themselves with the first principles of the Constitution, which declares all men are born free and equal.  But he believed the question had now become Slavery or Freedom.  He called on Englishmen to hesitate before they directly or indirectly sanctioned a premature and unnecessary acknowledgment of the South.

Lord Henry at the same meeting uttered similar sentiments.

Mr. Peeresford took rather opposite ground, he believed that if the Southern Confederacy established its independence it would lead to an amelioration of the condition of the slave.

The frigate Mirror was expected at Plymouth in a day or two on her way to the North American Station.

ITALY. – The Pope in announcing to the Cardinals that Russia had consented to the re-establishment of the Papal Nuncio at St. Petersburg, said he hoped this fresh concession on the part of the Emperor would be the signal for others in favor of the unfortunate Polish nation.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, February 1, 1862, p. 2