Moses H. Grinnell to John J. Crittenden, February 22, 1854

NEW YORK, February 22, 1854.

MY DEAR SIR,—I was delighted this morning on taking up the Enquirer to see that you have taken a bold stand on the right side in reference to the Nebraska bill. You know that I am no abolitionist; but I do think this scheme of Douglas the most villainous one ever presented to Congress. In my opinion any man who votes for the bill will be politically used up at the North. I rejoice (and I have heard the same sentiment from many others to-day) that you adhere to the same principles so long sustained by Clay and Webster. The great American public will sustain you in the support of principles so sound and just. Excuse the liberty I have taken in saying this. It is just what I feel, and I am like ninety in a hundred on this subject in this community.

Yours truly,

M. H. GRINNELL.

Hon. J. J. Crittenden.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 101

Lewis E. Harvie to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, June 16, 1856

RICHMOND, [VA.], June 16th, 1856.

MY DEAR HUNTER: On my way back from Cincinnati I called to see you in Washington. I had much to say to you not only of the past but the future. I have thought much since we met last and now that I can look back calmly at all that has occurred I write the result of my reflections not without the hope that you may be somewhat influenced by them. You have heard and know how utterly Bright and Douglas disappointed our expectations and how false and hollow were their professions. That they were fair as long as it was their interest and false as soon as that bond was broken. And you must have come to the conclusion that the Presidency is not to be won simply by combinations and arrangements with men and that least of all are men seeking high place influenced by gratitude. It is only necessary to look to Wise to come to that conclusion. Even with the help of friends, such as few men have had, the battle has been lost. I am now coming to the object of my letter which is to urge upon you to adopt a different line of policy altogether from what you have heretofore pursued and which to some extent I know to be somewhat foreign to your tastes and nature. I want you my dear friend, to discard altogether, if possible, all thought of the Presidency from your mind, at all events so far as to be uninfluenced by it in your future course in the Senate. I want you to put yourself at the head of the South and where you ought to stand and strike hard and heavy and frequent blows and that at once.

The South has no leader and sadly wants one. It is a post that has been waiting your acceptance since Mr Calhoun's death. It is your duty to fill it and your interest too. Men say you are too timid, overcautious, that you wish nothing and thus it is that you have lost friends, power and influence. You must launch out into the sea of strife, your safety requiring it, your hope of renown depends on it, your own interest and that of the country demands it, and your 'ability to pay the just debts that you owe to Messrs. Wise, Bright, and Douglas and Co. is dependent on it. Leave the dull routine of your former Senatorial life, wean yourself from your Committee and throw yourself into the patriotick current and be as you ought to be the champion of the South in the Senate of the U[nited] States and you will have the power to control and make presidents. You can earn more true glory in the Senate, you can be more useful to the country, and wield a more powerful influence over the destinies of your race than in the Presidential chair. In addition to this I am confident that the course I recommend is the only one to lead to the Presidency. That must be won by you if at all, unsought. I have written to you more freely than any one else will, my dear friend, because perhaps I have been more enlisted in what has concerned you and your promotion. I know I write however, what all your true friends feel and while these are my decided convictions and therefore communicated, at the same time they are the opinions of all your friends with whom I have conversed and have been for years. Of such men as Seddon and Mr Old, whom you know I think the wisest, as he is the fairest, man that I have ever known. In order to take the position you are entitled to and ought to occupy you ought to launch out and strike so as to make your position, your own peculiar property and give us a Hunter platform to stand on, in order to keep down the huckstering traders who have so foully betrayed you at home and abroad. Write to me upon the receipt of this and let us hereafter keep up a more uninterrupted correspondence. I will only add that your friends in Cincinnati did all that could be done and like me look to the Senate for a justification of their confidence.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), pp. 199-8

Diary of George Templeton Strong, April 17, 1860

After an apology for a dinner, I went to [Arnold] Guyot’s lecture at the Law School. Well attended and very hot; lecture original and interesting. Thereafter discoursed with Guyot, whom I like, and General Scott, the most urbane of conquerors. Curious it is to observe the keen, sensitive interest with which he listens to every whisper about nominations for the coming presidential campaign.

The Charleston Convention will nominate Douglas, I think. Then comes the sanhedrim of the undeveloped Third Party. It is not at all unlikely Scott may be its nominee. In that case, it is possible the Republican Convention may adopt him. I wish things might take that course, but hardly hope it. Neither Douglas nor Hunter nor Banks suits me.

SOURCE: Allan Nevins and Milton Halset Thomas, Editors, Diary of George Templeton Strong, Vol. 3, p. 22

Diary of George Templeton Strong, April 23, 1860

No news of any action by the Democratic Charleston Convention. Douglas, the little giant, said to be losing ground.

SOURCE: Allan Nevins and Milton Halset Thomas, Editors, Diary of George Templeton Strong, Vol. 3, p. 23

Diary of George Templeton Strong, April 26, 1860

No Democratic nominee from Charleston, yet. Two to one on Douglas, I say.

SOURCE: Allan Nevins and Milton Halset Thomas, Editors, Diary of George Templeton Strong, Vol. 3, p. 23

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Sites

• Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858
• Freeport, Illinois, August 27, 1858
• Jonesboro, Illinois, September 15, 1858
• Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
• Galesburg, Illinois, October 7, 1858
• Quincy, Illinois, October 13, 1858
• Alton, Illinois, October 15, 1858

Congressman Horace Mann to Mr. and Mrs. George Combe, December 5, 1851

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5, 1851.

MY DEAR FRIENDS MR. AND MRS. COMBE, — Politics in this country do not, as they should, mean a science, but a controversy; and in this sense we are all involved in politics. When will the time come that politics can be taken from the domain of passion and propensity? I have no doubt that such a millennium is in the future. Nor will the whole world enter that millennium at the same time. Wise and sage individuals like Mr. George Combe must be the pioneers: then it must be colonized by a larger number, and then entered and dwelt in by all. But I fear the epochs and eras which will mark and measure these successive stages of consummations are to be geological in their distance and duration. Doubtless you have seen a book entitled the "Theory of Human Progression," which, from internal evidence, is Scotch in its origin, and whose object is not only to prophesy, but to prove, the future triumph of peace and justice upon earth. I have read but part of the book. I am reading it to my wife at odd hours, when our chances of leisure come together. I have long believed in the whole doctrine; but it is delightful to see it argued out, not only to take the Q. E. D. on authority, but to feel the truth of the solution. All sciences, even the natural ones, have been the subjects of controversy and of persecution in their beginning: why, then, should not the science of politics? One truth after another will be slowly developed; and by and by truth, and not individual aggrandizement or advantage, will be the only legitimate object of inquiry. Then will its millennium come! - Doubtless you have through the public papers the political movements of the country at large. The old struggle for supremacy between the political parties goes on; but worse means are brought in to insure success than ever before entered into our contests. The North (or free States) comprises almost two-thirds of all our population; the South (or slave States) but about a third. The North is really divided into two great parties, Whigs and Democrats. These are arrayed against each other in hostile attitude; and, being nearly equal, they cancel each other. The South is Whig or Democratic only nominally. It is for slavery exclusively and intensely. Hence we now present the astonishing and revolting spectacle of a free people in the nineteenth century, of almost twofold power, not merely surrendering to a proslavery people one-half the power, but entering into the most vehement competition to join with them in trampling upon all the great principles of freedom. We have five prominent candidates for the next Presidency. All of them are from the North. The South does not put forward as yet a single man; for Mr. Clay can hardly be considered a candidate. Each one of the five candidates begins with abandoning every great principle of constitutional liberty, so far as the black race is concerned; and to this each one has saddled more and more proslavery gratuities and aggrandizements, as the propositions he advanced were made at a later period of time. All Whigs professed to be shocked when Gen. Cass offered in substance to open all our new Territories to slavery. But Mr. Webster's accumulated proslavery bounties, as compared with those of Gen. Cass, were as "Pelion to a wart." Mr. Buchanan offers to run the line of 36° 30′ through to the Pacific Ocean, and to surrender all on the south side of it to slavery. Mr. Dallas, late Vice-President under Mr. Polk, tells the South that the antislavery spirit of the North will never be quiet under the compromise measures and the Fugitive-slave Law; and so proposes to embody this whole series into the Constitution by an amendment, thus putting them beyond the reach of legislative action. And Mr. Douglas, a young senator from Illinois, who aspires to the White House, offers Cuba to the South in addition to all the rest. In the mean time, the South sets forth no candidate for the Executive chair. Some of their leading politicians avow the policy of taking a Northern man, because "a Northern man with Southern principles" can do more for them than any one of their own. All of them are virtually saying to Northern aspirants, "Proceed, gentlemen; give us your best terms: and, when you have submitted your proposals, we will make our election between you." Is it not indescribably painful to contemplate such a picture, — no, such a reality? You must feel it as a man: I feel it as an American, you as a lover of mankind, I as a lover of republican institutions.

You will, of course, understand that such contests cannot be carried on without corresponding contests in the States. In Massachusetts, many collateral issues have mingled with the main question. Mr. Webster's apostasy on the 7th of March, 1850, had not at first a single open defender in our Commonwealth. Some pecuniary arrangements were made by which one or two papers soon devoted themselves to his cause. In a few days after the speech, he visited Boston; and, at a public meeting to receive him, he held out, in unmistakable language, the lure of a tariff, if they would abandon principle. This interested motive appealed to both parties. It was pressed upon them, both in public and in private, during the whole summer, and indeed until the approaching termination of the 31st Congress showed that it was only a delusion and a cheat.

During the summer, another pecuniary element was introduced. The merchants of New York sought a monopoly of Southern trade through a subserviency to Southern interests. The merchants of Philadelphia and Boston forthwith became competitors for the same profits through the same infamous means. In this way, within a twelvemonth, all the Atlantic cities were carried over to the side of Southern policy. I believe I told you of efforts made against myself, and their result, in the last year's election of a representative to Congress from my district. Since that time the process of defection has gone rapidly on, spreading outwards from the city, and contaminating the country. The great body of the Whig merchants and manufacturers in the Northern States now advocate Mr. Webster for the Presidency. This, of course, determines the character of the mercantile papers. A large meeting was held in Boston last week to nominate him for that office. He is expected soon to resign his secretaryship, and to travel South on an electioneering tour. His health is very much impaired; and that glorious physique, which should be in full vigor at the age of eighty, is now nearly broken down. He can do nothing but under the inspiration of brandy; and the tide of excitement also must be taken "at the flood;" for if a little too early, or a little too late, he is sure to fail.

In Massachusetts we have had a fierce contest for State offices. Mr. Winthrop was the Whig candidate for Governor; and his election would have been claimed as a Webster triumph, though not justly so. But he falls short of an election by about eight thousand votes. The Free-soilers and Democrats combined, and have obtained a majority in both the Senate and the House. This secures an anti-Whig Governor, and is a triumph of antislavery sentiment. We have never had a more fiercely contested election. I was "on the stump," as we say, about three weeks, speaking from two to two and a half hours almost every evening. Since the election, I have been delivering lyceum lectures; so that you may well suppose I am pretty much "used up." With this term in Congress, I hope to escape from political broils, and to live a life more in accordance with both natural and acquired tastes. . . .

H. M.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 352-5

The Yankee Delegates at Charleston.

Col. Forney is particularly down on the New England delegations at Charleston. The following is from his “Occasional” correspondence:

“Of all the delegates to the Charleston Convention, those who may be said to have covered themselves with, especial infamy are the parasites who represented some of the New England States, and particularly those who spoke for the Administration from Massachusetts. I am not one who distrusts the New England character, but it is a fact which candor compels me to state, that, with but few exceptions, the Yankee politicians are the most untrustworthy and dishonest. There are few Franklin Pierces in New England, and the course of the New Hampshire delegation at Charleston is probably the surest index of his own feelings in the great contest now going on. Though General Pierce is by no means the personal friend of Judge Douglas, I had the pleasure of hearing him declare, more than a year ago, that it was in vain to deny that the Democratic party of New England preferred the “Little Giant” to all other men for the Presidency.

What is to be the course of Whitney, Swift, Wright, Cushing, Butler, an others, from Massachusetts, who assisted the fire-eaters of the South in their war upon Douglas, notwithstanding that most of them had, before their departure for Charleston, took occasion to express the kindest feelings for Douglas—Mr. Whitney himself assuring the gallant Senator from Illinois that he would be found battling bravely for him to the bitter end, although he held an official position? A few weeks will answer the question. I forbear any allusion to the recreant delegates from Connecticut, being content to leave them to their constituents. The Southern people cannot have been blind to all these facts. They must have seen that if Judge Douglas is defeated at Baltimore on the 18th of June, it will be by the most open bribery and the most unblushing treachery. They must admit that if the North had been fairly represented, all the efforts of the Secessionists, would have been in vain, and at this time the whole Democratic party would have been rallied in solid column under his victorious banner.

SOURCE: “The Yankee Delegates at Charleston,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Wednesday, May 16, 1860, p. 2, col. 6

An old friend in our sanctum yesterday . . .

. . . one of our most staunch and reliable republicans, speaking of the tenacity with which a portion of the northern democracy adheres to Stephen A. Douglas, said it was a most striking reminder of the poor fox in the fable, who, after having nearly the last drop of his life’s blood sucked from him by a hungry swarm of flies, implored a friendly swallow that proposed to chase them away, not to do any such thing; for, reasoned the forlorn, but still cunning Reynard, this swarm, now partially satiated, may be succeeded by one still more voracious, by which I may be entirely devoured. Buchanan and his hungry swarm of office-holders have depleted the treasury, very nearly or quite to absolute exhaustion; Douglas would finish up the business of the body politic with his more numerous and more craving swarm. What the country needs and desires now, is an entirely different breed of insects, one whose natural and leading instincts are not for blood and spoils.

SOURCE: “An old friend in our sanctum,” Janesville Weekly Gazette, Janesville, Wisconsin, Wednesday, May 16, 1860, p. 2, col. 1.

The Douglas meeting . . .

. . . held at New Orleans last week, to endorse the action of those who stayed in the Douglasite convention, and denounce the seceders, is described by the Delta as a fizzle. It says there were hardly enough people present to organize a territory under Douglas’ doctrine of squatter sovereignty, which we believe is about one hundred and fifty. It was a “muss meeting” in the open air. Speeches were made by Messrs. Morse, Heisland, Hahn, and Clack.

Hon. Mr. Morse said that if Stephen A. Douglas was not elected the next president, William H. Seward would be—a sentiment which may be safely commended to the consideration of the weak-kneed republicans.

SOURCE: “The Douglas meeting,” Janesville Weekly Gazette, Janesville, Wisconsin, Wednesday, May 16, 1860, p. 2, col. 6.

George W. Thompson* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, May 24, 1856

[WHEELING, VA.?], May 24th, 1856.

DEAR SIR: I have had a somewhat desultory correspondence with my old friend Linn Boyd.¹ He thinks it likely, he will be put in nomination for the Presidency by Kentucky. I do not think he has much hope beyond this. You are his first choice when his claims are disposed of. I wrote him last week a letter intended to satisfy him, that the danger was in the nomination of Douglass whom he very cordially dislikes for various reasons, and that his true policy was to get the nomination from K[entuck]y and to hold on to it until Buchanan and Pierce were out of the way, which I think will soon be the case and then to give the fruits of the game to you. He has no respect for Mr. Buchanan and a decided hostility to Pierce and Douglass. His choice after you would be Rusk.² But I hope he can control the Kentucky delegation and if he can I think it most likely that at an early stage of the game he will go for you. I deem this important as our own state from the division which exists will be measurably impotent in the Convention and as their is a growing jealously of our influence in the nominating Convention by Ohio and other states. I cannot but think that most of the south must take you in preference. The state-rights party all over the south must prefer you, if there is any reason in mens preferences, before any other man named either north or south and I have been inclined to think that the Pierce movement was for your benefit only. But I intended only in this note to write you in relation to Boyd and to suggest a cautious movement on the part of your confidential friends towards Boyd's K[entuck]y friends in Con[gres]s. The manner of this approach I cannot suggest for I cannot anticipate the actual condition of things which may make it proper or improper. If I hear that Boyd himself is at Cincinnatti I will go down myself if it is possible for me to leave. Russell is for Buchanan first from choice. He is for you on the second. Neeson I understand personally prefers Pierce, but must go for "Buck," but "Buck" and Pierce being pitted and killed by the same operation he will then I think go for you. But we will soon know the result.

_______________

* A Democratic Representative in Congress from Virginia, 1851-1852.

¹ A Representative in Congress from Kentucky, 1835-1837 and 1839-1855; twice elected Speaker of the House, 1851-1855.

²Thomas Jefferson Rusk, a Senator in Congress from Texas, 1845-1857.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 195

Not To Be Called Back.

The Philadelphia Press, with other Douglas papers, objects to any movement for calling back the seceders [sic] from the Charleston Convention, on the occasion of the adjourned meeting at Baltimore. The Press says the seceders will not dishonor themselves by returning while their alleged cause of secession remains; the majority who refuse to adopt the slave-code policy will not dishonor themselves by changing their votes for such a purpose; and finally as the seceders withdrew, as their withdrawal was accepted and the convention requested their states to elect new delegates, the convention will not allow them to come back to disturb its proceedings.

SOURCE: “Not To Be Called Back,” Janesville Weekly Gazette, Janesville, Wisconsin, Wednesday, May 16, 1860, p. 2, col. 3.

The Georgia Democracy.

AUGUSTA, GA., May 13.—At a Democratic meeting at Atlanta on Saturday, the postmaster defended the Charleston Secessionists and denounced Douglas as a traitor to the Democracy and the South.

B. C. Yancy made a lengthy and similar speech.

The National Baltimore Democracy was defended by Col. Gaskell. The meeting adjourned for a week.

SOURCE: “The Georgia Democracy,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Tuesday, May 15, 1860, p. 4, col. 7

Seward vs. Douglas.

Editors Press and Tribune:

The Nomination of Mr. Seward will necessitate the nomination of Mr. Douglas at Baltimore. If Mr. Seward is placed on the track, the Slaveholders will postpone their quarrel with the Northern Democracy until after the November election, when it will again be renewed, until doughfaces succumb. There is no future event more sure than the nomination of Douglas, and his receiving the united support of the Democratic party, if our convention takes Mr. Seward. The nomination of the latter will draw the broken Democracy together with an adhesion stronger than Spaulding’s glue. And it is also certain that Mr. Bell will draw off a great many of the old Fillmore supporters whose foolish predjudices picture Mr. Seward as an ultra Abolitionist, and Northern fire-eater. Yet I have such confidence in the force and strength of Republican principles, that I firmly believe Mr. Seward can be triumphantly elected over Douglas, notwithstanding the union of the Democracy and the desertion to Bell. I hail from a State where we know no fear, no such thing as defeat. Give us Mr. S. and victory will perch on our banners

MICHIGAN.

Chicago, May 14, 1860.

SOURCE: “Seward vs. Douglas,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Tuesday, May 15, 1860, p. 1, col. 1

The Choice Of Illinois.

No one who as watched the political currents in Illinois this year can doubt that ABRAHAM LINCOLN is emphatically the choice of the State for President. No one who attended the Decatur Convention can doubt that the people, in presenting his name, did so with the intent of giving him their utmost strength in the Chicago Convention. The exigencies of our position are such that we have no choice but to adhere to Mr. LINCOLN in the Chicago Convention so long as adherence shall be of service to him, or give promise of the great and efficient aid which his name would bring to the task before us. We are speaking as citizens of Illinois, who have in hand the business not only of giving the electoral vote vote [sic] of the state to the Republican cause but of preserving a seat in the Senate for LYMAN TRUMBULL and securing a re-apportionment in Congressional and Legislative districts, upon which hangs our political future during the next ten years. We have no right,—we claim none—to insist that New England and New York shall sacrifice their preferences to help us out of the ditch, but it must be apparent to every one that Illinois has more at stake than they in the approaching contest. Constables are worth more than Presidents in the long run, as a means of holding political power. The legislature is of vastly more consequence to particular States than their delegations in Congress. We look to Mr. LINCOLN to tow constables and General Assembly into power, and place us where we can be generous—where we can hold our electoral vote as securely as Maine, Michigan, or Wisconsin, and where we can promise it to whomsoever may hereafter bear the Republican standard before the nation. The gods help those who help themselves. Illinois is bound by all considerations of self defence to labor for the man who can bring her to the land of promise, and so she will be found laboring in the Chicago Convention. What we claim for ourselves we freely concede to others, and when the battle is set we go into the campaign without reservations, to do our best for the common cause.

Two years ago Mr. LINCOLN received 125,275 votes from the people, against 121,190 for Mr. DOUGLAS, and 4,683 for the Administration. These figures show to our friends from distant States the delicate, yet hopeful ground on which we stand. They will see how close was our battle with our best ban; they will be prepared to forgive us for seeking safety where we know it to be found, and for holding fast to that which is good. If other States shall come to our assistance, recognizing in Mr. LINCOLN the peer of any of the Republican captauis [sic] now prominent before the country, whether as regards ability or devotion to the principles which the Chicago Convention is to maintain, we shall be devoutly thankful. Yet we have no claim which may not be asserted by many others. The Party has claims on all its members—they have none on the party. Illinois has declared unanimously by her preference for the Presidency, and she will urge with respectful firmness, before various delegations, the difficulties which constrain her to adhere to the man of her choice.

SOURCE: “The Choice Of Illinois,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Monday, May 14, 1860, p. 2, col. 2

Louisiana Politics.

We have the authority of the New Orleans Delta for saying that the Douglas movement lately attempted in that city, for its influence upon the State and the South was a sorry fizzle. At the close of the dreary ceremonies, three rousing cheers were given for John Slidell and the seceding delegations, when the meeting adjourned.

SOURCE: “Louisiana Politics,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Monday, May 14, 1860, p. 2, col. 2

Douglas In The South.

The Cincinnati Commercial calls attention to the fact that in all the balloting at Charleston, Mr. Douglas received but 11 1-2 votes from the entire Southern States, and to the other and next important fact that had the balloting continued until doomsday, he would have received no more. This will be only funeral consolation to the boasting friends of the Little Giant; but the truth of history must be vindicated.

SOURCE: “Douglas In The South,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Monday, May 14, 1860, p. 2, col. 2

Senator Charles Sumner to George Sumner, September 30, 1851

The field of our national politics is still shrouded in mist. Nobody can clearly discern the future. On the Whig side, Fillmore seems to me the most probable candidate; and on the Democratic side, Douglas. I have never thought Scott's chances good, while Webster's have always seemed insignificant. His course lately has been that of a madman. He declined to participate in any of the recent celebrations,¹ cherishing still a grudge because he was refused the use of Faneuil Hall. The mayor told me that Webster cut him dead, and also Alderman Rogers, when they met in the apartments of the President. The papers-two Hunkers — have hammered me for calling on the President.² It is shrewdly surmised that their rage came from spite at the peculiarly cordial reception which he gave me. Lord Elgin I liked much; he is a very pleasant and clever man, and everybody gave him the palm among the speakers. I was not present at the dinner, and did not hear him.

There is a lull now with regard to Cuba. The whole movement may have received an extinguisher for the present; but I think we shall hear of it when Congress meets, in a motion to purchase this possession of Spain. This question promises to enter into the next Presidential election. The outrages caused by the Fugitive Slave bill continue to harass the country. There will be no end to them until that bill becomes a dead letter. It is strange that men can be so hardened to violations of justice and humanity, as many are now, under the drill of party. Mr. Webster has done more than all others to break down the North; and yet he once said, in taunt at our tameness, “There is no North!” The mischief from his course is incalculable. His speech at the reception of the President was regarded—and I think justly—by many Englishmen as insulting.

Our State politics promise to be very exciting. There has been a prodigious pressure upon me to take the field; but thus far I have declined. Under present circumstances I do not see my way to speaking. I am unwilling to defend the coalition, as in so doing I shall seem to be defending my own election; and I do not wish to seem to pursue Winthrop. His defeat seems to me inevitable, though in a contest like the present there must be an allowance for accidents and for treachery.

_______________

¹ Railroad Jubilee, Sept. 15, 1851.

² September 17, in Boston, on the occasion of the Railroad Jubilee. Sumner, as already seen, had strongly condemned President Fillmore a year before for approving the Fugitive Slave bill.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 254-5

William O. Goode to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, February 21, 1856

BOYDTON, VA., February 21, 1856.

DEAR HUNTER: I have just reached home safe and sound—having accomplished the journey with no other discomfort than such as is inseparable from a wearisome travel. At this moment the temperature is mild-but little of snow or ice visible and every thing decidedly vernal. Of course we are backward in farming operations, and the remaining supply of cow food somewhat scant, but we hope to get through without loss.

In Petersburg I saw Meade and Banks, who explained to me the action of the Public meeting there, and assured me that two thirds of the Committee expressed a preference for you, and yet they reported resolutions complimentary of Pierce and Douglas without including you; and which Meade says he has explained in a letter to me now in Washington. I would have preferred they had felt no occasion to explain. But both Meade and Banks thought there was no doubt about the sentiment of Petersburg. I shall endeavor to get back to Rich[mon]d on 28[th], but fear it is doubtful. Much judgment and discretion are required as to the propriety of bringing forward Resolutions of approval or preference. Meade, I think, is inclined to attempt it even if there be risk of failure. I attach greater importance to the selection of Delegates by the District. Conventions, and hope to secure Harvie and Meade or Banks. If necessary I would go from Washington to attend our District Convention to secure that delegation, and if we can accomplish that and do as well in the other districts all will be well so far as Virginia is concerned. I found all well at home. For myself I feel better than I have since the first of December. I find this note has spread over two pages and I should be alarmed if I did not know it to be quite scattering. With affectionate regards to Mason and the Judge, and kind remembrances to the servants.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 179-80

Senator Stephen A. Douglas to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, October 20, 1850

CHICAGO, ILL., October 21, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR—Your kind favor of the 3d inst. has reached me at this place, having been forwarded from Washington. I was able to leave there a few days after the adjournment, and took the Erie route, but was unable to stop over a day, as I was in a hurry to get home. I had the pleasure of seeing your friend, Birdsall, a moment at the depot in your place, and to learn from him that you were well. It was the first time I had travelled that route. I was delighted with it, and think it far preferable to the one by Albany. Your town is a charming place. I have seen nothing like it in all my travels, taking the town and surrounding country into view together. I shall gladly avail myself of the first convenient opportunity to make you a visit.

I have the honor to remain

Very truly your friend,

S. A. DOUGLAS.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 453