Diary of William Howard Russell: March 19, 1861

The morning newspapers contain reports of last night's speeches which are amusing in one respect, at all events, as affording specimens of the different versions which may be given of the same matter. A “citizen” who was kind enough to come in to shave me, paid me some easy compliments, in the manner of the “Barber of Seville,” on what he termed the “oration” of the night before, and then proceeded to give his notions of the merits and defects of the American Constitution. “He did not care much about the Franchise — it was given to too many he thought. A man must be five years resident in New York before he is admitted to the privileges of voting. When an emigrant arrived, a paper was delivered to him to certify the fact, which he produced after lapse of five years, when he might be registered as a voter; if he omitted the process of registration, he could however vote if identified by two householders, and a low lot,” observed the barber, “they are — Irish and such like. I don't want any of their votes.”

In the afternoon a number of gentlemen called, and made the kindest offers of service; letters of introduction to all parts of the States; facilities of every description — all tendered with frankness.

I was astonished to find little sympathy and no respect for the newly installed Government. They were regarded as obscure or undistinguished men. I alluded to the circumstance that one of the journals continued to speak of “The President” in the most contemptuous manner, and to designate him as the great “Rail-Splitter.” “Oh yes,” said the gentleman with whom I was conversing, “that must strike you as a strange way of mentioning the Chief Magistrate of our great Republic, but the fact is, no one minds what the man writes of any one, his game is to abuse every respectable man in the country in order to take his revenge on them for his social exclusion, and at the same time to please the ignorant masses who delight in vituperation and scandal.”

In the evening, dining again with my friend the banker, I had a favorable opportunity of hearing more of the special pleading which is brought to bear on the solution of the gravest political questions. It would seem as if a council of physicians were wrangling with each other over abstract dogmas respecting life and health, whilst their patient was struggling in the agonies of death before them! In the comfortable and well-appointed house wherein I met several men of position, acquirements, and natural sagacity, there was not the smallest evidence of uneasiness on account of circumstances which, to the eye of a stranger, betokened an awful crisis, if not the impending dissolution of society itself. Stranger still, the acts which are bringing about such a calamity are not regarded with disfavor, or, at least, are not considered unjustifiable.

Among the guests were the Hon. Horatio Seymour, a former Governor of the State of New York; Mr. Tylden, an acute lawyer; and Mr. Bancroft. The result left on my mind by their conversation and arguments was that, according to the Constitution, the Government could not employ force to prevent secession, or to compel States which had seceded by the will of the people to acknowledge the Federal power. In fact, according to them, the Federal Government was the mere machine put forward by a Society of Sovereign States, as a common instrument for certain ministerial acts, more particularly those which affected the external relations of the Confederation. I do not think that any of the guests sought to turn the channel of talk upon politics, but the occasion offered itself to Mr. Horatio Seymour to give me his views of the Constitution of the United States, and by degrees the theme spread over the table. I had bought the “Constitution” for three cents in Broadway in the forenoon, and had read it carefully, but I could not find that it was self-expounding; it referred itself to the Supreme Court, but what was to support the Supreme Court in a contest with armed power, either of Government or people? There was not a man who maintained the Government had any power to coerce the people of a State, or to force a State to remain in the Union, or under the action of the Federal Government; in other words, the symbol of power at Washington is not at all analogous to that which represents an established Government in other countries. Quid prosunt leges sine arms? Although they admitted the Southern leaders had meditated “the treason against the Union” years ago, they could not bring themselves to allow their old opponents, the Republicans now in power, to dispose of the armed force of the Union against their brother democrats in the Southern States.

Mr. Seymour is a man of compromise, but his views go farther than those which were entertained by his party ten years ago. Although secession would produce revolution, it was, nevertheless, “a right,” founded on abstract principles, which could scarcely be abrogated consistently with due regard to the original compact. One of the company made a remark which was true enough, I dare say. We were talking of the difficulty of relieving Fort Sumter — an infallible topic just now. “If the British or any foreign power were threatening the fort,” said he, “our Government would find means of relieving it fast enough.” In fact, the Federal Government is groping in the dark; and whilst its friends are telling it to advance boldly, there are myriad voices shrieking out in its ears, “If you put out a foot you are lost.” There is neither army nor navy available, and the ministers have no machinery of rewards, and means of intrigue, or modes of gaining adherents known to European administrations. The democrats behold with silent satisfaction the troubles into which the Republican triumph has plunged the country, and are not at all disposed to extricate them. The most notable way of impeding their efforts is to knock them down with the “Constitution” every time they rise to the surface and begin to swim out.

New York society, however, is easy in its mind just now, and the upper world of millionnaire merchants, bankers, contractors, and great traders are glad that the vulgar Republicans are suffering for their success. Not a man there but resented the influence given by universal suffrage to the mob of the city, and complained of the intolerable effects of their ascendency — of the corruption of the municipal bodies, the venality of electors and elected, and the abuse, waste, and profligate outlay of the public funds. Of these there were many illustrations given to me, garnished with historietts of some of the civic dignitaries, and of their coadjutors in the press; but it did not require proof that universal suffrage in a city of which perhaps three fourths of the voters were born abroad or of foreign parents, and of whom many were the scum swept off the seethings of European populations, must work most injuriously on property and capital. I confess it is to be much wondered at that the consequences are not more evil; but no doubt the time is coming when the mischief can no longer be borne, and a social reform and revolution must be inevitable.

Within only a very few hundreds of yards from the house and picture-gallery of Mons. B––– the representative of European millions, are the hovels and lodgings of his equals in political power. This evening I visited the house of Mons. B–––, where his wife had a reception, to which nearly the whole of the party went. When a man looks at a suit of armor made to order by the first blacksmith in Europe, he observes that the finish of the joints and hinges is much higher than in the old iron clothes of the former time. Possibly the metal is better, and the chasings and garniture as good as the work of Milan, but the observer is not for a moment led to imagine that the fabric has stood proof of blows, or that it smacks of ancient watch-fire. If he were asked why it is so, he could not tell; any more perhaps than he could define exactly the difference between the lustrous, highly-jewelled, well-greaved Achaian of New York and the very less effective and showy creature who will in every society over the world pass muster as a gentleman. Here was an elegant house — I use the word in its real meaning — with pretty statues, rich carpets, handsome furniture and a gallery of charming Meissoniers and genre pieces; the saloons admirably lighted — a fair fine large suite, filled with the prettiest women in the most delightful toilets, with a proper fringe of young men, orderly, neat, and well turned-out, fretting against the usual advanced posts of turbaned and jewelled dowagers, and provided with every accessory to make the whole good society; for there was wit, sense, intelligence, vivacity; and yet there was something wanting — not in host or hostess, or company, or house — where was it ?— which was conspicuous by its absence. Mr. Bancroft was kind enough to introduce me to the most lovely faces and figures, and so far enable me to judge that nothing could be more beautiful, easy, or natural than the womanhood or girlhood of New York. It is prettiness rather than fineness; regular, intelligent, wax-like faces, graceful little figures; none of the grandiose Roman type which Von Raumer recognized in London, as in the Holy City, a quarter of a century ago. Natheless, the young men of New York ought to be thankful and grateful, and try to be worthy of it. Late in the evening I saw these same young men, Novi Eboracenses, at their club, dicing for drinks and oathing for nothing, and all very friendly and hospitable.

The club-house is remarkable as the mansion of a happy man who invented or patented a waterproof hat-lining, whereby he built a sort of Sallustian villa, with a central courtyard, a l'Alhambra, with fountains and flowers, now passed away to the New York Club. Here was Pratt's, or the defunct Fielding, or the old C. C. C.'s in disregard of time and regard of drinks — and nothing more.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 19-23

Major-General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Mead, November 9, 1864

Headquarters Army Of The Potomac, November 9, 1864.

The election passed off very quietly yesterday. About nineteen thousand votes, of which thirteen thousand five hundred were for Lincoln, and five thousand five hundred for McClellan, giving Lincoln a majority in this army of about eight thousand votes. Of these, three thousand five hundred were the majority of the Pennsylvania soldiers. During the day, much to my horror, one of the Republican agents reported the distribution of spurious or altered poll books, and charged certain Democratic agents as the parties guilty of the act. I had no other course to pursue than to arrest the parties complained against, until an investigation could be had. To-day we have been examining the matter, and there appears to be no doubt that poll books were brought here and distributed, having names of Republican electors misspelled and some omitted. The Democrats declare it is only a typographical error, and does not vitiate the use of the books, whereas the Republicans charge that it is a grave and studied effort to cheat the soldiers of their vote. In this dilemma I have applied to the Secretary of War, and asked for authority to send the parties either to Pennsylvania, to be tried by the courts there, or to Washington, to be disposed of by the Department and Doubleday's Commission, now trying the New York agent. This affair has bothered me very much. All these people are citizens of Philadelphia, and are said to be respectable. I had, however, but one course to pursue, and was compelled to notice the complaints presented to me. We have no news from the elections outside of the army, except that they passed off quietly with you and in New York; in the latter place, doubtless, owing to the presence and order of Major General Butler. Well, the election is over, with the result I expected, and now I hope no time will be lost in regulating the army.

I trust, now the election is over, measures will be taken to raise men to fill our ranks, and no time should be lost, as I don't think we can count on more than a month of good weather. To-be-sure, we can and doubtless will stay here all winter; and being so near each other, may manage to keep fighting on. But I don't think any operations involving any movement can be had after the beginning of December.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 2, p. 239-40

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, February 6, 1863

February 6, 1863.

Why should Dr. Holmes trouble himself about the base of McClellan's brain? McClellan has nothing to do with all this McClellanization of the public mind. The reaction requires a small Democrat with great military prestige for its presidential candidate. The new programme, you know, is a new conservative party of Republicans and Democrats, and all mankind except Abolitionists. It will work, I think, for as a party we have broken down. I blame nobody. It was inevitable. The “Tribune,” through the well-meaning mistakes of Greeley, has been forced to take (in the public mind, which is the point) the position of W. Phillips, — the Union if possible, emancipation anyhow. As a practical political position that is not tenable. If, by any hocus-pocus, the war order of emancipation should be withdrawn, we should be lost forever, beyond McClellan's power, assisted by John Van Buren, the “Boston Courier” and “Post” and the “New York Herald,” to save us. There's nothing for us but to go forward and save all we can.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 161

John Brown: An Idea of Things In Kansas, Spring 1857

I propose, in order to make this meeting as useful and interesting as I can, to try and give a correct idea of the condition of things in Kansas, as they were while I was there, and as I suppose they still are, so far as the great question at issue is concerned. And here let me remark that in Kansas the question is never raised of a man, Is he a Democrat? Is he a Republican? The questions there raised are, Is he a Free-State man? or, Is he a proslavery man?

I saw, while in Missouri in the fall of 1855, large numbers on their way to Kansas to vote, and also returning after they had so done, as they said. I, together with four of my sons, was called out to help defend Lawrence in the fall of 1855, and travelled most of the way on foot, and during a dark night, a distance of thirty-five miles, where we were detained with some five hundred others, or thereabout, from five to fifteen days, — say an average of ten days, — at a cost to each per day of $1.50 as wages, to say nothing of the actual loss and suffering it occasioned; many of them leaving their families at home sick, their crops not secured, their houses unprepared for winter, and many of them without houses at all. This was the case with myself and all my sons, who were unable to get any house built after our return. The loss in that case, as wages alone, would amount to $7,500. Loss and suffering in consequence cannot be estimated. I saw at that time the body of the murdered Barber, and was present when his wife and other friends were brought in to see him as he lay in the clothes he had on when killed, — no very pleasant sight!

I went, in the spring of last year, with some of my sons among the Buford men, in the character of a surveyor, to see and hear from them their business into the Territory; this took us from our work. I and numerous others, in the spring of last year, travelled some ten miles or over on foot, to meet and advise as to what should be done to meet the gathering storm; this occasioned much loss of time. I also, with many others, about the same time travelled on foot a similar distance to attend a meeting of Judge Cato's court, to find out what kind of laws he intended to enforce; this occasioned further loss of time. I with six sons and a son-in-law was again called out to defend Lawrence, May 20 and 21, and travelled most of the way on foot and during the night, being thirty-five miles. From that date none of us could do any work about our homes, but lost our whole time until we left, in October last, excepting one of my sons, who had a few weeks to devote to the care of his own and his brother's family, who had been burned out of their houses while the two men were prisoners.

From about the 20th of May of last year hundreds of men like ourselves lost their whole time, and entirely failed of securing any kind of crop whatever. I believe it safe to say that five hundred Free-State men lost each one hundred and twenty days, at $1.50 per day, which would be, to say nothing of attendant losses, $90,000. I saw the ruins of many Free-State men's houses at different places in the Territory, together with stacks of grain wasted and burning, to the amount of, say $50,000; making, in lost time and destruction of property, more than $150,000. On or about the 30th of May last two of my sons, with several others, were imprisoned without other crime than opposition to bogus enactments, and most barbarously treated for a time,—one being held about one month, the other about four months. Both had their families in Kansas, and destitute of homes, being burned out after they were imprisoned. In this burning all the eight were sufferers, as we all had our effects at the two houses. One of my sons had his oxen taken from him at this time, and never recovered them. Here is the chain with which one of them was confined, after the cruelty, sufferings, and anxiety he underwent had rendered him a maniac, — yes, a maniac.

On the 2d of June last my son-in-law was terribly wounded (supposed to be mortally), and two other Free-State men, at Black Jack. On the 6th or 7th of June last one of my sons was wounded by accident in camp (supposed to be mortally), and may prove a cripple for life. In August last I was present and saw the mangled and shockingly disfigured body of the murdered Hoyt, of Deerfield, Mass., brought into our camp. I knew him well. I saw several other Free-State men who were either killed or wounded, whose names I cannot now remember. I saw Dr. Graham, who was a prisoner with the ruffians on the 2d of June last, and was present when they wounded him, in an attempt to kill him, as he was trying to save himself from being murdered by them during the fight of Black Jack. I know that for much of the time during the last summer the travel over a portion of the Territory was entirely cut off, and that none but bodies of armed men dared to move at all. I know that for a considerable time the mails on different routes were entirely stopped, and that notwithstanding there were abundant United States troops at hand to escort the mails, such escorts were not furnished as they might or ought to have been. I saw while it was standing, and afterward saw the ruins of, a most valuable house, full of good articles and stores, which had been burned by the ruffians for a highly civilized, intelligent, and most exemplary Christian Indian, for being suspected of favoring Free-State men. He is known as Ottawa Jones, or John T. Jones. In September last I visited a beautiful little Free-State town called Stanton, on the north side of the Osage or Marais des Cygnes River, as it is called, from which every inhabitant had fled (being in fear of their lives), after having built them, at a heavy expense, a strong block-house or wooden fort for their protection. Many of them had left their effects liable to be destroyed or carried off, not being able to remove them. This was a most gloomy scene, and like a visit to a vast sepulchre.

During last summer and fall deserted houses and cornfields were to be met with in almost every direction south of the Kansas River. I saw the burning of Osawatomie by a body of some four hundred ruffians, and of Franklin afterward by some twenty-seven hundred men, — the first-named on August 30, the last-named September 14 or 15. Governor Geary had been for some time in the Territory, and might have saved Franklin with perfect ease. It would not have cost the United States one dollar to have saved Franklin.

I, with five sick and wounded sons and son-in-law, was obliged for some time to lie on the ground, without shelter, our boots and clothes worn out, destitute of money, and at times almost in a state of starvation, and dependent on the charities of the Christian Indian and his wife whom I before named.¹ I saw, in September last, a Mr. Parker, whom I well know, with his head all bruised over and his throat partly cut, having before been dragged, while sick, out of the house of Ottawa Jones, the Indian, when it was burned, and thrown for dead over the bank of the Ottawa Creek.

I saw three mangled bodies of three young men, two of which were dead and had lain on the open ground for about eighteen hours for the flies to work at, the other living with twenty buckshot and bullet-holes in him. One of those two dead was my own son.

_______________

¹ Notwithstanding the losses and charities of this good Indian in 1856, he was the next year in condition to make further gifts to Brown, as appears by this letter: —

Ottawa Creek, K. T., Oct. 13, 1857.

Mr. John Brown.

Dear Sir, — Respecting the account you have against us as a band, I would respectfully inform you that I have presented the matter before them two or three different times, and I cannot persuade them but what was paid by them was all that could be reasonably demanded of them, from the bargain they entered into with Jones the agent. For my part I think the charge is just, and it ought to be paid. The Ottawa payment comes off some time this week, and I will present your case before them again, and do what I can to induce them to attend to the account, though I entertain no hopes of its being allowed: but nothing like trying. In contributing my mite in aiding you in your benevolent enterprise, I enclose you ten dollars on the State Bank of Indiana (I presume it is good, though hundreds of other banks are worthless), and throw in the young man's bill and horse-hire, which amounts to four dollars. Accept it, sir, as a free-will offering from your friend.

Times are coming round favorably in Kansas. Mr. Parrott for Congress will have 8,000 to 10,000 majority over Ransom, and both branches of the Legislature the same in proportion. I am quite encouraged that all things will work together for good for those who are trying to work out righteousness in the land. May God bless you in your work of benevolence and philanthropy: and may God reward you more than double for your toil and losses in the work to bring about liberty for all men! Write me if you can, and let me know how you are getting along, etc.

I remain your sincere friend,

John T. Jones.

By "us as a band" is meant the Ottawa tribe of Indians, and their “payment” was the allowance periodically given to them by the Federal Government. I saw one of the last nomadic Indians of this tribe sitting bareheaded on his pony in the busy streets of Ottawa, in August, 1882, staring with his stolid eye at the white man's way of life.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 242-6

John Lothrop Motley to Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, March 29, 1860

Oatlands Park Hotel, Walton-on-Thames,

March 29, 1860.

My Dear Wendell: I am not going to make one word of apology for my long silence. If you will forgive it and write me again at once, I promise faithfully that I will write to you as often as once a quarter if you will do the same. I cannot do without letters from you, and although I have a special dislike to writing them myself, I am willing to bore you for the sake of the reward. I really believe that you are the only one of my friends to whom I have not expressed in rapturous terms the delight with which I have read and re-read your “Autocrat.” We were quite out of the way of getting the “Atlantic” in our foreign residences—in Nice, Switzerland, and Rome. But one day after it had been collected into a volume some traveler lent it to us, and we carefully forgot to return it — a petty larceny combined with breach of trust which I have never regretted, for no one could appreciate it more highly than I, in the first place, and then all my family. It is really even better than I expected it to be, and that is saying much, for you know how high were my anticipations, and if you do not, poor Phillips, now no more, who always so highly appreciated you, could have told you how surely and how often I predicted your great and inevitable success. The “Autocrat” is an inseparable companion, and will live, I think, as long certainly as anything which we have turned out on our side. It is of the small and rare class to which Montaigne's “Essays,” “Elia,” and one or two other books belong, which one wishes to have forever under one's thumb. Every page is thoughtful, suggestive, imaginative, didactic, witty, stimulating, grotesque, arabesque, titillating — in short, I could string together all the adjectives in the dictionary without conveying to you an adequate expression of my admiration.

In order that you shall not think me merely a devourer and not an appreciator, I will add that the portions which give me the most pleasure are those, by far the largest, which are grave, earnest, and profound, and that the passages least to my mind are those which in college days would have most highly delighted me, viz., the uproariously funny ones. But, as Touchstone observes, “we that have good wits cannot hold, we must be flouting,” and I do not expect to bottle you up. I have not the book at my elbow at this moment, and am too lazy to go down-stairs to fetch it, but, as an illustration of what I most enjoy, take such a passage as about our brains being clockwork. I remember nothing of the diction at this instant, but the whole train of thought is very distinct to me. Also the bucketful of fresh and startling metaphors which the Autocrat empties on the head of the divinity student in return for his complimentary language as to the power of seeing analogies. Also — but I shall never get any further in this letter if I once begin to quote the “Autocrat,” so I will only add that I admire many of the poems, especially “The Voiceless,” which I am never tired of repeating. It is scarcely necessary for me to add that it is always with a deep sensation of pride and pleasure that I turn to page 28 and read the verses therein inscribed. Strange to say, I have not yet read “The Professor at the Breakfast-Table.” I tried to buy it the other day at Sampson Low's, one of the chief American republishers or importers, but he said that it had been done by (gentlemen who have, among others, done me the same favor).

Is there no chance of ever getting an international copyright bill and hanging these filibusters, who are legally picking the pockets of us poor-devil authors, who would fain become rich devils if we could? Why do you not make use of your strong position, having the whole American public by the button, to make it listen to reason? If I were an autocrat like you, I would issue an edict immediately. Or I would have a little starling that should say nothing but “Copyright” and let the public hear nothing else. Let me not omit to mention also with how much pleasure I read your poem on Burns. It is magnificent, and every verse rings most sympathetically upon the heart. So you see we do not lose the run of you, although I have been so idle about writing, and I am promising myself much pleasure from “The Professor at the Breakfast-Table,” which I shall have sent to me from Boston. By the way, I bagged the other day a splendid presentation copy of the “Autocrat,” which you had sent to Trübner for some one else, and I gave it to Mrs. Norton (of whom you have heard often enough, and who is a poet herself), who admires it as much as I do. I do not know whether I shall like the novel as well as your other readers are likely to do, because the discursive, irresponsible, vagrant way of writing which so charms me in the “Autocrat” is hardly in place in a narrative, and, for myself, I always find, to my regret, that I grow every year less and less capable of reading novels or romances. I wish it were not so. However, I doubt not you will reclaim me, but I do not mean to read it until it is finished.

I have not a great deal to talk about now that I find myself face to face with you. We have been, by stress of circumstances rather than choice, driven to England, and we have seen a great deal of English society, both in town and country. We have received much kindness and sat at many “good men's feasts”; and I must say that I have, as I always had, a warm affection for England and the English. I have been awfully hard at work for the last year and a half, with unlucky intermissions and loss of time, but I hope to publish a couple of bulky volumes by the beginning of next year. There is a cartload of MS. already in Murray's hands, but I do not know how soon we shall begin to print.

I wish when you write — and you see that I show a generous confidence in your generosity by assuming that you will write notwithstanding my delinquencies — you would tell me what is going on in your literary world, and also something about politics. One can get but little from the newspapers; but I should really like to know what chance there is of the country's being rescued from the government which now oppresses us. But I forget, perhaps you are not a Republican, although I can hardly conceive of your being anything else. With regard to my views and aspirations, I can only say that if Seward is not elected (provided he be the candidate) this autumn, good night, my native land! I admire his speech, and agree with almost every word he says, barring of course the little sentimentality about the affection we all feel for the South, which, I suppose, is very much like the tenderness of Shylock — “Kind sir, you spat on me on Thursday last, you spurned me such a day, and another time you called me dog, and for these courtesies,” etc., etc. However, if Mr. Seward thinks it worth while to stir in a little saccharine of this sort, he knows best. The essential is to get himself nominated and elected. Now please write and tell me what the chances are, always provided you agree with me, but not if you are for the pro-slavery man, whoever he may be. I have not yet succeeded in suppressing Louis Napoleon, who bamboozles the English cabinet and plays his fantastic tricks before high heaven with more impunity than ever. Of a truth it may be said now, — three hundred years ago it was uttered by one of the most illustrious of her sons, — “Gallia silvescit.” What can be more barbarous than the condition of a country relapsed of its own choice under a military despot?

Pray remember us most kindly to your wife and children, and believe me always

Most sincerely yours,

J. L. Motley.

Pray remember me most affectionately to all the fellows at the club.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 81-5

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: April 10, 1861

Making an early start this morning, I once more arrived at Washington City. I saw no evidences of a military force in the city, and supposed the little army to be encamped at the west end of the Avenue, guarding the Executive Mansion.

We took an omnibus without delay and proceeded to the steamer. As soon as we left the shore, I fancied I saw many of the passengers breathing; easier and more deeply. Certainly there was more vivacity, since we were relieved of the presence of Republicans. And at the breakfast table there was a freer flow of speech, and a very decided manifestation of secession proclivities.

Among the passengers was Major Holmes, who had just resigned his commission in the U. S. army. He had been ordered to proceed with the expedition against Charleston; but declined the honor of fighting against his native land. The major is a little deaf, but has an intellectual face, the predominant expression indicating the discretion and prudence so necessary for success in a large field of operations. In reply to a question concerning the military qualities of Beauregard and Bragg, he said they were the flower of the young officers of the U. S. army. The first had great genius, and was perhaps the most dashing and brilliant officer in the country; the other, more sedate, nevertheless possessed military capacities of a very high order. President Davis, in his opinion, had made most excellent selections in the appointment of his first generals. The major, however, was very sad at the prospect before us; and regarded the tenders of pecuniary aid to the U. S. by the Wall Street capitalists as ominous of a desperate, if not a prolonged struggle. At this time the major's own State, North Carolina, like Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri, yet remains in the Union.

We were delayed several hours at Aquia Creek, awaiting the arrival of the cars, which were detained in consequence of a great storm and flood that had occurred the night before.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 14-5

Senator James Grimes to A. C. Barnes*, September 16, 1861

Burlington, September 16, 1861.

Your letter of the 13th instant, in which you say, “Ever since Breckinridge made his treasonable speeches in the United States Senate, it is being constantly reiterated that President Lincoln has violated the Constitution, and, as evidence of the fact, it is asserted that the Senate refused to ratify his acts;” and in which you ask me “to state whether the charge that Congress did refuse to sustain the acts of the President is true or not,” has come duly to hand.

By referring to the “Acts and Resolutions passed at the First Session of the Thirty-seventh Congress,” page 89, section 3 of Act LV1II., a copy of which I send you, you will observe that it is enacted “that all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the fourth of March, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid, to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.”

This section ratifies and confirms, to the fullest possible extent, all the acts of the President that needed or that were susceptible of ratification, and was adopted by the vote of every Republican and loyal Democratic member of the Senate present. So far as I am informed, I believe it was all the confirmation of the acts of the President that he either expected or desired.

I know it is urged by some, but mostly, if not entirely, by those who are opposed to the vigorous prosecution of the present war, that it was also necessary to confirm the acts of the President suspending, in some cases, the writ of habeas corpus. It must be apparent, I think, to every one who will reflect upon the subject, that to have attempted such confirmation would be to inferentially admit that, as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, the President had no power to suspend the operation of that writ without congressional authority. Very few, if any, loyal members of Congress were willing to admit that. They did not doubt but that he had complete power in the premises, and they chose to leave him to exercise his authority under the Constitution according to his own judgment and as the exigencies of the country might require. They did not believe that his acts in this regard needed confirmation, and therefore confined their ratification and approval to such acts as required legal enactments for their basis, and in the initiation of which they had been anticipated by him.

There may be some who honestly believe that the Senate refused to support the President because of their failure to pass certain resolutions presented by Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts. The facts in regard to those resolutions were these: They were introduced at an early day in the session, and were put aside from day to day to make room for what was considered more important business, until just at the close of the session, when they had reached that stage in parliamentary proceedings when it was impossible to amend them without unanimous consent, and that could not be obtained. The objection urged by some gentlemen against them as they stood without amendment was, that they were improperly drawn, inasmuch as the phraseology was in the past tense, and declared that the acts of the President were legal and valid when performed, whereas, as they insisted, they ought to have declared that those acts should be legal and valid as though done under the sanction of law. It was a question of grammatical construction. This, if my memory serves me correctly, was the position of Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, whose action has been much criticised in this State, as well as elsewhere. He declared his willingness, nay his anxiety, to justify and approve the acts of the President, but he was unwilling to say that those acts were legal at the time they were performed. Although not agreeing with him in his construction of the phraseology of the resolutions, it is due to him to say that no man in America was more anxious than he to give to the Administration an honest, hearty, and patriotic support. And, when the legalization of its proceedings was put in what he believed to be proper language, he cordially sustained it.

It was simply on account of this objection in the minds of a few Senators that the resolutions which it was impossible to amend were dropped, and the substance of them incorporated into a law.

Be assured that all these charges of a refusal to support the Administration by Republican and loyal Democratic Senators are devices of the enemy, and should only serve to make the path of duty more plain before us. That duty, it seems to me, is obvious. We should enthusiastically rally to the support of the noble and true men who were nominated by the convention held at Des Moines on the 31st day of July last. They are the representatives of the Government in this crisis. A vote for them will be a vote in support of the Administration, in favor of the integrity of the Government, and for peace through victory. Let us give to Governor Kirkwood, who, in the last six months, has done more hard work, incurred greater responsibilities, and been more causelessly abused than all the Governors that Iowa ever had, that cheering, sweeping majority that his patriotism, his integrity of purpose, and his devotion to the true interests of the State, so justly merit.

_______________

* Of Albia, Monroe County, Iowa.

SOURCE: William Salter, The Life of James W. Grimes, p. 150-2

Senator William P. Fessenden to William Willis, December 22, 1860

December 22.

Your letter was quite welcome. In these times I am glad to get an encouraging word, especially from calm and moderate men, for I fear sometimes that indignation may get the better of my judgment.

We have troubles and rumors of worse to come. If the Southern gentlemen are to be believed, one half the slave States are already out of the Union, and the rest are sure to follow. In our committee-room, for instance, Mr. Toombs says his State now feels no interest in the tariff, but he votes to postpone it to the 4th of March in order that no harm may be done the country while Georgia does remain a part of it. Even Mr. Hunter fears that by the middle of January the Republicans will be strong enough to pass any bill they like. There is much of this kind of flourish, but there is great anxiety to have the Republicans do something, make some proposition, and not stand still and see the country go to destruction. “They don't think there is much hope, but if the Republicans would tender sufficient guarantees, perhaps the thing might be deferred a little longer.” Any man with half an eye can see what all this means. It was begun for the purpose of frightening us into an abandonment of our position, thus strengthening the South and disgracing the Republicans. Unfortunately, however, the public mind had been so excited and poisoned that the leaders soon lost control of the movement, and they are now pushed on in their own despite. They are not happy. Jeff. Davis says as little as possible, and there is an affectation of ease about most of them which indicates concern of mind. We cannot conceal from ourselves that the country has suffered and must suffer still more. But I regard this as the crisis of our fate. Concession under menace would be fatal to us as a party; and what is vastly more and worse, it would prostrate the North forever at the feet of slavery. It is only by preserving a firm and uncompromising attitude that we can rescue the government from its downward tendency and place it upon the side of freedom where the fathers designed it should stand. While, therefore, perceiving and fully appreciating the danger, I am not disposed to avoid it by timidity or by qualifying in any way the platform of principles on which we stand. If the Union can only be saved by acknowledging the power of a minority to coerce the majority through fear of disruption, I am ready to part company with the slave States and trust God and the people for reconstruction on narrower ground, but on a sounder and safer basis.

SOURCE: Francis Fessenden, Life and Public Services of William Pitt Fessenden, Volume 1, p. 117-9

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

Abraham Lincoln to Senator Lyman Trumbull, December 28, 1857

BLOOMINGTON, December 28,1857.

Hon. Lyman Trumbull,

Dear Sir: What does the New York Tribune mean by its constant eulogizing and admiring and magnifying Douglas? Does it, in this, speak the sentiments of the Republicans at Washington? Have they concluded that the Republican cause generally can be best promoted by sacrificing us here in Illinois? If so, we would like to know it soon; it will save us a great deal of labor to surrender at once.

As yet I have heard of no Republican here going over to Douglas, but if the Tribune continues to din his praises into the ears of its five or ten thousand readers in Illinois, it is more than can be hoped that all will stand firm. I am not complaining, I only wish for a fair understanding. Please write me at Springfield.

Your obt. servant,

A. LINCOLN

SOURCE: Horace White, The Life of Lyman Trumbull, p. 87

Senator James W. Grimes to Elizabeth S. Nealley Grimes, December 10, 1859

Washington, December 10, 1859.

One week of congressional life is over, and I think it to be the stupidest business I was ever engaged in. We have done nothing in the Senate but discuss “John Brown,” “the irrepressible conflict,” and “the impending crisis,” and no one can imagine where the discussion will stop. The House of Representatives is still unorganized, and daily some members come near to blows. The members on both sides are mostly armed with deadly weapons, and it is said that the friends of each are armed in the galleries. The Capitol resounds with the cry of dissolution, and the cry is echoed throughout the city. And all this is simply to coerce, to frighten the Republicans and others into giving the Democrats the organization of the House. They will not succeed.

I called on Mrs. Trumbull to-day. She is the only woman I have spoken with since I came here. I called on another, to whose party I was invited the other day, and did not go; but she was not at home. You cannot imagine how I dislike this fashionable formality. It is terribly annoying, and I think I shall repudiate the whole thing.

SOURCE: William Salter, The Life of James W. Grimes, p. 121-2

John G. Fee to Cassius M. Clay, December 12, 1859

Pittsburg, Pa., December 12, 1859.

Mr. C. M. Clay —

Dear Friend: — I am still in the free States, being detained longer than I expected. My health is better than when I left home. We shall raise money enough to pay for our land, and open the way for other more extended interests.

I find Republicanism rising. The Republicans in Philadelphia have separated from the “mere peoples’ party.” They are going into the work in good earnest. I stopped with some true friends of yours, Wm. B. Thomas and Professor Cleveland. Many inquired for you. I told them you were still in the field, and the true friend of freedom. I believe this, and I am pained when I hear Republicans talk of such men as Bates, Blair, etc., and omit your name.

I have repeatedly spoken of you in public and private. I think the spirit is rising in the Republican ranks, and will yet demand a representative man. If you or Chase or Seward are on the ticket, or tried men, I shall expect to work with the Republicans. I shall continue to do all I can to urge a higher standard. Wm. B. Thomas of Philadelphia says he will thus work and expend money to induce a higher standard; but, if the party “flattens down” below what it was last time, he is off. Hundreds of others will do the same — yes, thousands; and that class of men the party can not well do without.

Dr. Hart of New York proposed that I address a letter to you, calling you out. I thought it not best to do so until I should see you personally, or write to you, and have an arrangement. I am having encouraging audiences — staying longer than I had intended — perhaps ’tis all well. I learn there is some feeling against me in Kentucky in consequence of an article in the Louisville Courier, representing me as approving John Brown's course, etc. Such is a direct perversion of my uniform and invariable teaching. I have been careful here, and always said I disapproved his manner of action — attempts to abduct, or incite insurrection; but that I thought God is speaking to the world through John Brown, in his spirit of consecration. I suppose I can not help the gullibility of the people, unless I attempt to correct by publishing. Is this best? Write to me at Cincinnati, care of Geo. L. Weed. I shall start for Lewis in a day or two; from thence to Cincinnati, and home.

John. G. Fee.

SOURCE: Cassius Marcellus Clay, The life of Cassius Marcellus Clay, Volume 1, p. 575-6

Rutherford B. Hayes to Sardis Birchard, March 17, 1861

CINCINNATI, March 17, 1861.

DEAR UNCLE: — I received yours of the 13th yesterday. I shall not come out for three or four weeks, perhaps not so soon. It is not yet possible to guess how the [city] election will go, but the chances are decidedly against our side. The Democrats and Know-nothings have united and will nominate their ticket this week. If they nominate men tolerably acceptable to both wings of the fusion, they will succeed beyond all question. Their majority at the last election over the Republicans was nearly three thousand. We can't beat this. Our chance is that there will be some slip or mistake which will upset the union. I shall go under with the rest, but expect to run ahead of the ticket. Of course, I prefer not to be beaten, but I have got out of the office the best there is in it for me. I shall get me an office alone, and start anew — a much pleasanter condition of things than the one I left with Corwine.

Yes, giving up Fort Sumter is vexing. It hurts our little election, too; but I would give up the prospect of office, if it would save the fort, with the greatest pleasure.

Elinor Mead * leaves us on Tuesday to return home the last of the week. She has enjoyed her visit, I think. Mother is very well again; is able to go out, to shop and to church. Little Ruddy (our brag boy now) has been sick, but is getting nearly well. The other boys count largely on going to Fremont this summer. . . .

Sincerely,

R. B. HAYES.

S. BIRCHARD.

__________

* A cousin from Vermont; later to become the wife of William Dean Howells, who that winter was a newspaper correspondent at Columbus.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 6

Brigadier General Carl Schurz to Abraham Lincoln, November 20, 1862

HEADQUARTERS 3D DIV., 11TH CORPS,

CENTREVILLE, Nov. 20, 1862.

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Dear Sir: Your favor of the 10th inst. did not reach me until the 17th. If there was anything in my letter of the 8th that had the appearance of presumption I ask your kind indulgence. You must forgive something to the sincerity of my zeal, for there is no living being on this continent, whose wishes for the success of your Administration are more ardent than mine. The consciousness of perfect good faith gave me the boldness to utter my honest convictions without reserve. I do not know how many friends you have sincere enough to tell you things which it may not be pleasant to hear; I assure you, they are not the worst. In risking the amenities of undisturbed private relations they fulfil a duty, which many, who call themselves friends, have not the courage to understand and appreciate. In this spirit I wrote to you, with full confidence in the loftiness of your own way of thinking. If the opinions I expressed were unjust, it will be a happy hour for me when I shall be able conscientiously to acknowledge my error. But whatever I may have said it was but a mild and timid repetition of what a great many men say, whose utterances might perhaps nave more weight with you than mine.

I fear you entertain too favorable a view of the causes of our defeat in the elections. It is of the highest importance, that, amidst the perplexities of your situation and the enormous responsibilities of your office, you should sift the true nature of the disaster to the very bottom. I throw myself upon your patient kindness in replying to some of your statements.

That a large proportion of Republicans have entered the Army, and that thereby the party vote was largely diminished, cannot be doubted. But you must recollect, that at the commencement of the war you were sincerely and even enthusiastically sustained by the masses of the people, and that the "Administration party" was not confined to the old Republican ranks. You had the people of the loyal States with you. This immense Administration party did not insist upon your regulating your policy strictly by the tenets of any of the old party platforms; they would have cheerfully sustained you in anything and everything that might have served to put down the rebellion. I am confident, you might have issued your emancipation manifesto, you might have dismissed your generals one after the other, long before you did it — and a large majority of the people would have firmly stood by you. All they wanted was merciless energy and speedy success. You know it yourself, there are now many prominent Democrats supporting you, who go far beyond the program of the Chicago platform.

Whatever proportion of Republicans may have entered the Army, — if the Administration had succeeded in preserving its hold upon the masses, your majorities would at any moment have put the majorities of 1860 into the shade and no insidious party contrivances could have prevailed against you. But the general confidence and enthusiasm yielded to a general disappointment, and there were but too many Republicans, who, disturbed and confused by the almost universal feeling of the necessity of a change, either voted against you or withheld their votes. I know this to be a fact.

That some of our newspapers “disparaged and vilified the Administration” may be true, although in our leading journals I have seen little else than a moderate and well-measured criticism. I know of none that had ever impeached your good faith or questioned your motives. If there were no real and great abuses, the attacks on your Administration were certainly unjustifiable. But if there were, then, I think, the misfortune was not that the abuses were criticised, but that the responsible individuals were not promptly and severely held to account. It is my opinion, and I expect I shall hold it as long as I live, that a party, in order to remain pure and efficient, must be severe against its own members; it can disarm the criticism of its opponents by justly criticising and promptly correcting itself. But however that may be, I ask you in all candor, what power would there have been in newspaper-talk, what power in the talk of demagogues based upon newspaper-talk, had the Administration been able to set up against it the evidence of great successes?

I feel that in regard to one important point I have not been quite clear in my letter of the 8th. When speaking of “your friends,” I did not mean only those who in 1860 helped to elect you; I did not think of old, and, I may say, obsolete political obligations and affinities. But I meant all those, who fully understanding and appreciating the tendency of the revolution in which we are engaged, intend to aid and sustain you honestly in the execution of the tremendous task which has fallen to your lot. Nor did I, when speaking of the duty and policy of being true to one's friends, think of the distribution of favors in the shape of profitable offices. But I did mean that in the management of the great business of this revolution only such men should be permitted to participate, who answer to this definition of “friends” and on whose sympathies you can rely as securely as upon their ability.

I am far from presuming to blame you for having placed old Democrats into high military positions. I was also aware that McClellan and several other generals had been appointed on the recommendation of Republican governors and Members of Congress. It was quite natural that you appointed them when the necessities of the situation were new and pressing and everybody was untried. But it was unfortunate that you sustained them in their power and positions with such inexhaustible longanimity after they had been found failing — failing not only in a political but also in a military sense.

Was I really wrong in saying, that the principal management of the war has been in the hands of your opponents? Or will anybody assert, that such men as McClellan and Buell and Halleck and others of that school have the least sympathy with your views and principles, or that their efficiency as military leaders has offered a compensation for their deficiency of sympathy, since the first has in eighteen months succeeded in effecting literally nothing but the consumption of our resources with the largest and best appointed army this country ever saw; — since the second by his criminal tardiness and laxity endangered even the safety of the metropolis of the Middle States, and since the appearance of the third on the battlefield of Shiloh served suddenly to arrest the operations of our victorious troops and to make shortly afterwards the great Army of the West disappear from the scene as by enchantment, so as to leave the country open to the enemy? Has it not been publicly stated in the newspapers and apparently proved as a fact, that the enemy from the commencement of the war has been continually supplied with information by some of the confidential subordinates of so important an officer as Adjutant-General Thomas? Is it surprising that the people at last should have believed in the presence of enemies at our own headquarters, and in the unwillingness of the Government to drive them out? As for me, I am far from being inclined to impeach the loyalty and good faith of any man; but the coincidence of circumstances is such, that if the case were placed before a popular jury, I would find it much easier to act on the prosecution than on the defense.

You say that our Republican generals did no better; I might reply, that between two generals of equal military inefficiency I would in this crisis give a Republican the preference. But that is not the question. I ask you most seriously — what Republican general has ever had a fair chance in this war? Did not McClellan, Buell, Halleck and their creatures and favorites claim, obtain and absorb everything? Were not other generals obliged to go begging merely for a chance to do something for their country, and were they not turned off as troublesome intruders while your Fitzjohn Porters flourished?

No, sir, let us indulge in no delusions as to the true causes of our defeat in the elections. The people, so enthusiastic at the beginning of the war, had made enormous sacrifices. Hundreds of millions were spent, thousands of lives were lost apparently for nothing. The people had sown confidence and reaped disaster and disappointment. They wanted a change, and as an unfortunate situation like ours is apt to confuse the minds of men, they sought it in the wrong direction. I entreat you, do not attribute to small incidents, the enlisting of Republican voters in the Army, the attacks of the press etc., what is a great historical event. It is best that you, you more than anybody else in this Republic, should see the fact in its true light and acknowledge its significance: the result of the elections was a most serious and severe reproof administered to the Administration. Do not refuse to listen to the voice of the people. Let it not become true, what I have heard said: that of all places in this country it is Washington where public opinion is least heard, and of all places in Washington, the White House.

The result of the elections has complicated the crisis. Energy and success, by which you would and ought to have commanded public opinion, now form the prestige of your enemies. It is a great and powerful weapon, and, unless things take a favorable turn, troubles may soon involve not only the moral power but the physical existence of the Government. Only relentless determination, heroic efforts on your part can turn the tide. You must reconquer the confidence of the people at any price.

One word in vindication of myself, the writer of this letter. I pray you most earnestly not to attribute the expressions of grief and anxiety coming from devoted men like myself to a pettish feeling of disappointment in not “seeing their peculiar views made sufficiently prominent.” When a man's whole heart is in a cause like ours, then, I think, he may be believed not to be governed by small personal pride. Besides, the spectacle of war is apt to awaken solemn and serious feelings in the heart of one who has some sympathy with his fellow-beings. I command a few thousands of brave and good fellows, entitled to life and happiness just as well as the rest of us; and when I see their familiar faces around the camp-fires and think of it, that to-morrow they may be called upon to die, — to die for a cause which for this or that reason is perhaps doomed to fail, and thus to die in vain, and when I hear the wailings of so many widows and orphans, and remember the scenes of heartrending misery and desolation I have already witnessed — and then think of a possibility that all this may be for nothing — then I must confess my heart begins sometimes to sink within me and to quail under what little responsibility I have in this business. I do not know, whether you have ever seen a battlefield. I assure you, Mr. President, it is a terrible sight. I am, dear sir,

Truly your faithful friend.

SOURCE: Frederic Bancroft, editor, Speeches, correspondence and political papers of Carl Schurz, Volume 1, p. 213-9

William H. Seward to Abraham Lincoln, April 1, 1861

SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE PRESIDENT’S CONSIDERATION.

April 1, 1861.

1. We are at the end of a month‘s Administration, and yet without a policy either domestic or foreign.

2. This, however, is not culpable, and it has even been unavoidable. The presence of the Senate, with the need to meet applications for patronage, have prevented attention to other and more grave matters.

3. But further delay to adopt and prosecute our policies, for both domestic and foreign affairs, would not only bring scandal on the Administration, but danger upon the country.

4. To do this we must dismiss the applicants for office. But how? I suggest that we make the local appointments forthwith, leaving foreign or general ones for ulterior and occasional action.

5. The policy at home. I am aware that my views are singular, and, perhaps, not sufficiently explained. My system is built on this idea, as a ruling one, namely: that we must change the question, before the public, from one upon Slavery, or about Slavery, for a question upon Union or Disunion. In other words, from what would be regarded as a party question to one of Patriotism or Union.

The occupation or evacuation of Fort Sumter, although not, in fact, a slavery or party question, is so regarded. Witness the temper manifested by the Republicans in the free States, and even by Union men in the South. I would, therefore, terminate it, as a safe means of changing the issue. I deem it fortunate that the last Administration created the necessity.

For the rest, I would simultaneously defend all the forts in the Gulf, and have the Navy recalled from foreign stations, to be prepared for a blockade. Put the island of Key West under martial law.

This will raise distinctly the question of Union or Disunion. I would maintain every fort and possession in the South.

FOR FOREIGN NATIONS.

I would demand explanations from Spain and France categorically, at once. I would seek explanation from Great Britain and Russia, and send agents into Canada, Mexico, and Central America, to reuse a vigorous continental spirit of independence on this continent against European intervention, and if satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and France, would convene Congress, and declare war against them.

But whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution of it. For this purpose, it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct it, incessantly.

Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active in it, or devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates on it must end, and all agree, and abide. It is not my especial province; but I neither seek to evade, nor assume responsibility.

SOURCE: Frederick W. Seward, Seward at Washington, as Senator and Secretary of State, p. 535

Can’t See It

The Democrat cannot see the necessity of the Republicans calling a Convention.  We confess it strikes us a good deal in the same way.  It is like the man who hated to kick against nothing, it wrenched his leg so awfully.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Saturday Morning, May 17, 1862, p. 2

Soldiers Voting

Our exceedingly [veracious] contemporary next door says, that in the Democratic Constitutional Convention of Illinois provided that soldiers should have the privilege of voting on the new constitution of that State; and also says the Democrats in the Ohio Legislature tried to do the same thing, but the Republicans wouldn’t allow it.  Now what are the facts?  The Illinois Convention, with only two dissenting voices, agreed to allow the soldiers to vote on the proposed constitution.  The Democratic commissioners appointed for the purpose, however, have fixed things so that the said soldiers have about as much real voice in the adoption of the new Constitution as the inhabitants of Kamtschatika.  In Ohio, the plan was opposed by both parties on the ground that there was no way to punish illegal voting.

The talk about two Democrats to one Republican in the army, has been proved to be the very reverse of truth so often that we should think even the Democrat would be ashamed of it.  Its repeated asseveration only shows the callousness of its editorial conscience.  It is probably trying to make itself believe so – not an uncommon thing with dealers in fiction.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Saturday Morning, May 10, 1862, p. 1

Democrat on the Negro

We are not aware that the Democrat of this city has got a new hand at the bellows, but certainly its issue of yesterday abounded with more than its usual quota of ignorance and defamation.  Were we to turn around – which heaven forbid – and utter a tithe of the secession sympathizing sentiments of that sheet our readers would drop the paper instanter [sic] and tell us we had better face toward Dixie; yet they will read this sheet day after day, curse its sentiments from the bottom of their loyal hearts and continue to pat its editor patronizingly on the back!  Its leader of yesterday was a medley of stupidity and calumny, and at the same time a remarkable exhibition of quick exemplification of what we predicted but the day before, that soon our secesh contemporaries would ring in our ears that the result of their own action in flooding the North with negroes, was the work of the Republican party.  It is true that the Democrat uses the word Abolitionists to designate Republicans, but every reader of that sheet knows that he is in the habit of using them interchangeably.  He charges that the flooding of the North with negroes is just what the Republicans of the country have been so long working and intriguing for; that they regard this freedom as paramount to the government, the Union, or the Constitution.  That is folly; we doubt the sincerity of a man who will write so, and the sense of the man who thinks so.  In the abstract, we do not suppose a Garrisonian has much more love for the negro than a pro-slavery Democrat, only that he awards more humanity to him and would treat him accordingly.

It is for the principle of freedom that Republicans contend; and while they commiserate the condition of the unfortunate slave, it is not that they bear a greater degree of love for even so much for the negro as they do for their own species, but because they believe the act of man enslaving his fellow man is barbarous, inhuman, sinful, and dragging down our nation in glory, prosperity and morality.  The editor who contends that the fact of the refugee slaves seeking the North is the result of the operations of Republican principles shows a degree of ignorance, a degradation of intellect, that unfits him for his occupation.  The very fact that congress does not and has not passed an act confiscating the slaves of rebels, and assigning them freedom at the South, is the cause of their seeking that freedom at the North; and the Democrat, and kindred sheets that protest against the passage of such act, are responsible for the North being flooded with fugitive slaves.  The Democrat protests against assigning the negro a home at the South as an act of tyranny, and denounces his appearance at the North as an unwelcome intruder.  Alas! what is to become of the poor negro!  Keep him as a slave, argues the Democrat, it is the only condition fit for him, and all rebeldom says amen.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Friday Morning, May 2, 1862, p. 2

Union for the Sake of the Union

Let every Republican, every anti-slavery man, every man who loves his country, and rejoices in Union, read the following noble utterances of John W. Forney, and profit by them:

“Two combinations are engaged in the work of undermining the fabric of our free institutions.  They work with unceasing industry and perseverance.  One is composed of armed traitors who, after stealing the property of the General Government, now devote themselves to the task of taking the lives of the freemen of the North.  The other is composed of politicians who, in a thousand ways, labor to misrepresent, assail, and cripple the Administration under the pretext of superfine devotion to the Constitution.  Every victory in the battle field by the first, elevates and strengthens the second.  Shall we profit by this lesson?  Our duty is as plain as our path:  Harmonious action in the warlike and political struggle.  No division among common friends pledged to a common cause.  No conflict over names.  No rivalries among leaders.  No criticisms upon brave men in the field, or good men in councils.  No hesitation to vote supplies in Congress. No more leniency to traitors.  With these mottoes on our banners we shall rescue our country from ruin, and build up a fortress of freedom on these shores that will stand all the ravages of time and of treason.”

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Thursday Morning, May 1, 1862, p. 2

Republican State Convention

Notice is hereby given that a delegate Republican State Convention will be held at Des Moines, on Wednesday the 23d day of July A. D. 1862, for the purpose of putting in nomination a Secretary and Auditor of State, Attorney General and Register of the the State Land Office, and for the transaction of such other business as may be decreed expedient when met.

The ration of representation will be as follows, viz: One Delagate from each organized county; or One Delegate for every one hundred votes cast for Abraham Lincoln for President of the United States in 1860, and one additional Delegate for any fractional vote exceeding fifty.

Loyal citizens, regardless of former political associations, who are in favor of giving the National Administration their honest support, in a thorough and vigorous prosecution of the war for the suppression of the rebellion are invited to co-operate throughout the State.

JOHN N. DEWEY, Chairman, 5th District

SAML. F. MILLER, 1st District

W. S. DUNCAN, 2d District

JNO. D. LOCKWOOD, 3d District

W. R. SMITH, 4th District

J. H. SANDERS, 6th District

J. BUTLER, 7th District

J. SHANE, 8th District

G. W. MILLER, 9th District

L. FULLER, 10th District

R. H. TAYLOR, 11th District

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, June 7, 1862, p. 2