Frank G. Ruffin to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 2, 1852

SHADWELL, ALBEMARLE Co., [VA.], November 2nd, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR: I know not if a man retired as I am from politics and never very active or influential in that field has a title to ask a favour even at the hands of one of his own strait sect; but as I speak not in my own behalf but for another I have ventured to approach you on the subject.

I learn, but not from himself, or by his agency, that in case Mr. Pierce shall have been elected, my friend, Gov[erno]r McDonald of Georgia has been mentioned in his own and some other contiguous states as a suitable member of the Cabinet: and it has been suggested that your influence would avail in getting him into that position. I need not mention to you how true he has been to the rights of the South and that he is not more of a disunionist than you and I, that is to say, as the lady remarked of Wilkes, "he does not squint more than every gentleman ought to." But I may say, what his retiring disposition and rare modesty may have prevented your knowing, that he is a man of marked ability, of wise moderation, of Roman firmness, of devoted patriotism, and of the loftiest public and private character. Every drop of his blood pulseth in accordance with Southern rights; and had every Southern man been as wise, as prudent, and as firm as he we should not now have to mourn the surrender of those rights?

I presume from Cobb's activity, that he is after some such post. You know him. Ought such a man, dead in his own state, except perhaps for purposes of mischief, to supplant him whom I propose, and thus rise one step higher towards that office which he has sought by betraying not only his own section, but the very principles which he proposes to maintain? Would it not be a step gained that the President of the Nashville Convention should aid the deliberations of Mr. Pierce?

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. 149

Charles Mason to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, April 5, 1851

ALTO, KING GEORGE [COUNTY, Va.], April 5, 1851.

MY DEAR SIR: The subject of a Southern Convention, has become a topic of very great excitement in our County; and owing to the unfair report of the proceedings of our second, joint meeting (which has been charged on the chairman) a good deal of angry and desultory discussion has ensued. The question has, unfortunately, assumed a party character here, and an effort is being made to stifle the independent action of the friends of a convention, on the ground, that we ought to submit to an accidental majority against us. We do not feel the force of any such obligation, either morally or politically, and do not intend to yield. Although we shall be too late to unite with the district convention to assemble at Tappahannock on the 10th, yet we can confirm the action of that meeting. We shall call a meeting for our general muster, and I will be greatly obliged to you, if in your power and not subjecting you to too much trouble, to fortify me with documents to sustain our position. I want evidence to show how many Southern States have recommended the Convention; and to controvert the assertion if I can, that six of them have, in their legislative capacities, gone against it, that Tennessee, herself, has refused to allow it to meet within her borders. If these States have done so, of which I have seen no evidence, I would be glad to be informed what is the ground of their opposition, and whether they are not Whig States? I want moreover to show what portion of the people of Tennessee are opposed to its assembling in Nashville. I have to contend singly and alone against my brother, who is a practiced speaker, and Col[onel] Taylor who is a loud talker, but our party [will] go for it, with great unanimity. Fitzhugh spoke at our last court, but not in good taste, and with little effect. Newton is warm for it, and I learn is open in his denunciations of the administration; so are Washington and Garnett of the same county, and I am looking forward to no distant day, when Westmoreland will become a member of the Democratic family of Counties. I sincerely wish the meeting of the Convention were not so near; the people are just beginning to wake up to the importance of the question. I would give a great deal to have you among us for a short time; we want some potent voice and lofty spirits to rouse the sleeping energies of the South to a sense of their danger. If we can not see you personally, I should be glad to have a letter from you, of such a character as you may deem prudent and politic to read at our meeting. I am sure it would do a great deal of good; but if you think otherwise, of course no use will be made of any communications, you may honor me with.

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. 126-7

Senator John C. Calhoun to Andrew Pickens Calhoun, October 22, 1849

Fort Hill 22d Oct 1849

MY DEAR ANDREW, . . . I have been making good progress in the work I have on hand. I shall finish it, I expect, except revising, correcting and copying before I leave home. John who has just returned from the North says it is looked to with great interest there. His health is much improved, and so I understand William's is, for he went directly to Columbia without returning home, so that I have not seen him.

Mississippi has acted well on the slave question,¹ and I hope Alabama and every other Southern State will back her and send delegates to Nashville. It is all important that they should. Bad would be our condition, if the Convention should fail for want of backing; but bright our prospect should there be a full meeting. . . .

_______________

¹ By issuing an “Address to the Southern States,” calling for a popular convention at Nashville in June, 1850.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 772-3

William O. Goode* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, March 29, 1850

BOYDTON, [VA.], March 29, 1850.

DEAR HUNTER: I write to impose a little labour upon you, or rather I should say, trouble, but not more, than under a change of circumstances, I would cheerfully encounter for you. You know, I file and preserve in the form of a Book, Speeches, which well discuss, great political topics before Congress. I have procured a pamphlet copy of your very fine speech on the Austrian question. I thank you for delivering that speech. I wish you would send me, pamphlet copies of the speeches of Mr. Berrien and Mr. Webster, on the Slavery Question. And I should like to have a copy of Sewards Speech, if you think you can send it, without violating the Law against the circulation of incendiary publications; and even if you dread to encounter such a penalty, I promise not to inform against you, as I really want the speech, to enable me to contemplate the whole extent of this fearful subject.

If I were in Washington at this time, I would do what I never have done. I would call on Daniel Webster to pay him my respects. I know very well, he would regard it as a matter of the utmost insignificance even if he thought of it at all, but I would do so for my own gratification. I feel for him now, a higher respect than I ever did before, and more than I thought I could cherish for the greatest, the ablest, the most dangerous advocate, of the broadest construction of our Federative Compact—the Con[stitution] of U[nited] S[tates]—a Compact, which he calls Government, Government, invested with the highest attributes of Sovereignty, and for which, he challenges my highest allegiance. But it appears to me that this Slavery Speech, has established a claim to my gratitude. It could only have originated in a patriotic heart. It could only have been expressed by a generous mind. If we except, every thing which refers to California, and the allusion to the appropriation of Federal Money, to the deportation of Free Blacks (which he designed as a liberal concession) I should be happy to have carried out, the eloquent suggestions, of his eloquent discourse.

I sincerely hope, there may be speedily evinced at the North, a determined purpose of adopting and acting out these suggestions. Such a manifestation would be hailed with general joy at the South. So far as I have been able to observe and to form a conjecture of public sentiment, there is an obvious reluctance to take the initiative, but yet a firm, determined fixed purpose, to defend and maintain our social rights, and our political equality. It would be a fatal error on the part of the North, to mistake prudence and caution, for doubt and timidity. They may rely upon it, the subject has been painfully considered, and the decision unalterably made. If the North shall fail to exhibit a spirit of Moderation and pacification, before the Nashville Convention shall be holden, no human sagacity can foresee the consequences. That body will consist of men, for the most part anxious to preserve the Union, but firmly resolved to save the South. The safety of the South is the leading, the prevailing object, and the predominant idea. In the examination of their perils, and the consideration of their wrongs, the most temperate debate will glow with animation, and moderation itself, will kindle into rage. Who shall control their conclusions, or give law to their acts? Whatever their action may be, unless marked by tameness, it will be sustained by the Southern mind. In the beginning, there may be some diversity, but it will soon come to pass, that, contending Parties will vie with each other, and contest the supremacy of acrimony against the North. We will turn from the contemplation of this melancholy condition of things. With a heart all Southern, and a mind, painfully impressed, by the cruel wrong already suffered, and the flagilous outrage held in reserve; with a resolution immutably fixed, I yet pray the Genius of Webster may prevail, to save the Union, and give peace and harmony to the Land.

I must rely on your generosity to protect me against the charge of presumption, in venturing to allude to such a topic.

Present me affectionately to Mason. I thank him for the many public documents which he has sent me. Tell him, I claim as a matter of right, a copy of every speech, made by you or himself, in the Senate, and which shall reach the pamphlet edition.

I pray you to offer to Mr. Calhoun, assurances of my highest respect and kindest regard. I devoured his late Speech and thank him for the copy he sent me. I called a few days since on an old friend, a cankered Hunker, who, in dispite of the kindest relations between us, has perversely persecuted me through life, as a Nullifier Disunionist and Worshiper of John C. Calhoun. He met me with the exclamation "I acknowledge Mr. Calhoun is the greatest man now living. He has made it all as plain as day, why did we not see it before?"

This cankered Hunker is prepared to rush to any extreme. What is the madness of the North. I beg your pardon, Hunter. I know you rarely read more than one paragraph in a letter. You note that a bore if it contain three lines. You will read the last of this as it mentions our illustrious friend.

[P. S.] Can you spare time to write me, what you all wish us all to do. Snow 5 Inches on 28 March.

_______________

* A State rights Democrat and a Representative from Virginia in Congress, 1841-1843, 1853-1859.

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. 108-10

William O. Goode to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, April 20, 1850

[BOYDTON, VA.], April 20, 1850.

MY DEAR HUNTER: I live five miles from our Post Office. The other day I despatched a letter to Mason and the servant returning brought me your letter. I reply promptly, because I have an interest or an object in doing so. Before I heard from you, in my letter to Mason, I expressed my apprehensions as to the effect of Webster's Speech, and I also gave it as my opinion, that if Eastern Virginia be not fully represented in the Nashville Convention, Foote will have contributed efficiently to such a result. At the opening of the Session I was greatly pleased with his bearing. There was something in his notice of Mr. Calhoun's speech, for which I found myself at a loss to account. I hope it susceptible of explanation consistent with his own honor and the highest interest of the South.

From Webster's speech we gain at least the weight of his authority against the Abolitionists, Free soilers and Agitators at the North. And we have his acknowledgment that the South has suffered great wrong at the hands of the North. We have his authority and influence also on [the] Fugitive Slave question, and on the future admission of Texas States. These appear to me, to be objects, not unworthy of consideration. But they are no equivalent for present, positive legislation. They afford not present nor permanent relief for which we must rely on our own virtue and which can only be secured by unanimity and concert in the South. The Nashville Convention is the present available agency through which to secure concert and unanimity, and my chief object in writing now; as it was in writing to Mason, is to induce you to urge the Virginia Delegation at Washington to stimulate their friends in their several Districts. The time is short, and I fear it is almost too late, but much can be done. So far as I am informed Amelia, Nottoway and Dinwiddie in Mr. Meade's district have taken no action. He might procure it in time, or the District Convention might be postponed long enough to afford time. The same remark may be made in nearly all the Districts. I myself should have taken an active part long ago, but for considerations which I would not hesitate to explain to you in a personal interview. The chief injury to the South, resulting from Webster's speech, is the hesitation it has occasioned. This has given courage to all who wavered in their resolution or who were secretly opposed to the measure. And it is possible that an opposition may rally in the South on the California issue supported by the plausible popular arguments connected with that subject.

I have another motive for this letter. I expect to attend a District Convention 8 May, suppose a thin meeting, and suppose Virginia meagerly represented at Nashville. What will be best? Consult with our most reliable and judicious friends and write me fully and frankly.

I say nothing of the death of our lamented friend. I know not what to say. It were impossible to express what I feel.

(P. S.) I offered a suggestion to Mason which I will repeat to you though I presume it had occurred to both of you. I said to him that in my own opinion, even the compromise 36° 30' was almost disgraceful to us, but public opinion must be consulted and something given up, for peace and tranquility. Suppose 36° 30′ can not be had. Would it do to take or offer Sierra Nevada from 42 as Eastern boundary of California down to near the Southern termination of the range as indicated on Fremont's Map, thence right line to St. Barbara about 34° on Pacific? This would give us a line to the Pacific and may be useful in the future. "The State" of Deseret has asserted this boundary for herself according to a writer for the Enquirer. And that fact may possibly aid to support an argument for such a proposition. The suggested line would give to California, perhaps the most beautiful geographical conformation in the Union. It's present delineation is a hideous deformity. But all is a mere suggestion without opinion.

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. 110-2

William F. Gordon* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, July 2, 1850

ALBEMARLE, [Va.], July 2d, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR: I rec[eive]d your letter accompanied by the Prospectus of the "Southern Press" and a number of the Papers. I enclose you $10 as a subscription of the tri-weekly paper. I have no doubt it will greatly subserve the Interests of the South. I thank you for your complimentary notice of my share in the Nashville Convention, and am happy to think that it will, in your opinion, make a profound impression. Confusion must be worst confounded by the usurpation of New Mexico, and the evident interference of our Slave-holding President, and yet I can perceive no real Difference between the Case of California and New Mexico. These events must hasten the Catastrophe to the South, the admission of these territories as states and the rejection of 36 30 Degrees as a Dividing line fills our Cup of humiliation to the brim. In the "argument not yet exhausted? when shall we stand to our Army?" Will neither legislative or Executive De[s]potism arouse us? Will not both combined? I cannot look on these events, in any aspect, but a designed insult and indignity to the whole Slave holding States. For one I am not willing to bear it. I am ready for resistance whenever the insult is consumated by Congress. So I hope will the whole South. The Nashville Convention is to reassemble in six weeks after the adjournment of Congress.

If anything is done by Congress, inconsistent with the rights and honor of the south, would it not be well for the Southern Senators and representatives to address their states and constituents on the occasion? It would have a powerful effect on the states and on the Convention. Unanimity is not to be expected, the pure and bold public men must lead, and I doubt not any course recommended by them, or a majority of them would be our guide. The more decided the better for me, for I think this protracted insult of Congress and the Executive, on refusing our clear constitutional rights, provocation enough to justify the strongest measures; and unless they are acknowledged during the Session I hope decisive resistance may be made. I have been contemplating in my solitude, how to work out the problem. I should follow our revolutionary example, that of Virginia. I would take our present Federal Constitution for the Southern States and put it into operation, as soon as a sufficient number of States would secede, this would simplyfy matters, would pervent confusion, as the officers of our Southern Republic, would at once understand their duties, our Sub Treasures, are all ready, we should only shake off the northern states, as we did the King of England, (for they have oppressed us far more than our Old Mother England ever did) and have our government in full and immediate Vigor without the Delay of Forming a New Constitution, which, however we might do at our leisure. This mode recommends itself, by the example of the illustrious ancestor of your Colleague, who formed our Virginia Constitution. Present to him my best respects.¹

_______________

* An early advocate of secession; represented Virginia in Congress, 1830-1835.

¹ This reference is doubtless to Senator J. M. Mason of Virginia and to George Mason, author of Virginia's Bill of Rights.

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. 113-4

Senator Henry Clay to James Clay, March 6, 1850

WASHINGTON, March 6, 1850.

MY DEAR SON,—I have been so excessively occupied that I have written less to you than I wished. Henry Clay came safely to me, and I have placed him, for the present, at the Georgetown College, where he seems contented.

Nothing has occurred since I last wrote to you on your Portuguese affairs. And I presume that no communication will be made to Congress in respect to them, until we settle, if we ever do settle, the Slavery subject. On this subject I made a speech, and offered a plan of compromise, of which I send you a copy. The speech has produced a powerful and salutary effect in the country and in Congress. Whether the plan will be adopted or not remains to be seen. I think if any is finally adopted it will be substantially mine.

The Kentucky Legislature has passed moderate resolutions, given me no instructions, and refused to be represented in the Nashville Convention. All this is well.

My relations to the Executive are civil but not very cordial or confidential. There has been much talk all the session about changes in the Cabinet, and the retirement of Mr. Clayton especially. I am inclined to think that there is some foundation for the rumors.

All are well at home.

My love to Susan, Lucy and the rest of the children.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 601-2

Senator John C. Calhoun to James H. Hammond,* January 4, 1850

Washington 4th Jan 1850

MY DEAR SIR, I have delayed answering your last letter until I could write more certainly in reference to the subject to which it relates.

As far as I can judge from indications, I cannot doubt, but that the Convention at Nashville will be well attended. The members from Virginia speak with confidence, that delegates will be appointed by their State. The subject is now before a committee and publick sentiment, in the state and legislature, is said to be strongly in its favour. The legislature of N. Carolina does not meet this winter; but the best informed of her members speaks with confidence, that the state is roused, and that, at least, there will be a partial representation from the state. You can better judge what Georgia will do, than I can. The Alabama members say with confidence their state will appoint, and the Florida that theirs will. So say the Arkansas delegation; and Mr. Turney, Senator from Tennessee, who has just left me, feels confident, that Tennessee will. I have but little information as to what Missouri, Kentucky and Louisana will do; but if the others should act, it is not improbable they will. Even Maryland begins to wake up. Her Governor has come out on the Southern side and I have little doubt the State will, from what I hear. Everything that can be done will be done here to ensure a full attendance. There is already much excitement here and it will go on increasing. The debate on the question at issue between the South and North will commence early and be warm. It is becoming a common opinion, that there is little chance of saving the Union. The subject is freely talked about and discussed in private circles. It is also becoming a prevalent opinion, that the South ought not to remain in the Union, without a complete restoration of all her rights, a full recognition of our equality [in] every respect, and ample security for the future. The contest will not be limited to the territorial aspect of the question between us and them. Every question will be put in issue, and the question of the Union be freely discussed.

It is contemplated, at the proper time, if it should be thought to be necessary, to call on the South to appoint delegates, so as to be fully represented. Georgia is an important state. You can do much there, and I hope you will exert yourself, if it should be necessary, to induce her to be represented at Nashville.

As to myself, I lose no opportunity, where I can act with propriety, to give the great cause an impulse. I want no reward, no prominence, or even distinction. If the thing is done, I am satisfied, let it be done by whom it may. I have made it a point to throw off no one. Let us be one, is my advice to all parties at the South. You must not think of retiring. The time for action has come. If the South is to be saved now is the time.

The great, pressing, practical question of the session will be on the admission of California. I regard it as worse than the Wilmot Proviso. What the latter proposes to do openly the former is intended to do covertly and fraudulently. It adds insult to injury. The debate on it will be violent and denuncia[to]ry. We may be voted down, but it will not be done without adding fuel to the flame.

_______________

* Original lent by Mr. E. S. Hammond.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 778-80