Speech of Simon Cameron, November 14, 1865

I cannot let this opportunity pass without thanking the African soldiers for the compliment they have paid me, but more than all to thank them for the great service which they have been to their country in this terrible rebellion. I never doubted that the people of African descent would play a great part in this struggle, and I am proud to say that all my anticipations have been more than realized. Your services, offered in the early part of the war, were refused; but when-the struggle became one of life and death, then the country gallantly received you, and thank God you nobly responded and redeemed as you promised. [Applause]. Like all other men, you have your destiny in your hands, and if you continue to conduct yourselves hereafter as in the past, you will have all the rights you ask for, all the rights belonging to human beings. [Applause]. I can truly say again, I thank you, I thank you from my heart for all you have done for your country, and I know the country will hold you in grateful remembrance.

I cannot close without saying that there is at the head of the national government a great man who is able and determined to deal justly with you. I know that with his approval no state that was in rebellion will be allowed to return to the benefits of the Union, without first having a constitutional compact which will prevent slavery in the land for all time to come; which will make all men free and equal before the law; which will prescribe no distinction of color on the witness stand and in the jury box, and which will protect the homes and the domestic relations of all men and women. He will insist, too, on the repudiation of all debts contracted for the support of the rebellion. Remember, when this war began there were four million of slaves in this country unprotected by law. Now all men are made free by the law. Thank God for all this! For He alone has accomplished this work!

SOURCES: Luther Reily Kelker, History of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, Volume 2, p. 548-9

An Interesting Prediction

In 1860 when Jeff Davis was threatening destruction to the North as the result of secession, he, one day, in an animated conversation with Gen. Simon Cameron exclaimed: “When the South secedes, such paralysis will fall upon Northern enterprise, that the grass will grow in the streets of your Northern cities!”  The retort was instant; the General replied: “No Mr. Davis, if the Southern States secede, utter ruin will fall on your section.  Your slaves will be liberated, and will assist in your destruction.  The North will not be ruined, but I will, with my own hands, plant corn in the streets of Charleston, the cradle of treason.”  True to his promise, in the spring of this year, when Gen. Cameron visited the South, he did plant corn in the very street of Charleston, and hired a soldier from one of the hospitals to attend to it.  The General received the other day the crop, consisting of four ears of corn, one of which has been presented to the Harrisburg Telegraph, and can be seen at that office.

— Published in the Juniata Sentinel, Mifflintown, Pennsylvania, Wednesday, August 23, 1865, p. 2

Address of the Union State Central Committee

To the People of Pennsylvania:

In the midst of a fierce conflict for the national life – responding to calls for large reinforcements to enable our armies to successfully combat with traitors – cheerfully meeting the payment of extraordinary taxation to supply the Government with money to conduct the war, the submitting to an immense increase in the prices of living, the people of Pennsylvania have nevertheless been able for three years to maintain a prosperity, and secure a healthy operation in all the branches of their trade, unprecedented in the annals of any country while engaged in the prosecution of a war.  In the trials of this bloody war, with the struggle just reaching its climax, the people of Pennsylvania suddenly find themselves involved in a political contest invested with the highest importance, because fraught with the most momentous issues.  Ordinarily, heretofore, political contests meant only a choice of policy as to the manner of administering the Government.  The struggle of parties was for the possession of the powers of Government, and merely to control their operation.  How, however, our political contests have resolved themselves into a direct and a positive issue for the safety and the permanence of the Government; because, politically as well as sectionally, the contest at the ballot-box and in the battle-field must decide whether the Union shall exist or perish with the triumph or defeat of one or the other of the contending parties.  Hence the unwonted importance with which our political campaigns are now invested. — Parties are now divided on issued which vitally concern the Government.  They are composed of friends and enemies of that government.  To choose between these parties equally interests the cause of loyalty and that of treason.  No man can stand neutral between the two, and all that are not fairly for the Government will be justly recognized as its enemy. — Admitting that such is the new importance assumed by our political contests, we have an excuse as well as a justification for entering on the contest fast approaching, for the amendments to the Constitution, with all the zeal in our nature, and all the devotion that should characterize the patriot and the lover of his country in his effort to serve it.

It was seem that on an amendment to the Constitution granting the soldier a right to vote there should be no division.  Among a free people particularly, who are admitted always to be the most intelligent, such a right should be so well grounded in common and statute law as to need no action, at this late day, for its exercise and vindication.  The soldier, in all lands, alike among civilized and barbaric nations, has ever been admitted to the highest honors conferred by the governments beneath whose banners he fought.  His valor, his sacrifices, and his devotion, have ever been regarded as themes for the poet, subjects for the painter, and material for the historian; and thus the calling of arms became one of honor – one which elicited the noble rivalries of compatriots, and, where civilization refined for the instincts and elevated the character of men, war has been so conducted as to force combatants to respect and honor each other’s qualities – the victor still to treat the vanquished as a MAN.  The Constitution and laws expressly declare that no man shall be deprived of his citizenship, except for high crimes of which he shall be chard and proven guilty.  He must be summoned to meet such a charge of criminality in the presence of judges whose oaths bind them to do him entire justice.  He must be insured a trial by a jury sworn impartially to consider his case.  If found guilty, the sentence of his judges may result in his disfranchisement – but disfranchisement is not aimed at as a result of his punishment.  Disfranchisement as a direct punishment is only made to follow the highest crime known against the State.  Yet in the face of these facts, and in opposition to all equity, there are those in the State who insist that disfranchisement should follow the highest service which a man can perform for his Government.  There is a strong party to-day in Pennsylvania, regularly organized, controlled by able leaders and sustained by astute and learned advocates, insisting that the service of a citizen as a soldier – the periling of life and limb in the support of the Government, the giving up of domestic endearments, the sacrifice of business interests, and the yielding  of all personal comforts, forfeit for those thus engaged all political right, every franchise of a free-born or constitutionally adopted American citizen.  The monstrous iniquity of such a claim is at once apparent, however it has been maintained by our highest judicial tribunals.  Its injustice can only be sustained by sophistries founded in the worst political prejudices, so that the sooner the Constitution and laws are made plain and rendered explicit on this subject, and posted where every man can read and understand them, just so soon do we secure the strength and majesty of the Government in the confidence and respect of the governed – just so soon do we make our good old State worthy of the past valor of her sons, and glorious in the future.  American citizenship has its virtues and these their merits.  Each virtue can only be exalted by serving the Government under which they flourish; but if that service is made a badge of degradation, will it not be more natural for men of honor and spirit and true courage to resist its rendition than voluntarily to accept its duties?  The citizen-soldier feels when he takes up arms it is to defend, not destroy, his political rights.  The man who sacrifices his business interests, and for a stipulated time surrenders his personal liberty, cannot understand why he should be deprived of his political rights.  The service of arms does not blunt the judgment or blur the ability of a citizen to exercise the elective franchise.  It rather gives him a new title to the enjoyment of such a right, and fits him for the highest privileges of a free Government.  Unlike the masses of Europe, the great body of the American people are intelligent, possessed of educations affording the heights knowledge.  While war for a time may change the habits of such people, it cannot affect their sense of justice, their appreciation of power, and their love of Government.  It cannot lessen their ability for self-government.  If it could, the war in which we are now engaged for the defence of the Government and the safety of the public weal had better be stopped immediately.

The Democratic leaders now oppose the enfranchisement of the soldier.  In the olden time of the Democratic leaders, such as Jefferson, Jackson, Snyder and Shultze insisted that the elective franchise followed the flag under which a soldier fought.  If that flag was potent, on the sea and the land, to protect a man in war, why should it not possess the other virtues of continuing his political franchises?  If it made the deck of a vessel above which it waved the soil of the country represented by it, regardless of the sea or clime in which it floated, so also does it carry with it for the soldier who fights beneath its folds any political rights which these heroes enjoyed before they were mustered into the service; and on this soundly democratic argument the soldiers who fought in Mexico were able to exercise a freeman’s right in the wilds of the chapparel, the heats of the seashore, the din of conflict, and in the shadow of battlemented castles, the same as if they had been at home in their respective wards and precincts.  If men fighting thousands of miles from home – cut off from all communication – scarcely informed at the time on the issues of the political campaign, were able and entitled to exercise the right of the franchise, is it not fair to suppose that citizens of a like intelligence, engaged in the same service of the Government within the limits of its authority, distant only a few miles from home, conversant with all the issues involved in the political contest, in daily communication with their friends, and in perusal also of journals discussing the questions at stake – is it not fair to suppose that such men are entitled to the exercise of all their political rights?  Only those who act from perverted policy on this subject, will seek to evade the responsibility of such a question.  This is proven by the judicial history already attached to this question.  When it was deemed expedient, as it was undoubtedly considered by the democratic leaders then, the elective franchise was extended to the absent soldiers in Mexico; but in the midst of a war waged by the upholders of an institution from which the Democratic leaders thrive all their strength, George W. Woodward, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and lately the candidate of the Democratic party for Governor, judicially denied the soldiers the exercise of the elective franchise; denied our brave defenders the right almost in the same breath in which he declared the right of the States of the South to rebel and secede from the Union!  Fair men can see no difference in an American soldier voting in Mexico, while fighting beneath the flag of his country, and the same soldier citizen under the same circumstances voting in a rebellious State.  Time nor place, within the limits of a free government, or in the service thereof, cannot influence, should not be permitted to affect the rights of a freeman.  The government which is not able to insure him these inherent rights is unworthy his support.  The authority of a free government, which seeks to degrade a freeman while periling his life in its defence, is a despotism more fearful than that which denies all right to the governed.  It is not possible that such a government can last.  At some period in its history, if the rights of its defenders be disregarded as the Democratic leaders now deny the right of the franchise to the soldiers, it will need arms to protect it both from foreign and domestic foes, and perish eventually, an object to mean for defence.

In advocating the soldier’s right to vote, the loyal men of Pennsylvania are sustained by a faith in the fact that his service is such as to secure him not merely all the rights he enjoyed before he entered the army, but increased dignity and power at the hands of the Republic.  The enemies of this great principle oppose it only for reasons of expediency.  There was a time when the Democratic leaders claimed that the army was largely and even almost wholly composed of their partisan followers.  When they were most clamorous in insisting upon the recognition of such a claim, the supporters of the principle, opposed politically to these leaders were most earnest and even persistent in its advocacy.  To them it was a principle of justice too sacred to be disregarded – too noble to be rejected – too important in its relations to the very genius and vitality of the Republic to be denied to all the people thereof, alike shoes who risk the perils of battle in its defence and those who run no danger of life, limb or property in the service of Government, and who still claim its highest immunities and most sacred privileges.  On the second day of August ensuing this question will come practically before the People of Pennsylvania.  We do not doubt the result of the election as to the acceptance of rejection of the soldier’s right to vote.  But we would be false to the party which we represent, and recreant to the creed which we adore, if we failed to avow in advance our approval of granting this great right to our brave defenders.  Pennsylvania has many thousands of her citizens now in the army. – They have all gone forth inspired by a sublime faith in the strength of a free Government to crush a wicked conspiracy, and does it become us, while enjoying the halcyon blessings of peace at home, while the limbs of our soldiers are wet with their own blood, and their weapons are dripping with the gore of traitors, to say to them, “You have forfeited your citizenship; you are no longer worthy of participating in the control of a free Government; your positions must be with the slaves of the South among the disgraced and degraded of God’s children?”  We cannot believe that the people of Pennsylvania are prepared to send such a message to their fellow-citizens in the armies of the republic.  We cannot believe that so foul a disgrace awaits our war-warn but still intrepid heroes.  The hearts of the great majority of the people at home are too full of gratitude for a return of great service by galling neglect.  Our faith in the justice of the people renders us confident in the establishment and vindication of the political rights of the soldier.  But that fault must be accompanied by works.  Hence it becomes the duty of the State Central Committee to urge on the friends of the soldier actively to labor for the triumph of this effort in his behalf.  Let it be said of our fellow-citizens now absent as soldiers, that as our victorious armies planted their banners in the capital of treason, it was beneath their folds in Richmond each hero of the Keystone State exercised the freeman’s right of the elective franchise for a president to administer the Government to a reunited Union, to States once more loyal, to a people again at peach and blessed with prosperity.

SIMON CAMERON, Chairman.

A. W. BENEDICT,

WIEN FORNEY,

Secretaries.

— Published in The Jeffersonian, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania,Thursday, July 14, 1864, p. 2

Simon Cameron to William P. Fessenden, June 15, 1864

Harrisburg, June 15, 1864.

My Dear Sir, — I strove hard to renominate Hamlin, as well for his own sake as for yours, but failed only because New England, especially Massachusetts, did not adhere to him.

Johnson will be a strong candidate for the people, but in the contingency of death, I should greatly prefer a man reared and educated in the North. 1 hope you will come this way going home.

Truly yours,

Simon Cameron.

Hon. W. P. Fessenden.

SOURCE: Charles Eugene Hamlin, The Life and Times of Hannibal Hamlin, p. 463

Simon Cameron to Abraham Lincoln, March 29, 1864

Private and confidential.

Harrisburg, March 29, 1864.

Dear Sir,

I had a letter this morning from a very intelligent politician, of much influence, in N. York, urging me to consent to a postponement of the convention till Sept. Some time ago, a committee called on me to urge the same matter.

These things and others that have come to my view, convince me that it will be vigorously urged and that if it is not vigorously resisted, it will succeed.

In connection with this, it is well known that Mr. Seward has never ceased to think he will succeed you, and that his faithful manager hopes to carry him into the Presidency next March, by his skill, aided perhaps by the millions made in N. York, by army & navy contracts.

Another, and I think a wiser party, look to the election of Gnl. Dix. The least failure this summer, some now think, will ensure your defeat, by bringing forward a negative man, with a cultivated character such as Dix has acquired by avoiding all responsibility, & always obtaining with every party in power, a high position.

I am against all postponements, as I presume you are, but I look upon this moment as being so formidable that I should like to have a full & free conversation with you, concerning it & the campaign. — There are many points which would probably enable me to do some service, — & as I am in the contest, with no wish saving your success, and with little business to interfere, I desire to guard against all surprizes. — You are always so much employed when I am in Washington, that I have hesitated to occupy your time, — and but, if you will drop me a line saying when I can come to your house, with the chance of an hours uninterrupted talk, I will obey it.

I come from Ft. Monroe yesterday after spending three days there, during which time, I had much pleasant conversation with Gnl. Butler — part of which I would like to communicate to you.

Fearing you will not be able to read my hurried writing,

I am very respectfully

Simon Cameron

SOURCE: The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Abraham Lincoln to Simon Cameron, April 7, 1864

Executive Mansion,

Washington, April 7, 1864.

Hon. Simon Cameron

My dear Sir.

I have this moment, only, received yours of March 29th. I will see you any time it is convenient for you to come.

Yours truly

A. LINCOLN

SOURCE: Roy P. Basler, Editor, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 7, p. 289

Edwin M. Stanton to Simon Cameron, June 10, 1863

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 10, 1863.

Hon. SIMON CAMERON, Harrisburg:

Major-General Couch has been assigned to the command of the Department of the Susquehanna, including all of Pennsylvania east of Johnstown. He will go to Harrisburg to-morrow. I wish you would see him, and give him what aid you can. I have given him a letter of introduction to you.

EDWIN M. STANTON.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 27, Part 3 (Serial No. 45), p. 54.

Gen. Cameron and the African.

From the Washington Chronicle.

General Cameron, American minister to St. Petersburg, now in this city on official business, is known to be a very agreeable and entertaining talker.  One incident which he relates with great humor, deserves reproduction in the columns of the Daily Chronicle.

Arriving at a small German town on the evening of Whitsuntide – which is a famous and favorite holiday with the Lutherans – he was struck with the descent and comfortable appearance of the people who crowded the streets; but what most interested him was a tall, stout and impressive negro, far blacker than Othello, even before he was represented as a highly colored gentleman.  Supposing him to be an American negro, Mr. Cameron went up to him and said: “How are you, my friend?” using the Pennsylvania German, in which the General is a sort of adept, when to his infinite horror, the colored individual turned upon him and said, in good guttural Dutch, “I am no American; “I am an African; and if you are an American, I do not want to talk to you.  I won’t talk to any man who comes from a country professing to be free, in which human beings are held as slaves.”  And this was said with a magisterial and indignant air that would have been irresistibly comic.  General Cameron made his escape with the best grace possible from his stalwart and sable antagonist, and supposed he had got rid of him, but on passing into an adjoining room with his secretary, Bayard Taylor, to take a glass of lager beer, he was again confronted by the German African, who reopened his vials of wrath, concluded by turning to the general and asking him in broad German, “Sag bin ich recht, or bin ich unrecht?” which means, “Say, am I right or am I wrong, answer me?”  General Cameron made inquiry as to the negro, and ascertained that one of the nobility in the neighborhood who had spent some years in Africa, on a scientific and hunting tour, brought back with him to Germany a very handsome native, who, in the course of time, developed into the individual that sought the opportunity to administer a rebuke to an American who lived in a country professing to be free, yet recognizing the institution of human slavery.

— Published in The Fremont Weekly Journal, Fremont, Ohio, Friday, December 5, 1862, p. 4

Simon Cameron to Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1862

St Petersburg

June 26, 1862.

My dear Sir,

I must begin this my first letter from Russia, by thanking you for your message to Congress, in relation to the N. York agencies. It was a good act, bravely done. Right, in itself, as it was, very many men, in your situation, would have permitted an innocent man to suffer rather than incur responsibility. I am glad to see that the leading presses of Europe speak of it, in high terms, as an act of “nobleness”; and if I can believe what I hear from home, you will lose nothing there. At all events, I can assure you, that I will never cease to be grateful for it.

Yesterday, I had the honor of being introduced to the Emperor, of which I shall send an official account to-day to the State Dept. The interview was a long one, and his majesty was more than cordial. He asked me many questions shewing his interest in our affairs, and when I thanked him, in your name, for his prompt sympathy in our cause, the expression of his eyes, and his subsequent remarks, shewed me very clearly that he was particularly well pleased for he soon after turned the conversation to England.

The whole Court is at present out of the city, and all the high officials will remain absent, for some months. The Emperor came to town only to receive me. There is never much to be done here by an American Minister, and now there is really nothing for me to do. I more than ever regret that Mr Seward did not give me authority to travel, as you said I might have.

Feeling sure that no harm can come to the Government, by the absence of its minister at this time, I am induced now to ask you for a forlough to go home, as was given I think to Mr. Schurze, to look after my private affairs I make this request with more confidence in the assurance that the Legation will be well conducted, during my absence by Mr Taylor. I certainly would not have left home when the attack was made on me in the House of Reps strengthened as I was by your repeated assurances that I might take my own time for leaving, only that all my arrangements had been made for sailing, my passage taken and paid for, to which I had been urged by the belief that wrong was being done to Mr Clay by my delay, = but when I came here I found he was entirely content, and would have been satisfied if my arrival had been still later.

I should like to leave here by the middle of September, as then the lease of the house which I took from Mr. Clay to relieve him, will expire. The rent is a heavy item in the expenditures of a Minister, being over $3000 & more than one fourth of his yearly pay. Going at that time too, will enable me to reach home in time before the Pennsa. election to be of some service to my country, for I think your troubles will soon be removed from the Army to Congress. I shall make this application to the State Department officially – but I ask it now, from your friendship

I have been gratified all over Europe to find the high reputation you are making, and from home, too, there are indications of a growing belief that you will have to be your own successor. While it is, in my judgment, the last place to find happiness, I think you will have to make up your mind to endure it.

This is a great city and Russia is a mighty nation, and I have many things to say of them, which will be deferred till we meet. The climate I regret to say does not suit the health of my family, and they wish to leave it.

Please give to Mrs. Lincoln, the kindest regards of my wife, and believe me

Your friend Truly

Simon Cameron

Hon. A. Lincoln

Your prompt reply to my request, will especially oblige me.

SOURCE: The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

Abraham Lincoln to the Congress of the United States, May 26, 1862

WASHINGTON, May 26, 1862.

To the SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

The insurrection which is yet existing in the United States, and aims at the overthrow of the Federal Constitution and the Union, was clandestinely prepared during the winter of 1860 and 1861, and assumed an open organization in the form of a treasonable Provisional Government at Montgomery, in Alabama, on the 18th day of February, 1861. On the 12th day of April, 1861, the insurgents committed the flagrant act of civil war by the bombardment and capture of Fort Sumter, which cut off the hope of immediate conciliation. Immediately afterward all the roads and avenues to this city were obstructed, and the capital was put into the condition of a siege. The mails in every direction were stopped, and the lines of telegraph cut off by the insurgents, and military and naval forces, which had been called out by the Government for the defense of Washington, were prevented from reaching the city by organized and combined treasonable resistance in the State of Maryland. There was no adequate and effective organization for the public defense. Congress had indefinitely adjourned. There was no time to convene them. It became necessary for me to choose whether, using only the existing means, agencies, and processes which Congress had provided, I should let the Government fall at once into ruin, or whether, availing myself of the broader powers conferred by the Constitution in cases of insurrection, I would make an effort to save it with all its blessings for the present age and for posterity. I thereupon summoned my constitutional advisers — the heads of all the Departments — to meet on Sunday, the 20th [21st] day of April, 1861, at the office of the Navy Department, and then and there, with their unanimous concurrence, I directed that an armed revenue cutter should proceed to sea, to afford protection to the commercial marine, and especially the California treasure ships, then on their way to this coast. I also directed the commandant of the navy-yard at Boston to purchase or charter, and arm as quickly as possible, five steam-ships, for purposes of public defense. I directed the commandant of the navy-yard at Philadelphia to purchase, or charter and arm, an equal number for the same purpose. I directed the commandant at New York to purchase, or charter and arm, an equal number. I directed Commander Gillis to purchase, or charter and arm, and put to sea two other vessels. Similar directions were given to Commodore Du Pont with a view to the opening of passages by water to and from the capital. I directed the several officers to take the advice and obtain the aid and efficient services in the matter of His Excellency Edwin D. Morgan, Governor of New York, or in his absence, George D. Morgan, William M. Evarts, R. M. Blatchford, and Moses H. Grinnell, who were by my direction especially empowered by the Secretary of the Navy to act for his Department in that crisis in matters pertaining to the forwarding of troops and supplies for the public defense. On the same occasion I directed that Governor Morgan and Alexander Cummings, of the city of New York, should be authorized by the Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, to make all necessary arrangements for the transportation of troops and munitions of war in aid and assistance of the officers of the Army of the United States until communication by mails and telegraph should be completely re-established between the cities of Washington and New York. No security was required to be given by them, and either of them was authorized to act in case of inability to consult with the other. On the same occasion I authorized and directed the Secretary of the Treasury to advance, without requiring security, $2,000,000 of public money to John A. Dix, George Opdyke, and Richard M. Blatchford, of New York, to be used by them in meeting such requisitions as should be directly consequent upon military and naval measures necessary for the defense and support of the Government, requiring them only to act without compensation, and to report their transactions when duly called upon.

The several departments of the Government at that time contained so large a number of disloyal persons that it would have been impossible to provide safely, through official agents only, for the performance of the duties thus confided to citizens favorably known for their ability, loyalty, and patriotism. The several orders issued upon these occurrences were transmitted by private messengers, who pursued a circuitous way to the sea-board cities, inland, across the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio and the Northern Lakes. I believe that by these and other similar measures taken in that crisis, some of which were without any authority of law, the Government was saved from overthrow. I am not aware that a dollar of the public funds thus confided without authority of law to unofficial persons was either lost or wasted, although apprehensions of such misdirection occurred to me as objections to those extraordinary proceedings, and were necessarily overruled. I recall these transactions now because my attention has been directed to a resolution which was passed by the House of Representatives on the 30th day of last month, which is in these words:

Resolved, That Simon Cameron, late Secretary of War, by investing Alexander Cummings with the control of large sums of the public money, and authority to purchase military supplies without restriction, without requiring from him any guarantee for the faithful performance of his duties, when the services of competent public officers were available, and by involving the Government in a vast number of contracts with persons not legitimately engaged in the business pertaining to the subject-matter of such contracts, especially in the purchase of arms for future delivery, has adopted a policy highly injurious to the public service, and deserves the censure of the House.

Congress will see that I should be wanting equally in candor and in justice if I should leave the censure expressed in this resolution to rest exclusively or chiefly upon Mr. Cameron. The same sentiment is unanimously entertained by the heads of Departments, who participated in the proceedings which the House of Representatives has censured. It is due Mr. Cameron to say that, although he fully approved the proceedings, they were not moved nor suggested by himself, and that not only the President but all the other heads of Departments were at least equally responsible with him for whatever error, wrong, or fault was committed in the premises.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

SOURCES: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series III, Volume 2 (Serial No. 123), p. 73-5

Benjamin H. Brewster to William H. Seward, April 16, 1862

706 Walnut Street,

PHILADELPHIA, April 16, 1862.

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

SIR: By the directions of General Simon Cameron I send you a summons issued by the supreme court of this State at the suit of Pierce Butler v. Simon Cameron, July 1-November 17, 1861. The writ is returnable the first Monday of May, 1862, and is for trespass, vi et armis, assault and battery and false imprisonment. The cause of action is no doubt founded upon the supposed misconduct of General Cameron in causing the arrest of the plaintiff, Mr. Pierce Butler, and placing him in Fort Warren or some other public fortification without authority of law while he, General Cameron, was Secretary of War. As I am instructed the act was not the act of General Cameron, and was done by those who commanded it be done for just reasons and for the public good.

You will please communicate the fact of this suit to the President and such other official persons as should properly be advised of it and have such action taken as shall relieve the defendant Simon Cameron from the burden, cost and responsibility of defending this suit.

By the directions of General Cameron I have as his private counsel ordered my appearance for him, while I also invite and request the intervention of the proper authorities in his behalf and for his protection.

I am, sir, truly, &c.,

BENJAMIN H. BREWSTER.

SOURCES: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Volume 2 (Serial No. 115), p. 507; Congressional Series of United States Public Documents: 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Ex. Doc. No. 43

Edward Bates to George A. Coffey, May 5, 1862

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE, May 5, 1862.

GEORGE A. COFFEY, Esq.,

U. S. District Attorney, Philadelphia.

SIR: Of course you have unofficial information of an action brought in the supreme court of Pennsylvania for the eastern district by Pierce Butler v. Simon Cameron, “in a plea of trespass, vi et armis, assault and battery and false imprisonment.” The copy of the writ sent to me does not disclose the fact that the action is founded upon any official act of the ex-Secretary of War; but it is well understood here that the action arises out of the arrest of Mr. Butler upon political grounds and his supposed complicity in the existing rebellion. Upon this supposition the President adopts the act of the Secretary of War in restraining Mr. Butler temporarily from his liberty, and desires that the suit shall be fully defended as a matter which deeply concerns the public welfare as well as the safety of the individual officers of the Government.

Mr. Cameron has retained private counsel for his defense, Mr. Benjamin H. Brewster, 706 Walnut street, Philadelphia. Mr. Brewster's letter to Mr. Seward is before me wherein he says:

I have as his (Cameron's) private counsel ordered my appearance for him, while I also invite and request the intervention of the proper authorities in his behalf and for his protection.

By authority of the President therefore I request that you will give attention to the case and render whatever aid the full defense of the action may in your good judgment require. There are other actions pending of a somewhat similar character — especially one against Secretary Welles in this District — and no doubt they will greatly multiply unless met vigorously and carefully in limine. Of course Mr. Brewster will see that there is no judgment by default, but to bar accidents please see to it. There is a bill pending in Congress which if passed will facilitate defenses in such cases.

With great respect, your obedient servant,

EDWARD BATES.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Volume 2 (Serial No. 115), p. 508

John G. Nicolay to Therena Bates, January 14, 1862

[Washington, 14 January 1862]

. . . The President made an item of news yesterday for the country by appointing Edwin M. Stanton of Pa Secretary of war in place of Simon Cameron whom he sends as Minister to Russia.  Cassius M. Clay of Kentucky, now holding that place will come home and take a generalship in the army.  Quite a little shuffle all round.

So far as the Secretaryship of War is concerned I think the change a very important and much needed one.  I don’t know Mr. Stanton personally but he is represented as being an able and efficient man, and I shall certainly look for very great reforms in the war department.  So far the Department has substantially taken care of itself. . . .

SOURCE: Michael Burlingame, Editor, With Lincoln in the White House: Letters, Memoranda, and Other Writings of John G. Nicolay, 1860-1865, p. 66

Diary of Edward Bates: January 13, 1862

To night, I was taken by surprise in hearing that Mr. Cameron sec. of War, has resigned, and goes to Russia, in lieu of Cash: M. Clay ²⁶ — and that Edwin M. Stanton ²⁷ is to take his place. This was a street rumor in the afternoon. At night, I was told by Senator Harris,²⁸ that the nominations had been actually made. Strange — not a hint of all this was heard last friday, at C.[abinet] C.[ouncil] and stranger still, I have not been sent for by the Prest. nor spoken to by any member. The thing, I learn, was much considered saturday and sunday — Hay²⁹ told the ladies at Eames’³⁰ jocosely, that the Cabinet had been sitting en permanence — and Mr. E[ames] himself informed me that Mr. Seward had been with the Prest: the whole of Sunday forenoon.

[Marginal Note.] Upon reflection, it is not strange — When the question is of the retaining or dismissing a member of the cabinet, the Prest. could not well lay the matter before the cabinet — he must do that himself.

There is a rumor in town, that Burnside³¹ has landed to attack Norfolk (proven afterwards, as I expected at the time, false)[.]

_______________

²⁶ Cassius M. Clay, Kentucky abolitionist, editor, politician, had supported Lincoln In 1860 and expected to become secretary of War, but was appointed minister to Russia instead, 1861-1862, 1S63-1869. He was now returning -with a brigadier-generalship to make room for Cameron to be eased out of the Cabinet, but, when he got here, he refused to fight until the Government abolished slavery in the seceded states, and so the next year when Cameron tired of the post, he returned to Russia.

²⁷ Able Pittsburgh lawyer who practiced frequently before the U. S. Supreme Court; anti-slavery Democrat who believed in protection of slavery in the South where It legally existed; Free-Soiler in 1848; attorney-general in Buchanan's Cabinet, 1S60-1861, where he vigorously opposed the plan to abandon Fort Sumter ; bitter critic of Lincoln in 1860-1861; secretary of War, 1862-1868; professed supporter of Lincoln; treacherous enemy of Johnson. Bates shares Welles's distrust of Stanton even under Lincoln.

²⁸ Supra, Jan. 4, 1862, note 11.

²⁹ John M. Hay: poet; journalist; private secretary to the President; later, ambassador to Great Britain, 1897-1898; secretary of State, 1898-1905; historian of Lincoln.

³⁰ Charles Eames: international lawyer; commissioner to Hawaii, 1849; editor of the Nashville Union, in 1850, and the Washington Union, 1850-1854 ; minister resident to Venezuela, 1854-1857; at this time (1861-1867) counsel for the Navy Department and the captors in prize cases and for the Treasury Department in cotton cases.

³¹ Supra, Nov. 29, 1861, note 97.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, The Diary of Edward Bates, 1859-1866, p. 226-7

Diary of Salmon P. Chase: January 12, 1862

At church in the morning.  Good, plain sermon. Wished much to join in communion, but felt myself to subject to temptation to sin. After church went to see Cameron by appointment, but being obliged to meet the President, etc., at one, could only excuse myself. At President's, found Generals McDowell, Franklin, and Meigs, and Seward and Blair. Meigs decided against dividing forces; in favor of battles in front. President said McClellan's health was much improved; and thought it best to adjourn until to-morrow; and have all then present, attend, with McC. at three. Home, and talk, and reading. Dinner. Cameron came in. Advised loan in Holland, and recommended Brooks, Lewis, and another whom I have forgotten. Then turned to department matters; and we talked of his going to Russia, and Stanton as successor; and he proposed I should again see the President. I first proposed seeing Seward, to which he assented. He declared himself determined to maintain himself at the head of his department, if he remained; and to resist, hereafter, all interferences. I told him I would, in that event, stand by him faithfully. He and I drove to Willard's, where I left him, and went myself to Seward's. I told him, at once, what was in my mind — that I thought the President and Cameron were both willing that C. should go to Russia. He seemed to receive the matter as new; except so far as suggested by me last night. Wanted to know who would succeed Cameron. I said Holt and Stanton had been named; that I feared Holt might embarrass us, on the slavery question, and might not prove quite equal to the emergency; that Stanton was a good lawyer and full of energy; but I could not, of course, judge him as an executive officer as well as he (S.) could, for he knew him when he was in Buchanan's Cabinet. Seward replied that he saw much of him then; that he was of great force; full of expedients, and thoroughly loyal. Finally, he agreed to the whole thing; and promised to go with me, to talk with the President about it, to-morrow. Just at this point, Cameron came in, with a letter from the President, proposing his nomination to Russia, in the morning. He was quite offended; supposing the letter intended as a dismissal; and, therefore, discourteous. We both assured him it could not be so. Finally, he concluded to retain the letter till morning; and then go and see the President. Seward was expecting General Butler; and Cameron said he ought to be sent off immediately. I said, “Well, let's leave Seward to order him off at once.” C. laughed; and we went off together, I taking him to his house. Before parting, I told him what had passed between me and Seward concerning Stanton, with which he was gratified. I advised him to go to the President in the morning, express his thanks for the consideration with which his wishes, made known through me, as well as by himself orally, had been treated, and tell him frankly, how desirable it was to him that his successor should be a Pennsylvanian, and should be Stanton. I said I thought that his wish, supported as it would be by Seward and myself, would certainly be gratified, and told him that the President had already mentioned Stanton, in a way which indicated that no objection on his part would be made. I said, also, that, if he wished, I would see Seward, and would go to the President, after he had left him, and urge the point. He asked, why not come in when we should be there; and I assented to this. We parted, and I came home. A day which may have — and, seemingly, must have — great bearing on affairs. I fear Mr. Seward may think Cameron's coming into his house pre-arranged, and that I was not dealing frankly. I feel satisfied, however, that I have acted right, and with just deference to all concerned, and have in no respect deviated from the truth.*

_______________

* Warden’s “Private Life and Public Services of Salmon P. Chase.”

SOURCES: Frederick W. Seward, Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State, p. 44-5; John Niven, Editor, The Salmon P. Chase Papers, Volume 1: Journals, 1828-1872, p. 324-6

Simon Cameron to Abraham Lincoln, June 15, 1863 – 3:50 p.m.

HARRISBURG, June 15, 1863.

(Received 3.50 p.m.)

Hon. ABRAHAM LINCOLN:

I do not believe that you can get troops in time under your call for six months, but if you authorize General Couch to accept them for the emergency, a very large force will be on hand immediately.

SIMON CAMERON.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 27, Part 3 (Serial No. 45), p. 141

Edwin M. Stanton to Simon Cameron, June 15, 1863 – 7:30 p.m.

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 15, 1863 — 7.30 p.m.

Hon. SIMON CAMERON, Harrisburg:

The President has referred your telegram to me for answer. No one can tell how long the present emergency for troops in Pennsylvania may continue. The present movement is but the execution of Jeff. Davis' original plan to make Pennsylvania and the loyal States the theater of war. The rebels are encouraged by the hope of assistance and encouragement held out to them by opposition to the war and resistance to the enrollment in Pennsylvania. The law has fixed the period for which troops shall be called. If the emergency is over before that time, they can be discharged; but as human foresight cannot say how long it may take to drive out the rebels, especially if they should find aid and comfort in Pennsylvania, the President thinks he must obey the law.

EDWIN M. STANTON.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 27, Part 3 (Serial No. 45), p. 141-2

Diary of Edward Bates: November 27, 1861

And now (Nov 27) Count Gurouski⁶⁵ tells me  that Prentice⁶⁶ has come out, in bitter denunciation of Cameron — in  shape of a Washington correspondent of the Louisville Journal. The Count assumes, very reasonably, that Prentis is the author.

[Marginal Note.] Since then, I learn that Prentice disclaims the authorship of the letter, and says that Cameron was misunderstood.

Note, in this connexion — The other day, Mr. Blair joked Cameron  with a newspaper quotation (real or suppositious [sic] ) to the effect that he (C.[ameron]) had fairly elbowed Fremont⁶⁷ out of his place, and himself quietly taken his seat in [the] stern-sheets of the Abolition boat!

Nov 27. No news yet from Pensecola [sic], beyond the first rumor that our forces were bombarding the rebel forts.⁶⁸

From Mo. — a telegram from Gov Gamble⁶⁹ confirms the report [that] Genl. Price⁷⁰ has turned and is moving north towards the centre of the State. This movement is, I think not prompted by Price himself, as a separate enterprise agst. Mo., but is part of the genl. plan of the enemy. As long ago as last March, I told the Cabinet that the real struggle must be in the valley of the Mississippi.⁷¹ And now, that it is apparent that the rebel army of the Potomac can do nothing but hold the Capitol [sic] in siege, and that the enemy cannot defend the seaboard, it is the obvious policy of the enemy to [strengthen] the defence of the Mississippi, and to that end, they must fortify the river, and for that purpose they must have time to remove men and artillery, and therefore it is wise in him to keep us fully occupied in Mo. and Kentucky.

That is clearly the policy of the enemy. And as clearly it is our policy to assume the aggressive, and, at almost any hazard, to cut his communications, and prevent as far as possible, the removal of heavy guns from the East to the west — from Va. and the coast to the Missi[ssippi].

Today I spent chiefly in business preliminary to the coming session of the S.[upreme] C.[ourt] called at the clerk's office, ex[amine]d. the docket, the C[our]t. room, my own closet, and recd, many kind suggestions from Mr. Carroll,⁷² the clerk, about the details of business. Called on C.[hief] J.[ustice] Taney,⁷³ and had a conversation much more pleasant than I expected. Called also on Judge Wayne⁷⁴ and had an agreeable talk. I infer from the remarks of both the judges that, probably, but little business will be done, and that not in as strict order as is usual.

At night, Count Gurouski called to see me, and talked, as usual, very freely — quite as bitter and censorious as ever. Just now, he seems to have a special spite against the diplomatic corps — all of them except Baron Gerolt of Prussia, and Mr. Tassara of Spain — He says all of them except Gerolt, were in a furious flutter about the capture of Slidell and Mason⁷⁵ — declaring that it was an outrage and that England would be roused to the war-point, &c. that Gerolt quietly said — pish! the thing is right in itself, and if it were not, England wd. no[t] go to war for it —

The Count gave me a short biographical [sketch] of most of the ministers — e g

1. L[or]d. Lyons,⁷⁶ son of the Admiral who won the peerage. Of a respectable but humble family — L[or]d. L.[yons] he says, has an uncle who is a farmer near Chicago.

2. Mr. Mercier⁷⁷ (of France) only plainly respectable. Born in Baltimore, where his father was French consul[.]

3. Mr. Tassara⁷⁸ of Spain — really a great man — a wonderful genius — of respectable but not noble origin — at first a news-paper writer — then a distinguished member of the Cortes, and secretary thereof (the 2d. office in its gift)[.]

4. Mr. Stoekel⁷⁹ (of Russia) nobody in Russian society, though personally worthy. As a minister, admitted of course to court, but not recd, at all in the aristocratic society of Petersburg. His wife is American — A Yankee — a very clever lady[.]

5. Count Piper,⁸⁰ of Sweden, the only genuine aristocrat, of ancient and high descent. He is the lineal descendant of the famous Count Piper, Minister of State of king Charles XII⁸¹ — a man of no great talents, but of high and honorable principles[.]

6. Baron Gerolt⁸² of Prussia. A very amiable and learned gentleman. Of noble connexion, but not himself noble, until the last few years, when he was made a baron, by the influence of Humboldt,⁸³ who was his friend and patron.

Gerolt was well-learned in mineralogy and mining, and (upon Humboldt's recommendation) served some years in Mexico, as director of silver mines for an English company. He is skilled in various sciences, and is the only foreign diplomat who maintains close relations with American savan[t]s.

7. Chivalier [sic] Bertenatti,⁸⁴ of Italy. Of no high connexions. Educated for the priesthood, but not ordained. For sometime a journalist. A man of fair talents, but not at all distinguished by the gifts of nature or fortune, except that he is minister of the rising state of Italy.

[Marginal] Note. In this same conversation the Count said that it was well enough to give Capt Wilkes⁸⁵ the credit of originality and boldness in seising Mason and Slidell, but, in fact, the Secy, of State sent orders to the consul at Havanna [sic] , to notify Wilkes and tell him what to do.⁸⁶

­_______________

⁶⁵ Adam, Count Gurowski, Polish revolutionist and author who had lived in the United States since 1849; translator in the State Department.

⁶⁶ Supra, Nov. 20, 1861, note 60.

⁶⁷ Frémont had tried to free slaves and confiscate Confederate property by a military order revoked by Lincoln. Supra, Oct. 22, 1S61, note 24.

⁶⁸ On November 22 Fort Pickens and the men-of-war Niagara and Richmond began a two days’ bombardment of Fort McRee and other Confederate fortifications. On January 1, 1862, there was another artillery exchange. But it was not until May 9, 1862, that the Confederates burned and evacuated the forts and the Navy Yard at Pensacola.

⁶⁹ Supra, July 23, 1859, note 39.

⁷⁰ Sterling Price: Democratic congressman, 1845—1846 ; brigadier-general of volunteers in the Mexican War; governor of Missouri, 1853-1857 ; major-general of Missouri Confederate militia under Confederate Governor Jackson (supra, Jan. 9, 1860, note 15). He had been driven out of St. Louis by General Lyon, but later defeated and killed Lyon in one engagement, and captured 3,000 Missourians in another, before he was forced to flee. And his raids, or threats of them, continued to harass Missouri.

⁷¹ Supra, March 16, April 15, Aug. 27, 1861; also May 27, 1859.

⁷² William T. Carroll, a grand-nephew of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was clerk of the Supreme Court from 1827 to 1862.

⁷³ Roger B. Taney: eminent Maryland lawyer; attorney-general of Maryland, 1827-1831; attorney-general of the U. S., 1831-1833 ; secretary of the Treasury, 1833-1834 ; chief justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, 1835-1864. He wrote the decision in the famous Dred Scott case of 1857 and tried in vain to restrain the arbitrary governmental infringements of personal liberty during the Civil War.

⁷⁴ James M. Wayne: judge of the Superior Court of Georgia, 1824-1829; Democratic congressman, 1829-1835; now justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, 1835-1867.

⁷⁵ Supra, Nov. 16, 1861.

⁷⁶ Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from Great Britain, 1858-1865. Supra, Sept. 26, 1860, note 24.

⁷⁷ Henri Mercier, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1860-1863.

⁷⁸ Gabriel Garcia y Tassara, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1857-1867.

⁷⁹ Edward de Stoeckl, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1854-1868. He it was who negotiated the sale of Alaska.

⁸⁰ Edward, Count Piper, Minister Resident of Sweden, 1861-1864, and Charge d’Affaires of Denmark, 1863.

⁸¹ Sweden's soldier-king who ruled from 1697 to 1718.

⁸² Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 1843[?]-1871.

⁸³ Alexander, Baron von Humboldt, wealthy German naturalist, traveler, diplomat, author, who was a close friend of the King of Prussia.

⁸⁴ The Chevalier Joseph Bertinatti, Minister Resident, 1S61-1S67.

⁸⁵ Supra, Nov. 16, 1861, note 46.

⁸⁶ The State Department has no record of such an instruction from Seward. On the contrary, Seward wrote confidentially to Charles F. Adams in Great Britain on November 27: “The act was done by Commander Wilkes without instructions, and even without the knowledge of the Government." John B. Moore, A Digest of International Law, VII, 768.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, The Diary of Edward Bates 1859-1866, p. 203-6

Major-General David Hunter to Edwin M. Stanton, January 29, 1862

Fort Leavenworth

Jan. 29. 1862.

Hon. E. M. Stanton,

Secretary of War:

Dear Sir: I congratulate our country on your appointment as Secretary of War.  Your predecessor did me the honor to request that I would communicate fully, freely and frankly with him; and I think it right and proper that a general commanding should have such frank communication with the political Chief of the Army.  If you think differently, please notify me, and I will not presume again to address you.

In the expedition about to go south from this Department, I beg that I may have a large discretion that I may be allowed to strike wherever I can do the most harm.  Selfishness might dictate a different request, but I do not fear responsibility if I can injure our enemy.  Please let me have my own way on the subject of slavery.  The administration will not be responsible.  I alone will bear the blame; you can censure me, arrest me, dismiss me, hang me if you will, but permit me to make my mark in such a way as to be remembered by friend and foe.

I have the honor to be,

Very Respect^y,

Your ob. servant,

David Hunter,

Major General.

 SOURCE: Stanton, Edwin Mcmasters. Edwin McMasters Stanton Papers: Correspondence, 1831 to 1870; 1862; 1862, Jan. 14-Feb. 2. 1862. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/mss41202002/, Images 216 & 217. (Accessed September 28, 2017.)

Charles Sumner to Rudolf Schleiden, November 3, 1861

You will observe that I propose no crusade for abolition, or, according to your language, no change of programme, making it a war of abolition instead of a war for the preservation of the Union. I accept the latter formula, but insist that the Union can be preserved only by striking at slavery. In short, abolition is not to be the object of the war, but simply one of its agencies. Mr. Cameron's instructions are practically a proclamation of freedom to the slaves where the expedition lands; and not only this, an invitation to take part “in squads and companies.” And this is beyond the Act of Congress and only by virtue of martial law. Indeed, he goes beyond Fremont.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner: Volume 4, p. 49