Diary of Edward Bates, Monday Morning, June 20, 1859

Barton⁹⁵ has been with us two days, it being too wet to plough at home. . . .

Senator Green

The Weekly Mo. Rep:[ublican] of June 17 contains a set speech of Hon: James. S. Green,⁹⁶ on Politics, gotten up, no doubt, with a special eye to his future — another election — He cannot fully defend Buchanan's administration, yet supports it — He is against Douglas'⁹⁷ popular Sovereignty, yet supports him⁹⁸ — On one point of Territorial government however, he is clear, i. e — Congress ought to intervene to put down Polygamy and other crimes in Utah.

[A clipping from the National Intelligencer of June 15, 1859, charging that the expedition sent to Paraguay under Captain Simbrick⁹⁹ was insufficiently provided with ammunition.]

[A long editorial from the Missouri Daily Democrat of June 29, 1859, denouncing Secretary Cass and President Buchanan for surrendering a right maintained by President Fillmore and Secretary Everett in the case of Mr. Francis Allibert,¹ the country of whose birth claimed his military service. The editorial is headed "Degradation and Disfranchisement of Naturalized Citizens by the National Democracy . . ."]

[A reprint from the New York Express referring to this case.]

Naturalized citizens — Secy. Cass — See back 3 pages — Forward 6 pages.2

[A column from the Washington Constitution on "The Rights and Liabilities of Naturalized Citizens" in justification of Secretary Cass’s position.]

[A newspaper copy of Senator Douglas's letter to Colonel John L. Peyton written August 2, 1859, about the LeClerc matter and the slave trade.]

On this subject, of the effect of naturalization, see my two letters to Mr. Welling³ of the Nat:[ional] Intel[ligence]r. — See current Letter Book.

_______________

⁹⁵ Mr. Bates's eldest son. See supra, " Introduction."

⁹⁶ An anti-Douglas Democrat from Missouri; successor of Douglas as chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories; leader of the revolt against Benton in 1849 ; congress man, 1847-1851; U. S. senator, 1857-1861. His Confederate sympathies led to his arrest by Federal troops at the outbreak of the Civil War and to his expulsion from the Senate.

⁹⁷ Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois: Democratic congressman, 1843-1847; U. S. Senator 1847-1861; chairman of the Committee on Territories; nominee of the Northern Democrats for the Presidency in 1860.

⁹⁸ Douglas and Buchanan had recently split the Party in their quarrel over " popular sovereignty." Green was a clever politician indeed if he could support both at once.

⁹⁹ William B. Shubrick had entered the Navy in 1806, and had served in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. For the naval expedition against Paraguay which he commanded see supra, April 20, 1859, note 13.

¹ Francis Allibert was a native of France who left in 1839 just as he was drawn as a conscript. He became a naturalized American in New Orleans in 1845. On his return to France in 1852, he was arrested, but upon protest of the United States was ultimately released.

² The references are to June 15 and July 19.

³ James C. Welling: literary editor of the National Intelligencer in Washington, 1850-1865; advocate of Bell and Everett in the election of 1860; loyal supporter of Lincoln during the War; assistant clerk of the Court of Claims under Bates 1863-1865: later, president of St. John's College and then of Columbia University.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 25-6

Diary of Edward Bates, Friday, June 24, 1859

[Cold, rainy weather.] Barton I suppose will not go today — nor Coalter, who rides his (B[arton]'s) saddle horse, while B.[arton] drives his new horses. Right of Search.⁹

Carlisle's [sic] Frederick the Great, Vol 2. 524 — Citing the Gentlemen's Magazine for 1739. p 103 — A notable instance in which popular influence is brought to bear upon the English Ministry and Parliament. The object was to force England into war with Spain — for maritime ‘outrages’ in the American seas. The Spaniards claimed the right of search and, in some instances enforced it with cruel insolence — as in the case of the English Capt. Jenkins, who was boarded by a Spanish garda costa off the coast of Florida, his vessel rum[m]aged and plundered, and himself grossly abused — whipped, half-hanged, and one ear cut off—. This led to the Spanish war and the overthrow of Walpole's long administration. The ministry was against the war mitigated the outrages as far as possible, and insisted on peace. But public opinion prevailed against the power of the crown, removed the minister and made the war.

[A clipping from a Missouri newspaper giving "By telegraph from Washington" Senator Douglas's letter of June 22 stating the conditions upon which he would be willing to have his name presented to the Democratic National Convention as a candidate for President. They were: Adherence to the principles of the Compromise Measures of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the Cincinnati Platform of 1856, "as expounded by Mr. Buchanan in his letter accepting the nomination." He will not accept the nomination, if the platform thrusts into the party creed new issues such as a revival of the African Slave Trade or the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States either establishes or prohibits slavery in the Territories of the United States.']

As long ago as Nov:, 58, in private letters to Mr. Welling¹⁰ of the Nat:[ional] Intel [ligencejr. and Mr. Kidgway of the Richmond Whig (besides in several newspaper articles previously) I assumed that Mr. D.[ouglas] was in position to dictate to his party; as the southern democrats needed him quite as much as he needed them. This letter is the dictation, and his party must obey him or dissolve itself.

Mr. D.[ouglas] however is no statesman. He is only a very cunning politician. He can never succeed before the whole people, without presenting some absorbing question to make them forget his anticedents [sic]. In order to keep in with present rulers and present popular whims, he has lent his name to extreme notions and fantastic propositions [.]           

1. He is the author of the "Wilmot proviso" in the joint resolution, for the admission of Texas. 1845[.] Also in the Oregon territorial bill.

2. He introduced a bill to create the State of California and thrust it into the Union.

3. To pander to Prest: Pierce'[s] silly scruples, he proposed to improve harbors by local tonnage duties[.]  

4. He holds that according to the Dred Scot[t] case, the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories. And yet he holds that slavery being there by force of the constitution, still, Congress, must not protect it there. But, notwithstanding its constitutional existance [sic] there, still, he holds that the Territorial Legislature can exclude it.

5. On Prest: Buchanan's demand of a grant of the war power — the right to use the army and navy to redress the wrongs of our people in Mexico and on the Isthmus — Mr. D.[ouglas] said in debate, that the Prest: ought not only to have the particular power now demanded from Congress, but every where and always.

Note. This last is referred to in the able speech of Senator Dixon¹¹ of Cont. on the 30.000.000 bill¹² — see Nat[ional] Intel:[ligencer] June 30. 1859.

6. Mr. D.[ouglas] being for a long time, chairman of the Com[mitt]ee. on Territories and as such having the drawing of the Organic acts, habitually introduced clauses importing that the Constitution was the law of the Territories — and that the Territories themselves are a part of the U. S. (see specially the Nebraska act §'s 6 and 14.)

Moreover, (see same §6) power is granted to the legislature over " all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the U. S. and the provisions of this act?'' Other acts, it seems, may be overridden at pleasure.

The § 14. declares that the Constitution and laws of the U. S. not locally inapplicable shall have the same force in the Territory of N.[ebraska] as elsewhere within the U. S. Except, &c (the Mo. Compromise). But the proviso (Badger's¹³) declares that nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation [legislation] which may have existed prior to 20[6] Mar:[ch] 1820 either protecting[,] establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery.

Note.14 In Harper's Monthly Magazine for Sept. 1859, Mr. Douglas comes out in an elaborate article upon Slavery in the Territories¹⁵ which being reduced to its elements, is nothing more nor less than Mr. Cass' old notion of Squatter Sovereignty. Note again¹⁶ — The Nat[iona]l. Intelligencer¹⁷ has come out in a series of articles (editorial) not professing to answer Mr. D.[ouglas] but answering him effectually, both by argument and by historical references.

[A reprint from the London Photographic News of a paragraph announcing the "Extraordinary Discovery" that sounds can be photographed.']

When this is brought to pass, we shall realise the thought of the Poet—

" Where Truth in person doth appear,

Like words congeal'd in northern air[.] "

and this other thought —

"He out of words could extract matter,

And keep it in a glass, like water."

_______________

⁹ In red pencil.

¹⁰ Supra, June 20, 1859, note 3.

¹¹ James Dixon of Hartford, Connecticut: Whig congressman, 1845— 1849: Republican U. S. senator, 1857-1869; strong supporter of Lincoln in the War and of Johnson in Reconstruction. This speech against the acquisition of Cuba on the ground that it was a scheme to further slave interests was one of his best efforts.

¹² Supra, April 20, 1859, note 4.

¹³ George E. Badger of North Carolina: secretary of the Navy, 1841; Whig U. S. senator, 1846-1855; opponent of the War with Mexico, of the Wilmot Proviso, of "squatter sovereignty," and of secession: a pro-slavery nationalist who supported the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

¹⁴ Added later.

¹⁵ Stephen A. Douglas, "The Dividing Line between Federal and Local Authority. Popular Sovereignty in the Territories," Harper's New Monthly Magazine, XIX (September, 1859), 519-537.

¹⁶ Added still later.

¹⁷ Sept. 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20, 1859.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 26-9

Diary of Corporal John Worrell Northrop, Thursday, August 6, 1864

At daylight a man shot and instantly killed. He had no particular stopping place, had become partially crazed; in the night had crept beyond the dead line and fell asleep. As soon as seen, the guard shot him while yet asleep. He had just been seen by two of our men who were calling him to come out. He lay until "dead call" and was carried out. Those who have helpless friends are eager to get them out. So at an early hour this morning they are crowded forward. Regulators are clearing every passage to make room for the sick. The main street on which I stop from the gate to the east, is filled with prostrate men. There is a greater number than yesterday. The doctors are making special efforts and one said yesterday, "The sick must all come out. The condition of the prison will breed pestilence that will spread through the country." It is through their importunity that this movement is made. They appear frightened. I heard another say, "Conditions are shameful." Long have doctors complained that their government furnishes neither medicine nor decent quarters; that men can not be successfully treated on such fare and in these quarters. One told Steward Brown that men could not live long on the rations given us; that well men will soon be sick. They have 'some new tents up; some are being carried thither in army wagons. The Rebel sergeant who counted us today said:

"Captain don't care how many Yankees die; he says he has killed more men than Joe Johnston," then added: "What did you'ns come down heah for if you'ns didn't want tough fare? But we can't help it."

After two hours laying in a crowd, "no sick call," is announced. The sick are being returned to all parts of the prison. I am living on rice alone, draw some, trade meal for some.

Report is rife that our government has offered the Richmond dignitaries to accept a parole of all prisoners, especially sick, and take care of prisoners of both parties. Undoubtedly this is the disposition of our government. This evening I met an intelligent talker who knows what he sees more than most men. Having frequently met him, I inquired his name. "Buerila," he replied; "I am from Illinois, have been a prisoner ten months, came here from Florida; I will stay ten more, I will be eaten up by lice and maggots before I will ask our government to get on its marrow bones to these Rebels. I am glad to see Lincoln stand square on his feet. I was a Douglas man, not that he was a better man, but had had more experience. I knew both personally and now believe Lincoln the best man for the place. If I can get into God's country in time he will get my vote." I referred to the report; he said:

"I asked the old Dutch if that thing was true myself. The old bummer looked mad, but answered more than I expected: 'Py Cot ve vills to no such ting! Py Cot, ve vill starf every son of a pitch! Now, I tells you, you vills all tie pefore ve vills parole ye-an pefore exchange. Py Cot, your Covment is too tevilment. Ve cot you foul!' Turning his horse around to go away, he said: 'Py Cot, you as vell pe schoot as stay here, and ve no trust damn Yankees.'"

SOURCE: John Worrell Northrop, Chronicles from the Diary of a War Prisoner in Andersonville and Other Military Prisons of the South in 1864, pp. 97-8

Diary of George Templeton Strong, June 21, 1860

This evening with Mr. Ruggles to Dr. Gilman’s, Thirteenth Street, to meet sundry of the professors of our Medical College and consider whether any kind of scientific post-graduate course can be evolved out of nothing by concerted action between Columbia College and this, its new ally. President King and Torrey were there, and the Medical College was represented by Gilman, Parker, Delafield, Clark, Dalton, and other medicine men, generally of high caste. We talked the matter over and agreed to meet again a fortnight hence. Something may come of it, but my expectations are moderate. The Medical College building, at the comer of Twenty-third and Fourth Avenue, is convenient and accessible, but we want men of larger calibre than Joy, McCulloh, Dr. Delafield, and Dr. Parker. . .¹³

The Democratic Baltimore Convention is still sitting, and none the easier for sitting. The great old Democratic Party is in articulo mortis; its convention is abolishing of itself, and just on the eve of suicide by dismemberment and disintegration, after the manner of certain star-fishes (vide Gosse). If Douglas be nominated, a Southern limb drops off. If any other man is nominated, a Northwestern ray or arm secedes. Southern swashbucklers demand an ultra-nigger platform that would cost the party every Northern state; unless it be adopted, they will depart to put on their war paint and—whet their scalping knives. The worst temper prevails; delegates punch each other and produce revolvers. In short, a wasps’ nest divided against itself is a pastoral symphony compared to this Witenagemot. Its session has abounded thus far in scandalous, shameful brutalities and indecencies that disgrace the whole country and illustrate the terrible pace at which we seem traveling down hill toward sheer barbarism and savagery.

The Convention has made little progress yet—has not even succeeded in defining its own identity. Its throes and gripings have thus far been on the question whether certain chivalric delegations that seceded at Charleston shall be received back digested and assimilated, or rejected as foreign matter. The New York delegation seems to hold the balance of power. After Douglas, Dickinson and Horatio Seymour are talked of; I could vote for the latter. There is a Nelson movement, too, silent as yet, but growing.¹⁴ But the elements of the Convention are in unstable combination, and it is likely to decompose with an explosion like chloride of nitrogen, or disintegrate like a Prince Rupert’s drop, on the slightest provocation before it nominates anybody. And, if one half of its bullies and blackguards and Southern gentlemen will make free use of their revolvers on the other half, during the general reaction and melee that is like to accompany the act of decomposition, and will then get themselves decently hanged for homicide, the country will be safe; and millions yet unborn will bless the day when the Baltimore Convention of 1860 exploded and the Democratic Party ceased to exist.

If there were a real ruler now to march into this congregation of politic knaves and hang a dozen of the worst cases, with their bowie knives round their necks, and set the rest to hard labor on public works for a term of years!!! What a subject he would be for a biography by Carlyle! But there is no such luck. Whatever may be the result of this Convention, the Democracy has disgraced itself and damaged itself beyond cure. I half expect that Republicanism and Abe Lincoln will sweep every vestige of that party out of existence.

_______________

¹³ Willard Parker (1800-1884), for whom the Willard Parker Hospital for Infectious Diseases in New York is named, had studied in Europe and held chairs of anatomy and surgery in several medical schools in this country before he joined the faculty of the College of Physicians and Surgeons as professor of principles and practice of surgery (1839-1870). Edward Delafield (1794—1875), ophthalmologist and surgeon, founded the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary in 1818. He occupied the chair of obstetrics and diseases of women in the College of Physicians and Surgeons from 1825 to 1838, and was president of the College from 1858 to 1875. Alonzo Clark (1807-1887) held the chair of physiology and pathology in the College of Physicians and Surgeons from 1848 to 1855, when he became professor of pathology and practical medicine in the same school. John Call Dalton (1825—1889) was the first physician in America to devote himself exclusively to experimental physiology and related sciences. His studies with Claude Bernard in Paris turned his ambition from practice to teaching, and he introduced the experimental method in teaching of physiology, thus opening a new era in medical education. He occupied the chair of physiology in the College of Physicians and Surgeons 1855-1883, and served as president 1884-1889.

¹⁴ Strong’s unwillingness to vote for the politician Daniel S. Dickinson (1800-1866) is understandable. The movement for Justice Samuel Nelson of the Supreme Court (1792-1873) developed no strength.

SOURCE: Allan Nevins and Milton Halset Thomas, Editors, Diary of George Templeton Strong, Vol. 3, pp. 34-6

Diary of George Templeton Strong, June 23, 1860

Mr. Ruggles came in this evening and reports that the rump of the Convention has nominated Douglas. Afterwards came Walter Cutting, very kindly offering me tickets for the grand ball Monday night in honor of the Japanese embassy. Tickets are in great demand and hardly to be got by any one who has not an uncle or a confederate in the City Councils. It will be a showy and lavish entertainment, but neither Ellie nor I care to assist. Have encountered attaches of the embassy twice, looking over books and buying largely at Appleton's new store. They seem intelligent and observant, talk in soft oriental whispers, and contrive to make themselves understood by Kernot and Allen and the other salesmen. Books on the industrial arts, geographies, atlases, and high-colored lithograph illustrations interest them especially. They buy largely, also, of children’s books, and say "new language—child’s book— very good.’’

SOURCE: Allan Nevins and Milton Halset Thomas, Editors, Diary of George Templeton Strong, Vol. 3, p. 36

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

Congressman 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