Diary of Horatio Nelson Taft, Friday, April 11, 1862

Fine pleasant day. The Event here has been the passage of the Bill by the House abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia. It had passed the Senate. No particular War news today. I was down to the Hotels. They are all full and quite a crowd at Willards. Went to the “Festival” to call for Julia about 10, staid an hour, it is the last night. We got home about 11½ o'clock. The nights are now bright and beautiful.

SOURCE: Horatio Nelson Taft, The Diary of Horatio Nelson Taft, 1861-1865. Volume 1, January 1,1861-April 11, 1862, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington D. C.

Victor Hugo to Editor of the London News, December 2, 1859

HAUTEVILLE HOUSE, Dec. 2, 1859.

SIR: When one thinks of the United States of America, a majestic figure rises to the mind—Washington. Now, in that country of Washington, see what is going on at this hour!

There are slaves in the Southern States, a fact which strikes with indignation, as the most monstrous of contradictions, the reasonable and freer conscience of the Northern States. These slaves, these negroes, a white man, a free man, one John Brown, wanted to deliver. Certainly, if insurrection be ever a sacred duty, it is against Slavery. Brown wished to begin the good work by the deliverance of the slaves in Virginia. Being a Puritan, a religious and austere man, and full of the Gospel, he cried aloud to these men — his brothers — the cry of emancipation "Christ has set us free!" The slaves, enervated by Slavery, made no response to his appeal — Slavery makes deafness in the soul. Brown, finding himself abandoned, fought with a handful of heroic men; he struggled; he fell, riddled with bullets; his two young sons, martyrs of a holy cause, dead at his side. This is what is called the Harper's Ferry affair.

John Brown, taken prisoner, has just been tried, with four of his fellows — Stephens, Coppoc, Green, and Copeland. What sort of trial it was, a word will tell.

Brown, stretched upon a truckle bed, with six half-closed wounds—a gun-shot wound in his arm, one in his loins, two in the chest, two in the head—almost bereft of hearing, bleeding through his mattress, the spirits of his two dead sons attending him; his four fellow-prisoners crawling around him; Stephens with four sabre wounds; "Justice" in a hurry to have done with the case; an attorney, Hunter, demanding that it be despatched with sharp speed; a Judge, Parker, absenting; the defence cut short; scarcely any delay allowed; forged or garbled documents put in evidence; the witnesses for the prisoner shut out; the defence clogged; two guns, loaded with grape, brought into the court, with an order to the jailers to shoot the prisoners in case of an attempt at rescue; forty minutes' deliberation; three sentences to death. I affirm, on my honor, that all this took place, not in Turkey, but in America.

Such things are not done with impunity in the face of the civilized world. The universal conscience of mankind is an ever-watchful eye. Let the Judge of Charlestown, and Hunter, and Parker, and the slave-holding jurors, and the whole population of Virginia, ponder it well: they are seen! They are not alone in the world. At this moment the gaze of Europe is fixed on America.

John Brown, condemned to die, was to have been hanged on the 2d of December—this very day. But news has this instant reached us. A respite is granted him. It is not until the 16th that he is to die. The interval is short. Has a cry of mercy time to make itself heard? No matter. It is a duty to lift up the voice.

Perhaps a second respite may be granted. America is a noble land. The sentiment of humanity is soon quickened among a free people. We hope that Brown may be saved. If it were otherwise—if Brown should die on the scaffold on the 16th of December—what a terrible calamity!

The executioner of Brown—let us avow it openly (for the day of the kings is past, and the day of the people dawns, and to the people we are bound frankly to speak the truth)—the executioner of Brown would be neither, the Attorney Hunter, nor the Judge Parker, nor the Governor Wise, nor the State of Virginia; it would be, we say it, and we think it with a shudder, the whole American Republic.

The more one loves, the more one admires, the more one reveres the Republic, the more heart-sick one feels at such a catastrophe. A single State ought not to have the power to dishonor all the rest, and in this ease federal intervention is a clear right. Otherwise, by hesitating to interfere when it might prevent a crime, the Union becomes an accomplice. No matter how intense may be the indignation of the generous Northern States, the Southern States associate them with the disgrace of this murder. All of us, whosoever we may be—for whom the democratic cause is a common country—feel ourselves in a manner compromised and hurt. If the scaffold should be erected on the 16th of December, the incorruptible voices of history would thenceforward testify that the august confederation of the New World had added to all its ties of holy brotherhood a brotherhood of blood, and the fasces of that splendid Republic would be bound together with the running noose that hung from the gibbet of Brown.

This is a bond that kills.

When we reflect on what Brown, the liberator, the champion of Christ, has striven to effect, and when we remember that he is about to die, slaughtered by the American Republic, the crime assumes the proportions of the Nation which commits it; and when we say to ourselves that this Nation is a glory of the human race; that—like France, like England, like Germany—she is one of the organs of civilization; that she sometimes even out-marches Europe by the sublime audacity of her progress; that she is the queen of an entire world; and that she bears on her brow an immense light of freedom; we affirm that John Brown will not die; for we recoil, horror-struck, from the idea of so great a crime committed by so great a People,

In a political light, the murder of Brown would be an irreparable fault. It would penetrate the Union with a secret fissure, which—would in the end tear it asunder. It is possible that the execution of Brown might consolidate Slavery in Virginia, but it is certain that it would convulse the entire American Democracy. You preserve your shame, but you sacrifice your glory.

In a moral light, it seems to me, that a portion of the light of humanity would be eclipsed; that even the idea of justice and injustice would be obscured on the day which should witness the assassination of Emancipation by Liberty.

As for myself, though I am but an atom, yet being, as I am, in common with all other men, inspired with the conscience of humanity, I kneel in tears before the great starry banner of the New World, and with clasped hands, and with profound and filial respect, I implore the illustrious American Republic, sister of the French Republic, to look to the safety of the universal moral law, to save Brown; to throw down the threatening scaffold of the 16th December, and not to suffer that, beneath its eyes, and, I add, with a shudder, almost by its fault, the first fratricide be outdone.

For yes, let America know it, and ponder it well—there is something more terrible than Cain slaying Abel—it is Washington slaying Spartacus.

VICTOR HUGO.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LONDON NEWS.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, pp. 99-102

Victor Hugo to Maria Weston Chapman, July 6, 1851

PARIS, 6th July, 1851.

MADAME: I have scarcely any thing to add to your letter. I would cheerfully sign every line of it. Pursue your holy work. You have with you all great souls and all good hearts.

You are pleased to believe, and to assure me, that my voice, in this august cause of liberty, will be listened to by the great American people, whom I love so profoundly, and whose destinies, I am fain to think, are closely linked with the mission of France. You desire me to lift up my voice.

I will do it at once, and I will do it on all occasions. I agree with you in thinking, that, within a definite time—that within a time not distant—the United States will repudiate Slavery with horror! Slavery in such a country! Can there be an incongruity more monstrous? Barbarism installed in the very heart of a country, which is itself the affirmation of Civilization; liberty wearing a chain; blasphemy echoing from the altar; the collar of the negro chained to the pedestal of Washington! It is a thing unheard of. I say more; it is impossible. Such a spectacle would destroy itself. The light of the nineteenth century alone is enough to destroy it.

What! Slavery sanctioned, by law, among that illustrious people, who for seventy years have measured the progress of civilization by their march, demonstrated Democracy by their power, and liberty by their prosperity! Slavery in the United States! It is the duty of this Republic to set such a bad example no longer. It is a shame, and she was never born to bow her head.

It is not when Slavery is taking leave of old nations, that it should be received by the new. What! When Slavery is departing from Turkey, shall it rest in America? What! Drive it from the hearth of Omar, and adopt it at the hearth of Franklin! No! No! No!

There is an inflexible logic which develops more or less slowly, which fashions, which redresses according to a mysterious plan, perceptible only to great spirits, the facts, the men, the laws, the morals, the people; or better, under all human things, there are things divine.

Let all those great souls who love the United States, as a country, be re-assured. The United States must renounce Slavery, or they must renounce Liberty. They cannot renounce Liberty. They must renounce Slavery, or renounce the Gospel. They will never renounce the Gospel.

Accept, Madame, with my devotion to the cause you advocate, the homage of my respect.

VICTOR HUGO.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, pp. 103-4

Speech of Congressman Albert G. Brown on the subject of the Public Printing, and Against the Action of the Joint Committee in Taking It from the Contractor and Dividing It Between the "Union" and the "Republic" Newspapers, Delivered in the United States House of Representatives, April 13 and 14, 1852

MR. BROWN said: I do not intend to detain the House by anything like an elaborate speech upon the subject of the public printing. In the few remarks which I propose to submit, I shall endeavor to confine myself as nearly as possible to the subjects directly before us; nor should I have asked the indulgence of the House to say a word but for the agency which I have taken heretofore in this matter. When I heard that the Committee on Public Printing had done more than, by the explanation of the honorable chairman, I am now induced to think they intended to do, I thought they had exceeded the authority given them by law, and that they had done that which this House ought not to sanction by its silence, much less by its express assent. With the explanation which the honorable chairman has given, I am satisfied the committee have intended to confine themselves to the letter of the law; but I am just as well satisfied that their action will lead to an abuse of the law. The Committee on Public Printing have a right, according to one construction of the statute of 1846, to take so much of the public printing from the present employee as he fails or refuses to execute. Under this authority we now learn from the chairman, that they propose to take from the public printer-what? The work which he has refused or failed to execute, and this alone? No, sir; for in the progress of his remarks the honorable chairman tells you that they have in their possession now a considerable quantity of work, which has never yet been submitted to the public printer. What brought the minds of the committee to the conclusion, that the printer would either fail or refuse to execute the work, when it had never been in his hands? Was it not straining a conclusion to determine that he had failed to execute, and would not execute, work which they had never intrusted to his care, and never asked him to execute? The honorable chairman of the committee says that the public printer has failed to execute some of the work heretofore intrusted to his care. But does the conclusion necessarily follow, that he will continue to fail; or that, having failed in one kind of printing, he would fail in all others?

Was it ever expected that the public printer could execute the printing of this House instantly upon its delivery to him? Has there been any extraordinary delay in the delivery of this work? According to my recollection, the public printing is about as forward, about as near to completion, as it usually is at this season of the year. We have the first part of the President's message, bound and laid upon our tables, one copy for each member; and what matters it whether the extra copies shall be printed this month, the next month, or three months hence? When was the last part of the President's message and accompanying documents printed during the long session of the last Congress? According to my recollection, we were getting along towards the dog-days before it was laid upon our tables. Was the then venerable and highly-respected public printer [Mr. Ritchie] hauled over the coals for a failure to perform his duty? Was Mr. Ritchie—against whom I have no word of complaint to utter here—held up to the country as a defaulter in the discharge of his duties? Ah! some gentleman answers, in a low tone, Yes. It is well the tone is low. No gentleman ought to answer yes, in a loud voice. The House knows what was the action taken upon that subject two years ago. At the close of the session of 1850, there was found to be, in one House of Congress, a large majority not only indisposed to call Mr. Ritchie to an account for any failure to comply with his contract, but actually disposed and determined to give him some sixty or seventy thousand dollars of the public money as extra compensation. Mr. Ritchie was paid every dollar that he claimed under his contract, and his friends were anxious to give him a great deal more. I never understood that he did the work any better, or any more rapidly than the contract called for; and yet there was a large party in this House ready to vote him sixty thousand dollars, or more, over and above what the contract called for; and it was only, according to my recollection, by parliamentary manœuvring that the thing was prevented. You had two or three committees of conference upon the subject, and the subject was pressed upon our attention as no other subject was ever pressed upon us. And let me remind certain gentlemen, who are enforcing a very rigid observance of the law against Mr. Hamilton, that the journals show them to have been more than liberal towards Mr. Ritchie. Now, sir, I desire to know why it is, in this land of laws, in this land of equality, and before this Democratic House of Representatives, this kind of distinction is made between one employee and another? I know nothing of Mr. Boyd Hamilton; I have never seen him. If I were to meet him to-day, I should not know him from any other man in Christendom. I care not one single solitary farthing about him, but I do care for justice. I will not willingly make myself a party to a transaction so unjust as this. I will not say to one man, who wields a powerful party press, We will pay you the full amount of the bond, wink at your short-comings, and pay you sixty thousand dollars extra; and then to another, who has no press, no power, no influence, We will crush you, because you have not lived up to the very letter of the law.

Mr. GORMAN. I want the gentleman distinctly to avow whether he charges that as a motive operating upon the committee?

Mr. BROWN. Not at all.

Mr. GORMAN. Your words do.

Mr. BROWN. I disavow any personal application; but this I will say: If the House of Representatives shall perpetrate such an act of gross injustice, it will merit, and will assuredly receive, the reprobation of every just man in the nation. We hear continually that the contract system has proved a failure. I do not think so. The contract system has had no fair trial. There has been, what seemed to me, a determination from the beginning to bring this system into disrepute—never to give it fair play. Powerful parties, holding the most influential positions, have engaged in this work. The system has operated against their interest, and they have labored to break it down. Its triumph is not complete, but it has not failed. Let us see how the system has worked so far. Your first contractors were Wendell and Van Benthuysen. Did they execute their contract? I understand they did. I am forced to that conclusion because there has been no suit entered upon their bond for a failure to execute their contract. Thus far the system worked well—at least it did not fail. You received the work and paid for it; and if it was not well done, it was because you did not require it to be well done. During the last Congress, the then venerable editor of the Union (Mr. Ritchie) had the contract. Did he execute it? I understand he did. It is my understanding that he executed it to the satisfaction of the Committee on Printing, and the satisfaction of Congress. I so understand, because no suit has been instituted upon his bond for a failure to execute the contract. You again received the work and paid for it, and we shall presently see that certain gentlemen proposed to do a great deal more. Surely there could have been no failure, when you not only received the work and paid for it, but wanted to give large extra compensation. Then Mr. A. Boyd Hamilton has the contract for this session. The only specifications, according to my present recollection, which the honorable chairman makes against him is, that a portion of the paper is some twelve pounds in the ream lighter than the contract requires. This I find Mr. Hamilton accounts for in the printed paper lying upon our tables. He says, that for a brief season during the past winter, on account of the closing of navigation, he was unable to get a better article of paper. The cold weather having suspended steamboat and railroad operations, he could not procure transportation.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. I wish to make a statement, and it is this: I understand from the chairman of the Senate committee, or rather the late chairman of the Senate committee, that he has rejected nearly all the work sent to the Senate by the printer, and rejected it not solely for the reason that the paper was of an inferior article, but because the whole committee concurred in the idea that a great fraud had been practised upon the government if this paper should be received as the quality of paper which he has now furnished, it being one-fifth less in value, than what he was required to furnish.

But there is another defect in the paper, to which the chairman of the House committee, and of the Senate committee, I understand, objected; and it is this: that the sheets of paper upon which the printing is done, are too small; that they have too little margin; that when the pages are folded together, and the edges clipped or cut, it leaves too little margin, and that in the books in which plates are to be placed, the plates are frequently disfigured and destroyed in consequence of the smallness of the sheets.

Nor is this all. The printing which has been sent to us, is so imperfect in consequence of defects in the manner in which the presswork is done, and defects in the quality of the ink that is used, that there are not half a dozen sheets in any one book that we have examined, that are perfect. They are full from the top line to the bottom of the page, with what printers call technically "monks" and "friars," that is, here a white place, and here a black blotch. So that the work, in every view in which it can be regarded, is inferior to what was agreed for under the contract.

Mr. FLORENCE. Did the gentleman submit any of this work to the House? I understood the chairman of the Committee on Printing [Mr. Gorman] to say that there had been no documents except the President's message and accompanying documents, given to the public printer. His complaint was, that there had been no work done; but now the gentleman from Kentucky, a member of the Committee on Printing, rises in his place, and says that these have been condemned. Where are they?

Mr. POLK. I will ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if there are not thirty or forty executive documents that have been furnished to the printer during the last three months, and that have not been printed yet?

Mr. FLORENCE. I do not know anything at all about that, for I am not a member of the Committee on Printing. I attend to the business of the committee to which I belong, and cannot answer the gentleman's question.

Mr. POLK. Then I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that he ought not to talk about things he knows nothing about.

Mr. FLORENCE. I rose for the purpose of being informed; and if the gentleman had had his ears open, he would have heard my question, and would not have made the remark he did.

Mr. POLK. I am sorry I did not hear the gentleman; but it is my misfortune, if my ears are not as long as his. [Laughter.]

Mr. GORMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania misunderstood me, if he understood me as saying that no document but the President's message had gone into the hands of the printer. A great many documents have gone into his hands, but we have never seen anything of them since; when they get there, it is the last of them. A part of the President's message has, however, come to us, and it is to that that the gentleman from Kentucky alludes. If you look over the pages, you will find the "monks" and "friars," or, as I should call them, blotches of white and then blotches of black. They are really so insufferably bad that we could not receive them. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania is satisfied. I will produce a copy, and hand it to him.

Mr. BROWN (resuming). I was proceeding to inquire, when I was interrupted, whether it was true that the contract system had been fairly tried, and had proved a failure? I had shown that there was no evidence of its failure up to the commencement of this session of Congress, and I had stated that I believed there had been combinations to break it down. If it has failed, or shall hereafter fail, in the hands of Mr. Hamilton, is that conclusive that the system is wrong, and ought to be abandoned? That it must fail in his hands, under the policy that the committee propose to pursue towards him, is to my mind the most evident proposition on earth. If the committee suspends a job when it is half completed, takes other jobs from him entirely, and makes large deductions from time to time on the work which he has executed, who does not see that the man's credit must be broken down? If he was worth a quarter of a million of dollars, he could not execute the contract under such a policy as this.

But I do not mean to dwell upon this branch of the subject. I have said that, in my judgment, the system has not proved a failure. If it has failed at all at any time, or in any man's hands, it is because you have not given it a fair trial.

Mr. FREEMAN (interrupting). I did the chairman of the committee to say that the contract had been abrogated, but only that they should employ others to carry out such parts of the contract as the contractor has failed to carry out. I do not understand that this is an attack upon the contract system, but only upon the manner in which this party has acted under his contract. Is not that the fact?

Mr. GORMAN. It is.

Mr. BROWN. If the committee take the printing from this man and hand it over to others, or if they refuse to deliver it over to him, what is it but an abandonment of the contract? Is not that a breaking up of the contract? Does not every man see that the result of this action on the part of the committee must be that the whole of the House printing will go to Donelson & Armstrong, and the whole of the Senate printing to Gideon & Co.? Mr. Boyd Hamilton will be left at the end of three weeks from to-day with not a penny's worth of work on hand. It is useless to say what the committee mean to do, or what is meant by this proceeding. The question is, what does their action inevitably lead to? If the work is taken from Hamilton by the committee, and their action is sanctioned by the House, there is an end of his contract; and with it we all see that the whole contract system will end. It cannot be otherwise.

The committee has notified us that they have ceased to send the work to Hamilton, and have made arrangements with other parties to do it. Is it not ridiculous, then, to say that they have not abrogated the contract? They have, to all intents and purposes, abrogated one contract and made another. It is stultifying ourselves to pretend that it is otherwise.

My reason for introducing a resolution in reference to this subject was this and I had no other purpose to subserve—I wanted to arrest what I thought a dangerous proceeding. I knew the committee were acting without having made a report to the House. I did not pause to inquire whether they had authority to do all that they proposed. I looked only to the effect which their action was certain to produce. Mr. Hamilton says he has made an outlay of $50,000 in preparing himself to execute the printing of Congress. It is proposed summarily to take the contract from him—and by whom and in what manner, pray? Not by Congress—not by a committee of Congress, but by three members of the House and one member of the Senate; for, bear you in mind, this is not the act of a full committee. And this fragment of a committee are doing this without consulting Congress, and without reporting its proceedings. Now, let Congress sanction this act of the committee, and think you, sir, that this man will not come here at the next Congress, and ask indemnity for his losses on this outlay? No man will question that. And what do you suppose he will prove? If he is half as smart in making proof as others have been, he will prove that he was executing the work as well as it had ever been done; that he was delivering it as fast as it had ever been delivered; that his contract was rudely and summarily snatched from him, his business broken up, his credit destroyed, and himself ruined. And instead of your getting the penalty of the bonds, he will present a claim for some $100,000 or more against you. Then, if a committee is appointed, as there will be, to investigate the subject, what evidence will there be on the record to show that you were justified in this proceeding? Take the contract from Mr. Hamilton, under these circumstances, if you will; but I ask you to leave upon the record the evidence which shall justify your action to those who are to come after you, and who will be charged with an investigation of Hamilton's claims. Do not go out of this contract and leave no trace behind to mark your exit. Before you sanction the acts of this committee, demand a report, a full report, one that will justify you before another Congress in dismissing Hamilton from his contract—for rest assured he will present his claim from year to year, and send it down to his children after him, from generation to generation. It will be presented time and again, until, finally, Congress will be brought to pass it. It is this result against which I now raise my warning voice.

If there is anything to justify this step on the part of Congress, let the committee report it. Let the House take the responsibility. Let us know where we stand. Let those who are to come after us have something with which to meet Mr. Hamilton, when he comes here by himself, or through his attorney or successors, to make a demand for damages on account of the breaking up of his contract.

We are told day after day in the newspapers and elsewhere, that the contract system has failed, and that Congress ought to abandon it. I am no friend of the system. I am not its friend or its apologist. But it has not failed. Its success has been wonderful, considering the amount of opposition it has encountered. Does it not strike us all as being rather remarkable, that a member can take up one of these printed documents on his desk, direct it to some one in some remote corner of California or Oregon, put his frank upon it, call a page and send it to the post-office of the House, and that it should then be taken up and carried from one point to another, and that too by contract, until finally it reaches its far off destination, and yet that this document thus borne from one part of the continent to another by contract, cannot be printed here, under the eye of Congress, by contract? Your army and navy can be supplied by contract; your troops on the distant frontier of Texas, California, and Oregon, can be furnished with supplies by contract; and yet you cannot print a book by contract. If these manuscripts belonged to a private individual, could he not get them printed by contract? and would he not do it? Why is it, then, that we cannot do the same thing? I do not profess to know, but I will tell you what I think may be the cause. I do not say why it is we have failed, but I will tell you on what I think has interfered with our success. There are party editors in the city of Washington—Whigs as well as Democrats and there may be such a thing as this going on:

"If you'll tickle me, I'll tickle you."

If a member will vote large supplies to a party editor, and thus tickle him—and it applies not more to one party than the other—why, then, the editor speaks well of the member to his constituents, and thus tickles him in return; but before an excuse can be given for voting these supplies, the contract system must be broken up. Besides, it may be possible that party men, after all, care more for the success of party editors than for the success of a system like this. And they may strive to bring the system into discredit and to destroy it in public favor, in order that party editors may come up and be elected public printers, or have contracts given to them, out of which they may realize large sums of money. I say these things may be. I do not say they are so. But these are reflections which force themselves on my mind. And when I can find no good reason why the contract system is failing, or is likely to fail—no reason why it is cried down my mind dwells here; and I inquire of myself, whether it is not possible, that at the bottom of all the difficulty in executing this contract system, there do not lie some hidden and secret causes like these? If these be the causes of failure, let them be removed. Let us fling defiance in the teeth of those who would use the national treasury to purchase favor. Let members stand on their merits, and editors, like other men, work for what they get, and the contract system will triumph.

I do not say the contract system is the best; I only say it has not had a fair trial, and we have no reason to conclude that it has failed. If I had my own way, or if my suggestions are worth anything to the House, I would say, that above all other modes, I should prefer to have the public printer elected, and that it should be required of him, by law, that he should have no connection with any party press, Whig or Democratic, during his service; but that he should be what his vocation indicated him to be the public printer, and nothing else. If I had my own way, I should prefer to have the work executed by a public printer, who should be well paid. But of all the schemes that I have ever seen or heard of, this last one of the Committee on Printing, is to me the most objectionable—objectionable in many points of view. I do not like these combinations between Whigs and Democrats. I do not say there has been a combination or coalition for bad purposes, because I will not charge my honorable friend from Indiana [Mr. Gorman] with entering into combinations; but it will strike the mind of this country as a coalition; and, however well intended, its effects upon the Democratic party must be most disastrous. Talk about the Massachusetts coalition! Why, sir, the honorable chairman of the committee ought to have retained the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Rantoul], to defend this business. He is a capital defender of coalitions, as he has given us good reason to know. [Laughter.]

This whole thing looks to me, and I fear it will strike the country, as very much like a combination or coalition between the Whigs and Democrats, or rather between the organs of the two parties, to control the government printing, keep the game in their own hands, and pocket the profits. I do not say that it is so, but it occurs to me that it looks that way, and that the country will so regard it.

Mr. GORMAN. I want to put a friendly question to the gentleman from Mississippi. I ask that gentleman whether the present coalition suits him?

Mr. BROWN. It does not.

Mr. GORMAN. I understand it does not. Would the Southern Press suit him?

Mr. BROWN. It would not.

Mr. GORMAN. I am inclined to come to the same conclusion in relation to my friend from Mississippi that he does in relation to myself. He suspects me of forming a coalition with the organs of the Whig and Democratic parties. I suspect him of doing precisely the same thing with the Southern Press. He suspects me, therefore, of exactly what I suspect him; so, if he kills my dog, I will kill his cat in the same way. [Laughter.]

Mr. BROWN. Let me say to my friend from Indiana, that he was never more mistaken. I have at no time sought, directly nor indirectly, to give any part of the public printing to the Southern Press. And, what is more, if it were left to me to direct the whole subject, I would not give one dollar of it to any party editor.

Mr. VENABLE. Wouldn't you give it to the National Era? [Laughter.]

Mr. BROWN. About as soon as to some others.

Mr. POLK. I ask the gentleman if he would not vote to give it to the Southern Press?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir. I have already stated, and I believe it to be true, that it is wrong in principle to give the public patronage to party editors at all. It destroys that independence and boldness which should belong alike to editors and representatives; it begets a sort of paralyzing sympathy between the recipient of a favor and the giver of it, which stands palpably in the way of a fair, upright, equitable, and honest administration of political justice.

Mr. RANTOUL. The suggestion which the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] has thrown out, that I might be employed to defend this coalition, places me in a rather unpleasant situation; and, therefore, I beg leave to say, in advance, that I shall decline entirely to undertake any such task upon any conditions whatever. A coalition which is founded in principle, I can defend; but one which looks entirely to the division of the spoils, seems to me to be entirely indefensible. [Renewed laughter.]

Mr. BROWN. Well, I have only said that if a coalition should be completed, better counsel could not be found to defend it.

Mr. GORMAN. I congratulate the gentleman upon his new coalition.

Mr. BROWN. If my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Printing, will look over the vote of yesterday upon this subject, he will find some reason to congratulate himself upon another coalition. My recollection is, that he was found in very strange company on that occasion. If he will but turn to his friend over the way from New York [Mr. Haven], he will find in him a coadjutor with whom he struck hands in making this bargain.

Mr. GORMAN. I was congratulating the gentleman upon his coalition with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Rantoul].

Mr. BROWN. Upon the great issues which unite us as Democrats, we work together. And on these issues, I believe there is not a more trustworthy member of the party on this floor than the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Rantoul]. Those are the issues upon which the gentleman from Massachusetts and myself unite. Upon other issues, there is no bond of sympathy between us. The bond which unites us is political only; and the points of affinity are those which unite the gentleman from Indiana and myself, and indeed all Democrats. But my friend from Indiana [Mr. Gorman], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Haven], seem to be united, and to have formed a coalition to obtain the spoils. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, although I listened with the most profound attention, as I always do, to the remarks of my friend from Indiana [Mr. Gorman], I am at a loss to know why it became necessary to employ two party organs to aid in the public printing? I cannot understand why somebody else could not have done it just as well. There were other printing establishments here. There was the Towers's establishment. There was Mr. Rives's establishment; and there were others. But I understand the committee voted down all these establishments; they even voted down Donelson & Armstrong, as my friend [Mr. Gorman] says. And in order to secure to them a part of the work the right hand of fellowship was extended by him to his Whig co-laborers, they agreeing to divide it between the two great party organs, the Union and the Republic. I ask my friend [Mr. Gorman] if he did not vote against Rives, and against Towers, and against others.

Mr. GORMAN. I did.

Mr. BROWN. Exactly; and other members of the committee voted against Donelson & Armstrong, and in this way no conclusion was arrived at, until at last the two Whigs on the committee obtained their own terms, and got half the job for the Republic. It seems to me that if my friend from Indiana [Mr. Gorman], and my friend from Kentucky [Mr. Stanton], who was a member of that committee, had gone with the other members of the committee for Mr. Rives, there would have been no difficulty.

Mr. ORR. Will my friend from Mississippi yield for a motion to adjourn?

Mr. BROWN. I will yield for that purpose.

Mr. ORR. I move, then, that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was put and agreed to; and

The House adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

WEDNESDAY, April 14th, 1852.

Mr. BROWN continued: Before I enter upon the subject which was under consideration at the time of adjournment yesterday, I desire to correct an impression which I ascertain to have made a lodgement upon the minds of some gentlemen, whose opinion I prize very highly. And that is, that I have been actuated in my course by some feeling of personal hostility to the parties engaged by the committee to execute the public printing. I desire to say, once for all, that I distinctly disavow any such feeling. My personal relations with all the gentlemen (or with all of them that I know), are of a friendly character, and I know of no reason why they should not so continue. I owe them no thanks for past favors, and no grudge for past injuries. Occupying such a position, I can deal out to each one, and to all of them, equal and exact justice.

It seems to me, that in the action of the committee upon this subject of printing, there has been no bona fide effort to employ any one to execute the work, except Donelson & Armstrong. With the majority of the committee on the part of the House of Representatives, this appears clearly to have been the case. It seems that no other establishment was thought of, in connection with this printing, or was treated as worthy to receive it, except the Union establishment. With the majority, it was Donelson & Armstrong at the beginning—it was Donelson & Armstrong through its whole progress it was Donelson & Armstrong at the conclusion.

Mr. STANTON of Kentucky (interrupting). Will the gentleman from Mississippi allow me to say a word?

Mr. BROWN. If I am at all mistaken, I want to be corrected

Mr. STANTON. The remark the gentleman has just made does not apply to me. I attempted, at an early part of this struggle, to get this work divided out to Donelson & Armstrong and John T. Towers, and offered a resolution to that effect. I did so for this reason: because there was a necessity, at the time, of doing something. I thought those gentlemen were prepared to do the work, and I proposed to the committee to give to them such work as the public printer could not, or would not, do.

Mr. BROWN. Still I find, from the explanation of my friend from Kentucky [Mr. Stanton], that he insisted upon having Donelson & Armstrong in the contract somewhere. Now, sir, while these gentlemen [Messrs. Stanton and Gorman] were indulging their predilections for their friends, it seems they never thought of indulging other gentlemen to the same extent. They, it seems, had their likes for Donelson & Armstrong, and their dislikes for other printers and editors, and it was

all right that they should indulge them. But if other people indulge their likes and dislikes, then these gentlemen think it is all wrong. They think it very odd that other gentlemen should refuse to give up their opposition to Donelson & Armstrong; but they seem at no time to have been willing to yield their position in favor of these gentlemen. These facts being true, I say there does not seem to have been a bona fide single purpose of procuring the public work to be done in the speediest manner, and by those who would do it the cheapest and best. But there seems to have been but one purpose, running throughout the whole proceedings, from the beginning to the end, and that was to favor the printing establishment of Donelson & Armstrong. That I object to. I do not object to those particular individuals. What I object to is this: that the committee did not go to work in good faith to obtain the printing upon the best terms, but that they made the public interest secondary to the private interest of the Union establishment. Their position appears to have been, that unless Donelson & Armstrong could be included in the contract, they would make no contract. This, in my judgment, was wrong. Why not contract with other parties, if they would do the work as speedily and as cheaply? Why did the committee, from the beginning to the end, insist, without special reference to the speedy completion of the work, that this particular establishment should be included in whatever contract was made? It was the duty of the committee to have given the contractor every reasonable indulgence, and if he failed or refused to do the work, to have reported that failure to Congress; and if they put the work in other hands they ought to have employed the man who would do it the quickest, cheapest, and best.

The honorable gentleman, the chairman of that committee [Mr. Gorman], in the course of a colloquy yesterday, endeavored to impress upon the minds of this House, and so far as his printed speech could do it, upon the minds of the country, that there was something like an understanding between gentlemen entertaining extreme views; or, in other words, between what is called the Southern ultras and Northern Free-Soilers. An intimation was more than once made in the progress of the debate that there was something like a coalition between these extremes, and that by agreement they were acting in concert upon this question. No such thing is true of me. I repudiate any such insinuation, come from what quarter it may. I act here solely and alone, upon my own responsibility, never thinking, never inquiring, and never caring whether any other man North or South is or is not acting with me.

The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Gorman] intimates that he will expose these understandings. For me, he is quite at liberty to begin. But before he puts my friends or myself on trial, I would advise him to try his hand on his associate, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Stanton]. He is a capital subject to practise on. I shall expect to hear him say, "Richard Stanton, slaveholder and pro-slavery Democratic representative from the slaveholding state of Kentucky, stand up and answer to this House, by what warrant you were found in an unholy coalition with Truman Smith, Free-Soiler and Abolition Whig Senator from Connecticut, voting to divide the public printing between the Union and the Republic?" It would be an interesting trial, and I should watch its progress with great interest. Let the gentleman settle accounts like this between his colleagues on the committee before he charges coalition upon others. It seems there is no account taken of coalitionists like theirs. But if persons occupying such extreme positions as the gentleman from Massachusetts and myself are found opposing a bargain made by others holding quite as extreme positions as we do, we hear a great outcry about coalition! coalition!! If the bargain was made by a coalition, it may be opposed in the same way. If there was nothing wrong in the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Stanton] and Truman Smith acting together in making the bargain, there can be nothing wrong in the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Rantoul] and myself acting together in opposing it. If I am found acting with gentlemen entertaining extreme views against the contract, it will be found that it was made by gentlemen holding opinions just as extreme.

Mr. STANTON of Kentucky (interrupting). If the gentleman from Mississippi will allow me, I will tell him the result. We succeeded in bringing over a Connecticut Whig Senator and Abolitionist to the support of a compromise press.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; and when he came over he brought with him a Whig paper which has heaped more abuse upon the Democratic majority of this House than all the presses from Maine to Louisiana. Its columns teem from day to day with abuse of members of this House whose Democracy has never been questioned—Northern men and Southern men. When you talk about your Free-Soil ally from the North going for a compromise press, let me remind you, that he carried you over to the Whig press, and that one, the most vindictive of them all. The country will inquire how this was brought about; how, with an overwhelming Democratic majority in this House, and an equally effective Democratic majority in the Senate, you have not been able to choose a Democratic printer? Why it was that the Republic was fastened upon us? Why has this coalition been formed? These are the questions that will be asked. And the answer will be, that Donelson & Armstrong might be provided for. That is the whole secret of the matter that is the nest in which the coalition was hatched.

Mr. POLK (interrupting). Will the gentleman from Mississippi allow me to propound a question to him?

Mr. BROWN. Simply a question.

Mr. POLK. Will you vote to elect the compromise Union press to be public printer?

Mr. BROWN. I will not vote to elect any newspaper editor public printer. I said so yesterday.

Mr. KING. I rise to a question of order.

Mr. POLK. I see the coalition is now formed. The gentleman from New York [Mr. King], a Free-Soiler, says I am out of order. [Laughter.]

Mr. BROWN. I beg not to be interrupted by a side-bar colloquy.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understood the gentleman from Mississippi to yield the floor to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Polk].

Mr. BROWN. I did for a question, but not for a colloquy. Now, let us see, sir, to what strange reasons gentlemen of this committee are driven in justification of their course. The honorable gentleman who sits before me [Mr. Haven], says that he objected to Mr. Rives's doing this work. He already had a large and important job from the government. How many important and profitable jobs has the Republic under the government? Who does not know that the Republic newspaper is fattened and made sleek by the pap it receives from the Executive departments? All this the gentleman takes no account of. It was his sow that was drinking the swill, and he never thought it worth his while to charge it.

If this printing had to be divided out, why was not more justice observed in the division? Why should the committee have confined themselves exclusively to the Union and Republic? Why take two newspapers, occupying extreme positions, and turn all others out? Why not take in the "old fogies" of the Intelligencer? Why were they, like Nebuchadnezzar, turned out to grass? I do not see any reason why they should not have had a share. They are for the compromise. Was it because they had not been peculiarly abusive of the Democratic party, and of the Democratic members of this House? I must confess, sir, if I had to elect between Donelson & Armstrong and the Intelligencer, on the one hand, and Donelson & Armstrong and the Republic, on the other, I would take the Intelligencer by large odds.

I ask the attention of gentlemen to what I am about to say. What are we to understand by this procedure? My friend from Indiana [Mr. Gorman], on yesterday, when he came to allude to the Southern Press, to which he evidently thought I was much attached, and in whose service I was laboring (and in all of which he was very much mistaken), became almost frantic. His manner was excited, and he became a little denunciatory for a gentleman of his amiable temper. [Laughter.] Why was this? Why was it thought necessary thus to denounce the Southern Press. That paper, as is well known, reflects the sentiments of a large number of the Southern Democrats. Are we to understand, in its exclusion, and the bitter denunciations which follow the mention of its name, that such portion of the Democracy as sympathize in the sentiments uttered through its columns, are also to be proscribed, excluded, and denounced? Is this what we are to understand? And if we are, where is this proscription to stop? If Southern Democrats, who sympathize with the sentiments uttered through the columns of the Southern Press, are to be proscribed before the election, what is to be their position after the election? These are matters, sir, to be reflected upon.

Now, I am free to say to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, and to the country, that my vote and my course in the presidential canvass, are not to be controlled by your action upon this subject. But I am not authorized to say that your action may not control the votes of hundreds and thousands of others in the South. If you shall indicate to them, that because certain newspapers and gentlemen have defended what they believe to be the rights of the Southern States, they are therefore to be proscribed, they will probably feel it to be due to their own dignity and self-respect to proscribe you in return. Lightly as gentlemen may think of it, this view of the subject may be found worthy of consideration. There are in the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi alone, one hundred thousand State-Rights men. Proscribe them, proscribe the organ that more nearly than any other in this city reflects their views, and do it because of those views, and I tell you, I will not be accountable for the manner in which they will dispose of their votes. They may not ask favors at your hands for themselves or for any one else, but they may feel it to be due to their own self-respect to resent an insult—to resent proscription. I will not undertake to say what they will do. I am not authorized, as I have said before, to state what their future action will be; but I do feel authorized, in a friendly way, to say that you should be cautious how you act. You may endanger the success of your presidential candidate. You may endanger a matter infinitely more important to you than the public printing. You may endanger the patronage of the President, and the distribution of the $50,000,000. A little caution, and a little good temper, properly exercised, and a slight sprinkle of justice and common sense, may save a deal of trouble by and by. It is one thing to give up that which is one's due voluntarily, and it is another thing to have it snatched away, and that in so rude a manner as to give offence. I repeat again that I do not want any part of this printing for any friend of mine on earth. But I should not like to be told that certain parties could not have it because they were my friends. And I think it likely this may be the feeling of a great many southern people.

I do not care, sir, to pursue this discussion. I have said about all that I care to say, and if I go farther, I may say that which had better be left unsaid. The concluding portion of my remarks, I throw out only as a friendly warning to my political brethren here. They can receive them in a friendly spirit or not. I want it to be understood, and it is all I have to say, that when proscription commences for opinion's sake, there can be proscription upon one side as well as upon the other. I offer the following resolution. It is not my own, and does not fully meet my approbation. A friend has handed it to me, with a request that I should offer it. I do so in compliance with his request:—

"Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Printing be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to report upon the whole subject, and to recommend for the adoption of Congress such a system for the execution of the public printing as they may deem most expedient, and that they especially take into consideration the plan for a printing bureau, for the execution of the work under the supervision of a government officer."

Mr. BROWN. The Judiciary Committee had been selected, because in taking this contract, if it must be taken, out of the hands of Hamilton, and disposing of it otherwise, legal questions must necessarily arise, which it will be better to have passed upon by the Judiciary Committee than any other. I have done, sir.

At a later period in the debate, Mr. NABERS and Mr. POLK both made inquiries of Mr. Brown as to how far he agreed with Mr. RANTOUL, and what he meant by old issues. When Mr. B. was about to respond, he was decided to be out of order.

Mr. BROWN. It is in order to ask questions, but out of order to answer them.

[Mr. BROWN requests the reporter to say, that if he had been allowed to respond to Mr. Nabers and Mr. Polk, he would have said: The time was when the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Rantoul) was accepted as a sound Democrat. President Polk appointed him United States District Attorney for Massachusetts, and thus endorsed him to me and to the nation. He was a Democrat then on the old issues. If he has changed his opinions on these issues, I have yet to learn it; and if he has not, he is a Democrat on these issues yet. By old issues, I mean those that divided the two parties in the days of Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk. Such, for example, as the Bank, Tariff, Distribution, and the Sub-Treasury. If the bank charter, or a protective tariff, distribution, wasteful appropriations, or the repeal of the sub-treasury, any one or all of them shall be proposed, I will not reject the aid of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Free-Soiler though he be) in upholding the Democratic side of these questions. These were the issues—the old issues—when the honored brother of the gentleman from Tennessee appointed Robert Rantoul district attorney. On these he was sound at that time; we all trusted him then, and if he has not changed his opinions on these issues, I know of no reason why we should not trust him now.

On the new issues—those growing out of the slavery strife and the territorial acquisitions, the compromise, &c.—there is no bond of sympathy, no affinity between the gentleman from Massachusetts and myself. On all these issues, direct and collateral, that gentleman and myself are as wide apart as the poles. This the gentlemen from Tennessee and Mississippi know full well.

If gentlemen on both sides of the House who are the special friends of the compromise are to be trusted, the slavery agitation, and all the incidental issues growing out of it, have been settled; they were all compromised; and it was but the other day that we passed a finality resolution, which meant, as I supposed, that there was an end of the main issue and all its incidents. Now we have it dug up, resurrected, and dragged in here again, and that, too, by its own best friends. I hope we shall be done with this business.

If fidelity to the Democratic party means that I must vote large and fat jobs of printing to Donelson & Armstrong, and if I can only signalize my fidelity by voting other large and fat jobs to the Republic, I must say to the gentlemen who are croaking "Coalition!" "Coalition!" that, in this view of the subject, I am not faithful, and never mean to be.

I would as soon have the aid of the gentleman from Massachusetts in severing the unholy bonds which unite the Union and Republic newspapers, as I would in pulling down protection and upholding the independent treasury. When a good work has to be done, I will accept aid from any quarter.

It is a weak invention of the coalitionists to raise this hue and cry. And they expect thereby to divert public attention from the fact that they have fastened the Union to one teat of the National Treasury, and then, by way of quieting the Republic, given it another and a better one. Cry coalition as much as you please, the people will inquire by whom and for what reason these things were done.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, pp. 289-303

Congressman Horace Mann to George Combe, May 8, 1852

WASHINGTON, May 8, 1852.

MY DEAR MR. COMBE,— We are on the verge of a Presidential election. Our political caldron is beginning to seethe vehemently. Macbeth's witches had nothing in theirs so baneful as that which gives character to ours. The political leaders desired to make it palatable to the South; and hence they have saturated its contents with proslavery. Even under the application of the three-fifths basis of the Constitution in regard to the slave-representation in Congress, we can give nearly two-thirds of the Presidential votes. Could we only unite for freedom as the South do for slavery, all would be well; but the lower and hinder half of the brain rules, and we do not. The acquisition of our new territory from Mexico, by robbery under the form of a treaty, gave opportunity for competition between our leaders for Southern support. Mr. Fillmore, the present President, goes for what is called the "finality" of the compromises, and makes himself acceptable to the South by issuing proclamations, and giving instructions to marshals and prosecuting attorneys to enforce the Fugitive-slave Law. Mr. Webster tries to get some new popularity in the same quarter by lauding the same accursed law, and by maintaining that it is not only constitutional, but "proper" in itself. The only Whig candidate who is not fully committed on all these proslavery measures is Gen. Scott; and towards him, therefore, the antislavery part of the Whigs are looking as their only hope. Portions, indeed, of the antislavery men, — the abolitionists and no-government men, who vote nowhere; the Liberty-party men, who will vote for no one who does not represent their views in full; and the extreme men, perhaps, of the Free-soil party, — are as violent against Gen. Scott as against Gen. Cass. This repellency of bigots and partisans seems to act on the law of the "inverse ratio of the squares of the distances;" for they are much more violent against those who almost agree with them than against those who are at the opposite moral pole. How the contest will eventuate, it is impossible to foresee. Should the Whigs indorse the "compromise measures " of 1850, or should they nominate Mr. Fillmore or Mr. Webster, or should Gen. Cass, if nominated, come out in favor of the “compromise measures," the Democrats will certainly prevail. There seems to be but one chance for the Whigs to succeed; namely, the contingency of their nominating Gen. Scott, and then of his non-indorsement of the compromises." Of course, the greater portion of the antislavery people are hoping for this result.

Another great moral question is profoundly agitating the people of the Northern and Eastern States: it is the question of temperance. Between one and two years ago, such a concentration and pressure of influence was brought to bear upon the Legislature of the State of Maine, that though it is said that body was principally composed of anti-temperance men, yet it passed what has now become famous, and will forever be famous in the moral history of mankind, — the MAINE LIQUOR LAW. Its grand features are the search for and the seizure of all intoxicating liquors, and their destruction when adjudicated to have been kept for sale. It goes upon the ground that the Government cannot knock a human passion or a depraved and diseased appetite upon the head, but it can knock a barrel of whiskey or rum upon the head, and thus prevent the gratification of the passion or appetite; and after a time the unfed appetite or passion will die out. The author of this law was Neal Dow, the mayor of the city of Portland. He enforced it, and it has worked wonders. The alms-house ceased to be replenished with inmates; assaults and batteries became rare; the jail-doors stood open; and the police officers held almost sinecures. The success was so great, that the temperance party in other States have made it an element in popular elections; and though in most instances they have been defeated at the first trial, yet they are resolved to return again to the contest. The Legislature of the Territory of Minnesota passed the law, but provided that it should be submitted to the people for ratification; and it has been ratified by a popular vote! And, what is still more important, the Legislature of Massachusetts, now in session, has this very week, after one of the most earnest and protracted contests ever waged, passed a similar law. It is to be submitted to the people next month. If a majority vote for it, it is forthwith to become the law of the State. If a majority vote against it, then it is to be suspended in its operation, and we will agitate anew. But this, perhaps you will say, is an heroic remedy for the evils of intemperance. I acknowledge it. But, when a disease becomes so desperate, I go for heroic remedies. I would resort to surgical practice, and lose a limb to save a life, or deplete the whole body to reduce a topical inflammation that threatens to be fatal. When I saw you, I believe I used occasionally to take a very little wine; and I sometimes, though rarely, drank tea. I believe I had left off coffee long before. But, for many years past, I have abjured wine, coffee, tea, and every thing of a stimulating nature. I confine my beverage to the pure element," and am a great deal better in health for the practice.

My whole family has been in Washington since the commencement of the session. How I wish you could come here and see them! for then one of the greatest desires of my life would be answered; that is, I should see you.

How goes on the work of educating in your island? I had a printed account of an examination in your school; but how is it for the million? . . .

Your friend and disciple,

HORACE MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, pp. 363-5

Senator Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, June 9, 1852

I longed to see you. When you called I was at Eames's, discoursing on Baltimore and its scenes. This nomination¹ makes me lament anew the fatal '49, when the Barnburners and the Hunkers coalesced. Had they kept apart, we should all have been together,—perhaps in a minority, but powerful from our principles and character. For myself, I am left alone. The political fellowships I had hoped to establish are vanishing. Of course I can have nothing to do with Pierce or his platform,—probably nothing with Scott or his. How I wish we had all stuck together! Should Pierce be elected, with a Democratic Senate and House, we should have the iron rule of the slave-power.

_______________

¹ Of Franklin Pierce, as Democratic candidate for President.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, pp. 280-1

Senator Charles Sumner to Charles Francis Adams Sr., June 21, 1852

We hear that Scott is nominated at last. I tell you confidentially how Seward regards it. He thinks that his friends have been defeated, that Scott is made to carry weight which will probably defeat him, and that the campaign can have little interest for the friends of our cause. He will take an opportunity, by letter or speech, to extricate himself from the platform. Seward's policy is to stick to the Whig party; no action of theirs can shake him off. But the cause of freedom he has constantly at heart; I am satisfied of his sincere devotion to it. Major Donaldson says that there is now no difference between the Whigs and Democrats; their platforms, he says, are identical. This is the darkest day of our cause. But truth will prevail. Are there any special words of your grandfather against slavery anywhere on record, in tract or correspondence? If there are, let me have them. I wish you were here.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 281

Diary of Edward Bates, May 21, 1859

Slavery in the District of Columbia.

It is strange to see how suddenly and totally men and parties do change their opinions upon even great constitutional questions, when they become party questions[.]

In Benton's Abridged Debates. Vol 9. p 415 (12 Feb: 1827) it appears that Mr. Barney⁵⁷ presented a petition of Citizens of Maryland, for the abolition of Slavery in the District, — and moved that it be printed &c.

Mr. McDuffie⁵⁸ opposed — He thought it impertenent [sic] in citizens of the States to meddle in the matter &c: It belonged exclusively to the people of the District &c [.] He considered Slavery a deplorable evil, and when the People of the District petitioned to get rid of it, he would be as ready as any man to grant their request &c.

It was but a few years afterwards that leading partizans thought it necessary to change the doctrine, so clearly announced by Mr. McD.[uffie] in both particulars — 1st. They now deny that the Existence of Slavery in the District ought to depend upon the wishes of the people there — and 2d. They deny the Power of Congress to abolish it. —

In the Territories

Formerly, nobody questioned the Power of Congress, but it was considered a matter of expediency only; and consequently it was disputed on grounds of policy only — Now, the Southern Democracy is in such a strait, that it is driven to the most revolting absurdities : But that is alway [s] so when men are resolved to maintain a known wrong against a known right — They insist that the Constitution, proprio vigore, carries slavery into the Territories — According to this new light, the constitution (which most of that party affect to consider only a League between the States) is the local law in the Territories. Slavery being carried into the Territories by the constitution, of Course Congress has no power to expel it, and cannot delegate the power to the Territorial Legislature, nor to the People — and the people themselves have no such power — And so, there is no power on Earth to abolish slavery in the Territories!!

The argumentum ad absurdum used to be thought a sufficient refutation— not so now. Junius⁵⁹ was half right in saying that "When a man is determined to believe, the very absurdity of his doctrine confirms his faith."

The constitution, I suppose, is the Law of the States which made it and exist in Union by it; and is not law [sic] the Law of the Territories, which are subject acquests; And yet, according [to] these learned Thebans, it carries slavery into the Territories, where it is not law, but does not carry it into Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, where it is law!

Those who hold that belief may well say — "Credo quia impossible est."⁶⁰

_______________

⁵⁷ John Barney, Federalist congressman from Maryland, 1825-1829.

⁵⁸ George McDuffle of South Carolina: anti-Jackson Democratic congressman, 1821-1834; governor, 1834-1836 ; U. S. senator, 1842-1846.

⁵⁹ Infra, May 25, 1865, note 25.

⁶⁰ Bates does not seem to have quoted accurately. St. Augustine in his Confessions VI. 5. (7) said " Credo quia absurdum est," and Tertullian in Be Come Christi (Chap. V, part II) said, "Certum est quia impossibile est." But then Bates seldom did quote exactly.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 16-7

Diary of Edward Bates, May 27, 1859

The N. York Commercial advertiser of May 23d. contains a very complimentary notice of my letter to the Whig Committee,⁶² and extracts the part of it against the rage for foreign acquisition — heading it, Bates versus Fillibusterism [sic]. Such a compliment from such a paper goes for something.

If my letter does no other good, I hope it will embolden some men, both North and South, to speak out boldly against the system of aggression and plunder, whose feelings are right, but have heretofore been too timid to denounce it. The truculent impudence of certain buccaneers in the South seems to have taken the start of public opinion, and silenced the opposition of the timid and the peaceful.

I see by the Nat:[ional] Intelligencer of May 24. that there is established in Baltimore (and the 1st. No. actually issued) a Weekly Periodical called "The American Cavalier" which professes to be — "A Military Journal, devoted to the extension of American Civilization."

The Cavalier declares that it will "place its feet upon [on] the broad platform of the [‘]Monroe doctrine[’] and will maintain that the Government of the U[nited] States is the only legal arbiter of the destiny of American nationalities." (!)

Sir Knight (the Editor of the Cavalier) stimulated by the prospect of universal expansion, talks grandiloquently thus — "This nation is the Empire of the People, and as such we shall advocate its extension until 1 [sic] every foot of land on the continent (wonder if he means to leave out the Islands? — Perhaps, as he is a cavalier, he'll go only where [he] can ride) owns only our flag as the National emblem, and that flag the ["]Stars and stripes["] — Aye, we say, add star to star until our Republican constellation is a very sun of light[,] throwing its genial rays into into [sic] the humblest home of the poor man, in the most distant part of the earth[!] — <what! outside the "Continent!"> Let not the virgin soil of America be polluted by oppression— [ ;] <Can he mean to abolish slavery?> Let it not be the continued seat of war and bloodshed; <No more fighting then I hope> let the great people <and why not the little ones too> rise up as one man and command peace and love to be enthroned as the presiding genii of this new world."⁶³

There is a good deal more of that sort of nonsense —

"And then he pierc'd his bloody-boiling breast, with blameful — bloody blade!"

It is perhaps fortunate that such political charlatans do commonly disclose the dangerous absurdity of their projects, by the stupid folly of their language.

The paper, observe, is to be military — All this spread of 'American Civilization' is to be done by martial law. Buchanan wants to take military possession of Mexico; and Douglas wants a seabound Republic !

The Louisville Journal of May 26 — sent me by some one — contains a long article, written with ability (I guess by Judge Nicholas⁶⁴) with a view to organize a general Opposition Party. He argues that the only way to beat the Democrats effectively is for the Republican party to abandon its separate organization, and unite its elements with the general opposition. He thinks that the Abolitionists proper, will not go with the Republicans, any how, and that the Republicans, altho' very strong, are not more numerous than the other elements of opposition ; and that standing alone, they are, like the Democrats, sectional — But, fused with the other elements, and thus taking the character of the general opposition, the party would become essentially national, and would easily put down the sham Democracy.

I read in the papers that a Company is formally organized down South, to increase the African labor of the Country — i. e. import slaves — and that DeBow⁶⁵ is a head man of it.

This is said to be the result of the deliberations⁶⁶ of the "Southern Commercial Convention"⁶⁷ at its late session in Mississippi — Vicksburg.

Are these men mad, that they organize in open defiance of the law, avowedly to carry on a felonious traf [f]ic, and for an object, tho' not distinctly avowed yet not concealed, — to dissolve the Union, by cutting off the slave states, or at least the cotton states ?

Again — are these men fools ? Do they flatter themselves with the foolish thought that we of the upper Mississippi will ever submit to have the mouth of our River held by a foreign power, whether friend or foe? Do they not know that that is a fighting question, and not fit to be debated? The people of the upper Miss[issip]pi. will make their commerce flow to the Gulf as freely as their waters. If friendly suasion fail, then war: If common warfare will not suffice, they will cut the dikes, at every high flood, and drown out the Delta!⁶⁸

[Marginal Note.] June 4. I see by the papers, that since the adjournment of the Southern convention, there has been a great antislave-trade meeting held at Vicksburg — called to order by Foote⁶⁹ and presided over by Judge Sharkey⁷⁰ — which denounced all that the Convention had done about the slave trade.

_______________

⁶² Supra, 1-9.

⁶³ Mr. Bates has quoted inaccurately. The punctuation and capitalization are changed, and with the exception of "legal " and “Empire of the People" the italics are Mr. Bates's.

⁶⁴ Samuel S. Nicholas: judge of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1831-1837; author in 1857 of a series of essays on Constitutional Law.

⁶⁵ James D. B. De Bow: economist; short-time editor of the Southern Quarterly Review published at Charleston, South Carolina; editor of the Commercial Review of the South and Southeast (later De Bow's Review) which he founded in New Orleans in 1846 ; superintendent of the U. S. Census under President Pierce ; and a leader in the Southern Commercial Conventions.

⁶⁶ May 9-13, 1859. On May 10, L. W. Spratt of South Carolina, Isaac N. Davis of Mississippi, and John Humphreys of Mississippi introduced resolutions urging a reopening of the African slave-trade, and Humphreys, G. V. Moody of Mississippi, and J. D. B. De Bow of Louisiana made speeches supporting them. On May 12, the Convention voted 40—19 for repeal of all laws prohibiting the importation of African negroes. A committee on the "legality and expediency" of the slave-trade was appointed to report to a later convention.

⁶⁷ This was one of a series of "commercial conventions" of the 1850's in which Southerners sought to analyze their economic and commercial ills and find remedies that would enable them once more to overtake the North in economic development.

⁶⁸ The Northwest's need of a free outlet through the lower Mississippi to the sea had always played an important role in national history. The South thought that this factor would force the Northwest to follow it in secession. The editor, however, decided (in a detailed study made of Southern Illinois in 1860-1861) that railroad building of the 1850's had made at least that portion of the Northwest which lies east of the Mississippi equally dependent by .1861 upon rail connections with the Northwest, and that this importance of both outlets actually forced a strongly pro-Southern Southern Illinois to defend the Union, since preservation of the Union was the only way to maintain both the river and the rail outlets. Mr. Bates's comment throws interesting light upon this same influence of the Mississippi upon Missouri unionist sentiment.

⁶⁹ Henry S. Foote of Mississippi: Unionist U. S. senator, 1847-1852; governor of Mississippi, 1852-1854 ; opponent of states' rights and secession. He later moved to Memphis. Tennessee. As a member of the lower house of the Confederate Congress, he criticized Davis severely. When Lincoln's peace proposals were rejected, he resigned and was imprisoned by the Confederacy, but finally was allowed to remove to Union territory.

⁷⁰ William L. Sharkey of Mississippi: elective chief justice of the Court of Errors and Appeals, 1832-1850 ; president of the Southern Convention at Nashville in 1850; provisional governor of Mississippi under the Johnsonian restoration of 1865.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 18-20

Diary of Orville Hickman Browning, Thursday, May 24, 1860

St. Louis     Reached St Louis at 6 A. M. went to Planters House and had short interview with Gov Morgan of New York. Also met Judge Bates & Mr Gibson there, and made an appointment with the Judge to meet him at his office at 11 O'clock. I then had a long talk with Gibson in the parlor of the Planters House, and at 11 he and I met at Judge Bates' office. The Judge had just recvd and read my letter of Tuesday—I exhibited to him the letter I had received from Springfield, and made an urgent appeal to him to come into Illinois, and make a few speeches. Whilst I was engaged in urging such considerations as I thought would be most effectual in prevailing with him, Mr Goodrich,¹ one of the Massachusetts delegates to the Chicago Convention, came in and united with me in the appeal I was making. But our efforts were unavailing. Judge Bates very emphatically declined to take the stump, saying that such a thing as one who had been before the convention as a candidate for nomination for the presidency taking the stump was unprecedented that he thought it would be in very bad taste, and incompatible with the dignity of his character & position, and that he must respectfully decline to do so that his situation was peculiar that he had been thought of as a candidate for the Presidency not because he was a member of the Republican party, but because he was a man outside of the Republican party harmonizing with it in political sentiments, and because it was supposed, therefore, that he could bring outside strength to the support of the party—that the platform, in the main expressed his sentiments, but there were some things in it unnecessary and untrue, which did not meet his approval, and mentioned particularly the clauses relating to the power of Congress over slavery in the territories, and the naturalization laws—that he felt no emotion of chagrin, or regret at not getting the nomination—that he entertained the highest regard for Mr Lincoln, appreciated and admired his character, and should rejoice at his success over any democrat who could be nominated, but that he must take a little time to deliberate as to the course proper to be when pursued by him, and that when he had reflected and matured his opinions he would write me fully upon the subject. I met Sam Glover and had a short conversation with him.² He thought Judge Bates ought to write me a letter for publication endorsing Lincoln's nomination, but he would not advise him, as he was a man of great intellect who thought, and acted for himself, and he had never known him make a mistake especially in a matter of taste and propriety

At 11 A. M. called on Mrs Bennett She was not in. At 2 P. M. called and spent an hour with Mrs Greenleaf. At 3 came on board Die Vernon on my way home Very hot day.

_______________

¹ Probably John Z. Goodrich, born 1801. Elector on Harrison ticket, 1840; representative in 32d and 33d congresses; collector of customs at Boston, 1861-1865.

² Among the Browning letters in the Illinois Historical Library at Springfield is one from Sam T. Glover to Browning, dated St. Louis, June 13, 1860. This letter deals with the attitude of Mr. Bates. After stating that he (Mr. Glover) had recently identified himself with the Republican party, and felt considerable concern as to Bates's course, he writes of a call which he made upon Mr. Bates in order to elicit some statement as to his position. The letter continues:

"He then took out of his desk and read to me a most happy well considered eloquent letter . . . defining his own position as not a republican but as a whig & one who is from principle obliged to vote with that party as the conservative party of the country. He shows up the negro democracy in their native colors— He turns the other end of the Telescope on Bell & Everet and shows how small they really are He does justice to Lincoln & Hamlin & spurns the idea that any little feeling of personal pique can influence his conduct.

 

"The letter is truly a great one. It is as solid as iron and brilliant as jaspar. I urged him to publish it immediately     He did not give me a satisfactory answer . . .

 

"Can you come here     If not can you not write to Mr B a strong letter urging him not to postpone longer his promise to send the letter"

The letter referred to was addressed to Browning and was published in the St. Louis Democrat of June 19, 1860, and widely copied. See entry for June 19, 1860, post, 416-417 n. 3.

SOURCE: The Diary of Orville Hickman Browning, Vol. 1, pp. 410-2