Congressman Horace Mann to E. W. Clapp, February 6, 1850

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 1850.

E. W. CLAP, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR, . . . You must be entirely mistaken in your speculations. The Free-soil party, with the best principles to stand on that ever a political party had, well-nigh ruined themselves by   their injudicious conduct. But I am afraid the Whigs are behaving every whit as badly as they. Last Monday, a portion of the party gave the most insane votes that ever sane men gave. They voted down, or helped to vote down, not only the Wilmot Proviso, but the Declaration of Independence and the Ordinance of 1787. To be sure, they say they voted against these doctrines because they were brought forward by Root and Giddings for the mischievous purpose of embarrassment and party spite, and without any adequate cause. But I would not vote against such a measure if the Devil brought it forward. . . .

Yours very truly,

HORACE MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 289-90

Congressman Horace Mann, January 7, 1850

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 1850.

Mr. A. has infinitely slender cause to praise Mr. Cobb for putting Mr. Giddings on the Committee on Territories, and Mr. Allen on the District Committee, and Mr. King on the Judiciary; for he has so buried them up with Southern Democrats, that they cannot get their heads high up enough to breathe. With such a committee as Mr. Winthrop would have appointed, we should have met with no obstacles in getting our measures before the country and the House. Now we shall encounter the most serious of obstacles at every step; and, if it is possible for skill or power to bar out all antislavery measures, it will be done.

There is no end to the perversions of partisans. A partisan cannot be an honest man, whether he be a political or a religious partisan. How necessary it is to cultivate the seeds of truth in the young! Nothing can be, or can approach to be, a substitute for it. So of the great principle, that it is for the interest of every man to be a true man, and that by no possibility can perversion or error be useful. How the world needs to be educated!

Does H. get exact and complete ideas of things? Can he reproduce what you teach him? This is an all-important part of teaching. Has a lesson been so learned that the pupil can restate it in words, or exemplify it in act, or draw it on blackboards, &c.? This is the test to which learners should be early subjected. I am very glad about the music. We pity Laura Bridgeman for the privation of her physical powers; but how many of us need to be pitied for the privation of faculties whose absence deforms just as much as a loss of the senses! One of these is music.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 285

John H. McHenry* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, February 21, 1850

HARTFORD, KY., 21st February, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR: Perhaps you may almost have forgotten the individual who now addresses you, and who retains a vivid recollection of the many meetings and pleasant greetings he had with you when he had the honor of being an humble member of the committee of which you were chairman in the 29th Con[gress].

At the risk however of being entirely forgotten I have concluded to drop you a line if it be only to ascertain the fact.

Since we separated you have been busily engaged in the Senate of the U[nited] S[tates] aiding in the councils of our Nation, while I have been mostly engaged in the practice of the law riding over hills and vallies, swamps and waters as duty or necessity might require. Last year I was elected a delegate and took a part, an humble part, in forming a new constitution for my own native state. Except this I have been wholly disengaged from politics. I have been looking with deep solicitude at the course of events since I left Congress and have seen nothing to change the opinion which I expressed to you in a conversation during the pending of the three million bill or just before I do not now recollect which, "that the Mexican War was gotten up by the abolition raving of the then Cabinet to get a large scope of territory to make free States out of and to surround the slave States entirely to get back what they were pleased to term the balance of power which they said they had lost by giving up half of Oregon,” and advised you if possible to put a stop to the war before the rank and file got into the secret for if you did not the devil himself could not do it, that even Giddings and Culver would come in if they found out what it was for. You told me that you and your immediate friends were doing your best but were powerless, but if I would only keep Garrett Davis from throwing in his d----d resolutions of warning, which were calculated though not intended to bind the party together, that you thought you could possibly do something. I have often thought of this conversation and wondered if you had any recollection of it. Things that have occurred since have indelibly impressed it upon my memory.

In looking about for the causes of the Mexican war, I believed those assigned by the particular friends of the president were some of them insufficient and some of them unfounded and therefore I looked round for some reason to satisfy my own mind, and could find none but that. I named it to several of my friends and colleagues but could find none to agree with me. I formed the opinion first from reading Morey's instructions for raising Stephensons regiment. I thought the intention was to settle that regiment on the southern border of whatever land we might acquire and thus form the nucleus for a settlement from the free states immediately on our southern border and thus prevent a settlement from the slave states, by slave holders at least, within the bounds of the newly acquired territory. Upon due consideration of all that has happened since that time do you not now think that I at least guessed well if I did not form a correct opinion? In my canvass for delegate last summer I had to encounter emancipation in all its forms and triumphed over it. The leading men in this country are with the south but they are also for the Union and do not look to disunion as a remedy for any evil. They will "fight for slavery but die by the Union." As to the boys up the hollows and in the brush who form a considerable portion of our country they are not to [be] relied on in any contest against the Union. In a contest about the Union they would be willing to have the motto of the first soldiers of the revolution "Liberty or death"—but in a contest about slavery they would be a good deal like one Barney Decker who was about to have a soldiers badge and motto made and when the lady who made the badge asked him if he would have the same motto hesitated and then replied "You may put ‘liberty or be crippled.’” I am afraid the boys will say "slavery or be crippled." For God's sake try and settle all these questions of slavery if possible and let us not dissolve the Union.

But if we have to write like Francis the 1st to his mother, "Madam all's lost but honor" let us do it with this and we will have the approval of our own conscience without which a man is nothing.

_______________

* A Representative in Congress from Kentucky, 1845-1847.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 104-6

Diary of Gideon Welles: December 1, 1865

It is some weeks since I have had time to write a word in this diary. In the mean time many things have happened which I desired to note but none of very great importance. What time I could devote to writing when absent from the Department has been given to the preparation of my Annual Report. That is always irksome and hard labor for me. All of it has been prepared at my house out of the office hours, except three mornings when I have remained past my usual hour of going to the Department.

My reports are perhaps more full and elaborate than I should make them; but if I wish anything done I find I must take the responsibility of presenting it. Members of Congress, though jealous of anything that they consider, or which they fear others will consider, dictation, are nevertheless timid as regards responsibility. When a matter is accomplished they are willing to be thought the father of it, yet some one must take the blows which the measure receives in its progress. I therefore bring forward the principal subjects in my report. If they fail, I have done my duty. If they are carried, I shall contend with no one for the credit of paternity. I read the last proof pages of my report this evening.

Members of Congress are coming in fast, though not early. Speaker Colfax came several days since. His coming was heralded with a flourish. He was serenaded, and delivered a prepared speech, which was telegraphed over the country and published the next morning. It is the offspring of an intrigue, and one that is pretty extensive. The whole proceeding was premeditated.

My friend Preston King committed suicide by drowning himself in the Hudson River. His appointment as Collector was unfortunate. He was a sagacious and honest man, a statesman and legislator of high order and of unquestioned courage in expressing his convictions and resolute firmness in maintaining them. To him, a Democrat and Constitutionalist, more than to any other one man may be ascribed the merit of boldly meeting the arrogant and imperious slaveholding oligarchy and organizing the party which eventually overthrew them. While Wendell Phillips, Sumner, and others were active and fanatical theorists, Preston King was earnest and practical. J. Q. Adams and Giddings displayed sense and courage, but neither of them had the faculty which K. possessed for concentrating, combining, and organizing men in party measures and action. I boarded in the same house with King in 1846 when the Wilmot Proviso was introduced on an appropriation bill. Root and Brinkerhoff of Ohio, Rathbun and Grover and Stetson [sic]¹ of New York, besides Wilmot and some few others whom I do not recall, were in that combination, and each supposed himself the leader. They were indeed all leaders, but King, without making pretensions, was the man, the hand, that bound this sheaf together. From the day when he took his stand King never faltered. There was not a more earnest party man, but he would not permit the discipline and force of party to carry him away from his honest convictions. Others quailed and gave way but he did not. He was not eloquent or much given to speech-making, but could state his case clearly, and his undoubted sincerity made a favorable impression always.

Not ever having held a place where great individual and pecuniary responsibility devolved upon him, the office of Collector embarrassed and finally overwhelmed him.

Some twenty-five years ago he was in the Retreat for the Insane in Hartford, and there I knew him. He became greatly excited during the Canadian rebellion and its disastrous termination and the melancholy end of some of his townsmen had temporarily impaired his reason. But it was brief; he rapidly recovered, and, unlike most persons who have been deranged, it gave him no uneasiness and he spoke of it with as much unconcern as of a fever. The return of the malady led to his committing suicide. Possessed of the tenderest sensibilities and a keen sense of honor, the party exactions of the New York politicians, the distress, often magnified, of those whom he was called upon to displace, the party requirements which Weed, who boarded with him, and others demanded, greatly distressed him, and led to the final catastrophe.

King was a friend and pupil of Silas Wright, with whom he studied his profession; was the successor of that grand statesman in both branches of Congress. Both had felt most deeply the bad faith and intrigue which led to the defeat of Van Buren in 1844, and to the ultimate downfall of the Democratic party, for the election of Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan were but flickering efforts to rekindle the fires of the old organizations. Confidence and united zeal never again prevailed, and parties subsequently took a sectional or personal character.

_______________

¹ There was no Stetson in Congress at the time. Perhaps Wheaton of New York, who was one of the supporters of the Proviso, was the man whom Mr. Welles had in mind.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 384-7

Dr. Seth Rogers to his daughter Dolly, February 25, 1863

February 25, 1863.

This afternoon our regiment was reviewed by Gen. Saxton in the presence of Gen. Hunter. The staff and body guards of these two Generals made about a hundred horsemen. I quite enjoyed the bugle notes as they gallopped into camp and thought how much more exciting a cavalry regiment must be than infantry. In the course of the battalion drill our boys were ordered to make a charge toward them and I verily believe that if the Col. had not been in front, the order "Halt," would have passed unheeded till the cavalry had scattered over the field.

All this evening I have been squeezing Kansas history out of Col. Montgomery, a history with which he himself is so completely identified that I have really been listening to a wonderful autobiography. Col. M. is a born pioneer. Ashtabula County, Ohio, is his native place. Forty-nine years ago, Joshua R. Giddings and Ben Wade were young men and Montgomery in his boyhood was accustomed to hear their early pleadings at the bar. So you see how birth and early surroundings fitted him for a fiercer frontier life. New England life seems puny beside the lusty life born on the frontier. Of the Colonel's eight children two of his sons are to hold commissions in his regiment. They are young but as “they don't know the meaning of fear,” and hate slavery he is sure they will get on. In medicine he has a weakness for pellets instead of pills. It is humiliating that our two strong colonels should exhibit such weak points. So long as we remain in good health I don't know but this foible of homoeopathy is as harmless as any of the popular vagaries. . . .

Yesterday Mingo Leighton died. Many weeks ago, I saw him step out of the ranks one day when upon the double-quick and discovered that he had slight disease of the heart. He was a noble fellow, black as midnight, who had suffered in the stocks and under the lash of a savage master, and did not accept any offer of discharge papers. Later he realized some of his hopes up the St. Mary's, so that he was very quiet under his fatal congestion of the lungs. He was ill but a few hours and was very calm when he told me on my first visit that his work was finished. He never gave me his history, though he regarded me as his friend, but one of his comrades confirmed my convictions of his worth. This same comrade, John Quincy, a good old man, who for eight years, paid his master twenty dollars per month for his time and eight dollars per month apiece for mules, and boarded himself and animals, this man told me that Mingo was deeply religious, but said little about it, and that he himself had been "trabblin by dis truth sometin' like twenty-five year." I have rarely met a man whose trust in God has seemed to me more immediate and constant.

SOURCE: Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Volume 43, October, 1909—June, 1910: February 1910. p. 367-8

William T. Sherman to David F. Boyd, September 16, 1860

LANCASTER, Ohio, Sept. 16, 1860.

MY DEAR FRIEND: I came up from Cincinnati last evening, whither I had gone to prove the sheets of our regulations of which I will have one thousand copies fifty of which with a blank leaf at the end of each article, so that amendments may be made and noted as they arise. I will not have them bound but covered with stiff paper. I doubt if I can send any till about the 1st of October when or soon after I will have all boxed and shipped from Cincinnati to New Orleans, where about October 15 I will meet them and our other stores.

By the way on my arrival last night I found your letter of September 3, which put me in possession of a correct knowledge of the status of things on that day, enabling me to prepare: the bedding, 80 mattresses, cases, etc., 500 volumes of books, 1000 of text-books, arms, accoutrements, etc., about 8 boxes of 150 lbs. each, etc., will have to be transported up before November 1. The clothing can follow. If Red River be dead low as you say and on my arrival at New Orleans my information confirm it, I will write you to hire from four to five wagons under one leader if possible, to meet me at the mouth (of Red River) on a certain day say about the 20th, with my horse all saddled, when I can load the wagons and conduct them to the Seminary. See Coats and agree on a price per hundred pounds, but don't close a bargain till the last moment. Baden who has the crapshop in Pineville has a fine team and wagon, the very thing for a load of mattresses.

We have hit on an unfavorable year—low river, undefined powers, unfortunate political crisis, unlimited expectations on the part of the community, but all these must only stimulate us to more strenuous exertions. I know this year will decide our fate, another the fate of the institution confided to us, and I will give it all my best energies and experiences, but I confess the combination of ill influences are calculated to damp my ardor.

I cannot take my family from their present comfortable and bounteously supplied home, for those desolate pine woods, but I will try and cause the coming session to pass off as smoothly and harmoniously as the past, which can only be done by making the studies and duties flow in an uninterrupted current, from the first to the last day of the session.

J. has not the requisite energy and I fear he will be so cramped with debt as to impair what little efficiency he does possess. His department is all important, but as I regard it, he is independent of me. He is steward by lawful appointment. I am only as superintendent or kind of supervisor. "Supervision” is the word, and if any failure occur in his department, I shall claim to be absolved from all responsibility. By a personal introduction to my personal friend in New Orleans, I gave him credit, which I fear he has abused, and it shall not occur again. I cannot incur personal liability in that manner again.

I think the three boys can get out enough wood for the winter and if the fallen timber encumber the ground too much we can make heaps or burn it up, so as to be ready next spring for embellishment. I will try to have one or two white boys for drummer and fifer who can clean the section rooms, tend the lamps, and do some writing. I have not got them yet but will try at Cincinnati and New Orleans on my way down. I could get them here, but I feel a delicacy in taking white men from here lest they should excite undue suspicion.

I admit I am uneasy about political causes or rather local prejudices. Reason can be combated, but suspicion cannot. Here I must resist the opinion that the South is aggressive, that they have made compacts of compromise of 1821 and 1850 which are broken and slavery made national instead of local – in the South that the North are aggressive endangering southern safety and prosperity, both factions argue their sides with warmth and an array of facts, that is hard to answer and I must content myself with awaiting the result.

I send you a speech made by my brother John in Philadelphia a few days ago. I heard him here and had much talk with him, and he told me he should prepare his speech for Philadelphia with care and stand by it. Therefore this speech is the Republican view of this section of the Confederacy.

An unexampled prosperity now prevails here and it is a pity that so much division pervades the Democratic Party, as it enables the Republicans to succeed. Even Bennett's Herald admits the probability of Lincoln's success. But I would prefer Bell to succeed because it would give us four years truce, but I fear it is not to be. But I am equally convinced that Lincoln's success would be attended with no violence. He is a man of nerve, and is connected by marriage and friendship with the Prestons of Kentucky and Virginia, and I have no doubt he will administer the government with moderation. No practical question can arise, whereby men of the South would be declared on the statute book as unequal to their northern brethren. There is now abundant slave territory and we have no other land fit for it, but Texas, and that is all slave territory by treaty.

If we go to Civil War for a mere theory, we deserve a monarch and that would be the final result, for you know perfectly well the South is no more a unit on that question than the North – Kentucky and Carolina have no sympathy. I heard Leslie Combs speak at Circleville a few days ago, and his language would have been Republicanism in Carolina. He has been elected clerk by twenty-three thousand majority in Kentucky.

In Ohio here we have all sorts of political parties and clubs, but it is admitted that it will vote the Republican ticket. My brother has no opposition at all in his district, and is therefore helping others in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He resides at Mansfield, seventy-five miles north of this. I will go up to visit him and my sister in about ten days; but as to modifying his opinions further I cannot expect it.

I wanted him to repudiate openly the “irrepressible conflict” doctrine—but he has not done so, though he made a left handed wipe at Seward and Giddings as extremists. These men represent the radicals of that party but John laughs at me when I tell him in the nature of things that class of men will get control of his party. He contends that they – the Republicans – are the old Whig Party, revived solely by the unwise repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Of course you and I are outside observers of political events, and can influence the result but little, but this is no reason why we should not feel a deep and lively interest in the development of a result that for better or worse must interest us all.

At Cincinnati I attended the U.S. Agricultural Fair. Joe Lane was there and I esteem him a humbug, from his Mexican War reputation; other notorieties were there, among which fat hogs, calves, pumpkins, apples, etc., competed for prizes, and I think on a fair unbiased opinion the pumpkins were entitled to the first premium over vain conceited men.

I wish however we had Cincinnati near us at the Seminary. We should not then be troubled to get provisions, books, or furniture. If Red River were navigable, and I would find a boat for Alexandria or Shreveport direct, which often occurs in season, I would buy a full outfit of everything for my house at a blow. As it is I now must wait, as transportation by wagon must be out of all reason.

SOURCES: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 277-82

William Preston Smith to Andrew Hunter, October 25,1859

Baltimore, Oct. 25, 1859.

A. Hunter, Esq.:

        Attorney-at-Law, &c.,
                Charlestown, Va.

Sir:—At the request of Governor Wise, of Virginia, President Garrett, of this Company, directed me to secure and send to you, for use in the prosecution of the rioters taken at Harper's Ferry, such letters and other papers as could be found in this city bearing upon the case.

I accordingly enclose herewith three letters, obtained from the "Clipper" newspaper office—viz.: a letter (without signature) dated at Akron, May 2d, 1859; a letter dated Philadelphia, June 6, '59, addressed to Alonzo G. Bradley, R. T. Stieffer; and another, dated at Hallowell, April 28th, 1858, addressed to "My Dear Brother," and signed “Lizzie.”. Upon inquiry at the offices of the “American,” “Exchange" and "Sun" newspapers, I was informed that they did not have any letters or papers bearing upon the case, and that those they published were borrowed for that purpose from the office of the "Clipper."

We have secured for you the use for a few days of the following named papers from Mr. F. W. Kerchner, a lieutenant of one of our military companies. These were taken from Brown's house by himself, and he allows us the use of them, only on condition, that they will be safely returned to him, which we have promised, and which, we hope, you will enable us to faithfully carry out by returning them to this office as soon as you may have done with them. It may be proper to state that these papers were secured together by Kerchner, with a view to their preservation—they consist of—

Four pages of the life of “Old Brown."
A printed circular—"The duty of the Soldier, No. 1.”
Letter signed O. S., to “Brother and Sister,” dated at Chambersburg
Receipt from Charles Blair to John Brown for $150-on account.
Letter to J. H. Kagi-dated Aug. 16th, 1858.
Letter to John Brown from Gerritt Smith, June 8, 1859.
Receipt to E. A. Adams from Orion Phelps for $700.
A printed blank officer's commission.
A letter from A. Wattles, dated Moneka, K. T., March 29, '59.
A letter to John Brown from J. R. Giddings, May 26, 1856.
A letter to Brown from Fred. Douglass.
Receipt to J. Brown from W. & L. E. Gurley for a compass, June 7, 1859.
A letter to Brown from Charles Blair.

Your particular attention to the preservation and safe return to me of the above enumerated papers will much oblige,

Yours, very respectfully, &c.,

W. P. SMITH,        

M. of T.

SOURCE: B. H. Richardson, Annapolis, Maryland, Publisher, Correspondence Relating to the Insurrection at Harper's Ferry, 17th October, 1859, p. 31-2

Major-General William T. Sherman to William M. McPherson, Esq., March 24, 1865

HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISISIPPI, IN THE FIELD                  

GOLDSBORO, N. C., March 24, 1865

DEAR SIR:—On reaching Goldsboro yesterday I find many letters and among them yours of January 27—one of later date I think reached me at Fayetteville a fortnight since.  I thank you kindly for your kindly expressions.  As my opinions of the various questions which arise in the progress of events are formed for my own use, and not designed to please the people, or self-constituted representatives of the people I am utterly indifferent whether they please or displease.  I am a better judge of what is right and proper touching the negro with who I deal hourly, than Ben Butler, Sumner, Giddings, or any mere theorist dealing with the hypothetical negro, of their own creation.  If I risk my life & health in the vindication of a cause; I claim to prove my sincerity by a more honest test than all the mouthings of the noisiest preacher or demagogue.  I believe the honest working People of the United States agree with me, to fight to maintain the government according to form bequeathed to us, and not to carry out any specialty.  When the just powers of the President[,] Congress & Supreme Court are recognized by all the people of our country, reason  argument may use their sway, and settle the thousand little questions that always have and always  will agitate human councils—but of what use is congress?  or laws  when the Marshal & Sheriff cant go & enforce his writs?—Then the sword steps in and commands the Peace.  When peace is restored, the men find it is to their interest to submit to Law, whether right or wrong, then the machinery resumes its motion, and generally all interests are reconciled.

I have always thought we mixed up too many little side issues in this War.  We should make a single plain issue & fight it out.  The extreme Radicals, North & South, have long since dodged, shirked the dangers of this War & left the Moderates to blow each others brains out.  I again repeat I make up my opinions for facts & reasoning, and not to suit anybody but myself.  If people dont like my opinions, it makes little difference as I dont solicit their opinions or votes.  But a man who preached and thunders offensive opinions, and when the storm raises, sneaks out and lets others in to catch the blows is a villain ten thousand times worse than a murderer, and I know many such who are coiled away in fancied security, but the day will come when they will be dragged out and made to taste the cup they have drugged—We have no time for this now—The Constitution & Laws must be obeyed implicitly from the Lakes to the Gulf and from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

I see my name occasionally alluded to in connection with some popular office.  You may tell all that I would rather serve four years in the Sing Sing penitentiary than in Washington, & I believe I could come out a better man.  If that aint emphatic enough use stronger expressions, and I will endorse them.  Let those who love niggers better than white folks follow me, and we will see who loves his country best—A nigger as such is a most excellent fellow, but he is not fit to marry, to associate or vote with me or mine.

Your friend,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCES: “The Negro Question,” The Wichita Weekly Beacon, Wichita, Kansas, Firday January 31, 1890, p. 1; “Sherman on the Hypothetical Negro,” Iron County Register, Ironton, Missouri, Thursday, January 30, 1890, p. 4;  Brooks D Simpson & Jean V. Berlin, Editors, Sherman's Civil War: Selected Correspondence of William T. Sherman 1860-1865, p. 832-3.

George Fries* to Howell Cobb, September 4, 1848

Hanoverton, Ohio, Sept. 4th '48.

My Dear Sir: When we parted at Washington I promised to write as soon as I had looked over the whole field in Ohio and scanned well our political prospects. I have been home two weeks and have spent near all that time in traveling over my district, and, in company with Col. Weller, over part of the Western Reserve. On my way home I passed through the Reserve from Cleveland, and then saw clearly that the Taylor party there was “among the things that were." Since then, Root, Giddings and Crowell have been renominated (I may be mistaken as to the latter) — all anti-Taylor men. Indeed all the strong Whigs on the Reserve are out against Taylor. Among democrats, in that section of the state, there is very little defection. I attended with Weller immense massmeetings last week at New Lisbon, Youngstown, Carrollton and Steubenville.

Youngstown is on the Reserve. I have never seen but one as large a meeting in my life. The best men of our party were there, and assured us that, whilst Van Burenism was eating out the vitals of Whiggery, it would take it as long to fatten on what it gets off democracy as it would have required those asses to have fattened that are said in the good old Book to have “snuffed up the East wind.” The truth is, the democracy in that quarter have been whipped long enough to stand up to anything.

In my district — where Tappan resides—we have some trouble, but much less than the Whigs. From present appearance I think Van Buren will take off five to ten Whigs to one democrat. So will it be in the whole southern, southwestern, N. W., and southeastern part of the state. Take it all in all then, I am happy to say that we are all as sanguine of success for Cass in this state as we are that the sun will rise and set. If you or your Southern friends have a doubt of Ohio, lay it aside. All's well, rest assured of that.

Of Weller's prospects let me say a word. If all the factions that have heretofore opposed us should unite on Ford, he will be elected. This I think they cannot do. So Weller thinks; and all appearances now indicate that Ford's prospects are daily declining. He has thus far not dared to define his position. Let him do that, either for Taylor or Van Buren, and his game is up. As he now stands both factions doubt him, and from both will there be a loss. The few Van Buren democrats will go Weller. So much for Ohio. How stands Georgia? Will you be sure to carry her for Cass? And what is the state of feeling and prospects of success in the whole South? I trust you will write as soon as possible and state to me what we may look for with certainty. There are some here who fear the South.

I had a glorious trip home. Mr. Turner and family were in company to Cleveland, both in good health and both speaking very frequently of you, your wife and sister in terms that showed clearly that they remembered you all with friendly and grateful hearts.

I hope you'll remember me to your sister, and say that I regretted very much not having had time to call before my departure, to bid her good-bye. I hope we shall see you all next winter.

_______________

* Member of Congress from Ohio, 1845-1849.

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. 124-5

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, December 28, 1851

South Boston, Dec. 28, 1851.

My dear Sumner: — I received to-day the revised copy of your speech, and thank you for it. It is a beautiful and characteristic speech; and had you stopped where you say, “and here I might stop,” it would have had my heartiest approval. What follows does not please me; nay! it pains and grieves me. Perhaps I cannot give you any good reason for my dissent, because I am not your equal in logical power; I yield habitually to your reasoning; but where my moral instincts lead me to differ with you, you cannot shake me. They have rarely led me so to do, but in this case they rise up, and will be laid by no magic of logic; and they tell me you are wrong. I can understand that Mann and Giddings and Allen,¹ all my superiors, vastly so, in knowledge and power, should approve your sentiment, for they are lawyers, statesmen if you will, and bow themselves with what seems to me a superstitious reverence before the "Law of Nations," as expounded by Grotius, Puffendorf and others.

Do you not yourself, dear Sumner, have too much reverence of this kind? Does it not amount to blind veneration?

You talk about “that Supreme Law, the world's collected will, which overarches the Grand Commonwealth of Christian Nations!”

The world's collected will! in God's name what do you mean? The world is the people of the world; and this “Supreme Law” was not enacted by the people, nor for the people, but by the selfish few who have governed and oppressed the peoples — enacted or rather acted in the interests and for the preservation of the rulers, and not in the interests of the people.

“The Grand Commonwealth of Christian States” — where — when was there ever such a thing or anything approaching it?

It is a mockery to call the Governments of Europe Christian. They hate; they do ever to others as they would not be done to; they try to overreach and undermine and injure and destroy each other. A precious set of piratical combinations against the true interests of the people and the real progress of humanity to be dignified with the name of a “Commonwealth of Christian States!”

This is mere rhetoric, my dear Sumner, and poor rhetoric, for everything is poor that is not true.

You say “what that code forbids you, forbear to do!” and I am sorry you said it, for you may have to unsay it if you continue to be among the powers that embody the sentiment of our people in the stirring times that are coming. Many and many of the laws of your venerated code of national law will be rent asunder and trampled upon in that resurrection day of the people's rights when the principles of international communication shall be settled not with a view to the interest of the governors but the governed.

The law of nations! Why, what is a nation? Is it an entity, a principle, an enduring thing? No! but a temporary arrangement, a convenient classification for those whose motto is divide et impera: a classification which your law of nations would fain keep up, but which is fast disappearing as the sentiment [of] human brotherhood is passing from the abstract into the concrete.

The only fault I have found with Kossuth (and I find the same with you), is the assumption of the innate reality, the great importance, the enduring nature of these national distinctions and divisions. A people united under one government, living within certain geographical boundaries, may do whatever they choose, may enslave, oppress and outrage in every possible way those of a certain sect or colour living within their borders; and those nations over the border, though they may hear the groans of the victims, have no right to interfere. This is not human brotherhood: we were men before we were citizens,² and though we are to look first to the interests of our immediate neighbours and countrymen, we are not [to] overlook the claims of our brethren over the border. I know what you will say — you will use all moral means, but you will never use force — you will have no wars. Against this, again, all the instincts of my nature revolt. God gives us power, force, and the instinct to use it, and though it is better never to use it in war, yet it may be the only means in our power to save the perishing. I tell you, Sumner, as I have often told you before, these instincts of ours, this combativeness and this destructiveness, though destined to die out by and by, when the moral sentiment becomes supreme, have yet their work to do in the suppression of wrong and the establishment of right. Suppose your neighbour is beating his wife and his children, and you hear their cries, and you cannot stop him by any moral means, will you not knock him down and tie him? If you would not, then ought God to wither the arm and shrivel the knuckles that will not use the strength He lent them.

And do you not hear the cries of people over the border, and say, “Oh! I must not interfere, you are not of my people, you are only men and women, not my fellow citizens; the ‘law which overarches the Grand Commonwealth of Christian States’ forbids me to employ the force which God has given me in your behalf, and what that forbids, I cannot do.”

You say that “against every purpose” you will uphold the peaceful neutrality of your country. Now, my dear Sumner, this seems to me a wrong doctrine and a selfish doctrine. Our country is growing with a giant growth; in a few years its strength may become so great, it may so command the commercial and monetary interest of the globe that no nation would dare to risk its enmity; I say this may possibly be: and yet you would so tie up our hands that we could not interfere even if another partition of Poland, or another Massacre of Parga³ or a St. Bartholomew's Eve, were to be enacted. It would be none of our business according to your doctrine, though another Herod slew all the infants over the border, or the rivers on the other side of the mountains were red with the blood of Huguenots, or another Poland shrieked as her last Kosciusko fell.

It is true you say “you would swell with indignation at the steps of tyranny;” but, Lord bless you, if you should swell until you burst, you would not do half so much good as by a kick and a lick at the tyrant.

Sumner, I know that abstractly and logically your peace principles seem sound, and I doubt not they will finally prevail; but there is a time for all things; and so long as avowed tyrants go about tying up people and flogging them, it is the business of somebody who has the power, to knock the tyrant down and let the people up.

Nobody who knows your generous sympathetic nature will ever suspect you of selfishness or of irony, but a stranger might almost suspect you of both, as you apostrophize Kossuth, and tell him “to be content with outgushing sympathy,” while you deny him any material aid; “to trust in God,” while you refuse him, and tell every other nation to refuse him, the aid of means, by which alone God ever does anything.

I have thus loosely and rapidly put down some passing thoughts for your consideration.

But the principal one is this; and this, dear Sumner, has disturbed me more than all: it seems to me that all this latter part of your speech is de trop; is uncalled for; is suggested by a desire to set forth and reiterate your peace principles, in forgetfulness of the harm it may do to the downcast, the struggling, the almost desperate patriots of Europe. Why tell the Despots that under no circumstances will we ever resort to the kind of interference which alone they fear, or care much for? What care they for our “outgushing sympathy” or our “God speed” to patriots, or our swelling bosoms — so that we will only keep quiet, and hold our hands off while they bind their victims securely — and put off, for years incalculable, the emancipation of their people?

If you will be as harmless as a dove, at least be as cunning as a serpent, and do not tell the Despot that you will show nothing but a white feather.

Kossuth has partly exposed the miserable charlatanerie of secrecy in diplomatic intercourse; I wish he had gone further and said that an honest, brave and intelligent people ought absolutely to forbid any secret negotiations, and insist upon every despatch being public. I hope you will move in this matter. I never read of a member of your Senate or of the House asking the President to communicate some information provided in his opinion the public interests do not forbid it, without a feeling that we are grossly humbugged (pardon the word).

How can truth ever do any harm but by being concealed — rotting in the dark? But methinks before throwing aside entirely the old maxims of diplomacy and statesmanship (forsooth !) I would at least use that part which allowed me to conceal from the despots of Europe the (to them comforting and encouraging) fact that never under any circumstances would we be driven by any atrocities of theirs to interfere in behalf of those our unfortunate brethren whom they hold in their grasp, and may legally hold by the “Great Law which overarches the Grand Commonwealth of Christian Nations.” Fas est ab hoste doceri; and if I am to be bound by the Devil's code, let me learn all I can of his mode of working, and counteract him where I may.

I have wanted to sit down and write something about this matter for publication — but alas! I find fast creeping over me a disinclination for any work of the kind — and my deep interest in everything that touches you or your fame, has, I fear, led me to feel more about this matter than my devotedness to the right and good.

At any rate I have done one duty of friendship and told you frankly how much in my opinion the latter part of your speech falls short of the high standard you usually maintain. This is the speech of Lawyer Sumner, Senator Sumner — not of generous, chivalrous, high-souled Charles Sumner, who went with me into the Broad Street riot,³ and who, if need had been, would have defended the women and children in the houses, by pitching their ruffianly assailants downstairs. Enough; I will not begin upon another sheet. Good night, God bless you.

Ever thine,

S. G. h.

_______________

¹ Charles Allen, then a Congressman.

² “Before man made us citizens, great Nature made us men.” — Lowell.

³ By Ali Pasha.

⁴ See ante, page 97.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 355-60

Hopkins Holsey to Howell Cobb, December 31, 1847

Athens, Ga., Dec. 31st, 1847.

Dr. Sir: I avail myself of a leisure moment to reply to your communication of the¹ ——. Your favor in sending to this office the National Intelligencer is duly appreciated, in as much as the editor of the Union admits that his reports of the proceedings of Congress, thus far, have not been accurate. I find this to be the case particularly in regard to Mr. Giddings's instructions to the Judiciary Committee relative to the slave trade in the District of Columbia. These instructions as reported in the Intelligencer open up the whole question of property in slaves; and the double vote of Mr. Winthrop, in first deciding the tie vote against the South, and afterwards upon the correction of the Journal repeating his position, is peculiarly unfortunate for the Southern Whigs. It is also an unlucky omen for them that Northern Democrats were the only members from the non-slaveholding states, voting against the agitation of the question. In the other wing of the Capitol a similar mishap seems to have befallen them almost at the same time upon the movement of John P. Hale on the same subject, in the disposition of which I observe all the Northern democratic Senators voting with the entire South to lay the question of reception on the table, and all the Northern Whigs voting against it.

Previous to this conclusive demonstration by the Northern Democrats in both Houses came the resolutions by Mr. Dickinson of New York, which assume the same ground taken by Mr. Dallas in Pennsylvania last summer. Satisfactory as this position must be to us in all respects (leaving out the absolute monomania of the Calhoun faction) it becomes us to ascertain, before we adopt it as the basis of our action in the next campaign, whether the Northern Democracy will rally to its support? This is the all important preliminary question to be decided before we can properly solve that other question, whether we should take the basis of Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Dallas. I perceive in your letter the expression of a belief that our Northern friends will come to the support of Dallas and Dickinson and Cass ground. By the bye, this is the first and most gratifying intimation that we have here of Gen. Cass's position. Resuming the question which of these two propositions, leaving the matter to be settled by the Territories or adopting the Missouri basis, will best unite the Northern Democracy, I can only say at this distance you have a better opportunity of judging than I can possibly have as to the actual state of things North. If our friends there are of the opinion that they can stand better upon one of these propositions than the other, of course we should let them have their own way. They are certainly better judges than we can be of what they may be able to effect. It is needless to say to you that the Southern Democrats will be satisfied with either position.

You will however agree with me that great caution should be observed by us in weighing the evidences of the state of Northern feeling. Buchanan, Dallas, Cass are all for the Presidency; and may not the fact that Mr. Buchanan having broken ground on the Missouri basis have operated upon the other two to vary their positions from his, and thus mislead us? Both of the latter have numerous friends who will adhere to their positions, and could we be assured they were sufficiently numerous to give tone to the Northern Democracy, the question would be settled. But I apprehend that the surer data of conjecture on our part should be laid deeper in the nature of things than the mere personal or immediate political attachments to individuals, however prominent they may be.

Upon a survey of the whole ground, I must express to you my strong apprehension that our Northern friends can not be brought to any other position with half the strength that they would rally to the Missouri basis. You will perceive that I treat it alone as a practical question. Let me now assign you a few reasons. First, the Herkimer men in New York will not yield to Mr. Dickinson's or Dallas's ground. Their pride, their passions, are all enlisted against it. Secondly, the Democrats of New Hampshire occupy the same ground as the Radicals of New York. If we adopt the Missouri basis may we not yet hope that both of these States will yet be saved? The ground of my hopes may be found in Clingman's speech. It is difficult to convince our Northern friends that Congress has not the complete control of this question. You know how they stood in relation to the constitutional power over the District. The Missouri basis will enable them to retain their constitutional prepossessions and yet to seek refuge from an unjust, unequal or destructive exercise of the power.

The South on the other hand may retain its constitutional opinions and yet yield to the Missouri basis for the sake of peace and harmony. This idea that constitutional questions may not be compromised is all fallacious. In Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Cartwright on the powers of the state and federal governments, speaking of questions of this nature he says, “if they can neither be avoided or compromised,” etc.

There is however another and more conclusive view in favor of occupying the compromise ground to which I ask your attention. Henry Clay holds the card in his hand which he is yet to play upon this subject. He will wait for us to shew our hands. If he finds we have adopted Mr. Dickinson's ground — he will himself trump us with the Missouri Compromise, and win the game m spite of us! Clingman's speech shews how easily it could be done. Mr. Clay is the father (if I mistake not) of that Compromise. He will rally his party to it and kill us with the word Union. We might struggle in vain. The Democratic party of Georgia is already committed, in the convention of last spring. Our press, with but one exception, are committed also. Virginia is committed, South Carolina even is now committed by a unanimous vote to abide the Missouri line. Leading politicians all through the South are committed. We can not war against a position which we have already sanctioned." If the issue should be formed by the two parties in this manner, Mr. Clay would sweep through the non-slaveholding States with irresistible power, and find none but a partial check, at least in the South. I am therefore of the opinion that, strengthened as the Compromise has been by the recent developments in the South, and strong as it must be in the nature of things North, that we should never relinquish it. We must occupy it in the Baltimore Convention or the Whigs will, and kill us off at the South with our men weapons. You will have observed also in the recent democratic meeting at the Museum in Philadelphia that the Missouri line was adopted. This is at least evidence of the state of feeling and opinion among our Northern friends. It was unanimously adopted.

The Herkimer men will send delegates to the convention. So will the Conservatives. Both delegations should be admitted. The Ultras will eventually find so strong a current against them, that they would fain compromise. But if that word is not to be known in the Convention, they will return home enemies to the party. This will probably be the case with the N. Hampshire delegation also. It may also be the case with Maine and Rhode Island. Besides, the Compromise is so intimately blended with the idea of preserving the Union that hosts of men of all parties, North and South, will follow the banner upon which it may be inscribed. If we do not write it upon ours, the Whigs will upon theirs, and we must fall under its influence.

P. S. — The Ultras, North, says that Dallas's proposition virtually excludes Union. That's their feeling—we must respect it, though erroneous. Exclusion either way would weaken the bonds of Union, and thus our own shaft would recoil upon us.

_______________

¹ Blank in the original.

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. 91-4

William T. Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, October 29, 1859

Steamer L. M. Kennett [at Cairo], Saturday, Oct. 29, 1859.

. . . Should my health utterly fail me or abolition drive me and all moderate men from the South, then we can retreat down the Hocking and exist until time puts us away under ground. This is not poetically expressed but is the basis of my present plans.

I find southern men, even as well informed as ——— as big fools as the abolitionists. Though Brown's whole expedition proves clearly that [while] the northern people oppose slavery in the abstract, yet very few [will] go so far as to act. Yet the extreme southrons pretend to think that the northern people have nothing to do but to steal niggers and to preach sedition.

John's¹ position and Tom's² may force me at times to appear opposed to extreme southern views, or they may attempt to extract from me promises I will not give, and it may be that this position as the head of a military college, south may be inconsistent with decent independence. I don't much apprehend such a state of case, still feeling runs so high, where a nigger is concerned, that like religious questions, common sense is disregarded, and knowledge of the character of mankind in such cases leads me to point out a combination of events that may yet operate on our future.

I have heard men of good sense say that the union of the states any longer was impossible, and that the South was preparing for a change. If such a change be contemplated and overt acts be attempted of course I will not go with the South, because with slavery and the whole civilized world opposed to it, they in case of leaving the union will have worse wars and tumults than now distinguish Mexico. If I have to fight hereafter I prefer an open country and white enemies. I merely allude to these things now because I have heard a good deal lately about such things, and generally that the Southern States by military colleges and organizations were looking to a dissolution of the Union. If they design to protect themselves against negroes and abolitionists I will help; if they propose to leave the Union on account of a supposed fact that the northern people are all abolitionists like Giddings and Brown then I will stand by Ohio and the northwest.

I am on a common kind of boat. River low. Fare eighteen dollars. A hard set aboard; but at Cairo I suppose we take aboard the railroad passengers, a better class. I have all my traps safe aboard, will land my bed and boxes at Red River, will go on to Baton Rouge, and then be governed by circumstances.

The weather is clear and cold and I have a bad cough, asthma of course, but hope to be better tomorrow. I have a stateroom to myself, but at Cairo suppose we will have a crowd; if possible I will keep a room to myself in case I want to burn the paper³ of which I will have some left, but in case of a second person being put in I can sleep by day and sit up at night, all pretty much the same in the long run. . .

_______________

¹ John Sherman. — Ed.

² Thomas Ewing Jr., brother of Mrs. Sherman. - Ed.

³ Nitre paper burned to relieve asthma.— Ed.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, Editor, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 43-5

John Brown's Interview with Senator James M. Mason, Congressman Clement L Vallandigham, and Others, October 19, 1859

Senator Mason. Can you tell us who furnished money for your expedition?

John Brown. I furnished most of it myself; I cannot implicate others. It is by my own folly that I have been taken. I could easily have saved myself from it, had I exercised my own better judgment rather than yielded to my feelings.

Mason. You mean if you had escaped immediately?

Brown. No. I had the means to make myself secure without any escape; but I allowed myself to be surrounded by a force by being too tardy. I should have gone away; but I had thirty odd prisoners, whose wives and daughters were in tears for their safety, and I felt for them. Besides, I wanted to allay the fears of those who believed we came here to burn and kill. For this reason I allowed the train to cross the bridge, and gave them full liberty to pass on. I did it only to spare the feelings of those passengers and their families, and to allay the apprehensions that you had got here in your vicinity a band of men who had no regard for life and property, nor any feelings of humanity.

Mason. But you killed some people passing along the streets quietly.

Brown. Well, sir, if there was anything of that kind done, it was without my knowledge. Your own citizens who were my prisoners will tell you that every possible means was taken to prevent it. I did not allow my men to fire when there was danger of killing those we regarded as innocent persons, if I could help it. They will tell you that we allowed ourselves to be fired at repeatedly, and did not return it.

A Bystander. That is not so. You killed an unarmed man at the corner of the house over there at the water-tank, and another besides.

Brown. See here, my friend; it is useless to dispute or contradict the report of your own neighbors who were my prisoners.

Mason. If you would tell us who sent you here, — who provided the means, — that would be information of some value.

Brown. I will answer freely and faithfully about what concerns myself, — I will answer anything I can with honor, — but not about others.

Mr. Vallandigham (who had just entered). Mr. Brown, who sent you here?

Brown. No man sent me here; it was my own prompting and that of my Maker, or that of the Devil, — whichever you please to ascribe it to. I acknowledge no master in human form.

Vallandigham. Did you get up the expedition yourself?

Brown. I did.

Vallandigham. . Did you get up this document that is called a Constitution?

Brown. I did. They are a constitution and ordinances of my own contriving and getting up.

Vallandigham. How long have you been engaged in this business?

Brown. From the breaking out of the difficulties in Kansas. Four of my sons had gone there to settle, and they induced me to go. I did not go there to settle, but because of the difficulties.

Mason. How many are there engaged with you in this movement?

Brown. Any questions that I can honorably answer I will, — not otherwise. So far as I am myself concerned, I have told everything truthfully. I value my word, sir.

Mason. What was your object in coming?

Brown. We came to free the slaves, and only that.

A Volunteer. How many men, in all, had you?

Brown. I came to Virginia with eighteen men only, besides myself.

Volunteer. What in the world did you suppose you could do here in Virginia with that amount of men?

Brown. Young man, I do not wish to discuss that question here.

Volunteer. You could not do anything.

Brown. Well, perhaps your ideas and mine on military subjects would differ materially.

Mason. How do you justify your acts?

Brown I think, my friend, yon are guilty of a great wrong against God and humanity, — I say it without wishing to be offensive, — and it would be perfectly right for any one to interfere with you so far as to free those you wilfully and wickedly hold in bondage. I do not say this insultingly.

Mason. I understand that

Brown. I think I did right, and that others will do right who interfere with you at any time and at all times. I hold that the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you,” applies to all who would help others to gain their liberty.

Lieutenant Stuart. But don't you believe in the Bible?

Brown. Certainly I do.

Mason. Did you consider this a military organization in this Constitution? I have not yet read it.

Brown. I did, in some sense. I wish you would give that paper close attention.

Mason. You consider yourself the commander-in-chief of these “provisional” military forces?

Brown. I was chosen, agreeably to the ordinance of a certain document, commander-in-chief of that force.

Mason. What wages did you offer?

Brown. None.

Stuart. “The wages of sin is death.”

Brown. I would not have made such a remark to you if you had been a prisoner, and wounded, in my hands.

A Bystander. Did you not promise a negro in Gettysburg twenty dollars a month?

Brown. I did not.

Mason. Does this talking annoy you?

Brown. Not in the least.

Vallandigham. Have you lived long in Ohio?

Brown. I went there in 1805. I lived in Summit County, which was then Portage County. My native place is Connecticut; my father lived there till 1805.

Vallandigham. Have you been in Portage County lately?

Brown. I was there in June last.

Vallandigham. When in Cleveland, did you attend the Fugitive Slave Law Convention there?

Brown. No. I was there about the time of the sitting of the court to try the Oberlin rescuers. I spoke there publicly on that subject; on the Fugitive Slave Law and my own rescue. Of course, so far as I had any influence at all, I was supposed to justify the Oberlin people for rescuing the slave, because I have myself forcibly taken slaves from bondage. I was concerned in taking eleven slaves from Missouri to Canada last winter. I think I spoke in Cleveland before the Convention. I do not know that I had conversation with any of the Oberlin rescuers. I was sick part of the time I was in Ohio with the ague, in Ashtabula County.

Vallandigham. Did you see anything of Joshua R. Giddings there?

Brown. I did meet him.

Vallandigham. Did you converse with him?

Brown. I did. I would not tell you, of course, anything that would implicate Mr. Giddings; but I certainly met with him and had conversations with him.

Vallandigham. About that rescue case?

Brown. Yes; I heard him express his opinions upon it very freely and frankly.

Vallandigham. Justifying it?

Brown. Yes, sir; I do not compromise him, certainly, in saying that.

Vallandigham. Will you answer this: Did you talk with Giddings about your expedition here?

Brown. No, I won't answer that; because a denial of it I would not make, and to make any affirmation of it I should be a great dunce.

Vallandigham. Have you had any correspondence with parties at the North on the subject of this movement?

Brown. I have had correspondence.

A Bystander. Do you consider this a religious movement?

Brown. It is, in my opinion, the greatest service man can render to God.

Bystander. Do you consider yourself an instrument in the hands of Providence?

Brown. I do.

Bystander. Upon what principle do you justify your acts?

Brown. Upon the Golden Rule. I pity the poor in bondage that have none to help them: that is why I am here; not to gratify any personal animosity, revenge, or vindictive spirit. It is my sympathy with the oppressed and the wronged, that are as good as you and as precious in the sight of God.

Bystander. Certainly. But why take the slaves against their will?

Brown. I never did.

Bystander. You did in one instance, at least.

Stephens, the other wounded prisoner, here said, “You are right. In one case I know the negro wanted to go back.”

Bystander. Where did you come from?

Stephens. I lived in Ashtabula County, Ohio.

Vallandigham. How recently did you leave Ashtabula County?

Stephens. Some months ago. I never resided there any length of time; have been through there.

Vallandigham. How far did you live from Jefferson?

Brown. Be cautious, Stephens, about any answers that would commit any friend. I would not answer that.

[Stephens turned partially over with a groan of pain, and was silent. ]

Vallandigham. Who are your advisers in this movement?

Brown. I cannot answer that. I have numerous sympathizers throughout the entire North.

Vallandigham. In northern Ohio?

Brown. No more there than anywhere else; in all the free States.

Vallandigham. But you are not personally acquainted in southern Ohio?

Brown. Not very much.

A Bystander. Did you ever live in Washington City?

Brown. I did not. I want you to understand, gentlemen, and [to the reporter of the “Herald”] you may report that, — I want you to understand that I respect the rights of the poorest and weakest of colored people, oppressed by the slave system, just as much as I do those of the most wealthy and powerful. That is the idea that has moved me, and that alone. We expected no reward except the satisfaction of endeavoring to do for those in distress and greatly oppressed as we would be done by. The cry of distress of the oppressed is my reason, and the only thing that prompted me to come here.

Bystander. Why did you do it secretly?

Brown. Because I thought that necessary to success; no other reason.

Bystander. Have you read Gerrit Smith's last letter?

Brown. What letter do you mean?

Bystander. The “New York Herald” of yesterday, in speaking of this affair, mentions a letter in this way : —

“Apropos of this exciting news, we recollect a, very significant passage in one of Gerrit Smith's letters, published a month or two ago, in which he speaks of the folly of attempting to strike the shackles off the slaves by the force of moral suasion or legal agitation, and predicts that the next movement made in the direction of negro emancipation would be an insurrection in the South.”

Brown. I have not seen the “New York Herald” for some days past; but I presume, from your remark about the gist of the letter, that I should concur with it. I agree with Mr. Smith that moral suasion is hopeless. I don't think the people of the slave States will ever consider the subject of slavery in its true light till some other argument is resorted to than moral suasion.

Vallandigham. Did you expect a general rising of the slaves in case of your success?

Brown. No, sir; nor did I wish it. I expected to gather them up from time to time, and set them free.

Vallandigham. Did you expect to hold possession here till then?

Brown. Well, probably I had quite a different idea. I do not know that I ought to reveal my plans. I am here a prisoner and wounded, because I foolishly allowed myself to be so. You overrate your strength in supposing I could have been taken if I had not allowed it. I was too tardy after commencing the open attack — in delaying my movements through Monday night, and up to the time I was attacked by the Government troops. It was all occasioned by my desire to spare the feelings of my prisoners and their families and the community at large. I had no knowledge of the shooting of the negro Heywood.

Vallandigham. What time did you commence your organization in Canada?

Brown. That occurred about two years ago; in 1858.

Vallandigham. Who was the secretary?

Brown. That I would not tell if I recollected; but I do not recollect. I think the officers were elected in May, 1858. I may answer incorrectly, but not intentionally. My head is a little confused by wounds, and my memory obscure on dates, etc.

Dr. Biggs. Were you in the party at Dr. Kennedy's house?

Brown. I was the head of that party. I occupied the house to mature my plans. I have not been in Baltimore to purchase caps.

Dr. Biggs. What was the number of men at Kennedy's?

Brown. I decline to answer that.

Dr. Biggs. Who lanced that woman's neck on the hill?

Brown. I did. I have sometimes practised in surgery when I thought it a matter of humanity and necessity, and there was no one else to do it; but I have not studied surgery.

Dr. Biggs. It was done very well and scientifically. They have been very clever to the neighbors, I have been told, and we had no reason to suspect them, except that we could not understand their movements. They were represented as eight or nine persons; on Friday there were thirteen.

Brown. There were more than that.

Q. Where did you get arms?

A. I bought them.

Q. In what State?

A. That I will not state.

Q. How many guns?

A. Two hundred Sharpe's rifles and two hundred revolvers, — what is culled the Massachusetts Arms Company's revolvers, a little under navy size.

Q. Why did you not take that swivel you left in the house?

A. I had no occasion for it. It was given to me a year or two ago.

Q. In Kansas?

A. No. I had nothing given to me in Kansas.

Q. By whom, and in what State?

A. I decline to answer. It is not properly a swivel; it is a very large rifle with a pivot. The ball is larger than a musket ball; it is intended for a slug.

Reporter. I do not wish to annoy you; but if you have anything further you would like to say, I will report it.

Brown. I have nothing to say, only that I claim to be here in carrying out a measure I believe perfectly justifiable, and not to act the part of an incendiary or ruffian, but to aid those suffering great wrong. I wish to say, furthermore, that you had better — all you people at the South —  prepare yourselves for a settlement of this question, that must come up for settlement sooner than you are prepared for it. The sooner you are prepared the better. You may dispose of me very easily, — I am nearly disposed of now; but this question is still to be settled, — this negro question I mean; the end of that is not yet. These wounds were inflicted upon me — both sabre cuts on my head and bayonet stabs in different parts of my body — some minutes after I had ceased fighting and had consented to surrender, for the benefit of others, not for my own.¹ I believe the Major would not have been alive; I could have killed him just as easy as a mosquito when he came in, but I supposed he only came in to receive our surrender. There had been loud and long calls of “surrender” from us, — as loud as men could yell; but in the confusion and excitement I suppose we were not heard. I do not think the Major, or any one, meant to butcher us after we had surrendered.

An Officer. Why did you not surrender before the attack?

Brown. I did not think it was my duty or interest to do Bo. We assured the prisoners that we did not wish to harm them, and they should be set at liberty. I exercised my best judgment, not believing the people would wantonly sacrifice their own fellow-citizens, when we offered to let them go on condition of being allowed to change our position about a quarter of a mile. The prisoners agreed by a vote among themselves to pass across the bridge with us. We wanted them only as a sort of guarantee of our own safety, — that we should not be fired into. We took them, in the first place, as hostages and to keep them from doing any harm. We did kill some men in defending ourselves, but I saw no one fire except directly in self-defence. Our orders were strict not to harm any one not in arms against us.

Q. Brown, suppose you had every nigger in the United States, what would you do with them?

A. Set them free.

Q. Your intention was to carry them off and free them?

A. Not at all.

A Bystander. To set them free would sacrifice the life of every man in this community.

Brown. I do not think so.

Bystander. I know it. I think you are fanatical.

Brown. And I think you are fanatical. “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad,” and you are mad.

Q. Was it your only object to free the negroes?

A. Absolutely our only object.

Q. But you demanded and took Colonel Washington's silver and watch?

A. Yes; we intended freely to appropriate the property of slaveholders to carry out our object. It was for that, and only that, and with no design to enrich ourselves with any plunder whatever.

Bystander. Did you know Sherrod in Kansas? I understand you killed him.

Brown. I killed no man except in fair fight. I fought at Black Jack Point and at Osawatomie; and if I killed anybody, it was at one of these places.

_______________

¹ At the trial of Copeland the following evidence was given :—

Mr. Sennott. You say that when Brown was down you struck him in the face with your sabre?

Lieutenant Green. Yes.

Q. This was after he was down?

A. Yes; he was down.

Q. How many times. Lieutenant Green, did you strike Brown in the face with your sabre after he was down?

A. Why, sir, he was defending himself with his gun.

Mr. Hunter. I hope the counsel for the defence will not press such questions as these.

SOURCES: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 562-9; "Startling News from Virginia and Maryland - Negro Insurrection at Harper's Ferry - Strange and Exciting Intelligence," The New York Herald, Tuesday, October 18, 1859, Morning Edition, p. 6 to confirm the date of the interview only.