Diary of William Howard Russell: July 6, 1861

I breakfasted with Mr. Bigelow this morning, to meet General McDowell, who commands the army of the Potomac, now so soon to move. He came in without an aide-de-camp, and on foot, from his quarters in the city. He is a man about forty years of age, square and powerfully built, but with rather a stout and clumsy figure and limbs, a good head covered with close-cut thick dark hair, small light-blue eyes, short nose, large cheeks and jaw, relieved by an iron-gray tuft somewhat of the French type, and affecting in dress the style of our gallant allies. His manner is frank, simple, and agreeable, and he did not hesitate to speak with great openness of the difficulties he had to contend with, and the imperfection of all the arrangements of the army.

As an officer of the regular army he has a thorough contempt for what he calls “political generals” — the men who use their influence with President and Congress to obtain military rank, which in time of war places them before the public in the front of events, and gives them an appearance of leading in the greatest of all political movements. Nor is General McDowell enamored of volunteers, for he served in Mexico, and has from what he saw there formed rather an unfavorable opinion of their capabilities in the field. He is inclined, however, to hold the Southern troops in too little respect; and he told me that the volunteers from the Slave States, who entered the field full of exultation and boastings, did not make good their words, and that they suffered especially from sickness and disease, in consequence of their disorderly habits and dissipation. His regard for old associations was evinced in many questions he asked me about Beauregard, with whom he had been a student at West Point, where the Confederate commander was noted for his studious and reserved habits, and his excellence in feats of strength and athletic exercises.

As proof of the low standard established in his army, he mentioned that some officers of considerable rank were more than suspected of selling rations, and of illicit connections with sutlers for purposes of pecuniary advantage. The General walked back with me as far as my lodgings, and I observed that not one of the many soldiers he passed in the streets saluted him, though his rank was indicated by his velvet collar and cuffs, and a gold star on the shoulder strap.

Having written some letters, I walked out with Captain Johnson and one of the attachés of the British Legation, to the lawn at the back of the White House, and listened to the excellent band of the United States Marines, playing on a kind of dais under the large flag recently hoisted by the President himself, in the garden. The occasion was marked by rather an ominous event. As the President pulled the halyards and the flag floated aloft, a branch of a tree caught the bunting and tore it, so that a number of the stars and stripes were detached and hung dangling beneath the rest of the flag, half detached from the staff.

I dined at Captain Johnson's lodgings next door to mine. Beneath us was a wine and spirit store, and crowds of officers and men flocked indiscriminately to make their purchases, with a good deal of tumult, which increased as the night came on. Later still, there was a great disturbance in the city. A body of New York Zouaves wrecked some houses of bad repute, in one of which a private of the regiment was murdered early this morning. The cavalry patrols were called out and charged the rioters, who were dispersed with difficulty after resistance in which men on both sides were wounded. There is no police, no provost guard. Soldiers wander about the streets, and beg in the fashion of the mendicant in “Gil Bias” for money to get whiskey. My colored gentleman has been led away by the Saturnalia and has taken to gambling in the camps, which are surrounded by hordes of rascally followers and sutlers' servants, and I find myself on the eve of a campaign, without servant, horse, equipment, or means of transport.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, Vol. 1, p. 389-90

Thomas Smith* to Howell Cobb, June 27, 1848

Versailles [indiana], June 27, ’48.

Dr. Sir: Knowing the tax imposed by business, ceremony, and a little real friendship, on Members of Congress, I have refrained writing to many friends that I really wished to. Under this state of feeling I would not write you or trouble you now if I did not think and fear that a momentous political crisis was about developing that is destined shortly to shake our political fabrick. In this Confederacy the Democratic party, long in the ascendant, has had to conciliate and compromise sectional interests and feelings. In this spirit the Slavery question has been put on the ground of non-interference on the part of the Genl. Govmnt. On that basis the democratic party has planted itself. If it can maintain that position, it is the only position that it can maintain in the free states, and is there a Southern man so blind as not see it and so uninformed as not to know it?

To drive us from this ground, the Whigs and abolitionists have agitated for the last 10 or 15 years. Their denunciation of the South, Southern dictation and Southern influence, has been fierce, and their appeals have been powerful and pathetic in favour of the poor negro. To meet these arguments and such invective has required all the talent and forbearance of the Democratic party. The Democratic free-state creed commends itself strongly to the sober sense of community, and those that attempt to overturn it can't but show the incendiary's torch and the assassin's knife— “in their fury the hope of the Union is lost”. The Democratic South in our conventions, in Congress, and at the ballot box has shown the same conciliatory spirit, — in making our last and former nominations they have been foremost in favor of free-state men. But in the nomination of the present Whig candidate it is manifest to all the people, and they can't but see the finger of the South in it, and the dictatorial and domineering spirit they have shown in forcing their man upon the Convention.

It has forced some fears upon the Democrats, as well as confusion and dismay into the Whig ranks, and utter disgust into the abolition breasts. The consequence of all will be to very much widen the breach between the free and slave states of the Union. In the late Whig convention the South showed neither quarter nor respect to the North. She gave not a vote for a Northern man. . . .

But the point to which I wish to call your attention is this: the fear amongst the democratic party is that the South may so far unite on the nominal Whig candidate as to give him all the South, in disregard of the friendly spirit the free states have always shown you. If this shall be the case I cannot doubt that much democratic sympathy will be lost you, and a falling off amongst your friends in these states, that time can never cure. Because it is so plain the nomination of Taylor is a Southern Whig trick, against the feelings of the Whig party, to catch up other than Whig votes in the South, and against the sense and sentiment of the nation, that union of effort of all parties will be made against the South before his term of office, if elected, shall expire. You know that North nothing but a free-state union of effort is wanting to disfranchise the South, so far as the Presidential office is concerned; and what so well calculated to produce that result as such palpable tricks as the South has just perpetrated in the nomination of a man without talent and the independence to speak out boldly his opinions and his party fealty.

In taking such a man at such a time it must be there is something impure in it. Something behind the curtain. But it will out. If the old General shall ever be called by the people unanimously or spontaneously to the Presidency, he will find the need of opinions and fixed principles. His administration, or that of any man, must proceed upon fixed principles, and the better they are matured the better he will bear up under the responsibilities of the office.

You are aware that every Whig in Congress and out of it in all the free States in the Union by their votes, speeches and action in the primary assemblies, amongst the people, and many of the democrats, are committed to the principles of the Wilmot Proviso, and if Taylor is elected, unless they back out from their present position, which they dare not do, it will be engrafted upon the legislation of the next four years. In this great contest the South brings their General into the field unarmed. His anxiety to lead the motley forces of federalism compels him to put on the no-party badge, and to command without a sword or the armor the Constitution has put upon him for his own protection and that of the States. Mr. Jefferson says: the President's negative was given him for his own protection, the protection of the States and the judiciary, against the aggressions of Congress. But I presume as he has voluntarily divested himself of the protection the Constitution in [vested] him with, to get office, he expects to put it on in the heat and smoke of the battle. Let him not think so. If he does it, he will be shot down by his own forces and confederates; and if Tyler was denounced a traitor, he will be justly denounced an arch traitor. It is distinctly understood he will veto none of the people's measures.

Of the success of the Democratic Ticket, Cass and Butler, in this region there is no room to doubt. I have never seen in favor of any democratic ticket so ardent a spirit manifested by the party. I think in this county there is not a dissenting voice. Indiana may be set down for Cass and Butler by a large majority over all opposition. Even should Hale run, and Mr. Van Buren lead the Barnburners, we can beat them all.

I wish to know from you, my dear sir, what Georgia will do in the premises.

I have bored you with a very prosing long letter.

Our very best respects to your Lady and friends.

_______________

* Congressman from Indiana, 1839-1841 and 1843-1847.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 111-3

Journal of Amos A. Lawrence, May 28, 1859

Captain John Brown of Osawatomie called to see me with one of his rangers. He has been stealing negroes and running them off from Missouri. He has a monomania on that subject, I think, and would be hanged if he were taken in a slave State. He has allowed his beard to grow since I saw him last, which changes his appearance entirely, as it is almost white and very long. He and his companion both have the fever and ague, somewhat, probably a righteous visitation for their fanaticism

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 130

Salmon P. Chase to Senator Henry Wilson,* Washington, December 13, 1860

Columbus, Dec. 13, [60.]

Dear Wilson, You will not I trust think me obtrusive if I give you briefly my thoughts concerning the duties of the hour.

Departure from the original policy of the gov^t. conc^g. Sl'y is the cause of our frequent dangers; return to that policy is the true remedy.

But this remedy cannot be applied by Republicans until they come into power. Its principal elements then will be, I think, maintenance of the union & enforcement of the laws against all opposition, by temperate but inflexible action; adhesion to the great principle of separating the Fed^l. Gov^t, fr Sl’y.; & manifestation of goodwill, real, unaffected goodwill — toward the slave States, & their people, by every concession consistent with adhesion to principle.

Under this last head of concession may be included such legislation as will provide compensation for escaping fugitives, if pursued, arrested, & proved to be such by the claimant, and means of settling them in Hayti or elsewhere, — or an amendment of the Constitution giving to the Slave States representation for their entire population in consideration of the abrogation of the Fugitive Surrender Clause.

But I expect the Republicans can do nothing in this way until they become responsible, under the recent decision of the people, for the Administration of the Gov^t.; and all attempts, on their part, to do anything, under existing circumstances will, I fear, prove unfortunate.

If my humble counsel might prevail I would say, Let Republicans simply insist that the actual Admⁿ. do its duty in maintaining the just authority of the Fed^l. Gov^t. & in enforcing the laws of the Union; let them hold the Pres^t. & the Party wh. elected him to their entire responsibility; let them proclaim their own purpose, when in power, to administer the Gov^t, fairly, honestly, & Firmly, in a spirit of true goodwill & perfect equity towards every section, every state, & every citizen without entering into any detail in regard to propositions to be made or measures to be adopted; and finally let them give an earnest of their readiness & ability to do their duty by urging as promptly as possible the consideration of the practical measures, now demanding the action of Congress.

Among these measures the most important seem to me to be these:

1. The admission of Kansas. Why cannot the Senate take up & pass the bill for her admission without delay — at least before Christmas? That w^d. do much to inspire confidence in its ability to meet the crisis.

2. The passage of the Tariff Bill. Whatever may be the defects of Mr. Morrill's bill — I have not studied it & do not know that it has any — it is clear that some measure must be adopted to revive the sinking credit of the nation; and this bill will certainly contribute to that result. A Treasury note bill without a Tariff bill is a dangerous experiment. The two together may answer a good purpose.

3. Provision for an Early election of Congressmen in States where no elections have yet been held; & for their election on the same day hereafter.

Why not provide for their election this year in March, on the day of the New Hampshire election, and in future years on the Tuesday following the 1st Mon. of Nov. which is now the day of the Pres1. election? The Pres^t. & Congress all to be elected on the same day.

4. The homestead bill. It has already passed the House. Why not take it up & push it through the Senate?

5. Whatever laws may be necessary to enable the Pres^t. to overcome forcible resistance to the execution of Existing laws. When I say forcible I do not mean peaceful resistance through judicial action. It must be an extremely extreme case wh. will warrant fed. interference, by force, with the action of State tribunals, through Habeas Corpus or other process. But whatever legislation may be necessary—and the message indicates the want of some — Should be provided & provided at once.

There may be other measures wh. need prompt action but these five are most prominent in my mind.

If the Repub^s. in Cong, will address themselves vigorously to this course of action and then let the country see that they have the dispo^n. & abily. to meet the need & perform the duty of the hour, they will inspire gen^l, confidence & prepare the success of the incoming admⁿ.

Weak concession will accomplish nothing, intemperate denunciation will accomplish nothing: manful discharge of present duty, with little talk and no delay, will accomplish much — I hope everything.

_______________

* From letter book 7, pp. 77-78. Henry Wilson 1812-1875. United States Senator from Mass. 1855-1873; Vice-President ol the United States 1873-1875.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 293-5

Samuel Gridley Howe to Charles Sumner, August 20, 1850

Paris, Aug. 20, '50.

My Dear Sumner: — I am always cheered by the sight of your “hand-o'-write” and that of your last letter was more than usually welcome. Notwithstanding your sad errand you seemed to be in an elastic and healthy tone of mind, and I know too well by experience of the opposite condition what a blessing that is: may my friend never fall from the one into the other! You will be surprised at the date of this, and exclaim, “Why are you not en route for Frankfort?” I'll tell you. I had concluded or been persuaded by your letter and other considerations to go and attend the Peace Congress. I left Paris for that purpose on Friday evening last so as to be in Frankfort on the 20th, but I had hardly got an hundred miles when I began to feel the sure premonitions of an attack of cholera morbus. I remained all night in a miserable inn, hoping to be able to go on by the early train; but it was too certain that the grip of disease was upon me; I therefore turned back with all speed to get properly attended here. I was quite ill Saturday and Sunday; yesterday better but unable to travel, and to-day not fit for a fatiguing journey. I must therefore give up the Congress. All I should have done would have been to move for an adjournment en masse to the seat of war in Holstein, and discuss war between the two hostile armies. I am sick of this preaching to Israel in Israel; the Gentile ought to hear. Peace men should go to Russia, and Abolitionists to the Slave States. Besides, this calling upon France and Germany to disarm while Russia has the open blade in hand is what I cannot do. Our combativeness and destructiveness are the weapons God gives us to use as long as they are necessary, in order to keep others less advanced than we are in quiet by the only motives they will heed, selfishness and fear; you may as well appeal to conscience and benevolence in babes and idiots as in Russians and Tartars, I mean en masse. Conscience and benevolence they have, ay! and so have babes and idiots, but they are (not) yet called into life and action.

You tell me to go about sightseeing and to enjoy the rare opportunity before me. I go to see nothing — I care little for shows. I want to be back in the only place in the world which is fit for me or has charm for me; in my own office with the harness on my back. I wish you had my opportunity and I had yours. So goes the world. . . .

Kind words to Longfellow, Hillard, Felton, &c. Tell Briggs my conscience has been continually smiting me about my neglect of that Frenchman in prison. I hope he is out.

Ever, dear Sumner, most affectionately thine,

S. G. H.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 322-3

John Brown to Andrew Hunter, November 22, 1859

Charlestown, Jefferson County, Va., Nov. 22, 1859.

Dear Sir, — I have just had my attention called to a seeming conviction between the statement I at first made to Governor Wise and that which 1 made at the time I received my sentence, regarding my intentions respecting the slaves we took about the Ferry. There need be no such confliction, and a few words of explanation will. I think, be quite sufficient. I had given Governor Wise a full and particular account of that; and when called in court to say whether I had anything further to urge, I was taken wholly by surprise, as I did not expect my sentence before the others. In the hurry of the moment I forgot much that I had before intended to say, and did not consider the full bearing of what I then said. I intended to convey this idea, — that it was my object to place the slaves in a condition to defend their liberties, if they would, without any bloodshed; but not that I Intended to run them out of the slave States. I was not aware of any such apparent confliction until my attention was called to it, and I do not suppose that a man in my then circumstances should be superhuman in respect to the exact purport of every word he might utter. What I said to Governor Wise was spoken with all the deliberation I was master of, and was intended for troth; and what I said in court was equally intended for truth, but required a more full explanation than I then gave. Please make such use of this as you think calculated to correct any wrong impressions I may have given.

Very respectfully yours,

John Brown.

Andrew Hunter, Esq., Present.

SOURCES: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 584

Lieutenant-Colonel William T. Lusk to Elizabeth Adams Lusk, July 28, 1863

Headquarters Del. Dept.

Wilmington, Del., July 28th, 1863.

My dear Mother:

That I have not written you more punctually, the enclosed carte-de-visite must be my excuse. At last I have fulfilled my promise, and I trust the result may prove satisfactory to you. The carte was promised last Thursday, but only furnished yesterday. “There's a twist to your nose” says the ingenuous artist, while taking his preliminary surveys. “Perhaps you fell down once, and injured it.” I answered mildly that I had no recollection of such a catastrophe. “Well,” he says, “it isn't straight anyway.” Then adding with a sigh, “There are very few things that are straight in this world.” I suppose that this philosophic photographer is right.

After all I am going to be present to-morrow at Horace's wedding. There really is so little doing, that I feel as though I could absent myself for a couple of days with propriety. The General says “All right,” so I shall go on to-night at 11:30. You have not written whether it is your intention to be present. It would be a great pleasure to me if I should find you among the guests. Never mind, Fall is near at hand, and my stay in the army is hastening to an end. I have much leisure time to read, and as it is long since I have had such an opportunity, I am indulging myself in books with a vengeance. My previous visit to New-York was merely to vary a little the monotony of Wilmington life, by the excitement of the mob-rule then prevailing in the former city. I there met Charley Dodge, who was serving as Chief of Cavalry on Gen. Wool's staff. Charley contrived to give me some little employment, but all I did was not much in amount.

I dined a few days ago at ———'s. ——— is a capital good fellow, but painfully lazy and objectless. Much attention and kindness has been shown us since we have been here by the Union people. Unionism means something in a slave state. The most violent secessionists would not venture to express half the disloyal sentiments that one hears from pretty good Union people in Connecticut. The Union people here, from their position, are forced to take such strong ground as to make the sentiment of New England seem cold by comparison. Much love.

Most affec'y.,

Will.

SOURCE: William Chittenden Lusk, Editor, War Letters of William Thompson Lusk, p. 291-2

Governor Salmon P. Chase to Thomas Spooner, Esq.,* New York City, New York, December 18, 1859

Columbus, Dec 18, [1859.]

Dear Spooner: From what you say in yours of the 14th, I infer you had not received mine previously written to you. It was directed to Cincinnati, and perhaps it has since reached you.

I do not desire to be quoted as expressing any opinions as to time or place of holding the Convention, or as to the mode of its organization either in respect to membership or number of delegates — or mode of electing them. The reasons for my not desiring even to seem to influence members of the Convention are obvious.

You, as our Ohio member, have a right to my views, and I will give them to you briefly:

1st. The Convention should be held between the Alleghenys and the Mississippi. It would be best, I think, to hold it at Pittsburg, Wheeling, Cincinnati or Covington, but next best, to hold it at Columbus, Indianapolis, Springfield or St Louis. Among these next best places, my judgment would incline to Indianapolis.

2d. The Convention should be held soon after the Democratic. This, I think, would be best. No considerable harm would probably result, however, if not held till the 17th June, as in 1856.

3. The Convention should be composed of all who are opposed to the extention of Slavery beyond the limits of Slave States, and in favor of reform in National Administration. The call should be addressed to Republicans and all others, without distinction of party, willing to unite for these objects. A resolution should be adopted expressing the opinion of the Committee that the members of the People's party of New Jersey and Penn'a, and all citizens of other States holding similar political principles, are regarded as described in the call and invited to participate in the Convention, but the Call should not be addressed to those parties as such.

4. The Committees should apportion the delegates among the States by recommending the election of, say, four Senatorial delegates from each State, and one Representative from each Congressional District, and additional representatives from each Congressional District for each six or seven thousand votes cast for Republican candidates, and another for a majority fraction of that number. Votes for opposition or people's Candidates in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, and for Anti-Lecompton Democrats supported by the Republicans, should be counted the same as Republican votes.

5. The Committee should recommend, and strongly recommend, the election of Senatorial delegates by State Conventions, and of Representative Delegates by District Conventions.

I have no time to argue these views. I am, however, strong in the faith that their adoption would secure fairness and equal representation in the nomination — harmony and vigor in the support of the nominees — In what is now a duty — success not merely for our organization but for our principles — success, therefore, lasting and honorable.

Ashley, I understand, will represent Kentucky under Clay's proxy. You can show this letter to him and if you think proper to Mr. Willey or Mr. Howard of Connecticut. Let me hope that you and Ashley will act together. It is desirable, many ways.

_______________

* From letter book 7, pp. 61-62

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 283-4

John Brown to Judge Thomas Russell,* October 21, 1859

Charlestown, Jefferson County, Va., Oct. 21, 1859.

Hon. Thomas Russell.

Dear Sir, — I am here a prisoner, with several sabre-cuts in my head and bayonet-stabs in my body. My object in writing to you is to obtain able and faithful counsel for myself and fellow-prisoners (five in all), as we have the faith of Virginia pledged through her Governor and numerous other prominent citizens to give us a fair trial. Without we can obtain such counsel from without the slave States, neither the facts in our case can come before the world, nor can we have the benefit of such facts as might be considered mitigating in the view of others upon our trial. I have money in hand here to the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars, and personal property sufficient to pay a most liberal fee to yourself, or to any suitable man who will undertake our defence, if I can be allowed the benefit of said property. Can you or some other good man come on immediately, for the sake of the young men prisoners at least? My wounds are doing well. Do not send an ultra Abolitionist.

Very respectfully yours,

John Brown.

Indorsed, "The trial is set for Wednesday next, the 25th inst. — J. W. Campbell, Sheriff of Jefferson County.”

_______________

* A copy of this letter was also sent to Reuben A. Chapman, of Springfield, Mass., and a third to Daniel R. Tilden, of Ohio.

SOURCES: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 578-9

John Brown's Interview with Senator James M. Mason, Congressman Clement L Vallandigham, and Others, October 19, 1859

Senator Mason. Can you tell us who furnished money for your expedition?

John Brown. I furnished most of it myself; I cannot implicate others. It is by my own folly that I have been taken. I could easily have saved myself from it, had I exercised my own better judgment rather than yielded to my feelings.

Mason. You mean if you had escaped immediately?

Brown. No. I had the means to make myself secure without any escape; but I allowed myself to be surrounded by a force by being too tardy. I should have gone away; but I had thirty odd prisoners, whose wives and daughters were in tears for their safety, and I felt for them. Besides, I wanted to allay the fears of those who believed we came here to burn and kill. For this reason I allowed the train to cross the bridge, and gave them full liberty to pass on. I did it only to spare the feelings of those passengers and their families, and to allay the apprehensions that you had got here in your vicinity a band of men who had no regard for life and property, nor any feelings of humanity.

Mason. But you killed some people passing along the streets quietly.

Brown. Well, sir, if there was anything of that kind done, it was without my knowledge. Your own citizens who were my prisoners will tell you that every possible means was taken to prevent it. I did not allow my men to fire when there was danger of killing those we regarded as innocent persons, if I could help it. They will tell you that we allowed ourselves to be fired at repeatedly, and did not return it.

A Bystander. That is not so. You killed an unarmed man at the corner of the house over there at the water-tank, and another besides.

Brown. See here, my friend; it is useless to dispute or contradict the report of your own neighbors who were my prisoners.

Mason. If you would tell us who sent you here, — who provided the means, — that would be information of some value.

Brown. I will answer freely and faithfully about what concerns myself, — I will answer anything I can with honor, — but not about others.

Mr. Vallandigham (who had just entered). Mr. Brown, who sent you here?

Brown. No man sent me here; it was my own prompting and that of my Maker, or that of the Devil, — whichever you please to ascribe it to. I acknowledge no master in human form.

Vallandigham. Did you get up the expedition yourself?

Brown. I did.

Vallandigham. . Did you get up this document that is called a Constitution?

Brown. I did. They are a constitution and ordinances of my own contriving and getting up.

Vallandigham. How long have you been engaged in this business?

Brown. From the breaking out of the difficulties in Kansas. Four of my sons had gone there to settle, and they induced me to go. I did not go there to settle, but because of the difficulties.

Mason. How many are there engaged with you in this movement?

Brown. Any questions that I can honorably answer I will, — not otherwise. So far as I am myself concerned, I have told everything truthfully. I value my word, sir.

Mason. What was your object in coming?

Brown. We came to free the slaves, and only that.

A Volunteer. How many men, in all, had you?

Brown. I came to Virginia with eighteen men only, besides myself.

Volunteer. What in the world did you suppose you could do here in Virginia with that amount of men?

Brown. Young man, I do not wish to discuss that question here.

Volunteer. You could not do anything.

Brown. Well, perhaps your ideas and mine on military subjects would differ materially.

Mason. How do you justify your acts?

Brown I think, my friend, yon are guilty of a great wrong against God and humanity, — I say it without wishing to be offensive, — and it would be perfectly right for any one to interfere with you so far as to free those you wilfully and wickedly hold in bondage. I do not say this insultingly.

Mason. I understand that

Brown. I think I did right, and that others will do right who interfere with you at any time and at all times. I hold that the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you,” applies to all who would help others to gain their liberty.

Lieutenant Stuart. But don't you believe in the Bible?

Brown. Certainly I do.

Mason. Did you consider this a military organization in this Constitution? I have not yet read it.

Brown. I did, in some sense. I wish you would give that paper close attention.

Mason. You consider yourself the commander-in-chief of these “provisional” military forces?

Brown. I was chosen, agreeably to the ordinance of a certain document, commander-in-chief of that force.

Mason. What wages did you offer?

Brown. None.

Stuart. “The wages of sin is death.”

Brown. I would not have made such a remark to you if you had been a prisoner, and wounded, in my hands.

A Bystander. Did you not promise a negro in Gettysburg twenty dollars a month?

Brown. I did not.

Mason. Does this talking annoy you?

Brown. Not in the least.

Vallandigham. Have you lived long in Ohio?

Brown. I went there in 1805. I lived in Summit County, which was then Portage County. My native place is Connecticut; my father lived there till 1805.

Vallandigham. Have you been in Portage County lately?

Brown. I was there in June last.

Vallandigham. When in Cleveland, did you attend the Fugitive Slave Law Convention there?

Brown. No. I was there about the time of the sitting of the court to try the Oberlin rescuers. I spoke there publicly on that subject; on the Fugitive Slave Law and my own rescue. Of course, so far as I had any influence at all, I was supposed to justify the Oberlin people for rescuing the slave, because I have myself forcibly taken slaves from bondage. I was concerned in taking eleven slaves from Missouri to Canada last winter. I think I spoke in Cleveland before the Convention. I do not know that I had conversation with any of the Oberlin rescuers. I was sick part of the time I was in Ohio with the ague, in Ashtabula County.

Vallandigham. Did you see anything of Joshua R. Giddings there?

Brown. I did meet him.

Vallandigham. Did you converse with him?

Brown. I did. I would not tell you, of course, anything that would implicate Mr. Giddings; but I certainly met with him and had conversations with him.

Vallandigham. About that rescue case?

Brown. Yes; I heard him express his opinions upon it very freely and frankly.

Vallandigham. Justifying it?

Brown. Yes, sir; I do not compromise him, certainly, in saying that.

Vallandigham. Will you answer this: Did you talk with Giddings about your expedition here?

Brown. No, I won't answer that; because a denial of it I would not make, and to make any affirmation of it I should be a great dunce.

Vallandigham. Have you had any correspondence with parties at the North on the subject of this movement?

Brown. I have had correspondence.

A Bystander. Do you consider this a religious movement?

Brown. It is, in my opinion, the greatest service man can render to God.

Bystander. Do you consider yourself an instrument in the hands of Providence?

Brown. I do.

Bystander. Upon what principle do you justify your acts?

Brown. Upon the Golden Rule. I pity the poor in bondage that have none to help them: that is why I am here; not to gratify any personal animosity, revenge, or vindictive spirit. It is my sympathy with the oppressed and the wronged, that are as good as you and as precious in the sight of God.

Bystander. Certainly. But why take the slaves against their will?

Brown. I never did.

Bystander. You did in one instance, at least.

Stephens, the other wounded prisoner, here said, “You are right. In one case I know the negro wanted to go back.”

Bystander. Where did you come from?

Stephens. I lived in Ashtabula County, Ohio.

Vallandigham. How recently did you leave Ashtabula County?

Stephens. Some months ago. I never resided there any length of time; have been through there.

Vallandigham. How far did you live from Jefferson?

Brown. Be cautious, Stephens, about any answers that would commit any friend. I would not answer that.

[Stephens turned partially over with a groan of pain, and was silent. ]

Vallandigham. Who are your advisers in this movement?

Brown. I cannot answer that. I have numerous sympathizers throughout the entire North.

Vallandigham. In northern Ohio?

Brown. No more there than anywhere else; in all the free States.

Vallandigham. But you are not personally acquainted in southern Ohio?

Brown. Not very much.

A Bystander. Did you ever live in Washington City?

Brown. I did not. I want you to understand, gentlemen, and [to the reporter of the “Herald”] you may report that, — I want you to understand that I respect the rights of the poorest and weakest of colored people, oppressed by the slave system, just as much as I do those of the most wealthy and powerful. That is the idea that has moved me, and that alone. We expected no reward except the satisfaction of endeavoring to do for those in distress and greatly oppressed as we would be done by. The cry of distress of the oppressed is my reason, and the only thing that prompted me to come here.

Bystander. Why did you do it secretly?

Brown. Because I thought that necessary to success; no other reason.

Bystander. Have you read Gerrit Smith's last letter?

Brown. What letter do you mean?

Bystander. The “New York Herald” of yesterday, in speaking of this affair, mentions a letter in this way : —

“Apropos of this exciting news, we recollect a, very significant passage in one of Gerrit Smith's letters, published a month or two ago, in which he speaks of the folly of attempting to strike the shackles off the slaves by the force of moral suasion or legal agitation, and predicts that the next movement made in the direction of negro emancipation would be an insurrection in the South.”

Brown. I have not seen the “New York Herald” for some days past; but I presume, from your remark about the gist of the letter, that I should concur with it. I agree with Mr. Smith that moral suasion is hopeless. I don't think the people of the slave States will ever consider the subject of slavery in its true light till some other argument is resorted to than moral suasion.

Vallandigham. Did you expect a general rising of the slaves in case of your success?

Brown. No, sir; nor did I wish it. I expected to gather them up from time to time, and set them free.

Vallandigham. Did you expect to hold possession here till then?

Brown. Well, probably I had quite a different idea. I do not know that I ought to reveal my plans. I am here a prisoner and wounded, because I foolishly allowed myself to be so. You overrate your strength in supposing I could have been taken if I had not allowed it. I was too tardy after commencing the open attack — in delaying my movements through Monday night, and up to the time I was attacked by the Government troops. It was all occasioned by my desire to spare the feelings of my prisoners and their families and the community at large. I had no knowledge of the shooting of the negro Heywood.

Vallandigham. What time did you commence your organization in Canada?

Brown. That occurred about two years ago; in 1858.

Vallandigham. Who was the secretary?

Brown. That I would not tell if I recollected; but I do not recollect. I think the officers were elected in May, 1858. I may answer incorrectly, but not intentionally. My head is a little confused by wounds, and my memory obscure on dates, etc.

Dr. Biggs. Were you in the party at Dr. Kennedy's house?

Brown. I was the head of that party. I occupied the house to mature my plans. I have not been in Baltimore to purchase caps.

Dr. Biggs. What was the number of men at Kennedy's?

Brown. I decline to answer that.

Dr. Biggs. Who lanced that woman's neck on the hill?

Brown. I did. I have sometimes practised in surgery when I thought it a matter of humanity and necessity, and there was no one else to do it; but I have not studied surgery.

Dr. Biggs. It was done very well and scientifically. They have been very clever to the neighbors, I have been told, and we had no reason to suspect them, except that we could not understand their movements. They were represented as eight or nine persons; on Friday there were thirteen.

Brown. There were more than that.

Q. Where did you get arms?

A. I bought them.

Q. In what State?

A. That I will not state.

Q. How many guns?

A. Two hundred Sharpe's rifles and two hundred revolvers, — what is culled the Massachusetts Arms Company's revolvers, a little under navy size.

Q. Why did you not take that swivel you left in the house?

A. I had no occasion for it. It was given to me a year or two ago.

Q. In Kansas?

A. No. I had nothing given to me in Kansas.

Q. By whom, and in what State?

A. I decline to answer. It is not properly a swivel; it is a very large rifle with a pivot. The ball is larger than a musket ball; it is intended for a slug.

Reporter. I do not wish to annoy you; but if you have anything further you would like to say, I will report it.

Brown. I have nothing to say, only that I claim to be here in carrying out a measure I believe perfectly justifiable, and not to act the part of an incendiary or ruffian, but to aid those suffering great wrong. I wish to say, furthermore, that you had better — all you people at the South —  prepare yourselves for a settlement of this question, that must come up for settlement sooner than you are prepared for it. The sooner you are prepared the better. You may dispose of me very easily, — I am nearly disposed of now; but this question is still to be settled, — this negro question I mean; the end of that is not yet. These wounds were inflicted upon me — both sabre cuts on my head and bayonet stabs in different parts of my body — some minutes after I had ceased fighting and had consented to surrender, for the benefit of others, not for my own.¹ I believe the Major would not have been alive; I could have killed him just as easy as a mosquito when he came in, but I supposed he only came in to receive our surrender. There had been loud and long calls of “surrender” from us, — as loud as men could yell; but in the confusion and excitement I suppose we were not heard. I do not think the Major, or any one, meant to butcher us after we had surrendered.

An Officer. Why did you not surrender before the attack?

Brown. I did not think it was my duty or interest to do Bo. We assured the prisoners that we did not wish to harm them, and they should be set at liberty. I exercised my best judgment, not believing the people would wantonly sacrifice their own fellow-citizens, when we offered to let them go on condition of being allowed to change our position about a quarter of a mile. The prisoners agreed by a vote among themselves to pass across the bridge with us. We wanted them only as a sort of guarantee of our own safety, — that we should not be fired into. We took them, in the first place, as hostages and to keep them from doing any harm. We did kill some men in defending ourselves, but I saw no one fire except directly in self-defence. Our orders were strict not to harm any one not in arms against us.

Q. Brown, suppose you had every nigger in the United States, what would you do with them?

A. Set them free.

Q. Your intention was to carry them off and free them?

A. Not at all.

A Bystander. To set them free would sacrifice the life of every man in this community.

Brown. I do not think so.

Bystander. I know it. I think you are fanatical.

Brown. And I think you are fanatical. “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad,” and you are mad.

Q. Was it your only object to free the negroes?

A. Absolutely our only object.

Q. But you demanded and took Colonel Washington's silver and watch?

A. Yes; we intended freely to appropriate the property of slaveholders to carry out our object. It was for that, and only that, and with no design to enrich ourselves with any plunder whatever.

Bystander. Did you know Sherrod in Kansas? I understand you killed him.

Brown. I killed no man except in fair fight. I fought at Black Jack Point and at Osawatomie; and if I killed anybody, it was at one of these places.

_______________

¹ At the trial of Copeland the following evidence was given :—

Mr. Sennott. You say that when Brown was down you struck him in the face with your sabre?

Lieutenant Green. Yes.

Q. This was after he was down?

A. Yes; he was down.

Q. How many times. Lieutenant Green, did you strike Brown in the face with your sabre after he was down?

A. Why, sir, he was defending himself with his gun.

Mr. Hunter. I hope the counsel for the defence will not press such questions as these.

SOURCES: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 562-9; "Startling News from Virginia and Maryland - Negro Insurrection at Harper's Ferry - Strange and Exciting Intelligence," The New York Herald, Tuesday, October 18, 1859, Morning Edition, p. 6 to confirm the date of the interview only.

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* July 21, 1854

Washington, July 21, 1854,.

My Dear Hamlin: It was good to see your handwriting again. You had been so long silent that I almost began to think you had forgotten me, and did not know where to address a letter to jog your remembrance.

I share your disappointment in regard to the outcome of the Columbus Convention,¹ and thousands upon thousands throughout the country partake it also. But then, the question is, Can anything better be done than make the best of that? One thing is clear, the Convention have made an issue with the Slave Power, and the people will not let the politicians shirk it hereafter. The determination to restore the Mo. Restriction and the declared opposition to New Slave States will make it impossible to avoid it. We shall thus have free access to the people and all we have to do is to urge our larger and sounder views, and get the intelligent assent of the masses to them. Starting from the Anti-slavery point I do not fear that the new party will not be ultimately essentially democratic. But should it be otherwise one thing is clear—the Old Line Democracy will go beyond it, whenever once whipped into its traces (?) in respect to consistency, in Anti-slavery declarations; and thus furnish to Antislavery democrats a party to their kind. It shall not be my fault if the new party does not become essentially democratic; and you must help me. The day may come when I shall have it in my power to prove my sincere appreciation of your merits; or you may, which I would greatly prefer, be placed by the appreciation of the people, in a position where you can confer easier than receive favors.

It is true as alleged by some that the Antislavery Resolution of the Old Line Democracy is more comprehensively antislavery than the People's Platform at Columbus, but, then it has been neutralized by the endorsement of the Baltimore Platform and nullified by the acts of the Party which put it forth in electing such a President as Pierce and such a Senator as Pugh² and in sustaining such Covenant Breakers as Douglas. There is a good hope that the People's Platform will be stuck to, and a little truth honestly received and lived up to, is better than a great deal of disregarded profession.

You see that I mean to go along with the Antislavery movement, in the phase which it has now assumed; keeping a watchful eye upon it that the strength which our votes give it be not abused.

We have confirmed the Japan Treaty. It is a great thing for our reputation to have made the first Treaty with that isolated Empire. Its provisions are important to our Pacific Commerce.

The Reciprocity Treaty is under discussion. I think it will be confirmed.

What do you think of Hunter's substitute for the Homestead bill? I voted for it finally, after the Senate had abandoned the House Homestead Bill, as the best bill there was any hope of securing at this session. Keep me advised me where to write you.

Yours faithfully,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From the Pierce-Sumner Papers.

¹ The first State Convention of the Anti-Nebraska men, July 13,1854. Cf. note in Schuckers's Chase, p. 165.

² George E. Pugh succeeded Chase as Senator from Ohio. Chase's term expired March 3,1855.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 262-3

Wood Hinton To Howell Cobb, Jan. 7,1845

Georgia, Jackson County, [Jan. 7,1845.]

Sir: I have one request to make of you that is this there are some negroes property to be Transported into some free State in the United State thare are maney opinions about it some say that it cannot be dun on a count that thare is no state that will receive them this question you can decide. I dont want you to make this a publick question in the House but to talk with the Members of Illinois or Indiana as they are the two nearest free States to me I am told that their States will not receive Negroes from a slave holding state and that they have past a law to that effect and a penalty if any is carried there this point you can decide . . . That question is one of importance to me and this business if actd on will stop the mouths of many I sincerely request of you for me  Will confer special favour.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 60

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, June 13, 1853

St. Louis, June 13, 1853.

Dear Sumner: I enclose you a part of the St. Louis Democrat, in which you will find a part of the correspondence which will interest you at least as showing that in this Slave State, at least, there is no such prejudice as prevents a recognition, and at a rate vastly beyond their value of services rendered by an Antislavery man. I find in it a most unexpected but most gratifying result of my action last winter, which I prize the more for its ultimate bearing on our great Cause. You would be surprised to find what liberality of sentiment prevails here and especially among the democrats. Most of those I have met avow themselves antislavery men, — some of them most decidedly so.

I am here on private matters; trying to serve two widowed ladies, one of them my niece the other my sister-in-law. I expect to leave for Chicago tomorrow.

Perhaps our cause will be benefited by the republication of this correspondence in the Boston papers. The Commonwealth and Traveller will cheerfully reprint; will not others?

Give my best regards to Wilson and other friends.

Yours truly and faithfully,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 251

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, July 19, 1852

Washington City, July 19, 1852.

My Dear Sir, I say as usual, “ditto to Mr. Burke.” The ideas of your letter are my own. I fear more danger — much more to the cause of Freedom from Pierce's election than from Scott's. Still, if the least dependence can be placed on the professions of the Freesoil Democrats who are supporting him, even he will not be able to do much mischief should the vote for the Pittsburgh nominees prove large & their support warm. Clay writes me the cause moves steadily on in Kentucky: and I think it probable that all the boarder slave states will be represented at Pittsburg, as well as all the Free States. This will make a great impression, & if the vote shall correspond, and the Freesoil Democrats shall prove true, not much need be apprehended even from Pierce.

The present duty seems to be that of putting the Pittsburg Convention on the right ground and under the right name — then getting the right candidates and then giving the largest possible vote. My judgment is that it should assume the name of the Independent Democracy — adopt the Buffalo Platform — modified by the introduction of judicious Land Reform & European Freedom Resolutions — and nominate Hale for President & Spaulding or some other good western democrat for Vice & make the best fight possible. Much has been said to me about receiving the nomination, but my judgment is against it. Hale & Sumner urge me & our friends in the House I think agree with them — that as a Democrat I would carry the largest votes — but I think Hale is good enough Democrat — far better certainly than Cass or Buchanan or Pierce or King; and I wish to be out of the scrape for many reasons.

I hear from Cleveland that there is a good deal of feeling there against me, & I should not be surprised if there were some in Cincinnati.

You will see my letter to Butler before long. The Herald Correspondent here applied to me to allow its appearance first in that paper, which I consented to thinking it would be read by more of the class I wish to reach, than in any other paper at first. I hope you will approve of it.

I wish very much that you wd. buy the Nonpariel & put Miller there, or get somebody else to do so. I will cheerfully contribute $500.

P. S. I want to ask you two or three questions in confidence, and to beg of you perfectly frank answers.

Do you think I ought to be reelected? Do you think there is any probability of my reelection; and, in this connection, what so far as you know are the sentiments of the Democrats towards me? What do you think my course ought to be in relation to state politics?

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 243-4

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, September 8, 1850

Washington, Sept. 8, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: Clouds and darkness are upon us at present. The slaveholders have succeeded beyond their wildest hopes twelve months ago. True some have demanded even more than they have obtained; but their extreme demand was necessary to secure the immense concession which has been made to them. Without it Executive Influence and Bribery would, perhaps availed nothing.

Well what now! I say with blind Milton, glorious child of Freedom, though blind,

“‘Bate no jot

Of heart or hope but still bear up and steer

Right onward.”

Rouse up in Massachusetts and quit you like men. God's providence has devolved political duties and responsibilities upon you, my friend, from which you must not shrink. Would that it might be so ordered that you could be placed in the Senate! It is your place and you ought to be in it. If the democrats would place you there, they might have the Governor and welcome — doubly welcome.

You talk of the humiliation of a small vote. The humiliation was not for you, but for those who preferred barbarism to Freedom. I had like experience once, being a candidate, under like circumstances in Cincinnati; with the difference that I was as far behind both candidates of the Hunkers as you were behind the foe — and farther — but I did not feel humbled at all.

I see Mr. Sewall is nominated in the Salem District. I am sorry that Pierpont declined. I hardly know a man whom I would go farther to support, and I should think him just the man to call out the enthusiasm of the people. I hope Sewall will be sustained by the strongest possible vote. “No more doubtful men”, should be added to our war-cry of “No more Slave States and no Slave Territory”.

Let me know how things go on in Massachusetts.

Yours ever,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 219-20

Speech of Senator Charles Sumner in the United States Senate, December 18, 1861

Some days ago I called the attention of the Senate to abuses in Missouri with reference to fugitive slaves. Since then I have received a great many communications from that State showing very great interest in the question, some of them in the nature of protest against the system which has been adopted there. One of these purports to come from a slave owner, himself educated in a slave State, and he speaks with great bitterness of the indignity that has been put upon the Army there, and of the injury that it has done to the cause of the Union. Another letter from another person contains a passage which I shall read:

“I wish to say in addition that I have lived twenty-four years in Missouri, that I know the people well, have served them in various offices, and let me assure you it is nonsense to try to save Missouri to the Union and the institution of slavery also. We must give up one or the other. Slavery ought to fall and Missouri be saved. Frémont's army struck terror into the secessionists. He made them feel it by taking their goods and chattels. Let our armies proclaim freedom to the slaves of the secessionists, and the rebellion will soon close. We can take care of the free negroes at a future day. Give General Lane ten thousand men, and he would establish peace in Missouri in thirty days.”

But, sir, my especial object now is not to call attention to this abuse in Missouri, but to call attention to this abuse here near at home. Brigadier General Stone, the well-known commander at Ball's Bluff, is now adding to his achievements there by engaging ably and actively in the work of surrendering fugitive slaves. He does this, sir, most successfully. He is victorious when the simple question is whether a fugitive slave shall be surrendered to a rebel.

Sir, besides my general interest in this question, besides my interest in the honor of the national Army, I have a special interest at this moment because Brigadier General Stone has seen fit to impose this vile and unconstitutional duty upon Massachusetts troops. The Governor of my State has charged me with a communication to the Secretary of War on this subject, complaining of this outrage, treating it as an indignity to the men, and as an act unworthy of our national flag. I agree with the Governor of Massachusetts; and when I call attention to this abuse now, I make myself his representative, as also the representative of my own opinions.

But there are others besides the Governor of Massachusetts who complain. There are two German companies in one of the Massachusetts regiments who, when they enlisted, entered into the public service with the positive understanding that they should not be put to any such discreditable and unconstitutional service. Sir, they complain, and with them their own immediate fellow-citizens at home, the German population generally throughout the country.

Nor is this all. The complaint extends to other quarters. I have here a letter from a citizen of Philadelphia, from which I shall read a short extract. The writer says:

“I have but one son, and he fought at Ball's Bluff, in the California regiment, where his bravery brought him into notice. He escaped, wounded, after dark. He protests against being made to return fugitive slaves, and if ordered to that duty will refuse obedience and take the consequences. I ask, sir, shall our sons, who are offering their lives for the preservation of our institutions, be degraded to slave-catchers for any persons, loyal or disloyal? If such is the policy of the Government, I shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its preservation.”

With these communications which I have received, some of an official character and others of a private character, I have felt that I should not do my duty if I did not call the attention of the Senate to this outrage. It must be arrested. I am glad to know that my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, promises us at once a bill to meet this grievance. It ought to be introduced promptly, and to be passed at once. Our troops ought to be saved from this shame.

SOURCE: John C. Rives, The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress, p. 130