Gideon Welles to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, January 28, 1850

HARTFORD, 28th January, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR—Your valuable favor of the 17th was duly received, and I am under obligations, not only for the kind manner in which my communication was received, but for the confidences and suggestions therein manifested.

The debate which took place on the 17th I read attentively, and particularly your able and well-timed remarks, when Mr. Clemens undertook to expel the whole of the democracy from the political church. It is about twenty years since Mr. Calhoun commenced his efforts to build up a sectional party, first on the tariff, and recently on another issue. There was an interval during the administration of Mr. Van Buren and the early part of John Tyler's, when he undoubtedly had expectation of rising by reinstating himself with the Democratic party, that then these sectional animosities were at rest. But the elevation of Mr. Polk extinguished his hopes, and has made him a sour and discontented man. He has no aspirations connected with the integrity of the Democratic party, and can have none. It is to be regretted that the South should embark so fully in his schemes, or lend themselves to his intrigues.

The indications are that you will have a somewhat stormy and boisterous session; but I have no doubt that the ultimate result will be for the permanent welfare of the whole country. There may be some changes of parties and men, for a time at least, but with right and principle the Constitution and the Union will triumph. You, with others who have, to a great extent, the custody of public measures, will so shape matters that the country will receive no detriment from the intrigues of the aspiring and restless, or the overheated zeal of the unreflecting and impulsive.

But I must not intrude on your time. We regret extreemly to hear of the illness of your son. Until the receipt of your letter I was not aware that he had returned. Mrs. Niles continues about the same. I presented your compliments to the Judge, who sensibly felt them, and spoke of your kind feelings, friendly relations, and your attention and devotion to your public duties.

I am in hopes to visit Washington some time during the session. Until then it will be a gratification if you can occasionally let me hear from you. With kind regards, in which Mrs. Welles unites, to yourself, and to your family when you write or see them, I am, dear sir,

Very truly yours,

GIDEON WELLES.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 421-2

Jefferson Davis to Senator William Allen, March 25, 1844

Hurricane Mi., 25th March 1844

Hon. Sen. Allen of Ohio,

Dr. Sir,

“The sick man knows the Physician's step,” but I assure you that if breaking a long silence to ask a favor of you should expose me to the suspicion of remembering you only because of my trouble, the fact is nevertheless quite otherwise. I am one of the Presidential "electors" for the State of Mississippi and though I do not doubt the democratic character of our people I fear false statements and false issues in the approaching canvass and expect the Whigs to make great exertions.

I wish you to aid me with any statements which can be made available against the charge of defalcation and extravagance under Mr. Van Buren's administration, against the present Tariff as productive of revenue, against the U. S. Bank, against the charge of improper removals of officers and if there be such statement the removals in the first year of Harrison & Tyler's administration. Further I should be glad to have the evidence of Mr. Clay's refusal to divide the resolution of censure upon President Jackson for the removal of the deposits and the rule of the senate in relation to the division of questions, Secretary Taney's report on the removal of the deposits from the U. S. Bank, Secretary Poinset's annual report recommending reorganization of the militia and answer to call of the house on the same subject. Was not President V. Buren one of the first to point out the unconstitutionality of the military districts as projected in that answer? I had but cannot now find a speech of yours showing that the U. S. Bank loaned at a time which indicated the purpose, more money to members of Congress than the amount of their pay. Can you send me a copy of that speech?

I have mingled but little in politics and as you perceive by this letter have an arsenal poorly supplied for a campaign. Labor is expected of me and I am willing to render it. I believe much depends on this presidential election, and that every man who loves the union and the constitution as it is should be active.

You will understand what I want or should want better than myself, so far as you can conveniently send such you will greatly oblige me, and any suggestions you may find leisure to make to me will be highly appreciated.

Vy. Respectfully and truly yours

JEFFN. DAVIS

Wm. Allen
        Washington
                D. C.

        P. S.

                Address to Warrenton,
                        Warren County,
                                Missi.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 9-10

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, January 19, 1860

SHERWOOD FOREST, January 19, 1860.

MY DEAR ROBERT: To-day the General Assembly give a complimentary dinner to Gov. Wise, and I have been invited to it, but decline attending. My letter is full of professions of friendship for the Governor, which I sincerely feel, but I say nothing political. If you ask me whether I approve of the Governor's political views in toto, my answer would be in the negative. I have regretted his opposition in the main to Mr. Buchanan. I think, on the contrary, that the President has acquitted himself well in his high office, and if re-nominated I should go to the polls and vote for him with alacrity; but my friendship for Wise is almost indestructible. It had its beginning in times of great trouble, and he was faithful. His election to the presidency is equivalent to an endorsement of my administration by the country, and therefore as well as for my confidence in him, his election would be gratifying to I think he will carry the electoral vote of Virginia in the convention; but even if he and Douglas should be inclined to break up the convention, of which I should entirely disapprove, my belief is that neither will be permitted to do it, even by their supporters. The condition of the country is altogether too critical for this. Some man will be nominated without a platform, which at most is a useless thing. We had in 1839-'40 far greater dissentions at Harrisburg, and a platform would have scattered us to the winds. Mr. Grey, the gentleman to whom I wrote a letter in reply to one from him requesting my opinion relative to the Staten Island resolutions, has asked for permission to publish my letter, and I have granted it. He says that he had shown the letter to the leading men of New York, who urged its publication. You will therefore see it by the time this reaches you. It is brief but pointed. You refer to my expenditures. They have been large for me, and by reason of the failure of the wheat crop for two years have been embarrassing. Julia desired an investment of some money I had of hers in a lot near Hampton; and this carried with it expenditures for new buildings, furniture, etc., all of which, of course, will form a unit, and come out of her fund. I had used some of her fund, and have had to replace it. Thus the expenditure has been large. I hope to work through it in a year or two. At all times my expenses are larger than I could wish them, but they cannot be otherwise. It is a shame to the country that an ex-President, who is obliged to keep an open house, should not receive a pension, when every man who has but shouldered a musket in war is pensioned. He is commander-in-chief (of the Army and Navy).

[The rest of this letter is lost.]

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 557

John Tyler to Colonel John S. Cunningham, May 30, 1860

SHERWOOD FOREST, May 30, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR: I owe you many thanks for your kind recollection of me at all times, and more especially of late for your regular remittance of the daily proceedings of the convention at Charleston. The times are so much out of joint as to have excited even with me, secluded as I am from the political world, an extraordinary degree of interest. I have regarded the Democratic party for many years as the only true Conservative party, eschewing sectionalism, and spreading, not only in name, but in policy, over the whole country. The severance which took place at Charleston filled me with apprehension and regret. I hope it may be able to unite at Baltimore, and, standing upon a sound platform, be able to challenge the support of the wise and good and patriotic of the land.

I have been for ten days at our Villa near Old Point, pressing forward preparations for the reception of my family. I return to-morrow for the same reason. My own health has been bad during the winter, and Mrs. Tyler is full of complainings. The refreshing sea breezes will, I doubt not, have a restorative influence.

With best wishes for your health and happiness,

I am truly and sincerely yours,

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 558

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, July 22, 1860

VILLA MARGARET,¹ July 22, 1860.

MY DEAR ROBERT: . . . We begin to have more numerous calls by visitors to this region, and I become daily better informed of the status of public opinion. The effort is making in Virginia to concentrate the Democratic vote by running the same ticket for Breckenridge and Douglas, the electors to cast their vote according to the sense of the majority. Breckenridge would lead the ticket by a large majority, and the Democratic ascendency would be secure. Without some such arrangement, the divisions in the Democratic ranks may, and most probably will, lead to conferring on the Bell ticket the plurality vote. I find with many a positive aversion to Douglas,—so great that they denounce all fraternity with him, while similar feelings are ascribed to very many Douglas men. I have much doubt whether any harmony of action can be brought about. There were for the Southrons at Charleston but two courses to pursue, and they adopted neither. The first was to press the nomination of some one whose name would have constituted a platform in itself, or universally to have seceded and proceeded at once to the declaration of their platform and the nomination of candidates. My own feelings ran strongly in favor of Lane, and Bayard of Delaware; the first as the pioneer of the West, the last as coterminous in more than mere residence with New Jersey and Pennsylvania. By splitting up at Charleston they lost the prestige of victory; in other words, they played the game badly by throwing away their trump card.

The consequences of Lincoln's election I cannot foretell. Neither Virginia, nor North Carolina, nor Maryland (to which you may add Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri) will secede for that. My apprehension, however, is that South Carolina and others of the cotton States will do so, and any attempt to coerce such seceding States will most probably be resisted by all the South. When such an issue comes, then comes also the end of the Confederacy. I know the value of the Roman maxim "never to despair of the Republic,” but confess to the gloom which overspreads and enshrouds the country. I can now do nothing more than fold my arms and pray for deliverance of the country from the evils which beset it. Does not every day render the difficulties which assail a confederacy of States in the selection of their chief magistrate more and more conspicuous?

The President, in his late speech, has acquitted himself well. You did right to preserve silence. He has been uniformly polite to you, and for that I thank him; but he is altogether your debtor. No one has been so true to him or rendered him greater service. Heretofore he could not have spared you from your position in Pennsylvania; but now his political days are numbered, and his sand nearly run. He might now reciprocate by rendering you service. Will he volunteer to do it? or, having squeezed the orange, will he throw the rind away? Nous verrons. I may do him injustice in regarding him as a mere politician without heart. I hope I am mistaken.

On Thursday next I propose going to Sherwood Forest, where I may remain for some weeks. Give my devoted affection to all your family.

Your father,

JOHN TYLER.

_______________

¹ Mr. Tyler's summer residence at Hampton, Virginia.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 559-60

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, August 14, 1860

VILLA MARGARET, August 14, 1860.

DEAR ROBERT: The country is undoubtedly in an alarming condition. While I think you are too bitter on Douglas, yet I consider his course, and that of his friends, unfortunate. In truth, I see nothing to approve on either side. The eight Southern States, had they remained in the Charleston convention, might easily have defeated him, and, making a proper selection, might have waived a platform altogether. Bell becomes stronger every day, as is proven in the Missouri election; but still I persuade myself that Breckenridge will carry majorities in most of the Southern States and the plurality in Virginia; but of course everything is in doubt by the division in the Democratic ranks. Let things result as they may, I fear that the great Republic has seen its last days.

But I did not mean to do more than to say to you that you had better make us a visit here for a short time. We have a delightful place, and a change of air would benefit you in all probability. Your friend, C. H. Mallory, expresses a great desire to see you.

Love to all.

Your father,

J. TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 560

John Tyler to Henry S. Foote, August 26, 1860

SHERWOOD FOREST, August 26, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of August 21st was forwarded to me from the summer residence of my family, near Hampton, to this place, and only reached me an hour ago, asking of me a declaration in writing expressive of the opinion that the Breckenridge and Lane ticket should not be run in the Free States, and that the Northern field should be left exclusively in the possession of their adversaries. Pardon me, my dear sir, for declining the public expression of such an opinion on a subject with which I am so little acquainted as the relative strength of the several candidates in the unfortunate quadrangular contest which now prevails. It may very well be that in some of the Northern States Mr. Breckenridge is stronger than either Mr. Douglas or Mr. Bell, in which event it would be altogether out of place to advise his withdrawal from the canvass in those States. My remarks to Mr. Withers, to which you refer, had exclusive reference to the State of New York, where, according to the newspaper editors, Mr. Breckenridge has no available force, and where it is said a combination of all the conservative forces is necessary to defeat Mr. Lincoln. To detach New York from his support, or some other of the Free States, is supposed to be the only "open sesame" to the hopes of the other candidates. Whether it is necessary for any one of the other candidates to withdraw, you will much better understand than myself. The rivalry between Messrs Breckenridge, Douglas, and Bell, in the Southern States, is not so much for majorities as puralities, which count as majorities in the end." Non nostrum componere lites." In the midst of faction I should only meet with ridicule for interposing my opinions. Excuse me for preferring the profound quiet which I desire to enjoy.

You do me no more than justice in ascribing to me conservative opinions. The expanding power of these States has been the subject of my warmest contemplation. The future glory of the Union has wrapped me in a vision of ecstasy. Exeter Hall for a season was not permitted by its impertinent interference in our affairs to cast a shadow over so bright a vision. The separation between this country and Great Britain, I flattered myself, had been completed, alike in opinion and government, by the surrender at Yorktown. It is only in these latter days, when that Hall has sent over its agents to foment sectional divisions among us, and American citizens have crossed the ocean to enter into its conferences, esteeming themselves as honored by the plaudits they have received, that I have painfully felt for the condition of the country. The English sentiment engendering bitterness and enmity has to a great extent superseded the American of harmony and love. However, my dear sir, every free government has had its Catalines, and it is hoping against hope to expect that we should escape the fate of other nations. My only reliance is on the good sense of the American people to crush out all wicked designs and put their heels on the necks of the workers of mischief. With high respect and esteem, faithfully yours,

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 560-1

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, August 27, 1860

SHERWOOD FOREST, August 27, 1860.

DEAR ROBERT: I think it best to enclose you these letters. There are parts of mine you may not be able to decipher accurately. It is the first draft. The gentleman alluded to—Colonel Withers, of Mississippi—called on me at the Villa Margaret, and, as the condition of the times is the fruitful subject of conversation, it came soon to be introduced. I expressed to him the gratification I had felt at the fusion between the Douglas and Bell men in New York, and expressed the hope that all conservatives would unite on the same ticket; that in my view the defeat of Lincoln was the great matter at issue, and that all others were subordinate; and probably said that if I lived in New York, although I was decidedly a Breckenridge man, I would advocate the fusion ticket. This, it seems, he reported to General Foote, and hence the correspondence.

There can be no possible doubt of Lincoln's election unless some one of the so-called free States is snatched from him. I presented also another idea to Colonel Withers, and that was that to defeat Lincoln was to elect Breckenridge or Lane, I cared not which, by throwing the first before the House, the last before the Senate. This has called forth the letter of my old friend General Foote, who is a Douglas man. I enclose it to you, so that if you should see any reference made to my opinions by General Foote, or any other which may call for explanation, you may be in proper position to make it by the publication, if necessary, of my letter. I said to Colonel Withers (and hence the reference to Cataline) that I regarded Seward as the Cataline of our day, and that to reach the presidency he would quaff blood with his fellows, as did Cataline of old, and expressed the hope that there would still arise a Cicero to denounce him in the Senate chamber.

I am here to superintend the delivery of my crop of wheat, which, although full of promise on the 1st of June, turns out a miserable failure. I shall remain during the week, and then back to Hampton.

Do give me some account of Pennsylvania. How goes the night? I think, after all, that everything depends on her. If I deceive not myself, Breckenridge will carry pluralities in a large majority of the Southern States, so as to present Lane to the Senate, should Lincoln not be elected by the popular vote. I live in the hope that a defeat of the negro-men now will dissolve their party. Write me soon. Love to all.

Your father,

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 561-2

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, September 14, 1860

VILLA MARGARET, Sept. 14, 1860.

MY DEAR ROBERT: I see the election is gone in Maine, although Douglas confidently calculated on carrying the State. Such were his declarations here. You say nothing to me as to Pennsylvania. Can you hold out any hope in regard to it? I am almost in despair as to results, and deeply meditate the future. The Marylanders have struck upon the right key in nominating Chief-Justice Taney and Nelson. I fear that they move too late. My hope is that many here will come to their reason before it be too late; but it seems to me certain that Lincoln is to be elected, in despite of all combinations. How stand things in New Jersey? The increase of the Republican vote in Maine augurs an increase all through the free States.

What does Seward mean by originating a war on the army and navy? Does he design to hold out inducements to the wide-awakes? In his strategemic game, does he mean to open to the ambition of his organized bands generalships, colonelships, etc., etc., and the $25,000,000 now bestowed on the army and navy; and thus with his train-bands have his will supreme in the execution of his movements on the Constitution and the South? I suspect the man at every step and in every movement. A more arch and wily conspirator does not live. I can understand why, if the army or navy be too large, they should be reduced; but how to get on without them entirely I cannot understand. Or how the militia could be called on to do duty in fortifications and the Indian frontier, or how to collect a revenue, or claim the respect of the world without regular seamen, officers, and men, I cannot understand. If he makes the move, depend upon it he seeks only to further his ambitious schemes. Do write to me your opinion relative to Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

All send love.

Your father,

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 562

John Tyler to Colonel David L. Gardiner, Saturday, October 27, 1860

SHERWOOD FOREST, Saturday, October 27, 1860.

MY DEAR COLONEL: . . . . If elected, you will enter public life at a critical period. There is a deeper gloom resting on the country than I ever expected to see. Should New York rise up in her might, and declare against Lincoln, all will unite in ascribing to her great glory. She will, in truth, be hailed as the great conservative State. She will have rebuked the disorganizers, and imparted new vitality to our institutions. Should, however, the picture be reversed, and her great popular voice unite to swell the notes of triumph for the sectional hosts, then indeed will a dark and heavy cloud rest upon the face of the country, the bare anticipation of which is already felt broadly and extensively throughout this State. Property has already fallen in value amongst us, and there is an obvious uneasiness in the minds of all men. I will not permit myself to abandon the hope that the cloud which hovers over us will be dispersed through the action of your large and powerful State. I am busily engaged in seeding a large crop of wheat. Shall I be permitted to reap it at its maturity in peace? Time will decide!

Truly yours,

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 563

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, November 10, 1860

SHERWOOD FOREST, November 10, 1860.

So all is over, and Lincoln elected. South Carolina will secede. What other States will do remains to be seen. Virginia will abide developments. The Bellites will seek to divide parties into Unionists and the reverse. We shall see the result. It is said that Rives is offered the premiership. He will only take it upon satisfactory assurances being given, I am sure. For myself, I rest in quiet, and shall do so unless I see that my poor opinions have due weight. In the meantime confidence between man and man is giving way, and soon gold and silver will be hoarded by those who are fortunate enough to have them.

Love to all.

Your affectionate father,

J. TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 563

W. Farley Grey to John Tyler, December 22, 1859

NEW YORK, December 22, 1859.

MY DEAR SIR: Permit me to trouble you to read some resolutions which I drew up, and which were unanimously and enthusiastically adopted a few evenings since at a meeting of the friends of the Union and Constitution upon Staten Island. The construction of the Constitution which they embody may not meet with your approbation, but, after mature reflection and examination of the clauses referred to, I have myself no doubt upon the subject; and such, too, I fear is the opinion of a great many able men to whom I have talked upon the subject.

How desirable that such an interpretation should prevail you will readily perceive, as it will bring the general government into the field against these infernal scoundrels, as well the parties who at a safe distance supply the means for such infamous assaults to those who are the instruments of their execution.

I am happy to tell you that the feeling here in New York is all we could wish. An army of fifty thousand men, I am persuaded, could be raised here at the tap of a drum to march to your aid, if necessary. Many are as violent as any Southern man could be. Counsel our countrymen, for I am yet a Virginian, to calmer coolness and moderation. Give the North credit for all they deserve, and a brighter day will yet dawn upon the country.

You must present my most cordial regards to Mrs Tyler, and tell her that nothing could give me more pleasure, if I could leave home, than to go all the way to Virginia to spend a few days with her and yourself.

Believe me, my dear sir, with the greatest consideration and the most sincere respect, your obedient servant,

W. FARLEY GREY.

You will find the report of the meeting on the inside of the paper-second page.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 556-7

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, November 23, 1859

SHERWOOD FOREST, November 23, 1859.

MY DEAR ROBERT: I scarcely know what reply to give to your last letter. If I had the means to make you independent pecuniarily of the world, the sun would not go down before it would be done; but I am as hard put up, to use a vulgar phrase, as any one. For two years past my crops have failed, and I have had, and still have, a whip and spur concern to keep me on the track. Were it otherwise, I should unhesitatingly say to you neither mission abroad nor paymastership at home, but onward with your profession, which ultimately leads to emolument and position. I am ambitious, and I acknowledge it, not for myself, except to leave behind me a respected and honored name, but for my children. I would live again in them. I would have them make a figure in the world, and thus hand down a name which for two generations, to say nothing of a third, has won confidence and repute.

I think that your devotion to the President ought long since to have received his endorsement. It comes now at a late hour. Doubtless he has supposed that he could not do otherwise. You have now to decide what you had best do. There is one word that decides the matter—independence. Will the paymastership give you peace, quiet, independence? Is it better than your present office and profession? If so, take it. If not, reject it. Give up politics, by which no man profits other than a knave; retrench, as far as retrenchment be practicable, and wait for political preferment to reach you at its own gait. I estimate you unjustly if it do not come at some day or other. It may find you as well in a paymastership as in a mission abroad. Decide the whole question for yourself, and, whatever the decision, I shall be satisfied.

For myself I care for nothing, hope for nothing, seek for nothing. My confidence alone is in the Great Being who has made us, and still preserves us a nation. Wise has obviously gained in public esteem hereabouts. How things are to result time will disclose.

Your father,

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 554-5

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, December 6, 1859

SHERWOOD FOREST, December 6, 1859.

DEAR ROBERT: Your letter of the 28th November is before me. I was far from inferring from your previous letter making any application to me for pecuniary aid. No such inference was deducible from your letter. I meant only to express the opinion that the law profession opened more widely the door to preferment than any other pursuit, and, in doing so, mentioned the regret I felt that I had it not in my power to place you on a footing of perfect independence, so as to enable you to devote your whole time to your office. It is a regret I sincerely felt, but of course I knew that you too well appreciated my true condition to even hint at such a thing. Under such circumstances I am desirous to see you placed in such a situation under the government which will ensure your future independence. I care but little what it is, so it ensures that end.

A chase after political preferment ends in nothing but fatigue to the spirits and exhaustion of mind. Even at the highest, it is attended with little more than traduction and slander. In the present condition of public affairs, this remark becomes more emphatic. A day may destroy everything. Virginia is arming to the teeth—more than fifty thousand stand of arms already distributed, and the demand for more daily increasing. Party is silent, and has no voice. But one sentiment pervades the country: security in the Union, or separation. An indiscreet move in any direction may produce results deeply to be deplored. I fear the debates in Congress, and above all the Speaker's election. If excitement prevails in Congress, it will add fuel to the flame which already burns so terrifically. I hope there is conservatism enough in the country to speak peace, and that, after all, good may come out of evil. Wise's energy receives unqualified approval.

Your father,

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 555

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, February 12, 1861

Yesterday's news from home a shade more promising. The President's message to Congress on the mediatorial propositions from Virginia is calmly and judiciously written. It looks to that State for the preservation of the Union. The Convention of the Border States, free as well as slave, assembled on the 30th of January, and we ought now to have its first movements. There will be a collection of distinguished men at it,—Rives, Tyler, Reverdy Johnson, etc. I fear, however, they are rather effete celebrities than fit for the moment.

A curious sort of intermediate public counsel, not employed by either plaintiff or defendant, but seeming to act and argue as a Judge-Advocate at a Court-Martial, has addressed an admirable argument to the Bench in 'Betsey Bonaparte's" case at Paris. He seems a representative "pro bono publico." His name is Duvignaux. Another singular feature of this trial was in allowing a presumptuous American called Gould to intrude his written notions as to what was general opinion about the marriage of Jerome and Betsey with our eminent lawyers in 1803! How completely this could have been exploded by the production of my father's written and elaborate view of the whole matter given to old Mr. Paterson at the time! I have the rough draft among his relics.

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. 434

Alexander H. Stephens to the Editor of the Federal Union,* August 30, 1848

Clinton, Ga. 30th, Aug., 1848.

Mr. Editor: In passing through this place, I have just seen your paper of yesterday's date which contains some enquiries addressed to me, to which I cannot hesitate to give a prompt reply “in such reasonable length and respectful terms” as to secure, I trust, a place in your columns.

And that I may be distinctly understood, I will give the entire communication and my answer to each enquiry in order:

To The Hon. A. H. Stephens:

It is known to you, that your motion to lay upon the table the “Compromise bill”¹ of the Senate, during the late session of Congress, has produced considerable excitement in this district. You have been nominated as the Whig candidate for re-election. If you should have opposition, it is scarcely to be doubted that this bill will be the main issue involved in the canvass. It is therefore eminently desirable that your sentiments should be clearly understood as to what are the rights of the South and how far they are affected by the bill. A careful perusal of your speech has left our mind in doubt as to your opinion upon several essential points. We therefore venture respectfully to propound to you a few interrogatories, to which we ask a reply.

I. Do you believe that Congress has the right under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the territories belonging to the United States?

To your first enquiry I answer, that I do not believe that Congress has the right, either in honor, justice or good faith, to prohibit slavery in the territories belonging to the United States and thus to appropriate the public Domain entirely to the benefit of the people of the non-slaveholding states — and hence I have uniformly voted against the Oregon bill which contained a section excluding slavery, notwithstanding most if not all my Democratic colleagues have repeatedly voted for a bill organizing a Government there with such exclusion — and notwithstanding Mr. Polk has lately signed a bill which contained such an exclusion.

So far as New Mexico and California are concerned, and towards which your enquiries are doubtless mainly directed, there is no express provision in the Constitution which applies either directly or indirectly to them. They are to be considered as acquired by conquest, and there is no article or clause in the Constitution that relates in the remotest degree to the government of conquests. I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that such a contingency would ever happen — and hence the silence of the Constitution upon that subject. But as the Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly held the doctrine that the power to make conquest does belong to the General Government, though not expressly granted, it is not my purpose to say anything upon that point now. The only point in your enquiry relates to the government of the conquest, and to that point I answer explicitly that I consider the conquest, according to the best authorities upon the laws of nations, as belonging to the people of the United States — to all the citizens of the United States, the South as well as the North. When the treaty is fully complied with these provinces will constitute a public domain acquired by the common valor, blood and treasure of all. And in the government of them the rights and interests of the South should be looked to, guarded and protected as well as the North by all proper and necessary laws. Until they are admitted into the United States the government of them must devolve upon Congress or such territorial legislatures as may be created and authorized by Congress. And any legislation by Congress or by the territorial legislatures which would exclude slavery would be in direct violation of the rights of the Southern people to an equal participation in them and in open derogation of that equality between the states of the South and North which should never [be] surrendered by the South. And I hold also that any legislation by Congress or by the territorial legislatures which does not secure and protect the rights of the South as fully and as completely in the enjoyment of their property in slaves as it does the rights of the people of the North in the enjoyment of their property in these territories is manifestly unjust, in violation of the rights of the South, and a surrender of that equality between the different members of this confederacy which shall never be made by my sanction.

Your second enquiry is in the following words:

II. From your replies to Mr. Stanton of Tennessee, on pages 10 and 11 of your speech, we clearly infer that it is your opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee to the slaveholder the right to remove with his property into any territory of the United States and to be protected in the undisturbed use and enjoyment of his slaves as property. Do we properly construe your meaning?

And in reply you will allow me to say that you seem greatly to misapprehend my answer to Mr. Stanton. The purport of my answer to him was (I have not the speech before me) that the Constitution did secure and guarantee the rights of the master to his slave in every state and territory of the Union where slavery was not prohibited by law. But that it did not establish it in any territory or State where it was so prohibited. And the same I reaffirm. It is too plain a question to admit of argument. It is one of those truths which under our system of government may be considered as a political axiom. Everybody knows that the Constitution secures and guarantees property in slaves in Georgia and in all the slave States, but that it does not secure the use and enjoyment of such property in New York or any of the States where slavery is prohibited.

Your third question is in the following words:

III. If the right spoken of in the 2d question does exist under the Constitution in reference to territory generally, does it exist in relation to New Mexico and California?

And in answer to it I say that I hold that the Constitution does secure and guarantee the rights of the master to property in his slave in all the territories belong to the United States where slavery is not prohibited. With regard to the territories, the same principle holds which is applicable to the states. I do not maintain the position that slavery cannot be maintained without positive law. But I say that according to all the decisions of all the courts I have ever seen in all civilized nations, it cannot be maintained and protected where it is prohibited by express law. In all the states of this Union where it is not prohibited, the Constitution secures and protects it; but in those states where it is prohibited it does not protect it further than to provide for the recapture of runaway slaves — and the same principle I have no doubt from the decisions of the Supreme Court would by that tribunal be held to be applicable to the territories. By the Missouri Compromise slavery was prohibited from all that portion of the Louisiana cession out of Missouri, North of 36:30 degrees of North latitude. Slavery by that Compromise was in effect abolished in all that territory. For by the laws in force in the territory at the time of the acquisition slavery was recognised and had existence. There is a large territory now unoccupied which is embraced in the provisions of that Compromise and from which by that Compromise slavery is prohibited. And can any man believe that if a slaveholder should carry his slave into that territory where slavery is prohibited, that the Supreme Court of the United States would recognise his right and protect him in holding his slave there?

It is not my purpose now to speak of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise — I am speaking of it as a practical question under the decisions of the Supreme Court; and according to principles settled by that Court, does any man believe that the rights of the master would be protected by that Court in that territory, or any other territory of the United States, where slavery is prohibited, until the prohibition is removed by competent authority, any more than in a State where slavery is prohibited? In New Mexico and California slavery was abolished and prohibited by express law at the time of the conquest. And according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which no man can gainsay or deny; (I mean the fact of the decisions; I do not now speak of their correctness), all the laws which were of force at the time of the conquest will continue in force until altered by competent authority, except such as were inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the stipulations of the treaty. Is the prohibition of slavery by the local law of any state or place inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States? If it is, those laws of New Mexico and California will become abrogated and necessarily cease to operate upon the final fulfilment of the treaty stipulations. But if the prohibition of slavery by the local law of any state or place is not inconsistent with the Constitution according to the decisions of the Supreme Court, they will of course remain of force until altered by competent authority. My own opinion is, that neither the existence of slavery or non-existence of it by the local law of any place is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. The Constitution extends over states where slavery exists as well as where it is prohibited. Slavery depends upon the law of the place, which may be either written or unwritten. And where it exists the Constitution protects it, but it does not establish it where it is prohibited.

I have heard some argue that the laws in New Mexico and California prohibiting slavery there were similar to the laws concerning the establishment of religion. I consider the cases totally different. for this plain reason: An established religion is inconsistent with an express provision of the Constitution.

But the non-existence or prohibition of slavery by the local law of any State or place is not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. It is in vain for any man to attempt to deceive himself or others upon this point. And it is worse than in vain to attempt to make the Southern people believe that any right was secured to them by the late proposed Compromise bill which without any legal protection referred the matter to the Supreme Court. The only right it pretended to secure was the right of a law suit — and that existed without the Compromise just as amply and as fully as it did under it. And under the circumstances if any man can suppose that the Court, at the end of the suit, would decide in favor of the rights of the Southern people, he cannot doubt but that the same decision would be made even if the Wilmot Proviso were passed.

But to proceed to your fourth question, which is as follows:

IV. We infer from the tenor of your speech that you do not believe the right exists in relation to New Mexico and California, because of the decrees of 1829 and 1837 abolishing slavery throughout the Republic of Mexico. If so, what right of the South is surrendered by the Compromise bill, and how is it surrendered?

To this I answer that your inference is entirely wrong. I do believe that we of the South have a right to an equal participation in this acquisition, notwithstanding the decrees and acts of Mexico abolishing and prohibiting slavery in New Mexico and California — and a right that I never intend to abandon or surrender by my vote. It is the right which belongs to us as a portion of the conquerors of the country. It is public property, belonging as I have said before to all the citizens of the country — to the people of the South as well as the North. It is common property, and the principles applicable to it are well expressed by Vattel, as follows:

All the members of a corporation have an equal right to the use of the common property. But respecting the manner of enjoying it, the body of the corporation may make such regulations as they think proper, provided that those regulations be not inconsistent with that equality of right which ought to be preserved in a communion of property. Thus a corporation may determine the use of a common forest or a common pasture, either allotting it to all the members, according to their wants, or allotting each an equal share, but they have no right to exclude any one of the members, or to make a distinction to his disadvantage, by assigning him a less share than that of the others. (Vattel's L[aw of] Nations], 113.)

These are the principles I hold: Congress has no right to exclude the South from an equal share, and it is the duty of Congress to see that the rights of the South are as amply protected as the rights of the North. And it was this right of legal protection for the property of the South that was surrendered in that bill. If Congress has the power to declare exactly how far the interests of the North shall be protected, if they have the power to extend the Missouri Compromise line, they certainly have the power to say in clear and distinct words that up to that line on the South the rights of the South shall be protected — and not after prohibiting us from going North of that line leave us to contest with the Courts our rights on the South of it. This is what the Compromise bill did. It excluded us from the whole of Oregon, and left us to the Courts to decide whether we should be allowed to carry and hold our property in New Mexico and California. For such a Compromise I shall never vote.

Your fifth question is as follows:

V. If by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, we have not the right to carry our slaves into these territories, we ask, upon what principle do you claim it, in behalf of your constituents? Do you claim it, upon the broad principle of justice arising from the fact that It is the fruit of common blood and common treasure? If so, do you expect Congress, constituted as it now is, or is hereafter likely to be, will ever recognise this principle of justice, and by positive legislation authorise the extension of slavery into those territories?

And in answer I say, that I do claim it “upon the broad principle of justice arising from the fact that it is the fruit of common blood and common treasure.” And I do expect that Congress constituted as it is will recognise this principle of justice when the South presents an unbroken front, as it ought to do, against paying one dollar for the territories unless this justice is awarded to them; and you will here permit me to bring to your mind a reminiscence not inapplicable on the present occasion. When the annexation of Texas was at first started by Mr. Tyler, by a treaty which left this question of vital importance to the South unsettled, I opposed it. I was then bitterly assailed by the paper which you now conduct for opposition to this great Southern measure upon all occasions when I addressed the people of Georgia. In 1844, I declared that I was in favor of the annexation of Texas upon proper principles — but I was utterly opposed to the Tyler treaty for several reasons, the main one of which was that the slave question was left open in it, the rights of the South were not secured by it, and that I should never vote for any plan of annexation that did not settle this question in the compact of union and secure these rights in terms clearly and distinctly defined. This position I maintained in your own city, and if you will turn to the files of the Federal Union and examine an editorial of the first week in July, 1844, I think you will see that this position of mine was alluded to and it was denounced as amounting to a total opposition to the whole measure and it was said (I quote from memory) that I was insisting upon what never could be obtained. But I had taken my position firmly, not to be deterred by any fears or alarms or denunciations. And from that position and its success a profitable lesson may now be learnt. I made a speech in Congress when a plan for annexation similar to the Tyler treaty was offered, in which I maintained the same position and stated the only grounds upon which I should vote for annexation. They were the same grounds which I had advocated throughout 1844. Seven Southern Whigs stood by me — we held the balance of power in the House. And when all other plans offered (and there were a number) failed (neither of which secured the rights of the South), then Mr. Brown (after conference with me and others) offered his with the Missouri Compromise in it; and that passed by my vote and the other seven Whigs, and it could not have passed in the Committee of the Whole House without our votes, as the proceedings of the House will show. The firm and inflexible course I and seven other Southern Whigs took upon that question secured the rights of the South and obtained the establishment of the Missouri Compromise, which it was said by the Federal Union could never be obtained. And if a similar course shall be taken and maintained by all parties at the South, the same Compromise or one as good can be obtained again. I have taken the same stand now and I intend to maintain it in defiance of all assaults and denunciations that may be made against me from any and every quarter.

The sixth and last of your enquiries, is as follows:

VI. If you should be of opinion that we have the constitutional right to carry our slaves into these territories, would you sooner risk the recognition and vindication of that right before Congress where there is a decided majority in both branches against us, or before the Supreme Court where it is well known that a majority of the Bench are from slaveholding States?

We are aware, that you deprecate in very strong terms any reference to the complexion of the Supreme Court upon this subject. Tour deprecation may be the result of a sentiment which we by no means condemn. Yet we do not agree with you in its application in this instance. The South are in a minority, we fear a doomed minority, on this subject, and we are therefore disposed to vindicate our rights by all honorable means. We certainly should not refuse to accept justice because the tribunal to whom we apply are supposed to be favorable to our cause. With all deference to your views on this point, we must be indulged in the belief that your indignation savors more of transcendentalism than of sound, practical statesmanship.

To this I answer that I consider the reference of this subject to the Supreme Court as a total abandonment of the question by the South. According to repeated decisions of that court upon the principles involved in it, I cannot see how any man can look upon it in any other light. But I will here say, that I am opposed to referring any political question to that court. And as a Representative in Congress, as long as I shall have the honor of remaining there, I shall never avoid responsibility by turning any question over to the Supreme Court or any other body. I shall, as I have heretofore done, maintain the equal and just rights of my constituents upon all questions; and I shall demand that they be clearly and distinctly recognised by Congress, that they may be amply protected by all others before whom they may come for action; and when these rights are left to the courts to determine, by my sanction they shall be so clearly set forth and defined that the courts shall be bound to protect them, in their decisions. And I say to you and the people of the 7th. Congressional District, that I shall never return as your and their Representative and tell them I have secured their rights by getting an act passed which will enable them to carry their slaves to California and New Mexico to encounter a law suit whenever they get there, which will cost more than their slaves are worth. If I can never get a better compromise for them than such an one as that, I shall never agree to any at all. They have that right independently of any thing I can do for them, and that is a right which no act of Congress can deprive them of.

_______________

* From the Federal Union, Milledgerllle, Ga., Sept. 12, 1848.

¹ The Clayton compromise hill.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 117-24

Thomas Smith* to Howell Cobb, June 27, 1848

Versailles [indiana], June 27, ’48.

Dr. Sir: Knowing the tax imposed by business, ceremony, and a little real friendship, on Members of Congress, I have refrained writing to many friends that I really wished to. Under this state of feeling I would not write you or trouble you now if I did not think and fear that a momentous political crisis was about developing that is destined shortly to shake our political fabrick. In this Confederacy the Democratic party, long in the ascendant, has had to conciliate and compromise sectional interests and feelings. In this spirit the Slavery question has been put on the ground of non-interference on the part of the Genl. Govmnt. On that basis the democratic party has planted itself. If it can maintain that position, it is the only position that it can maintain in the free states, and is there a Southern man so blind as not see it and so uninformed as not to know it?

To drive us from this ground, the Whigs and abolitionists have agitated for the last 10 or 15 years. Their denunciation of the South, Southern dictation and Southern influence, has been fierce, and their appeals have been powerful and pathetic in favour of the poor negro. To meet these arguments and such invective has required all the talent and forbearance of the Democratic party. The Democratic free-state creed commends itself strongly to the sober sense of community, and those that attempt to overturn it can't but show the incendiary's torch and the assassin's knife— “in their fury the hope of the Union is lost”. The Democratic South in our conventions, in Congress, and at the ballot box has shown the same conciliatory spirit, — in making our last and former nominations they have been foremost in favor of free-state men. But in the nomination of the present Whig candidate it is manifest to all the people, and they can't but see the finger of the South in it, and the dictatorial and domineering spirit they have shown in forcing their man upon the Convention.

It has forced some fears upon the Democrats, as well as confusion and dismay into the Whig ranks, and utter disgust into the abolition breasts. The consequence of all will be to very much widen the breach between the free and slave states of the Union. In the late Whig convention the South showed neither quarter nor respect to the North. She gave not a vote for a Northern man. . . .

But the point to which I wish to call your attention is this: the fear amongst the democratic party is that the South may so far unite on the nominal Whig candidate as to give him all the South, in disregard of the friendly spirit the free states have always shown you. If this shall be the case I cannot doubt that much democratic sympathy will be lost you, and a falling off amongst your friends in these states, that time can never cure. Because it is so plain the nomination of Taylor is a Southern Whig trick, against the feelings of the Whig party, to catch up other than Whig votes in the South, and against the sense and sentiment of the nation, that union of effort of all parties will be made against the South before his term of office, if elected, shall expire. You know that North nothing but a free-state union of effort is wanting to disfranchise the South, so far as the Presidential office is concerned; and what so well calculated to produce that result as such palpable tricks as the South has just perpetrated in the nomination of a man without talent and the independence to speak out boldly his opinions and his party fealty.

In taking such a man at such a time it must be there is something impure in it. Something behind the curtain. But it will out. If the old General shall ever be called by the people unanimously or spontaneously to the Presidency, he will find the need of opinions and fixed principles. His administration, or that of any man, must proceed upon fixed principles, and the better they are matured the better he will bear up under the responsibilities of the office.

You are aware that every Whig in Congress and out of it in all the free States in the Union by their votes, speeches and action in the primary assemblies, amongst the people, and many of the democrats, are committed to the principles of the Wilmot Proviso, and if Taylor is elected, unless they back out from their present position, which they dare not do, it will be engrafted upon the legislation of the next four years. In this great contest the South brings their General into the field unarmed. His anxiety to lead the motley forces of federalism compels him to put on the no-party badge, and to command without a sword or the armor the Constitution has put upon him for his own protection and that of the States. Mr. Jefferson says: the President's negative was given him for his own protection, the protection of the States and the judiciary, against the aggressions of Congress. But I presume as he has voluntarily divested himself of the protection the Constitution in [vested] him with, to get office, he expects to put it on in the heat and smoke of the battle. Let him not think so. If he does it, he will be shot down by his own forces and confederates; and if Tyler was denounced a traitor, he will be justly denounced an arch traitor. It is distinctly understood he will veto none of the people's measures.

Of the success of the Democratic Ticket, Cass and Butler, in this region there is no room to doubt. I have never seen in favor of any democratic ticket so ardent a spirit manifested by the party. I think in this county there is not a dissenting voice. Indiana may be set down for Cass and Butler by a large majority over all opposition. Even should Hale run, and Mr. Van Buren lead the Barnburners, we can beat them all.

I wish to know from you, my dear sir, what Georgia will do in the premises.

I have bored you with a very prosing long letter.

Our very best respects to your Lady and friends.

_______________

* Congressman from Indiana, 1839-1841 and 1843-1847.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 111-3

George D. Phillips to Howell Cobb, February 25, 1845

Hab[ersham] Co[unty, Ga.], Feb. 25,1845.

Dear Sir: I wrote you a few days ago that the Texas question, as decided now, would stand decided forever. I would stake my ears against a Romish crucifix, that time proves the correctness of this opinion; but I would qualify in this particular: if President Polk convenes an extra Congress and Texas be thereby annexed, even under less favourable circumstances than those secured by the House Resolutions, Texas will assent, provided there be no restrictions on the subject of slavery embraced. The wit of man could not devise a plan of annexation to which they would assent if at any future time any portion of Texas, or rather any State formed out of Texas territory, should give rise even to a discussion in Congress on the question of negro slavery. Her public lands are more than enough to pay her public debt, and she feels indifferent on that subject. You need not indulge the least fear that Texas will fall a prey to English diplomacy, intrigue, or money. I had my doubts and fears until I visited the country and mixed with her people freely, the elite and the clod-pole. Save the immigrants from the West, and probably those from abroad, all, all are Americans, and better, Southern, and dyed in the wool. And I hazard nothing in saying Texas will sustain and defend Southern rights and Southern institutions or cease to exist as a free people. Nor will Texas permit England to guarantee her independence. She is conscious of having a better guarantee in the strong arms and brave hearts of her sons; and if she is not received by the U. S., or her independence acknowledged by the powers that be, as soon as a new state of things becomes settled in Mexico she will wring from Mexico that acknowledgement. There is now a strong feeling in all the states from the Rio del Nort to the Table Lands to amalgamate with Texas; an invading army of 2000 men would certainly take possession of 4 states. As those who are resolved not to fight are easily whipd, all that Texas will desire of Uncle Sam will be to keep her Indians at home. As to Mexico and her own savages, she can take care of them.

The last mail brought us intelligence that Congress had decided to establish a territorial government in Oregon. The slavery question did not apply there; but to us it involved the question of power, and if I had been clear that the whole country to the 54th deg. N. L. belonged to us, I never could have supported the measure in advance of a settlement of the Texas question. With me it would have been: no Texas, no Oregon, or both simultaneously. I have never seen any conclusive evidence of our titles to Oregon north of 49, and doubt if such proof is extant. If so, where will I find it? If I am not deceived, Oregon will prove a Pandora's Box. For a foot of Maine I was willing to fight; for Texas I would fight the world, because the world would be impertinently interfering with our concerns; but for Oregon north of 49, I would not quarrel. . . .

There is I find an extraordinary effort making to remove Mr. Cooper, superintendent of the mint,¹ from office; and that Dr. Singleton should have the motley crowd almost passeth belief and that too to wear the slippers. Does it not require some credulity to believe this, yet it is so. You know the Dr. is a dull plodding man, and if he were again in office and remained there for half a century he could not be as well qualified for the office as Mr. Cooper was the first week he entered it. Under the Dr.'s administration depositors had to wait from two to four weeks for coin. Some improvement took place when Rosignol was in office, but since Mr. Cooper has been in depositors often get their gold coin as soon as the assay can be made. Mr. Rosignol was an efficient man but his manners rendered him unpopular and it was said, perhaps with some truth, he killed two birds with one stone, served a bank and Uncle Sam too; and for this I presume was removed. Mr. Cooper is easy and polite in his intercourse with all who have business at the mint. If any charges of improper conduct have been brought against him I have not heard them; and it would be difficult to imagine one so correct and unexceptionable in his conduct that such a being as Harrison Riley could not bring a charge against. I presume they dare not attack Mr. Cooper on the ground of want of qualification. No change could be made for the better on that score. Do depositors of gold bullion want him removed? No, and he may challenge to the proof. I speak of honorable, intelligent gentlemen. Many two-and-sixpence depositors may have signed a petition. To what kind of a petition would you fail to get signers? You might get forty in Washington to emancipate my negroes and compel them to cut my throat. But if they really have, as I hear, 6000 petitioners for the removal, I have no doubt but 9/10 of them never were in the mint, made a deposit of gold or know Mr. Cooper, and further that 9/10 of them are Whigs. If Mr. Cooper or his friends were to get up counter petitions they could beat the celebrated Abolition petition a stone's throw. That I think had 7 thousand names. We could get 20 thousand in Geo. The truth is this: Dr. Singleton wants the office for the money. Harrison Riley, than whom the devil is not more artful, hates Mr. Cooper because he is a gentleman and a Democrat, and wishes to get him out of the county, and others whom I could name cooperate from interested motives. In justice to Maj. C. and in justice to your constituents I hope you and every Democratic Member of Congress of both houses will call on President Tyler and put this low and dirty effort down, by the correct representations. It is said Mr. C. is some way related to the President; if so, there may be more danger than if no such connection existed. If any importance is attached to six thousand then ask a suspension of any action until a counter petition of 10,000 can be sent on; and if the matter is reserved for the President-elect, do not in the fulness of heartfelt rejoicing and the pageantry of oiling the head of our triumphant Chief make you forget to call on him, the whole of you, Judge Colquitt at your head, and prevent an honest man and faithful officer from being thrown overboard to gratify a land pirate and his porpoise coadjutor. I write in haste and amidst confusion, but have no doubt wearied you. Adieu.

_______________

¹ I. e., the United States branch mint at Dahlonega, Ga.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 66-8

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, May 27, 1850

Washington, May 27, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, * * * What a singular political conjunction is that of Cass, Clay & Webster? What a curious spike team they make with Foote for a driver! Where will he drive them to? Political perdition, I imagine you to answer. And really I think you are more than half right. The signs are ominous of evil to the compromisors. Their patch work hardly seems to please anybody. The southern men will go against it, unless they can obtain amendments, which Clay himself dare not vote for — dare not simply because he would by so doing merely transfer himself to their ranks without followers. The break between Clay and the Administration seems to be complete and final. His course reminds every body of his action when Tyler came in. But the difference in circumstances between now and then is very remarkable. Taylor was elected President and is the head of the Whig Party by choice. Tyler became President by a dispensation of Providence and was never the head of the Whig Party at all. Clay now holds a faction — then he lead a Party. The difference is great. He is in danger of being treated as a rebel. The article in the Republic this morning is significant of more to come. On the other hand the Southern extremists regard Clay with little favor — rather I might say with jealous dislike. He has never been with him, [them] and his attempt to head them now — to put himself in their van and dictate to them their course excites no very amiable feelings among them. You may look with great confidence for the failure of the Compromise.

Great interest is felt here in regard to the result in Palfrey's District. The democrats there have acted with great liberality, and we expect, with great solicitude the news of Palfrey's election. The result is decided by this time, and the wires are perhaps even now carrying tidings of it to every section of the country.

Corwin, I understand, is to speak soon. He intends I believe to take ground against Clay. He says he feels a little awkward, having escaped from Clay's service, in which he has been held so long, and is a little apprehensive of reclamation under the fugitive law — but he don't want to go back — he don't like the service. I think he will make a telling speech.

I learn, but am not certain as to the accuracy of my intelligence, that Taylor desired to keep the Texans out of New Mexico, but was overruled by his cabinet.

Write soon & often.

Mrs C. is better, but the disease, I fear, not vanquished.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 212-3

Captain William Thompson Lusk to Elizabeth Adams Lusk, January 9, 1862

Headquarters 2d Brigade,

Beaufort, S. C. Jan. 9th, 1862.

My dear Mother:

It is with great pleasure I am able to write of my rapid recovery from a somewhat severe illness. I caught the fever prevalent in this country, and lost all those pounds of flesh of which I have boasted, but am thankful to be again restored to health, if not to full strength, and am gaining rapidly. There is little chance of obtaining a leave of absence, for, though delightful as it would be to see you all again, it is not well to look back when the hand is once put to the plough. You will ere this have received an account of our New Year's call over on the mainland of South Carolina. It was very successful, but I was unable to be present, as excessive exhaustion, the result of the fever, kept me confined in bed. The weather down here is charming now, the sun is as warm as summer. I think of you suffering from cold. I would be willing to exchange the warm sun of Beaufort though, for a couple of weeks in the chilly North where there are warm hearts ever ready to welcome me. I am going to enclose to you a copy of a Secession letter which may afford you some amusement.

I have not received either my trunk or sword yet, though they undoubtedly are at Hilton Head, but the express agency is a slow working affair, and I must abide their time patiently. Yesterday was the anniversary of the battle of New Orleans. In the evening the General had a reception, at which many patriotic speeches were made, and a general feeling of jollity prevailed. There is little news to communicate. Your letters come regularly. I have received Hunt's photograph, which is capital. I hope gradually to get the likenesses of the whole family.

There is at present as far as we can learn, a general feeling of depression among the South Carolina troops, which possibly may eventually develop into a Union sentiment. The feeling the soldiers express is: We have no negroes to fight for, while the slave-owners have all taken good care to retire to the interior of the State where they can live in safety. The question is beginning to pass among them, “Why should we stay here to be shot, when those who have caused the war have run away?” This is dangerous talk, and, we are told, officers have great difficulty in maintaining the organization of their Regiments. At least these are stories brought by the negroes who are continually escaping to our lines, and the unanimity of their reports seems to lend the appearance of truth to them. The fact is, the frightful effects of the explosions of the 11 inch shell which some of our gun-boats carry, have produced a great panic among the land forces of South Carolina. Negroes from Charleston report the city in a great fright, the inhabitants making preparation to leave at the sound of the first note of alarm. I hope we may catch old Tyler.¹ It would do me a deal of good to see the traitor sent North to be dealt with properly. There is a strong contrast between the treatment of our prisoners, and that received by the unfortunates who fall into the hands of the “chivalry.” The prisoners we have here are certainly as well treated if not better than our own soldiers. As I see them, on passing their place of confinement, with their legs hanging out of the windows, smoking their pipes, lolling about, enjoying fires when it is chilly, I cannot but think of a poor fellow named Buck, a German in my company and a capital fellow, who was captured at Bull Run and taken prisoner to Richmond. Once he ventured to put his head out of his prison window, and in an instant the guard shot him dead. I remembered too an amiable practice of the chivalrous youth of Richmond, who, when drunk, were in the habit of discharging their pieces from below, sending the bullets through the floor of the prison. This piece of pleasantry they termed “tickling the legs of the Yankees!” Well, we are not barbarians, and the other day a poor fellow whom we took prisoner at the battle of the Coosaw, as he lay grievously wounded, but receiving every kindness and attention at our hands, said: “Ah, there's a mistake somewhere. We think you come here to murder, and burn and destroy.” It will take time, but we believe by making ourselves dreaded in battle, but using kindness to all who fall into our power, even South Carolina may learn the lesson that there is a mistake somewhere.

There, I think I have written a long letter. With much love to all, I remain,

Your affec. son,

Will.

_______________

¹ John Tyler.

SOURCE: William Chittenden Lusk, Editor, War Letters of William Thompson Lusk, p. 112-5