Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, June 1, 1864

Called on the President relative to the appointment of midshipmen. After looking over the list with some care, he finally designated two sons of officers [and] one apprentice, and desired me to complete the nominations.

When I called on the President, Major-General Schenck was with him, and, as I went in, was giving the President a list of names of persons to be selected to fill the board about to be appointed on the question of retired officers, his brother, Commodore Schenck, being one. It was a cool proposition, but characteristic of General Schenck, and I think of the Schencks generally.

We have to-day the results of a meeting of strange odds and ends of parties, and factions, and disappointed and aspiring individuals at Cleveland. Frémont is nominated as their candidate for President and John Cochrane for Vice-President. The gathering had the nomination of Frémont in view, though other objects were professed.

I very earnestly supported Frémont in 1856. He was then put forward as the representative of the principles for which we were contending, and I have no reason to give that he was not faithful to the cause. He was, however, as soon as nominated, surrounded, to a great extent, by bad men, in whom no good man had confidence. His bearing was very well so far as he appeared before the public. I saw that he was anxious to be elected but not offensively so; he was not obtrusive, but, on the contrary, reserved and retiring. In nothing did he show extraordinary ability or character, but my conclusions were that his real traits were undeveloped. He did not grow upon me as reserved men usually do. Colonel Benton had in former years extolled him, though opposed to his candidacy. Governor Marcy, no friend of Benton, and not partial to Frémont, had, when Secretary of War, given him name and fame by a most remarkable indorsement in his able report in (I think) 1848.

I have since learned that that part of Marcy’s report was written by Colonel Benton himself, and that President Polk compelled Marcy to incorporate it in the annual report of the War Department. The affair seems incredible almost to me, who knew the several parties, but I learn it in a way that leaves no doubt of its truth. Marcy had ability but was timid and subservient. Frémont has gained no reputation during the War. In power his surroundings have been awful. Reckless, improvident, wasteful, pompous, purposeless, vain, and incompetent. In his explorations, however, he showed perseverance and endurance, and he had the reputation of attaching his men to him. His journals were readable, but I have been told they were prepared and mostly written by Colonel Benton. On all occasions he puts on airs, is ambitious, and would not serve under men of superior military capacity and experience. Frémont first and country after. For a long time he has been in foolish intrigues for the Presidency, and the Cleveland meeting is a Frémont meeting, though others have been concerned.

I am surprised that General Cochrane should have embarked in the scheme. But he has been wayward and erratic. A Democrat, a Barnburner, a conservative, an Abolitionist, an Anti-abolitionist, a Democratic Republican, and now a radical Republican. He has some, but not eminent, ability; can never make a mark as a statesman. It will not surprise me if he should change his position before the close of the political campaign, and support the nominees of the Baltimore Convention. There is not a coincidence of views and policy between him and Frémont, and the convention which has nominated them is a heterogeneous mixture of weak and wicked men. They would jeopard and hazard the Republican and Union cause, and many of them would defeat it and give success to the Copperheads to gratify their causeless spite against the President. He is blamed for not being more energetic and because he is despotic in the same breath. He is censured for being too mild and gentle towards the Rebels and for being tyrannical and intolerant. There is no doubt he has a difficult part to perform in order to satisfy all and do right.

This war is extraordinary in all its aspects and phases, and no man was prepared to meet them. It is much easier for the censorious and factious to complain than to do right. I have often thought that greater severity might well be exercised, and yet it would tend to barbarism.

No traitor has been hung. I doubt if there will be, but an example should be made of some of the leaders, for present and for future good. They may, if taken, be imprisoned or driven into exile, but neither would be lasting. Parties would form for their relief, and ultimately succeed in restoring the worst of them to their homes and the privileges they originally enjoyed. Death is the proper penalty and atonement, and will be enduringly beneficent in its influence.

There was, moreover, an aristocratic purpose in this Rebellion. An aristocracy of blood and wealth was to have been established. Consequently a contrary effect would work benignantly. Were a few of the leaders to be stripped of their possessions, and their property confiscated, their families impoverished, the result would be salutary in the future. But I apprehend there will be very gentle measures in closing up the Rebellion. The authors of the enormous evils that have been inflicted will go unpunished, or will be but slightly punished.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 41-4

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, February 19, 1848

Cincinnati, February 19, l848.

My Dear Sir: It always gives me a great deal of pleasure to hear from you; but I was more than gratified by your last letter. I thought I saw in it an augury of approaching union, among the true and earnest lovers of freedom of all parties — a union which every patriot and philanthropist cannot but earnestly desire. For myself, I care not under what banner the rally may be, so that the banner bear blazing on its folds the inscription of Freedom; nor shall I think it of much moment by whom it may be borne, so he be, at all events, a true hearted champion of the Right. How strange it is that such an union has not already been formed — was not long since formed! How it is possible that such facts as those stated by Mr. Palfrey in his Speech — and he gave only a few by way of sample — not at all treating the monstrous bulk — can have been known to Northern men and non-slaveholders, and yet stirred up no fever of indignation, I cannot understand. Unless indeed I adopt the humorous solution of your downeast poet, Hosea Biglow, who says in one of his inimitable lyrics:—

We begin to think its nater,

To take sarse and not be riled,

Who'd expect to see a ’tater,

All on eend at bein’ biled?

Your overtrue description of the fate of honest antislavery men in the Whig Party, devoted to private assault and assassination — suspected, slandered, and traduced applies just as strongly to the antislavery democrats. I believe it was Euripides who said — as Milton translates him:—

There can be slain

No sacrifice, to the Gods more acceptable

Than an unjust and wicked king.

The converse of this is certainly true. There can be no more acceptable sacrifice to unjust power — the unscrupulous slave power — than the immolation of an earnest & defiant¹ friend of Freedom and the Right. And I have heard democrats complain [of efforts¹] made to ruin them in public esteem, and cut them off from all hopes of political advancement, with an emphasis not less strong than your own. But what remedy for such grievances, except by independent action? How can we expect that the people will sustain us, or that demagogues and serviles will fail to combine against us, defaming our characters, impairing our influence, depriving us opposition, and, what is greatly worse, thwarting our best purposes, unless we give them to understand that we can get along without them, if they choose to get along without us — that our principles are as dear to us as the loaves and fishes of office are dear to them? Once let it be understood by politicians, that no candidate for office can receive the suffrages of antislavery men, who does not, in some reasonable sense, represent antislavery principles, and parties will not dare to fly in the face of antislavery sentiment as they do at present. What a figure the Radical Democracy of New York will cut, if after resolving and resolving upon the absolute necessity of adherence to the Proviso under all circumstances, they should, after all, go into the Baltimore Convention next May and acquiesce in the nomination of Cass or Buchanan or any such man? What a figure will Antislavery Whigs cut in acquiescing in the nomination of Taylor, or Clay, or any other slaveholder, who gives no clear and unequivocal evidence, that he cherishes any antislavery sentiments?

I have thought much of the best means of concentrating antislavery effort. I confess I have not yet seen any clear line of action. The most eligible I have thought is to assemble in National Convention, in June next, say at Pittsburgh, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the country, and adopting such practical measures as may be then judged most expedient. My own judgment inclines to the opinion — strongly inclines to it — that should the Whigs nominate a candidate for the Presidency who will take decided ground against the extension of slavery into territories hereafter acquired, such a Convention should give such a candidate its support. The same measure should be applied to the Democratic nomination. Should both parties nominate men, not to be depended on for such opposition to slavery extension, then such a Convention should nominate a candidate of its own.

I have no expectation whatever that General Taylor will take any decided ground upon any question. He will certainly take no ground — unless he changes all his habits of thought, all his sentiments, and all his prejudices—against the extension of slavery. General Taylor is very strong in the South. I was at St. Louis and at Louisville a few weeks since, and had an opportunity of learning something of the feeling of the western southwestern slave States in relation to him. He will sweep them if a candidate like a tornado. But I am not able to see any convincing indications of his strength in the North and Northwest. I see rather signs which satisfy me that if he receives the nomination of the Whigs, it must be because the Whigs of the North and Northwest sacrifice their interests, their honors and their duties, to the ambition of party success. As to Mr. Clay, he might properly receive the support of antislavery men if he would come out unequivocally against the extension of slavery, and in favor of a Convention and some reasonable plan of emancipation in Kentucky. I have no faith, however, that he will do this, though I do not deem it quite impossible.

You say “if Judge M'Lean could be induced to take any practical ground against the extension of slavery he would be a popular candidate”. You may recollect something of a letter from Columbus last fall which appeared in the Era. That letter contained a statement of Judge M'Lean's position as understood by the writer, and it was this, that the Wilmot Proviso, as to all territories in which slavery does not exist at the time of acquisition, is in the Constitution already. A resolution of Congress may declare the principle and legislation by Congress may enforce its application; but neither resolution nor legislation is needed to establish the principle. It is in the Constitution. The paragraph of this letter containing this statement was shown to Judge M'Lean and approved by him. I had a conversation with Corwin² and I regretted to find that he did not sympathize with or concur in these views. So far as I could discover he had no definite, considered principle or opinions on the subject. He thought it best to avoid the question, by opposing territorial acquisition, but if it must come, then secure freedom by legislation.

Under all circumstances I cannot but think Judge M'Lean to be all together the most reliable man, on the slavery question, now prominent in either party. It is true he does not fully agree with those who are generally known as antislavery men. But on the question of extension of slavery he is with us, not only on the question of its impolicy and its criminality, but also because he believed such extension would be a clear infraction of the Constitution. Add to this the constant and familiar association with antislavery folks in his family and among his friends, and his known aversion to slavery itself — an aversion so strong that when he quitted Washington, although in debt, and comparatively poor, he emancipated his slaves, when sale would have produced the means of discharging all his obligations. I regret very much the decision of Judge M'Lean in the Vanzandt case and believe he fell into great error; still on the pressing issue — the extension of slavery, he is wholly with us, and in general sentiment on slavery questions, nearer to us than any other statesman of either of the two old parties. He is not against the Proviso — on the contrary he is in favor of it. He thinks it however is inexpedient to weaken the strength of the Constitutional position against slavery, by introducing a specific measure of legislation against it, under present circumstances, when its defeat in the legislature or its veto by the Executive is certain, and such defeat, in the general opinion, would take away every obstacle from the introduction of slavery into new territories.

I understand from Mr. Vaughan, that the Boston Whig has given a different statement of Judge M'Lean's position, from the one I have just set before you. You may depend, however, on the fact that mine is correct; and I leave you to judge whether I am wrong in thinking that the nomination of M'Lean by the Whig Convention would be the most substantial triumph of antislavery which has been achieved this century.

I thank you for your offer to circulate a few copies of the Vanzandt argument in Westminster Hall. I send you a dozen for that purpose. I read your address on Fame and Glory with very great pleasure.

Forgive this long letter, and believe me,

Faithfully your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ Conjectural. Torn in MS.

² First part of name torn out of MS. From the final syllable, win, Corwin is conjectured.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 128

John C. Fremont’s Acceptance of the Radical Democratic Party’s Nomination for President of the United States, June 4, 1864

New York, June 4, 1864.

GENTLEMEN: In answer to the letter which I have had the honor to receive from you, on the part of the representatives of the people assembled at Cleveland, the 31st of May, I desire to express my thanks for the confidence which led them to offer me the honorable and difficult position of their candidate in the approaching Presidential election.

Very honorable, because in offering it to me you act in the name of a great number of citizens who seek above all things the good of their country, and who have no sort of selfish interest in view. Very difficult, because in accepting the candidacy you propose to me, I am exposed to the reproach of creating a schism In the party with which I have been identified.

Had Mr. Lincoln remained faithful to the principles he was elected to defend, no schism could have been created, and no contest could have been possible. This is not an ordinary election. It is a contest for the right even to have candidates, and not merely, as usual, for the choice among them. Now, for the first time since 76, the question of constitutional liberty has been brought directly before the people for their serious consideration and vote. The ordinary rights secured under the Constitution and the laws of the country have been violated and extraordinary powers have been usurped by the Executive. It is directly before the people now to say whether or not the principles established by the Revolution are worth maintaining.

If, as we have been taught to believe, those guarantees for liberty which made the distinctive name and glory of our country, are in truth inviolably sacred, then here must be a protest against the arbitrary violation which had not even the excuse of a necessity. The schism is made by those who force the choice between a shameful silence or a protest against wrong. In such considerations originated the Cleveland Convention. It was among its objects to arouse the attention of the people to such facts, and to bring them to realize that, while we are saturating Southern soil with the best blood of the country in the name of liberty, we have really parted with it at home.

To-day we have in the country the abuses of a military dictation without its unity of action and vigor of execution — an Administration marked at home by disregard of constitutional rights, by its violation of personal liberty and the liberty of the press, and as a crowning shame, by its abandonment of the right of asylum, a right especially dear to all free nations abroad. Its course has been characterized by a feebleness and want of principle which has misled European powers and driven them to a belief that only commercial interests and personal aims are concerned, and that no great principles are involved in the issue. The admirable conduct of the people, their readiness to make every sacrifice demanded of them, their forbearance and silence under the suspension of everything that could be suspended, their many acts of heroism and sacrifices, were all rendered fruitless by the incapacity, or to speak more exactly, by the personal ends for which the war was managed. This incapacity and selfishness naturally produced such results as led the European powers, and logically enough, to the conviction that the North, with its greatly superior population, its immense resources, and its credit, will never be able to recover the South. Sympathies which would have been with us from the outset of this war were turned against us, and in this way the Administration has done the country a double wrong abroad. It created hostility, or at best indifference, among those who would have been its friends if the real intentions of the people could have been better known, while, at the same time, it neglected no occasion for making the most humiliating concessions.

Against this disastrous condition of affairs the Cleveland Convention was a protest.

The principles which form the basis of its platform have my unqualified and cordial approbation, but I cannot so heartily concur in all the measures which you propose. I do not believe that confiscation extended to the property of all rebels, is practicable and if it were so, I do not think it a measure of sound policy. It is, in fact, a question belonging to the people themselves to decide, and is a proper occasion for the exercise of their original and sovereign authority. As a war measure, in the beginning of a revolt which might be quelled by prompt severity, I understand the policy of confiscation, but not as a final measure of reconstruction after the suppression of an insurrection.

In the adjustments which are to follow peace no considerations of vengeance can consistently be admitted.

The object of the war is to make permanently secure the peace and happiness of the whole country, and there was but a single clement in the way of its attainment. This element of slavery may be considered practically destroyed in the country, and it needs only your proposed amendment of the Constitution, to make its extinction complete.

With this extinction of slavery the party divisions created by it have also disappeared. And if in the history of the country there has ever been a time when the American people, without regard to one or another of the political divisions, were willed upon to give solemnly their voice in a matter which involved the safety of the United States, it is assuredly the present time.

If the Convention at Baltimore will nominate any man whose past life justifies a well-grounded confidence in his fidelity to our cardinal principles, there, is no reason why there should be any division among the really patriotic men of the country. To any such I shall be most happy to give a cordial and active support.

My own decided preference is to aid in this way, and not to be myself a candidate. But if Mr. Lincoln should be nominated — us I believe it would be fatal to the country to indorse a policy and renew a power which has cost w the lives of thousands of men, and needlessly put the country on the road to bankruptcy — there will remain no other alternative but to organize against him every element of conscientious opposition with the view to prevent the misfortune of his re-election.

In this contingency, I accept the nomination at Cleveland, and, as a preliminary step, I have resigned my commission in the army. This was a sacrifice it gave me pain to make. But I had for a long time fruitlessly endeavored to obtain service. I make this sacrifice now only to regain liberty of speech, and to leave nothing in the way of discharging to my utmost ability the task you have set for me.

With my earnest and sincere thanks for your expressions of confidence and regard, and for the many honorable terms in which you acquaint me with the actions of the Convention, I am, gentlemen,

Very respectfully and truly yours,

J. C. FREMONT.

To Worthington G. Snethen of Maryland, Edward Gilbert of New York, Casper Butz of Illinois, Charles E. Moss of Missouri, N. P. Sawyer of Pennsylvania, a Committee, &c.

SOURCE: Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America, during the Great Rebellion, p. 413-4