Senator Daniel Webster to Franklin Haven, Thursday Morning, July 11, 1850—8:00 a.m.

Washington, July 11, 1850. Thursday morning, eight o'clock.

MY DEAR SIR,—It is not easy to say what will be the extent of the changes in consequence of General Taylor's death, and Mr. Fillmore's accession. It is at this moment supposed that there will be an entirely new Cabinet. Certainly not more than one or two can remain. Who will succeed to the vacant places, I have no means of saying with any certainty. One thing I feel sure of, and that is that they will be sound men. The President is a sensible man, and a conservative Whig, and is not likely to be in favor of any "isms," such as have votaries at the present day.

I believe Mr. Fillmore favors the Compromise, and there is no doubt that recent events have increased the probability of the passage of that measure. Nothing will be done in congress this week. The funeral ceremonies will take all that remains of it.

P. S. Two o'clock.—I am rather confirmed in the expectation of a total change. Beyond this I know little, and nothing which I can communicate. The idea is now general that the Compromise will go through. I have a few words to say on Monday or Tuesday.

Yours truly,

DAN'L WEBSTER.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 376

Senator Daniel Webster to Franklin Haven, Friday Morning, July 12, 1850

Washington, July 12, 1850. Friday morning.

MY DEAR SIR,—You will hear various rumors respecting appointments to the Cabinet, but none of them will deserve credit any further than they rest on general probability. Nothing is decided as yet. The present Cabinet have all tendered their resignations, but they will not be answered till after the funeral.

The three important departments are State, Treasury, and Interior. I have no doubt some man known to be thoroughly sound in revenue matters, will be appointed to the Treasury. As to the State Department, I have no idea who will have it, although, if the power were with me, I think I could find a man¹ without going out of Massachusetts, who has talent enough, and knowledge enough; but whether he is at this moment so fresh in the minds of the people that his appointment would strike the public mind favorably, may be a doubt. Nobody can well be Secretary of State who has not fortune, unless he be a bachelor. The Secretary of State is the head of the administration, and he must have a house, sometimes to receive guests in. He is of course necessarily in daily communication with the diplomatic corps, which I believe is twice as numerous now as it was twenty years ago.

My dear Sir, you see the spirit of good-will which is manifesting itself here. This is the golden hour of opportunity, be assured. The opposition gentlemen are determined, all the conservative part of them at least, to give the administration fair play; and Mr. Fillmore is well-intentioned and discreet. He will meet with annoyances from the rather overbearing spirit of a certain quarter, but I hope he will stand stiff. If he is successful in forming his administration, I verily believe a prospect is before us for a better state of things than we have enjoyed for twenty years. Yours truly,

DAN'L WEBSTER.

_______________

¹ Mr. Everett.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 376-7

Senator Daniel Webster to Franklin Haven, Tuesday Morning, July 16, 1850

July 16, 1850. Tuesday morning.

MY DEAR SIR,—The President goes slow, but I trust will come out well. He will undoubtedly have a sound Cabinet, and one acceptable to all good Whigs. How able he may make it, 1 cannot say. As yet, I believe he has not committed himself.

I hope we shall at last finish this so long protracted measure in the Senate. The story yesterday was that the extreme South would join the extreme North, and lay the bill on the table, judging it the less evil, in their opinion, to let California come in at once, and the territorial bills go over.

Yours, truly,

DAN'L WEBSTER.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 377

William McLain to Senator Henry Clay, February 9, 1852

COLONIZATION ROOMS, WASHINGTON CITY, February 9, 1852.

DEAR SIR, —At the recent annual meeting of the American Colonization Society, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with our venerable President, the Hon. Henry Clay, in his present protracted illness, by which we are deprived of his presence and able counsels at this annual meeting of our Society, to which he has, from its foundation, devoted himself with signal ability and unwavering fidelity; and that we hold him in affectionate and grateful remembrance for the distinguished services he has rendered in the prosecution of the great scheme of African colonization.

I take great pleasure, my dear sir, in furnishing you with the foregoing resolution.

Hoping, that you may be restored to health, and that this Society may continue to have the honor of your name and influence as its President, I remain, etc.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 626

Senator Henry Clay to Daniel Ullman, March 6, 1852

WASHINGTON, March 6, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR,—I received your favor transmitting an engrossed copy of the address which you did me the honor to make to me on the occasion of presenting the medal which my New York friends had offered me. I thank you for this corrected copy of the address which is very beautifully engrossed.

The medal has been in the possession of the goldsmiths of this place, who desired the custody of it to gratify public curiosity. You wish it returned that a more accurate impression may be made by striking another. I examined it to see if I could discern the defect in the letters to which you refer, and I confess I could not. If to strike it again will occasion any trouble or expense to my friends, I think it might well be avoided, but if you persist in your desire to have it done, I will have it sent to you by Adams' Express next week.

You rightly understood me in expressing a preference for Mr. Fillmore as the Whig candidate for the Presidency. This I did before I left home, and have frequently here in private intercourse, since my arrival at Washington. I care not how generally the fact may be known, but I should not deem it right to publish any formal avowal of that preference under my own signature in the newspapers. Such a course would subject me to the imputation of supposing that my opinions possessed more weight with the public than I apprehend they do. The foundation of my preference is, that Mr. Fillmore has administered the Executive Government with signal success and ability. He has been tried and found true, faithful, honest, and conscientious. I wish to say nothing in derogation from his eminent competitors, they have both rendered great services to their country; the one in the field, the other in the Cabinet. They might possibly administer the Government as well as Mr. Fillmore has done. But then neither of them has been tried; he has been tried in the elevated position he now holds, and I think that prudence and wisdom had better restrain us from making any change without a necessity for it, the existence of which I do not perceive.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 628

Senator John J. Crittenden to Albert T. Burnley, July 19, 1850

July 19, 1850.

DEAR BURNLEY,—I returned from Louisville last evening, where I was suddenly summoned a few days ago to attend the sick and, as was then supposed, dying bed of my son-in-law, Chapman Coleman. I left him much improved, and, as the doctors induced me to hope, out of danger, though still quite ill. This absence delayed the receipt of your telegraphic dispatches, in which you ask me if I will accept the office of Attorney-General, and say that it is important I should answer immediately. A little reflection will show you the difficulty of answering this communication with the telegraphic brevity of a "yes" or "no." Indeed, I find much of the same difficulty in responding to you in any mode. You are upon the spot, and with a nearer and better view of the condition of things. You give me no intimation of your opinions or wishes; nor do you give me to understand that the inquiry was made at the suggestion or by the authority of the President or any other official. I must therefore understand it as more an inquiry of your own, in order, perhaps, to enable you and other friends to press me more effectually for the office. If this be the object and purpose, I could not answer you affirmatively without in substance seeking the office for myself. That I am not willing to do, either in form or substance, directly or indirectly. I would not, for any consideration subject myself to the imputation of endeavoring to force or solicit my way into the cabinet of Mr. Fillmore. There are stations that can be neither agreeably nor usefully occupied except by persons having the personal good will and confidence of the President. My relations with Mr. Fillmore have always been of the most agreeable and amicable character, and I hope they may continue so. It seems to me that if he pleased to desire my acceptance of the office of Attorney-General, the most proper course would be for him to tender it to me; and that the most proper and becoming course for me would be to wait till it was tendered. The tender would then be most honorable to both parties, and certainly most gratefully received by me. I feel that before such an offer it would be indelicate in me to say that I would or would NOT accept. You will appreciate all this without any explanation, and so I shall leave the subject. There is no confidence, Burnley, that I fear to repose in you; and if it should appear to you that there is too much of reserve in this letter to be used towards an old and well-tried friend, I wish you to understand that it is intended to apply to the subject only, and to keep distinct and clear the line of conduct that I sincerely desire to pursue in relation to this matter.

My situation now is not exactly what it was when I declined an invitation to go into the cabinet of General Taylor; and to you, as my friend, my personal friend, I may say that my impression is that I should accept the office if tendered to me; but I will have no agency in seeking or getting it; nor do I wish my friends to place me in any attitude that can be construed into any such seeking; nor do I wish them to give themselves any trouble about the matter. If the offer of the office comes freely and without solicitation, then it comes honorably, and may be taken the more honorably. I think you will now understand me fully, and I have only to add that I am always your friend,

J. J. CRITTENDEN.

To A. T. BURNLEY, Esq.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 374-5

John J. Crittenden on the Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Bill, September 18, 1850

The provisions of the bill, commonly called the fugitive slave bill, and which Congress have submitted to the President for his approval and signature, are not in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution in relation to the writ of habeas corpus.

The expressions used in the last clause of the sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded to "shall prevent all molestation" of the persons to whom granted, "by any process issued," etc., probably mean only what the act of 1793 meant by declaring a certificate under that act a sufficient warrant for the removal of a fugitive; and do not mean a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

There is nothing in the act inconsistent with the Constitution, nor which is not necessary to redeem the pledge which it contains, that fugitive slaves shall be delivered upon the claim of their owners.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S Office,

September 18, 1850.

SIR, I have had the honor to receive your note of this date, informing me that the bill, commonly called the fugitive slave bill, having passed both houses of Congress, had been submitted to you for your consideration, approval, and signature, and requesting my opinion whether the sixth section of that act, and especially the last clause of that section, conflicts with that provision of the Constitution which declares that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

It is my clear conviction that there is nothing in the last clause, nor in any part of the sixth section, nor, indeed, in any of the provisions of the act, which suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or is in any manner in conflict with the Constitution.

The Constitution, in the second section of the fourth article, declares that "no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

It is well known and admitted, historically and judicially, that this clause of the Constitution was made for the purpose of securing to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete ownership in their slaves, as property, in any and every State or Territory of the Union into which they might escape. (Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.) It devolved on the general government, as a solemn duty, to make that security effectual. Their power was not only clear and full, but, according to the opinion of the court in the above-cited case, it was exclusive, the States, severally, being under no obligation, and having no power to make laws or regulations in respect to the delivery of fugitives. Thus the whole power, and with it the whole duty, of carrying into effect this important provision of the Constitution, was with Congress. And, accordingly, soon after the adoption of the Constitution, the act of the 12th of February, 1793, was passed, and that proving unsatisfactory and inefficient, by reason (among other causes) of some minor errors in its details, Congress are now attempting by this bill to discharge a constitutional obligation, by securing more effectually the delivery of fugitive slaves to their owners. The sixth, and most material section, in substance declares that the claimant of the fugitive slave may arrest and carry him before any one of the officers named and described in the bill; and provides that those officers, and each of them, shall have judicial power and jurisdiction to hear, examine, and decide the case in a summary manner, that if, upon such hearing, the claimant, by the requisite proof, shall establish his claim to the satisfaction of the tribunal thus constituted, the said tribunal shall give him a certificate, stating therein the substantial facts of the case, and authorizing him, with such reasonable force as may be necessary, to take and carry said fugitive back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped,—and then, in conclusion, proceeds as follows: "The certificates in this and the first section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever."

There is nothing in all this that does not seem to me to be consistent with the Constitution, and necessary, indeed, to redeem the pledge which it contains, that such fugitives "shall be delivered up on claim" of their owners.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the owner, independent of any aid from State or national legislation, may, in virtue of the Constitution, and his own right of property, seize and recapture his fugitive slave in whatsoever State he may find him, and carry him back to the State or Territory from which he escaped. (Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.) This bill, therefore, confers no right on the owner of the fugitive slave. It only gives him an appointed and peaceable remedy in place of the more exposed and insecure, out not less lawful mode of self-redress; and as to the fugitive slave, he has no cause to complain of this bill,—it adds no coercion to that which his owner himself might, at his own will, rightfully exercise; and all the proceedings which it institutes are but so much of orderly, judicial authority interposed between him and his owner, and consequently of protection to him, and mitigation of the exercise directly by the owner himself of his personal authority. This is the constitutional and legal view of the subject, as sanctioned by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and to that I limit myself.

The act of the 12th of February, 1793, before alluded to, so far as it respects any constitutional question that can arise out of this bill, is identical with it. It authorizes the like arrest of the fugitive slave, the like trial, the like judgment, the like certificate, with the like authority to the owner, by virtue of that certificate as his warrant, to remove him to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and the constitutionality of that act, in all those particulars, has been affirmed by the adjudications of State tribunals, and of the courts of the United States, without a single dissent, so far as I know. (Baldwin, C. C. R. 577, 579.)

I conclude, therefore, that so far as the act of the 12th of February, 1793, has been held to be constitutional, this bill must also be so regarded; and that the custody, restraint, and removal to which the fugitive slave may be subjected under the provisions of this bill, are all lawful, and that the certificate to be granted to the owner is to be regarded as the act and judgment of a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction.

With these remarks as to the constitutionality of the general provisions of the bill, and the consequent legality of the custody and confinement to which the fugitive slave may be subjected under it, I proceed to a brief consideration of the more particular question you have propounded in reference to the writ of habeas corpus, and of the last clause of the sixth section, above quoted, which gives rise to that question.

My opinion, as before expressed, is that there is nothing in that clause or section which conflicts with or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. I think so because the bill says not one word about that writ; because, by the Constitution, Congress is expressly forbidden to suspend the privilege of this writ, "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it;" and therefore such suspension by this act (there being neither rebellion nor invasion) would be a plain and palpable violation of the Constitution, and no intention to commit such a violation of the Constitution, of their duty and their oaths, ought to be imputed to them upon mere constructions and implications; and thirdly, because there is no incompatibility between these provisions of the bill and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in its utmost constitutional latitude.

Congress, in the case of fugitive slaves, as in all other cases within the scope of its constitutional authority, has the unquestionable right to ordain and prescribe for what causes, to what extent, and in what manner persons may be taken into custody, detained, or imprisoned. Without this power they could not fulfill their constitutional trust, nor perform the ordinary and necessary duties of government. It was never heard that the exercise of that legislative power was any encroachment upon or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is only by some confusion of ideas that such a conflict can be supposed to exist. It is not within the province or privilege of this great writ to loose those whom the law has bound. That would be to put a writ granted by the law in opposition to the law, to make one part of the law destructive of another. This writ follows the law and obeys the law. It is issued, upon proper complaint, to make inquiry into the causes of commitment or imprisonment, and its sole remedial power and purpose is to deliver the party from "all manner of illegal confinement." (3 Black. Com. 131.) If upon application to the court or judge for this writ, or if upon its return it shall appear that the confinement complained of was lawful, the writ, in the first instance, would be refused, and in the last the party would be remanded to his former lawful custody.

The condition of one in custody as a fugitive slave is, under this law, so far as respects the writ of habeas corpus, precisely the same as that of all other prisoners under the laws of the United States. The "privilege" of that writ remains alike to all of them, but to be judged of—granted or refused, discharged or enforced—by the proper tribunal, according to the circumstances of each case, and as the commitment and detention may appear to be legal or illegal.

The whole effect of the law may be thus briefly stated: Congress has constituted a tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to determine summarily and without appeal who are fugitives from service or labor under the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, and to whom such service or labor is due. The judgment of every tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction where no appeal lies, is, of necessity, conclusive upon every other tribunal; and therefore the judgment of the tribunal created by this act is conclusive upon all tribunals. Wherever this judgment is made to appear, it is conclusive of the right of the owner to retain in his custody the fugitive from his service, and to remove him back to the place or State from which he escaped. If it is shown upon the application of the fugitive for a writ of habeas corpus, it prevents the issuing of the writ; if upon the return, it discharges the writ and restores or maintains the custody.

This view of the law of this case is fully sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Tobias Watkins, where the court refused to discharge upon the ground that he was in custody under the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, and that that judgment was conclusive upon them. (3 Peters.)

The expressions used in the last clause of the sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded to "shall prevent all molestation" of the persons to whom granted "by any process issued," etc., probably mean only what the act of 1793 meant by declaring a certificate under that act a sufficient warrant for the removal of a fugitive, and certainly do not mean a suspension of the habeas corpus. I conclude by repeating my conviction that there is nothing in the bill in question which conflicts with the Constitution or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir,

Your obedient servant,

J. J. CRITTENDEN.

To the PRESIDENT.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 377-81

John Davis to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, July 25, 1850

NORWICH, July 25, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR—I have just risen from the perusal of the pamphlet you sent me, giving me an account of the public dinner at Old Tammany; and you may be assured I have had a feast. "I breathe deeper and freer." That occasion opens up the dawn of better days, and in a great measure removes the forebodings of our national dissolution. I rose from the perusal with the exclamation, "The confederacy is safe." When the Empire City speaks in such tones and with such unanimity, she will be heard and her influence will be felt. And in relation to yourself, you will allow me to say, the compliment was as well deserved as it was splendid, and I cannot let the opportunity pass without congratulating you upon the occasion. In particular, sir, I wish to manifest my hearty assent to the sentiments of your speech on that occasion as to the only true ground upon which our national identity can be maintained. I have ever been anxious that our Southern brethren should be made sensible of their error at the last election, but think the reproof already administered is abundantly sufficient, and am as ready to shoulder the musket for the rights of the South as for the rights of the North; or, in other words, to maintain the constitution. Your compliment to Mr. Clay was just.

What will be the policy of the new Executive? And how can the Whig party avoid the fruits of their doings? It seems to me the question of boundary between Texas and New Mexico may be more quietly settled by commissioners than by any acts of Congress.

With sentiments of high regard, believe me

Yours truly,

JOHN DAVIS.

Hon. D. S. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 446

Robert Seldon Garnett* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, September 27, 1850

ST. LOUIS, MO., September 27th, 1850.

MY DEAR COUSIN: On my arrival at this place yesterday I heard a rumor to the effect that there was a strong probability that Congress before its adjournment would raise one or two additional regiments of Dragoons for Western service.

I now write to request your kind offices for procuring for me the appointment of Major in one of these Corps. You are fully aware of the importance of this promotion to me, and I need not therefore say anything to you on that head. I make this application upon my own character and services as any other officer would do, yet it may be a matter of some weight with the administration to understand the relations that existed between the late President and myself; and although I consider that my standing and services in the army, fully warrant me in seeking this advancement, I feel safe in saying that in view of my position on Gen[era]l Taylor's personal staff, Gen[era]l Fillmore would be fully sustained by his party at least in giving me the position now asked. I presume you are well acquainted with Mr. Crittenden and Mr. Steanst, and I beg that you will make these facts known to them. To the former gentleman, I shall write directly, but with Mr. Steanst I have no acquaintance whatever.

I shall address Col[onel] Davis and Gen[era]l Jones on this subject, as well as Mr. Conrad, but your assistance will be highly important to my interests, and if convenient, I beg to invoke it. Had Gen[era]l Taylor lived I feel satisfied that this promotion would have been given me unsought, and it was in consequence of expecting some such occasion as the present that I had refrained while he was alive, from annoying him on this or kindred subjects.

To Col. Davis I am personally and fully known and I beg that you will confer with him, should you be able to give this letter any attention. I am perfectly willing to undergo any amount of hard service for any length of time, if I get this promotion.

I beg to hear from you as early as convenient. Please direct to me at Fort Leavenworth, Missouri.

_______________

* As a brigadier general he took command of the Confederate Army in western Virginia in June. 1861 killed at Carrick's Ford, July 13, 1861, while leading his troops.

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. 118-9

Elwood Fisher to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, October 22, 1850

WASHINGTON, [D. C.], October 22, 1850.

DEAR SIR: Yours is received and I herewith send the letter of Mr. Tazewell. You will see how it was mutilated while in the hands of the printer and against my orders, but I have saved every article of the precious paper.

As to Georgia the indications are unfavourable. The tone of the resistance press is not so good as it has been. Elsewhere there is no change, unless in Charlestown, V[irgini]a and in Rockingham [County, Virginia] where by the way you were expected. I got a letter from Bedinger last night who says that Mason made a capital speech at Charlestown, and that it was well received, and that all the Democrats are with us, and the Whigs opposed. The proceedings however have not yet reached here.

By the way that truest test of the state of affairs, the subscriptions to the Press are not coming in so rapidly as immediately after the session closed. The members have either done nothing—or done it in vain. My opinion is they have done about nothing, that is so very customary with them.

You see Filmore has surrendered to Seward, submission is the order of the day.

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. 119-20

Senator Henry Clay to Thomas H. Clay, August 6, 1850

PHILADELPHIA, August 6, 1850.

MY DEAR THOMAS,—I am here on my way to Newport, for which place I proceed to-morrow, and hope to reach it during the night.

I received your letter of the 28th ultimo, and I was gratified to learn that your prospects from the saw-mill were so good.

My relations with Mr. Fillmore are perfectly friendly and confidential. In the appointment of Mr. Crittenden I acquiesced. Mr. F. asked me how we stood? I told him that the same degree of intimacy between us which once existed, no longer prevailed; but that we were on terms of civility. I added that, if he thought of introducing him into his Cabinet, I hoped that no considerations of my present relations to him would form any obstacle.

I shall be very glad if any thing can be done for Carroll, and I will see on my return to Washington.

As to the post-office in Lexington, my wishes will, I anticipate, finally prevail.

I am very much worn down, but I hope that Newport will replace my health and strength.

My love to Mary and the children.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 611

Senator Henry Clay to James B. Clay, December 23, 1850

WASHINGTON, December 23, 1850.

MY DEAR JAMES,—Prior to the receipt of your letter, dated at Ashland the 17th instant, I had addressed a letter to you containing some things not necessary to be repeated here. I have not yet had a good opportunity of conversing with either the President or Mr. Webster about you or your late mission; but the other night at Jenny Lind's concert, sitting by Mr. Webster, he broke forth in extravagant praises of you. I do not think that you ought to put an unfriendly interpretation upon any thing which occurred about your return to Lisbon. Your letter from Geneva of September did not contain an unconditional offer to return. You submitted some point of honor to Mr. Webster. I think he might have sent earlier instructions to you; but I suppose his absence from Washington and his indisposition formed his excuse. In his letter of the 5th November (which I hastily read) he seems to have been undecided whether you wished to return or not, but left it to you to determine. After you returned to the United States I do not think that you ought to have gone back to Lisbon for the temporary purpose of concluding the Convention. And, upon the whole, I have no regrets about it, considering how well and how strongly the President speaks of you, in his annual Message, and in what favorable terms, officially and privately, Mr. Webster speaks of you, and that the public ascribes to you the success of the negotiation. I wrote you that I think you are entitled to your salary up to the 20th November and a quarter beyond, and to indemnity for any loss in furniture, etc., in consequence of your sudden departure from Lisbon. I believe it is usual also to charge for stationery, postage, etc. If you will send me your account I will endeavor to have it settled.

I was in hopes that you would stay with your mother until my return, and that we would then talk about your future. As to your purchase of Ashland, I never desired that you should make it, unless prompted by your own interests and feelings. When I go hence it must be sold, and I have never feared that it would not command a fair and full price.

I should regret deeply to see you set down doing nothing. You must engage in some occupation or you will be miserable. The law, farming, or the public service, are the only pursuits which I suppose present themselves to you. You don't like the first, which is moreover nowhere in Kentucky profitable; and your decision must be between the two others. I had inferred that you were tired of diplomacy, unless you could get a higher grade than that which you lately held. At present there is none that I know of; but perhaps some vacancy may occur. As to elevating the mission to Lisbon, I have heard here of no proposal to that effect. It does not depend, you know, exclusively on the Executive; Congress must sanction it. Possibly after the conclusion of the Convention, if Portugal should desire to elevate the rank of her minister, it may be proposed to reciprocate it by the President; but I do not apprehend that a higher rank would be thought of than that of minister resident.

You did not say whether you were satisfied or not with my sale of your house and lot. I would not have sold it but for your great anxiety to sell. It was a good house, but I never liked its external appearance. The situation was one of the finest in Lexington.

You will direct what I shall do with the draft for $3000 when I receive it from New Orleans.

My love to Susan, Lucy, and the other children.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 613-4

William P. Duval* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, August 13, 1850

AUSTIN, [TEXAS], August 13th, 1850.

DEAR HUNTER: I transmit you the Gover[nor']s message to our Legislature. The people of this state are camly determined to take possession of the Santa Fe country. There is no noise or violent excitement about this subject. When a people know they are rightfully protecting their own dignity and honor and have determined to do it at every hazzard it is pretty certain they will effect their object. The first hostile gun that is fired in this contest disolves the union. Every southern State will stand by Texas. Hers is the common cause of the South.

Your course in the Senate does honor to your State and yourself. As a Virginian I am proud of you. We have heard here the compromise bill has failed. I rejoice at the fact I had hoped it would have been so amended as to place the South on an equality with the North, but it could not be so formed, and less than equality, would disgrace the South. Our Governor's message speaks the voice of this state that you may rely upon, and his views will be carried out by the Legislature. Virginia will have to head the Southern confederacy. She has arms for herself and two [other] Southern States, and if the union is broken, we will save the North all further trouble with California and New Mexico, for we will take them to our exclusive use.

(P. S.) If Taylor had lived our Union would have vanished as it certainly will if Mr. Filmore pursues the same policy. Such a President as poor Taylor was and such a cabinet as he had would in four years ruin any nation that has, or ever exist[ed]. He had not one statesman in his cabinet, they all were mere time serving politicians from remote circumstances, in all great nation affairs.

_______________

* A Representative in Congress from Kentucky, 1818-1815; later moved to Texas.

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. 115

Beautiful Scene In Washington, May 2, 1850

Correspondence of the Baltimore Patriot.

WASHINGTON, May 2, 1850

Last night was a glorious night for the lovers of the Union, and hundreds upon hundreds of the ‘lads of the clan’ were congregated together at the hospitable mansion of the Secretary of the Interior, on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter, Ellen B. Ewing to William T. Sherman, of the U. S. Army.  The bride and groom of course were the centre of attraction, and considering their youthfulness, and surrounded by such a numerous assembly of the magnates of the land they acted their parts with ease, simplicity and elegance.  Of the groom, I can only say, having no acquaintance, that fame speaks in the highest terms of him as a young gentleman of high toned honor and spotless integrity.  Of the Metropolitan favorite, the lady-like Ellen, I can speak by the card, and inform you that every quality that constitutes a charming woman, there is not on this broad land her superior.  Affection, pride, show, parade, are all strangers to her, and any one, rich or poor, having an unblemished reputation, is always considered by her, good society.—Her father appears to have taken uncommon pains in her education and in giving a proper direction to every act and thought.

If I wanted to adduce other evidence than that known to the world of the honesty and sterling integrity of Thomas Ewing, aye, even before the Richardson Committee, I would just point them to his daughter, brought up under his own eye as a voucher.  She strongly resembles the Secretary in mind and judgment, but is greatly ahead of him in making friends among the democracy.

The rooms above and below were crowded with ‘belles, and matrons, maids and madams.’  The President was there.  The Vice President was there.  The Cabinet were there.  Judges of the Supreme Court were there.  Senators and members were there.  Sir Henry L. Bulwer, lady and suite, with many of the Diplomatique corps, were there.  Citizens and strangers were there, and

Taylor, Clay, Cass, Benton and others,

Moved along like loving brothers.

The Bride’s cake was a ne plus ultra.—The popping of the champaigne was like the peals of artillery at Buena Vista: and the feast was all the art of Ude could make it, while Mr. and Mrs. Ewing and every member of the family made it [feel] as if they were really at home.

SOURCE:  The Lancaster Gazette, Lancaster, Ohio, Friday Morning, May 10, 1850, p. 2

Congressman Robert Toombs to Governor John J. Crittenden. September 27, 1848

Washington, Ga., Sept. 27th, 1848.

Dear Sir: Upon reaching home two nights since after an absence of three weeks, I found your letter of the 2nd inst. It gave me real pleasure to find that you corroborated some of the good accounts I had received from the West, especially from Ohio. We are in the midst of a bitter fight among editors and candidates; but there is so little excitement among the people that one can hardly tell which way the current is moving. You have doubtless seen that Stephens was cut down by a cowardly assassin on the 3rd inst. He is yet unable to get out. His invaluable services have been thus far wholly lost in the campaign, which has thrown double duty on me. I have not been at home but four days since I arrived in Georgia. Stephens is getting well slowly — the muscles connecting the thumb and forefinger of his right hand were cut asunder and the wound extended down to the junction of the two. This is now his most serious wound, those on the body being nearly well and doing well. His phy[si]cians are still under some apprehension that he [will] have to lose the hand to escape lockjaw, tho' the chances of such a calamity are daily lessening, and I hope all may yet be well with him.

The Democrats here are fighting for existence, and fight with a determination I never before witnessed. They refrain from opposing Taylor in any way, but furiously denounce Fillmore all the time. We were turning the tide very well on to him until that infernal letter of 1838 to the abolitionists was dug up. That has fallen upon us like a wet blankett and has very much injured us in the State. It gave an excuse to all Democrats who wanted to go back to their party to abandon Taylor. Our election takes place next Monday for Members of Congress — I feel confident of our carrying five — I think the chances with us for six Members out of the eight. We shall carry the state I think certainly for Taylor, but by a hard, close vote. But it will be done. The Congressional election I think will show between 500 and 1000 votes in our favour which will settle the matter for Old Zach by between 2,000 and 4,000 votes. We can lose the popular vote on Members of Congress by 1,000 and carry the State, tho' that would make it a desperate conflict. The Clay men in the State will do nothing; some of them would be glad to lose it with the hope of breaking down Stephens and myself in the State. They will lessen my vote in my district some two or three hundred unless I can get them from the Democrats. I think I shall do so. Had not Mr. Clay put himself up there would not have been even a contest in Georgia, the friends of Clay being the only men here who ever dared to attack Taylor. But I will no longer fatigue you with speculations or facts on our State politics. You may set this state down safe and certain for Taylor, in my judgment.

Florida I still hear is safe, not much dispute about it I think. Alabama is in a perfect turmoil — we have gained more leading respectable Democrats in that State than in any other in the Union. They count pretty confidently on carrying their State and the Democrats greatly fear it. But after witnessing the power of party drill in Georgia, I must confess I have but small hope of overcoming their large majority in that State. I think Carolina will go for Cass. Calhoun, Burt and Woodard and Simpson profess neutrality!! What miserable creatures! I think the solution of all this is that Calhoun found all the upper part of the State strongly against him and was afraid to risk an avowal for Old Zach; but, thank God, the contest will make a party in the State. Charleston is with us by a large majority, and will return Holmes,¹ who stands firm for Taylor. In many other districts there are warm contests going on, but the Mercury having been forced to come out for "the equivocating betrayer of Southern rights" I take to be pretty conclusive evidence of how the State will go. Calhoun stands off too, in order to make a Southern party "all his own" on slavery in the new Territories. Poor old dotard, to suppose he could get a party now on any terms!! Hereafter treachery itself will not trust him. I hear nothing from Mississippi — definite. Louisiana I think altogether safe. My accounts from Tennessee agree with yours, tho' our friends there will have a harder fight than they expected. Your election greatly disheartened me, — I knew if the Democracy could so thoroughly rally against you in Kentucky we should have rough work everywhere; and all the subsequent elections have strengthened that conviction. If we are safe in Ohio we shall elect Taylor, but if we lose Ohio I much fear the result.

I suppose after the New York flare up we shall have no more of the "Sage of Ashland." I think no man in the nation is now so heartily and justly despised by the Whig party in the Union as Mr. Clay, and I doubt not but that the feeling is heartily reciprocated by him. Upon the whole, tho' our prospects are not so good as I had hoped and expected, still I firmly believe we shall succeed in electing Genl. Taylor. Every day of my own time shall be given to that object until the sun goes down on the 7th Nov. If we succeed handsomely in Georgia next week it will greatly improve Taylor stock in the South, and I now believe we shall. I will write you next week. I shall be able to tell before you could learn thro' the newspapers and will write or telegraff you as soon as I have sufficient information to know all about it.

Mrs. Toombs and the girls are at home and very well. She complains a good deal at my absence but she is becoming herself warmly enlisted for “Old Zach.” She sends her best love to Mrs. Crittenden and yourself, and says her greatest interest in the success of Genl. Taylor arises from the hope that she may then again have the pleasure of meeting you all in Washington. Lou and Sally send love to both of you. My kindest regards to Mrs. C. Hoping I shall be able to send you cheering news next week.

P. S.—I find talking politics to two or three gentlemen and writing you a letter at the same time “a mixed up” business, as I fear you will find on reading it. Write me the first pieces of good news you hear.

_______________

1 As Member of Congress.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 127-9

In The Review Queue: Accidental Presidents

Accidental Presidents:

Eight Men Who Changed America

By Jared Cohen

The strength and prestige of the American presidency has waxed and waned since George Washington. Accidental Presidents looks at eight men who came to the office without being elected to it. It demonstrates how the character of the man in that powerful seat affects the nation and world.

Eight men have succeeded to the presidency when the incumbent died in office. In one way or another they vastly changed our history. Only Theodore Roosevelt would have been elected in his own right. Only TR, Truman, Coolidge, and LBJ were re-elected.

John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison who died 30 days into his term. He was kicked out of his party and became the first president threatened with impeachment. Millard Fillmore succeeded esteemed General Zachary Taylor. He immediately sacked the entire cabinet and delayed an inevitable Civil War by standing with Henry Clay’s compromise of 1850. Andrew Johnson, who succeeded our greatest president, sided with remnants of the Confederacy in Reconstruction. Chester Arthur, the embodiment of the spoils system, was so reviled as James Garfield’s successor that he had to defend himself against plotting Garfield’s assassination; but he reformed the civil service. Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts. Calvin Coolidge silently cooled down the Harding scandals and preserved the White House for the Republican Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. Truman surprised everybody when he succeeded the great FDR and proved an able and accomplished president. Lyndon B. Johnson was named to deliver Texas electorally. He led the nation forward on Civil Rights but failed on Vietnam.

Accidental Presidents adds immeasurably to our understanding of the power and limits of the American presidency in critical times.

About the Author

Jared Cohen is the founder and CEO of Jigsaw at Alphabet Inc. He also serves as an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Previously, he ran Google Ideas at Google Inc. and served as chief advisor to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt. From 2006 to 2010 he served as a member of the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff and as a close advisor to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Accidental Presidents, The New Digital Age, Children of Jihad, and One Hundred Days of Silence: America and the Rwanda Genocide. He lives in New York with his wife and two daughters.

ISBN 978-1501109829, Simon & Schuster, © 2019, Hardcover, 582 pages, Photographs, End Notes, Bibliography & Index. $30.00.  To purchase this book click HERE.

Diary of Amos A. Lawrence: November 3, 1856

The newspapers advertise Mr. Sumner's reception to take place to-day: that he will be received by a committee at my house, thence taken to Boston, where he will be received at the Roxbury line by the Mayor and city authorities and a cavalcade of citizens, and an address to be made to him by Josiah Quincy, Sen. (eighty-six years old), thence to the state house, where he will be welcomed by the Governor.

I went to Boston as usual. Came out at one. Found Mr. Sumner here, with Mr. Longfellow, Rev. Dr. Huntington, Dr. Perry, his physician, and his brother George.

He lunched, conversed with a reporter for the press, and gave him his speech in manuscript, after which I sent the reporter to town. He appears well when sitting, but is feeble when standing. I gave him a parlor to himself, and shut him up to avoid fatigue and enable him to prepare his speeches. He was here an hour and a half. I gave him some wine before starting, then delivered him over to the committee, who were in barouches. They had reserved a seat for me by the side of Mr. Sumner, but I declined to go. I thought the committee were disappointed, and also at seeing a Fillmore flag flying at the side of my house. But they had told me the reception was to be without distinction of party, and I took them on their own ground. After dinner I drove to town with Sarah and the children. Saw the procession from Mr. Appleton's. A long cavalcade, music, then carriages with Mr. Sumner and his friends.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 142-3

Amos A. Lawrence to Senator Jefferson Davis, December 22, 1859

Boston, December 22, 1859.

Dear Sir, — I am sorry to see, by a reported speech of yours, that you are among those who have been duped by vile fellows who believe that a large number of decent men in this part of the country are implicated in the affair of Harper's Ferry. Among other names I find my own, and I am the person alluded to as a cotton speculator who employed Brown to do his work. To show you how absurd this whole plan of libel will appear when it is examined, I will state my own case.

1st. I am the son of Amos Lawrence, now deceased, whom you knew, and who brought me up to be a “national” man, as we understand that term. 2d. I have been so decided in my own opposition to the formation of sectional parties, that those who voted for Fillmore in Massachusetts, in 1856, nominated me for governor, but I declined. They have requested me to be a candidate every year since that, and last year I did run against Mr. Banks. 3d. Though largely interested in cotton factories as a shareholder, I never owned a bale of cotton in my life, and never had any business with any person whom I knew as a speculator in cotton. Some years ago I took a great interest in our people who settled in Kansas, many of whom went from Lowell and Lawrence with their families. They were shockingly abused, and if it were not for my wife and seven children at home, I would have taken a more active part in that business. But that has passed long ago; it did not induce me to join the Republicans, though it did most of my friends. I took part with Mr. William Appleton and my relative Mr. F. Pierce in the Faneuil Hall meeting here the other day, and with most of our people am called a “hunker,” and even in Mississippi should be a law and order man. You will do me a favor, if you will prevent my being summoned to Washington on so foolish an errand as to testify about Harper's Ferry.

Respectfully and truly yours,

A. A. L.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 136-8

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, May 11, 1852

Boston, May 11, 1852.

My Dear Sumner: — I have been somewhat taken up with Kossuth's matters, though I work indirectly and not publicly. The other day he sent a message that he would come out to see me at nine o'clock in the evening. I was unfortunately engaged to a formal dinner party at T. B. Curtis's and could only promise to be at home as near nine as possible; when I got home he had just driven from the door, having stayed a quarter of an hour or so. I followed him to his quarters, and he took me into his chamber, and for two hours discoursed to me as only he can: filling me with increased admiration and love. He extended to me a degree of confidence about his plans which quite amazed me; and humiliated me too, for I felt I could do nothing to make me worthy of it.

Julia has seen much of them en famille, and bears glowing testimony to his gentleness and tenderness in the domestic relations.

As I said to you once before I think, I was glad of an opportunity of making Hillard ashamed (or deserving to be so) of having so easily entertained the belief of Kossuth's want of kindness to his wife.

By the by, H—— wrote some articles in the Courier which you may have seen. The other evening he walked into town from my house with Pulsky and others; and Pulsky, knowing H—— had written the articles, took occasion to riddle and utterly cut them to pieces, as he well could. H—— was silent and opened not his mouth.

Kossuth is really making a very strong impression here, that is in the neighbourhood. Hunkerdom is silent — dumb — angry. I was (mirabile dictul) at Ticknor's the other evening, and was surprised to find how subduedly and quietly they took allusions to the subject. They are wise, and, since fas est ab hoste doceri, I hope to imitate the wise caution when I feel excited and angry.

I had a long talk there with Mrs. Agassiz, and it was mostly about you. I thought it best (or rather I did not think much at all) to try to put her right as to your break with Felton, and to show her that she was blaming you without cause. I told her my mind fully, and spoke of F—— kindly but rather sternly, giving him credit for intentions, but not for actions. The next day, (or yesterday) Monday, came a long letter from F—— in which he paraded in formidable array his charges against you. I shall not trouble you with them now; but perhaps you may be interested in one paragraph, in which he says, as he supposes on good authority, that Fillmore, in answer to a query about how you could seek his hospitalities after denouncing him so bitterly, said, “Mr. S—— seems to like me pretty well; at any rate, by coming to my house he shows he did not believe what he said.” I give you this valeat quantum, — but in confidence. I shall perhaps answer F——’s letter, but more probably see him.

Faithfully yours,

S. G. Howe.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 372-4

James C. Dobbin* to Howell Cobb, June 15, 1848

Fayetteville [N. C], June 15th, 1848.

My Dear Sir: Your esteemed favour in reply to my first communication was duly received, and its perusal gave me no little pleasure, awakening, as it did, pleasing recollections of incidents during my brief political career in Washington.

I think, my dear sir, I am not deceived in inferring from the spirit and tenor of your letter that an occasional correspondence will not be unacceptable, and will serve but to keep alive that kindly attachment which I trust neither time nor separation will extinguish. Still, plunged as I have been for many months in the laborious practice of the law, I cannot but occasionally abandon the courthouse and stroll into the avenue of politics. They have rather forced me to consent to become a candidate for our Legislature. I have no opposition, and of course will have a quiet time, and a little dish of Legislative politics may not be disagreeable. Well, the agony is over and Cass and Butler are nominated, and Taylor and Fillmore; and although it has produced some sensation, the tickets seem to have been anticipated by the popular mind. We have had a large Democratic meeting here and responded very zealously to the nomination of Cass and Butler. Judge Strange and myself addressed them. The meeting was large, enthusiastic, and everything passed off well.

I struggled hard to prove Cass orthodox on the slavery question, and I would not have done [so] had I suspected him. And his letter to Nicholson is certainly liberal and magnanimous for a Northern man. I was provoked at Yancey's conduct in the convention. The introduction of his resolution¹ was unnecessary. The resolution reported by the committee was comprehensive. There was no evidence that Cass had wrong views, and the adoption of Yancey's resolution squinted very much towards a suspicion of Cass and looked too much like pressing nice, hair-spliting distinctions on the subject upon our Northern democratic friends, whose liberality should be appreciated but not abused. My own notion is that the Territorial Legislature while legislating as such and for the Territory and for territorial purposes has no right to pass a law to prohibit slavery. Because if we adopt that doctrine we at once practically exclude the slaveholder forever. The Territory acquired is filled at the time of acquisition with non-slaveholders. The Legislature meets and a law excluding slavery is enacted. This will exclude the slaveholder, for he can't get there to repeal the law. I regard the Territory as the common property of the States. And the people of each State have a right to enjoy it with or without their peculiar property. But when the people are meeting to pass a fundamental law, to adopt a Constitution and to ask admission into the Union as a State, then the prohibition or establishment of slavery becomes a subject for legitimate action. It will not do for us to admit that the first Legislature in New Mexico can pass a law immediately and exclude every slaveholder from the territory — if we do, are we not admitting that it is not the property of each and all the States? But I do not think Cass has publicly — certainly not in his Nicholson letter — expressed any opinion contravening my position. He says “leave to the people affected by the question” its regulation. He does not say that he thinks the Territorial Legislature can prohibit it. I hope he will not say so. Because it may never in all probability become a practical question on which he as President could act. Yet the expression of such an opinion would prejudice him in the South with many, very many.

But enough of this. When you write me give me your views. I can not express to you my feelings about the Whigs' nomination. If they succeed, my confidence in popular virtue and intelligence will be a little shaken. I know much virtue and much intelligence will vote the ticket. I regard it as evidence that the Whigs are afraid of their principles. They know the people are against them. They put up “Old Zac” and surround him with a blaze of military glory, and just behind him is Fillmore lurking, holding ready to fasten upon the country all the odious and rejected measures of the Whig Party. Can they succeed? What do our friends think of it? I was pleased to see that yourself and distingue were on the tour, lionizing. That is right. I have given up South Carolina and am afraid of Georgia and Louisiana. Massachusetts will bolt. Ohio will vote for Cass, so likewise Pennsylvania. But for those miserable Barnburners, New York would be all right. The South will have a hard fight. The slavery question and “Old Zac” being a slaveholder may for a moment shake some of the faithful — but I have faith in our Principles and in Providence.

I can't say much to please you about North Carolina. Reid is doing his best. I don't think he will succeed, although he has sprung up a suffrage question which is taking well. I do think we will carry the legislature. There is a strong probability of it.

But enough of politics. Tell Stephens I heartily appreciate his remembering me so kindly and assure him that the feeling is cordially reciprocated. I like Stephens. With all his bad politics he is a generous hearted fellow and of brilliant genius.

By the by, lest I forget it, in confidence, a friend of mine wishes to go abroad. Do you know of a vacancy — Naples, Rome, Belgium, etc., etc. Remember this when you write . . .

­­­­_______________

* Member of Congress from North Carolina, 1845-1847.

¹ Proclaiming the doctrine of congressional non-intervention with slavery in the Territories. See footnote 1, p. Ill, infra.

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. 107-9