Showing posts with label Stephen A Douglas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen A Douglas. Show all posts

Sunday, May 22, 2022

David F. Boyd to William T. Sherman, August 30, 1860

LOUISIANA STATE SEMINARY OF LEARNING AND MILITARY ACADEMY,
Alexandria, Aug. 30, 1860.

SIR: . . . Altho' nothing new has transpired here, still I had better drop you a line to say that everything is going on well. Floyd has nearly finished the tables, and I think there is no doubt of his making, in proper time, all the shelves or presses, and also fixing the stairway. He has worked faithfully since you left. I will see, too, that Mills fixes the partitions. He is now busily at work at the professors' houses, and though he seems a little behindhand with them, he can still complete them in time. You know that carpenters have had a poor chance to get lumber this summer, as the drought and scarcity of water have stopped what St. Ange calls the sewing machines.

I have kept the negro boys constantly getting wood, within your Seminary enclosure. A good deal has been cut and hauled, but the timber is so heavy that you can scarcely miss it. I have perhaps had cut down more of the pine trees than you wished, and I believe it would be well to cut them all down at once. In the winter we occasionally have some terrific blows, and when once a pine forest has been thinned out, it is so easy for those left standing to come down. Ledoux and Poussin offer to hire a boy apiece. What say you? I think they might be profitably employed.

Cooper has not yet put up the chimneys, as you directed, but he makes such a fair promise that they will be fixed soon, that I am inclined to wait with him a little longer. Have no fears about them, for either he shall fix them or they shall be run up with sheet iron.

I have bargained with a carpenter to put up my bookcase, and it shall be ready. By the way, we have commenced begging for books, maps, etc., for a library. Can't you do something in Ohio? How do you think it would do to have a circular letter printed and sent over the state, calling on the public to send us all books and specimens of minerals and fossils that they can spare? If you write a short letter to that effect in your capacity as superintendent, I think I could get it printed in Alexandria free of charge, and it might meet with much success. Politics is beginning to wax pretty warm.

Bell's prospects are brightening fast, and there is no doubt of his carrying this state. My own impression is (and I am sorry to say it), that Breckenridge will carry but one Southern State, and that is South Carolina. Nor would he carry that state if the vote were submitted to the people. Bell's party is very strong all over the South, and even Douglas has many more supporters than the blind advocates of Breckenridge can see.

Whilst I deprecate the unfortunate split at Charleston and Baltimore, and think the territorial question entirely illtimed, still as the issue has been thrust upon us, and I believe Breckenridge's views to be correct although they may never meet with a practical application, I shall vote for him. If we who approve his views fail to support him, then the people of the North would say that the South disapproves those views, when really a large majority of us think it hard that there should be any law which either expressly or impliedly denies us equal rights with our northern brethren to the common property of the whole union. We don't wish to appear on the statute books as inferiors.

I am beginning to think that Lincoln will not be elected. If he should be, there is no telling what trouble we may have. I do not believe any state will formally secede, but disunion might be brought about in many ways. In many places in the South, whoever accepts or hold office under Lincoln will be lynched. He (Lincoln) will of course attempt to enforce the laws; that attempt will be resisted, and once the strife is begun God only knows where it will stop. What is the use of that Republican Party? As you say, slavery will always go where it pays, in spite of Sewardism, and it will never go where it does not pay, in spite of Yanceyism. Let the law of nature say you shall not take your slave here or there, but let not a clause of the Constitution, or an enactment of Congress, say it. It then becomes a threat hurled by one section at the other, and threats ill-become the people of a union. But whatever be the result of the election, let us hope there will be no disunion. Rather, like Governor Wise, radical as he is, let us settle our troubles in the union and not out of it.

The burning of the towns in Texas has produced much excitement here, and a negro was arrested near Nacogdoches, Tex., who said that among other towns to be burnt soon was Alexandria, La.; consequently a guard is stationed to watch for the coming incendiary, and no doubt Bootjack (Biossat) and Co.1 will be much disappointed if he doesn't make his appearance.

I have received several letters making applications for admission of cadets, and others asking for information. General Graham's unfortunate publication last fall – that only five could be admitted from each senatorial district - is still injuring us; and we have no money with which to advertise, I begged Boyce to publish in his paper next Monday an article enlightening the public on that point, muskets, etc., with the request that all the city and parish papers publish it, and he promised to do his part.

[P.S.] The crops here are almost a total failure. Very little corn and sugar, and only about one-third the usual crops of cotton will be raised. Suppose there is disunion, will they keep all the corn north of Mason's and Dixon's fence?

Don't think of the river being in boating order in October. I will see to the wagons.
_______________

1 Editors of local newspapers. – ED.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 270-3

Thursday, April 7, 2022

William T. Sherman to John Sherman, June 1860

. . . Though Lincoln's opinions on slavery are as radical as those of Seward, yet southern men, if they see a chance of his success, will say they will wait and see. The worst feature of things now is the familiarity with which the subject of a dissolution is talked about. But I cannot believe any one, even Yancey or Davis, would be rash enough to take the first step.

If at Baltimore to-day the convention nominate Douglas with unanimity, I suppose if he gets the vote of the united South he will be elected. But, as I apprehend will be the case, if the seceders again secede to Richmond, and there make a southern nomination, their nomination will weaken Douglas's vote so much that Lincoln may run in. The real race seems to be between Lincoln and Douglas.

Now that Mr. Ewing also is out for Lincoln, and it is strange how closely these things are watched, it is probable I will be even more "suspect” than last year. All the reasoning and truth in the world would not convince a southern man that the Republicans are not abolitionists. It is not safe to stop to discuss the question: they believe it, and there is the end of the controversy.

Of course, I know that reason has very little influence in this world: prejudice governs. You and all who derive power from the people do not look for pure, unalloyed truth, but to that kind of truth which jumps with the prejudice of the day. So southern politicians do the same. If Lincoln be elected, I don't apprehend resistance; and if he be, as Mr. Ewing says, a reasonable, moderate man, things may move on, and the South become gradually reconciled. But you may rest assured that the tone of feeling is such that Civil War and anarchy are very possible. . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 232-3

William T. Sherman to Thomas Ewing Jr., July 22, 1860

LOUISIANA STATE SEMINARY, Alexandria, July 22, 1860.

DEAR TOM: . . . The fact that Congress did not admit Kansas must be a disappointment to you all, but the certainty of her giving a Republican vote was too much for a Democratic Congress, with the almost certainty of the election going into the House. Down here no one thinks of Lincoln. The struggle will be between Douglas and Breckenridge; the latter will win. . .

If Lincoln should win I don't know but that something would turn up to my liking, but it won't do for me to say Lincoln down here. The devil himself would be a more welcome guest than a Black Republican, yet I have no fears myself of the election of anybody; if our form of government will not endure any man as president it is not a fit machine and should break up; but of course I know that no man would now disturb property in slaves; as to the limitation of its sphere, that is comparatively a small matter. . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 244-5

Friday, August 9, 2019

Diary of to Amos A. Lawrence: November 7, 1860

Lincoln chosen president by immense majorities in almost all the free States. Breckinridge comes next in electoral votes; then Bell, and Douglas last. Andrew chosen governor of Massachusetts by an immense majority.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 156

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Diary of to Amos A. Lawrence: July 18, 1860

Commencement. At Cambridge at 8 in president's room. Corporation there. We tried on the President's new cap. At ten we went to the library. Soon the Governor came with his aids, the overseers, etc.; also Mr. Douglas, United States Senator. Procession moved to church with a band of music. On the platform were Messrs. Sumner, Wilson, Banks, Douglas, all men of mark. My class mustered sixteen; twenty-five years out of college. Met in a room near the church; pleasing but sad remembrances.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 154

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Charles Sumner to Gerrit Smith, March 18, 1856

Washington, 18th March, '56.

My Dear Gerrit Smith — I have your volume, “Gerrit Smith in Congress,” and am glad to possess it.

I am happy also that it owes its origin in any degree to a hint from me.

Of this I am sure. It will remain a monument of your constant, able and devoted labors during a brief term in Congress, and will be recognized as an arsenal of truth, whence others will draw bright weapons.

Douglas has appeared at last on the scene, and with him that vulgar swagger which ushered in the Nebraska debate. Truly — truly — this is a godless place. Read that report, also the President's messages, and see how completely the plainest rights of the people of Kansas are ignored. My heart is sick.

And yet I am confident that Kansas will be a free State. But we have before us a long season of excitement, and ribald debate, in which truth will be mocked and reviled.

Remember me kindly to your family, and believe me,

My dear friend,

Sincerely yours,
Charles Sumner.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 225-6

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Judge Martin F. Conway to George L. Stearns, June 17, 1860

[Baltimore, June 17, 1860.]

Your kind favor of the 15th is at hand. I have no business requiring my presence in Boston at this time; so that if I visit it, I must do so at your account . This, I shall, of course, be glad to do, as much for the pleasure it will afford me personally, as for the accommodation it may be to you.

Should Douglas be nominated by the convention now in session in this city the South will bolt, and Lincoln be elected President; in which case I do not think a movement to prevent his inauguration at all improbable. What would become of Kansas in the confusion which would follow such a proceeding, God only knows. Should Douglas not be nominated, but if the convention unites in some other candidate, Guthrie for example, then Lincoln would not probably be elected, but the Democratic candidate instead. The result of this would be that the present application for Kansas' admission would be discarded, and new proceedings instituted for another state organization founded on Democratic principles.

SOURCE: Preston Stearns, The Life and Public Services of George Luther Stearns, p. 228-9

Friday, July 13, 2018

Salmon P. Chase to John Denison Baldwin, Esq,* Worcester Mass., August 20, 1860

Columbus, Aug 20h [1860]

Dear Sir, Yours of the 11th reached me yesterday on my return from Michigan; & I hasten to thank you for the expressions of regard & confidence which it contains.

It would be a vain attempt were I to try to correct all or a very small part of the misrepresentations or misconceptions of my views which find their way into the Press: & I do not think it worth while to make the effort in respect to these to which you call my attention.

Fortunately I have no new opinions to express on any question connected with Nationalized Slavery. In my speech on Mr. Clay's compromise Resolutions in 1850, I distinctly stated my views in respect to legislative prohibition of Slavery in Territories. You will find this speech in the Congressional Globe Appendix, 1849-50, and this particular question discussed on page 478. I reaffirmed the same views in the Nebraska-Kansas Debate; & I have seen no occasion to change them. They are now substantially embodied in the Republican National Platform.

In respect to the organization of Territorial Governments I think Mr. Jefferson's plan of 1784 the better plan. It contemplated the prohibition of Slavery, as did the plan subsequently adopted, but it left more both in Organization & Administration to the people. The great objections to the “Territorial bills” of last winter, to which you refer, were in my judgment that they did not contain so distinct and explicit prohibition of Slavery, & that they did provide for the appointment of Territorial Officers by the Administration; which was equivalent to giving them pro-slavery Governors, Judges &c. To these bills I certainly preferred Mr. Thayer's Land District Bills: & I should have preferred bills framed on the plan of Jefferson, but with larger freedom of Legislation, to either.

I regret very much to hear of the feeling which exists in the Worcester District in regard to Mr. Thayer. I have but a slight personal acquaintance with him, but that acquaintance impressed me with a belief that he is sincere, earnest, & able. He has certainly rendered great service to the cause of Freedom. His plan of Organized Emigration contributed largely to save Kansas from Slavery. And if he now pushes his ideas too far in the direction of absolutely unlimited control by the settlers of a territory over every matter within their own limits whether national in its reach & consequences or not, it should be remembered that nothing is more certain than that the ripening convictions of the people favor — not the substitution of Presidential Intervention for Slavery, in place of Congressional Intervention against Slavery, which is the sole achievement of the Douglas Nebraska Scheme — but the admission of a far larger measure of true Popular Sovereignty, — fully harmonized with the fundamental principles of Human Rights, in the organization of Territorial Governments.

I write this for your own satisfaction, & because your kind letter calls for a frank response; I do not write for publication: because no opinions of individuals at this time are important enough to be thrust before the public. We are engaged in a great struggle upon a great issue fairly joined through our National Convention. God forbid that any personal strifes should endanger the Cause! Let us gain the victory; & I am sure that there will be then no difficulty in so harmonizing views, by honest endeavors to satisfy each others reasonable demands, as to secure that after success without which the preliminary success at the November Polls will be of little value.
_______________

* From letter-book 7, pp. 68-70. John Denison Baldwin 1809-1883; journalist at this time, owner and editor of the Worcester Spy; member of Congress 1863-1869.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. ChaseAnnual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 289-90

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Governor Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, January 18, 1858

Columbus, Jany 18, 1858.

My Dear & Excellent Friend, Your kind note to me makes amends for your long silence; though, indeed, I never accused you of neglect, and would on no account whatever have had you give one moment to me which would have been taken from time far better devoted to the health-renovation for which so many devoutly pray & towards which so many wishes are most earnestly directed. I welcome joyfully your assurance that “all is surely coming back.” God hasten the happy moment of complete restoration!

Kate was delighted with your New Years memento. It was a most acceptable double autograph, altho one was but imitation — so absolutely like, though, that at first it deceived me. She bids me express her thanks to you, and to say that it almost makes amends for your omission or refusal to write in her album, which she, but a child then, & little more now, took very hard.

We are keeping house now, and she is house keeper. We have a pleasant house and every thing as agreeable as we can expect. How welcome a guest you would be! Why can you not come?

Your praise of my message gratifies me much. I know it is sincere; and if I satisfy you I am sure no true man ought to be dissatisfied. I sent you one of the first copies distributed, & you doubtless received it very soon after you wrote. I would send one to Lord Napier, if I knew his address, & you would let it be done at your request. The condensed résumé of the industrial condition of Ohio ought to interest a statesman.

As to our future, you reflect my thoughts when you express your regrets that some of our friends & papers should seem to play into the hands of Douglas. What we have seen, heard, & felt of him will make it impossible for us to trust him until after a very sufficient probation, — which he has not the slightest idea of undergoing. In fact he neither expects nor wishes more from us than a suspension of hostilities until his re-election is made sure. I trouble myself little about him. I am more troubled by an obvious disposition among many to place our cause on the lowest possible ground — to connect it with the least possible advocacy of principle; and to seek success by means which will make success worse than worthless. “Non in haec fÅ“dera veni” —nec veniam. I have had enough of it. The party for which I labor must be a manly, honorable, honest, freedom loving party, which has principles & dares assert them, and representatives of its principles & dares sustain them. In hoc signo vincemus; and in no other.

Will you pardon me for saying that I thought you & Hale & others of our friends gave in too readily to the availability idea two years ago. When I left the Senate you expressed to me your wish for my nomination. So did Hale even more strongly a few months later. When I came to Washington after my election as Governor I found you both changed. I did not blame you so far as I was concerned—far from it. I want to be put aside when our cause can be promoted by it. But I wished, if not sustained myself, then some other man sustained who had fought battles. You or Hale or Seward would have suited me. Others might also be named though not of the “first three.” But I never liked the idea of going out of the party & taking up candidates who had never identified themselves with us at all, and asking them to condescend to lead us. It was too much like the seven women of prophecy taking hold of one man & begging to be covered with his skirt. Such a path is not the path of honor or of safety either. When it was resolved to take it, I did not hesitate of course. I do not separate myself from my friends because I think their course not the wisest. I prefer to contend among the foremost, & let it be seen that, if the victory be not won, it is no fault of mine or of those who act with me. But to repeat the experiment of the failure would be inexcusable, nor do I fear it will be repeated. Hence while some are disposed to cry Lo! here! or Lo! there!, I feel confident the common sense of the people will hear and harken to the truer Genius which points to the path of principle & says, This is the way, walk ye in it.

Excuse my long writing. I feel as if I were talking to you. May God bless you & soon restore you to the field where you are so greatly needed.

Faithfully yours
[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. ChaseAnnual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 275-7

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 9, 1855

Washington Feb 9. 1855.

Dear Hamlin, A much longer time has slipped by without my writing to you than ought; but you know what my situation is & your charity will excuse me.

The papers, which are really hearty against Slavery, are, I perceive, unanimous in urging my name for Governor, & I have assurances from whigs and democrats that if I become the Peoples Candidate there will be large support from the liberals of all sides. I appreciate these manifestations of regard very — very highly. Whatever proximate results may be they bind me by fresh ties to the Cause of Liberty & Progress. There seems now to be little opposition to my nomination except with the inconsiderable number who look with alarm or dislike upon the progress of our doctrine, unless the Kns1 shall take distinct ground against me. The opposition of the former class may be safely disregarded — that of the latter will probably divide the People's Movement if based on the ground that nobody is to be supported by the Kns unless a member of their order.

Judge Spalding was here a day or two since, and sought a conversation with me in relation to the Governorship. I was very explicit on all points:

1. That the nomination and election would doubtless gratify me as an endorsement of my course & a manifestation of confidence from the People of Ohio.

2. That I could not accept a nomination or be a candidate on any platform which did not represent my convictions. Of course, I wd. not insist on the expression of all I wished; but the actual expression must be right & in the right direction.

3. That in no case could I suffer my name to be used to divide the opponents of slavery in Ohio; but, in case the Convention should take ground on which I could not honorably act, I should regard myself as having no present work to do in Ohio.

He seemed to have been a good deal under the impression that the Whigs would not support me, because of the events of 1849, & to have inclined to the idea that it would be best to defer to this sentiment & nominate another man: but he left apparently determined to use his influence with us.

Here the members of Congress all seem willing to support me, except perhaps, Campbell. He manifests a disinclination to touch the subject at all. I think he wishes to await the decision of the Kns. It is curious that he, a Seward Whig, should be apparently the chief of the western Knownothings. But strange things are happening now a days.

The elections of the last few weeks have produced a marked effect here. Harlan, Wilson, Durkee, Seward, are all regarded as hot shot from abolition cannon. Then the action of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has startled the politicians — & the Judges too — not a little — and now even while I am writing comes the election of Trumbull in Illinois — Anti Douglas & Anti Nebraska at all events & an election which in this [illegible] at least a triumph. Everything indicates that the Antislavery Sentiment will [go] on & on to its final triumph now. What part Ohio shall have the next few months will go far to determine.

Write me soon & tell me all you learn. It seems to me you have said enough agst the Kns, and had better hold up. Give them credit for [illegible] in Massachusetts & wait till [illegible] if ever, to renew the combat. My idea is fight nobody who does not fight us. We have enemies enough in the Slaveholders & their aiders.

I write [illegible] about the paper.
_______________

1 The Know Nothing Party

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. ChaseAnnual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 269-70

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Diary of William Howard Russell: Chapter XLII

I shall here briefly recapitulate what has occurred since the last mention of political events.

In the first place the South has been developing every day greater energy in widening the breach between it and the North, and preparing to fill it with dead; and the North, so far as I can judge, has been busy in raising up the Union as a nationality, and making out the crime of treason from the act of Secession. The South has been using conscription in Virginia, and is entering upon the conflict with unsurpassable determination. The North is availing itself of its greater resources and its foreign vagabondage and destitution to swell the ranks of its volunteers, and boasts of its enormous armies, as if it supposed conscripts well led do not fight better than volunteers badly officered. Virginia has been invaded on three points, one below and two above Washington, and passports are now issued on both sides.

The career open to the Southern privateers is effectually closed by the Duke of Newcastle's notification that the British Government will not permit the cruisers of either side to bring their prizes into or condemn them in English ports; but, strange to say, the Northerners feel indignant against Great Britain for an act which deprives their enemy of an enormous advantage, and which must reduce their privateering to the mere work of plunder and destruction on the high seas. In the same way the North affects to consider the declaration of neutrality, and the concession of limited belligerent rights to the seceding States, as deeply injurious and insulting; whereas our course has, in fact, removed the greatest difficulty from the path of the Washington Cabinet, and saved us from inconsistencies and serious risks in our course of action.

It is commonly said, “What would Great Britain have done if we had declared ourselves neutral during the Canadian rebellion, or had conceded limited belligerent rights to the Sepoys?” as if Canada and Hindostan have the same relation to the British Crown that the seceding States had to the Northern States. But if Canada, with its parliament, judges, courts of law, and its people, declared it was independent of Great Britain; and if the Government of Great Britain, months after that declaration was made and acted upon, permitted the new State to go free, whilst a large number of her Statesmen agreed that Canada was perfectly right, we could find little fault with the United States Government for issuing a proclamation of neutrality the same as our own, when after a long interval of quiescence a war broke out between the two countries.

Secession was an accomplished fact months before Mr. Lincoln came into office, but we heard no talk of rebels and pirates till Sumter had fallen, and the North was perfectly quiescent — not only that — the people of wealth in New York were calmly considering the results of Secession as an accomplished fact, and seeking to make the best of it; nay, more, when I arrived in Washington some members of the Cabinet were perfectly ready to let the South go.

One of the first questions put to me by Mr. Chase in my first interview with him, was whether I thought a very injurious effect would be produced to the prestige of the Federal Government in Europe if the Northern States let the South have its own way, and told them to go in peace. “For my own part,” said he, “I should not be averse to let them try it, for I believe they would soon find out their mistake.” Mr. Chase may be finding out his mistake just now. (When I left England the prevalent opinion, as far as I could judge, was, that a family quarrel, in which the South was in the wrong, had taken place, and that it would be better to stand by and let the Government put forth its [strength] to chastise rebellious children. But now we see the house is divided against itself, and that the family are determined to set up two separate establishments. These remarks occur to me with the more force because I see the New York papers are attacking me because I described a calm in a sea which was afterwards agitated by a storm. “What a false witness is this,” they cry; “see how angry and how vexed is our Bermoothes, and. yet the fellow says it was quite placid.”

I have already seen so many statements respecting my sayings, my doings, and my opinions, in the American papers, that I have resolved to follow a general rule, with few exceptions indeed, which prescribes as the best course to pursue, not so much an indifference to these remarks as a fixed purpose to abstain from the hopeless task of correcting them. The “Quicklys” of the press are incorrigible. Commerce may well be proud of Chicago. I am not going to reiterate what every Crispinus from the old country has said again and again concerning this wonderful place — not one word of statistics, of corn elevators, of shipping, or of the piles of buildings raised-from the foundation by ingenious applications of screws. Nor am I going to enlarge on the splendid future of that which has so much present prosperity, or on the benefits to mankind opened up by the Illinois Central Railway. It is enough to say that by the borders of this lake there has sprung up in thirty years a wonderful city of fine streets, luxurious hotels, handsome shops, magnificent stores, great warehouses, extensive quays, capacious docks; and that as long as corn holds its own, and the mouths of Europe are open, and her hands full, Chicago will acquire greater importance, size, and wealth with every year. The only drawback, perhaps, to the comfort of the money-making inhabitants, and of the stranger within the gates, is to be found in the clouds of dust and in the unpaved streets and thoroughfares, which give anguish to horse and man.

I spent three days here writing my letters and repairing the wear and tear of my Southern expedition; and although it was hot enough, the breeze from the lake carried health and vigor to the frame, enervated by the sun of Louisiana and Mississippi. No need now to wipe the large drops of moisture from the languid brow lest they blind the eyes, nor to sit in a state of semi-clothing, worn out and exhausted, and tracing with moist hand imperfect characters on the paper.
I could not satisfy myself whether there was, as I have been told, a peculiar state of feeling in Chicago, which induced many people to support the Government of Mr. Lincoln because they believed it necessary for their own interest to obtain decided advantages over the South in the field, whilst they were opposed totis viribus to the genius of emancipation and to the views of the Black Republicans. But the genius and eloquence of the Little Giant have left their impress on the facile mould of democratic thought; and he who argued with such acuteness and ability last March in Washington, in his own study, against the possibility, or at least the constitutional legality, of using the national forces, and the militia and volunteers of the Northern States, to subjugate the Southern people, carried away by the great bore which rushed through the placid North when Sumter fell, or perceiving his inability to resist its force, sprung to the crest of the wave, and carried to excess, the violence of the Union reaction.

Whilst I was in the South I had seen his name in Northern papers with sensation headings and descriptions of his magnificent crusade for the Union in the West. I had heard his name reviled by those who had once been his warm political allies, and his untimely death did not seem to satisfy their hatred. His old foes in the North admired and applauded the sudden apostasy of their eloquent opponent, and were loud in lamentations over his loss. Imagine, then, how I felt when visiting his grave at Chicago, seeing his bust in many houses, or his portrait in all the shop-windows, I was told that the enormously wealthy community of which he was the idol were permitting his widow to live in a state not far removed from penury.

“Senator Douglas, sir,” observed one of his friends to me, “died of bad whiskey. He killed himself with it while he was stumping for the Union all over the country.” Well,” I said, “I suppose, sir, the abstraction called the Union, for which by your own account he killed himself, will give a pension to his widow,” Virtue is its own reward, and so is patriotism, unless it takes the form of contracts.

As far as all considerations of wife, children, or family are concerned, let a man serve a decent despot, or even a constitutional country with an economizing House of Commons, if he wants anything more substantial than lip-service. The history of the great men of America is full of instances of national ingratitude. They give more praise and less peace to their benefactors than any nation on the face of the earth. Washington got little, though the plundering scouts who captured Andre were well rewarded; and the men who fought during the War of Independence were long left in neglect and poverty, sitting in sackcloth and ashes at the doorsteps of the temple of liberty, whilst the crowd rushed inside to worship Plutus.

If a native of the British Isles, of the natural ignorance of his own imperfections which should characterize him, desires to be subjected to a series of moral shower-baths, douches, and shampooing with a rough glove, let him come to the United States. In Chicago he will be told that the English people are fed by the beneficence of the United States, and that all the trade and commerce of England are simply directed to the one end of obtaining gold enough to pay the Western States for the breadstuffs exported for our population. We know what the South think of our dependence on cotton. The people of the East think they are striking a great blow at their enemy by the Morrill tariff and I was told by a patriot in North Carolina, “Why, creation! if you let the Yankees shut up our ports, the whole of your darned ships will go to rot. Where will you get your naval stores from? Why, I guess in a year you could not scrape up enough of tarpentine in the whole of your country for Queen Victoria to paint her nursery-door with.”

Nearly one half of the various companies enrolled in this district are Germans, or are the descendants of German parents, and speak only the language of the old country; two-thirds of the remainder are Irish, or of immediate Irish descent; but it is said that a grand reserve of Americans born lies behind this avant garde, who will come into the battle should there ever be need for their services.

Indeed so long as the Northern people furnish the means of paying and equipping armies perfectly competent to do their work, and equal in numbers to any demands made for men, they may rest satisfied with the accomplishment of that duty, and with contributing from their ranks the great majority of the superior and even of the subaltern officers; but with the South it is far different. Their institutions have repelled immigration; the black slave has barred the door to the white free settler. Only on the seaboard and in the large cities are. German and Irish to be found, and they to a man have come forward to fight for the South; but the proportion they bear to the native-born Americans who have rushed to arms in defence of their menaced borders, is of course far less than it is as yet to the number of Americans in the Northern States who have volunteered to fight for the Union.

I was invited before I left to visit the camp of a Colonel Turchin, who was described to me as a Russian officer of great ability and experience in European warfare, in command of a regiment consisting of Poles, Hungarians, and Germans, who were about to start for the seat of war; but I was only able to walk through his tents, where I was astonished at the amalgam of nations that constituted his battalion; though, on inspection, I am bound to say there proved to be an American element in the ranks which did not appear to have coalesced with the bulk of the rude, and, I fear, predatory Cossacks of the Union. Many young men of good position have gone to the wars, although there was no complaint, as in Southern cities, that merchants' offices have been deserted, and great establishments left destitute of clerks and working hands. In warlike operations, however, Chicago, with its communication open to the sea, its access to the head waters of the Mississippi, its intercourse with the marts of commerce and of manufacture, may be considered to possess greater belligerent power and strength than the great city of New Orleans; and there is much greater probability of Chicago sending its contingent to attack the Crescent City than there is of the latter being able to despatch a soldier within five hundred miles of its streets.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, Vol. 1, p. 354-9

Monday, April 2, 2018

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

Washington, July 21, 1854,.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,
[SALMON P. CHASE.]
_______________

* From the Pierce-Sumner Papers.

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

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

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

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* February 10, 1854

Washington, Feb. 10, 1854.

Dear Hamlin: Pardon me for my expression of regret. I am glad to learn that you have taken no part in the contest going on at Columbus among the aspirants for my place.

As we have no power to do anything which will give our side advantages, we had best do absolutely nothing. If the election could be postponed we could do much — but I have never expected that — never even imagined it possible until the result of the late attempts to nominate — and do not now believe it at all probable, though [illegible] of Cleveland told me some days since that it would be done.

I did better than I anticipated in my reply to Douglas. I knew I could break down his position; but I did not expect to come so near satisfying myself and much less did I foresee the profund [sic] attention or the immense audience with and by which I was listened to. I have compliments from all sides in abundance, and am gratified in believing that I have worthily upheld the honor of our noble State.

I would cheerfully add $2,000 to your $2,000 for a paper in Cincinnati, or would be one of six to pledge $5,000 each to be drawn up if necessary.

But if I was about to establish such a paper I would begin with a Weekly — make it first Class — get, say, 113,000 subscribers and then make a daily of that. $1,000 would suffice to pay the agencies necessary to get $3,000 subs, and to start the paper,        and

You ought to be in Cincinnati; and you ought to be in the Press.

Yours truly,
[SALMON P. CHASE.]
_______________

* From the Pierce-Sumner Papers.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. ChaseAnnual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 257-8

Monday, March 19, 2018

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 22, 1854

Washington Jany 22, 1854

My Dear Sir, I think you are mistaken in the amt, of my debt to you — it was for one letter instead of two or three when you wrote last, and it is for two now. I am quite willing however that the balance in this account should be decidedly against me, as your letters have much more interest for me than mine can have for you; and besides I am harder pushed than you can be.

[ocr errors]
I don't feel a great deal of interest in the election of Senator, since our side has nothing to expect. If it could be postponed we should have a fair chance:— as it is, I suppose, we have none though I feel right sure that the time is not distant when men who now vote to have Ohio represented here by a Hunker will rue it as a foolish & unnecessary act.

My great anxiety is to have our friends in Ohio buckle on their armor & go to work to redeem the State. We can do that I am sure if we will & by our means. I think, circumstanced as you now are, you ought to reestablish your connection with the press, or at least take up your location in a part of the State where you can advantage the cause — say, Toledo Cleveland or Cincinnati. You ought to resume the Editorial charge of the True Democrat. Wade says he will give you his interest of $1000 — I will give you mine of $200 — if an arrangement can be made by which you will become permanently interested & Editor. I should think you would feel as deeply as I do on the subject of wresting Ohio from the Hunkers.

The Nebraska Bill is the principal topic of conversation here. What is the prospect of the Resolution on the subject in our Legislature? I enclose the Washn. Sentinel that you may see with what insolence the Editor speaks of our State. It makes me repent my vote for Tucker for printer, & wish I had voted for some one wholly unconnected with the Political Press or for Bailey. It will prevent me from voting to give him the Patent Report to print which he needs much.

Benton says (I dined with him yesterday) that Douglas has committed political suicide He is staunch against the repeal of the Missouri Prohibition. Gov. Allen, & two of the members for R. I. will vote against it. The Governor has written to R. I. for Legislative instructions, which if they come will fix his colleagues. Mason, of Virginia told Fish that he did not want the Nebraska Bill: he was content that things should stand as they are. Douglas, I suppose, eager to compel the South to come to him has out southernized the South; and has dragged the timid & irresolute administration along with him.

Won't you write a strong article for the Columbian on the Sentinel Article?

Let them know immediately the prospect of the Resolution in the Senate & House. It should be pushed to a vote at the earliest moment.

Tell me the names of the most prominent men of the two Houses, with short sketches of them. Do you know Makenzie? Give me all the information you can. Where is Townshend? What of his wife's health.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. ChaseAnnual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 254-6

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

The Vote of Tennessee

We have received the vote of all the counties in this State, official and reported which foote up as follows.

Bell
70,706
Breckenridge
66,440
Douglas
11,428

Bell’s plurality over Breckinridge is 4,266 and the majority against bell is 7,162.

— Published in The Daily News Journal, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, November 28, 1860, p. 2

Thursday, March 1, 2018

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, September 9, 1852

Cincinnati, Sept. 9, 1852.

My Dear Sumner, I have read as well as heard your truly great speech. Hundreds of thousands will read it, and everywhere it will carry conviction to all willing to be convinced and will infuse a feeling of incertitude and a fearful looking for of judgment into the minds of those who resist the light and toil in the harness of party platforms irreconcilable with justice. Massachusetts deserves to lead the van of regenerated Democracy, for she has given to the cause its most faithful and eloquent champion. God bless the old Bay State: Amen.

I found Judge McLean reading your speech. He spoke of it with praise; but thought he had detected you in an error of fact in the paragraph where you speak of the Fugitive Slave clause of 1793 being introduced without much deliberation or [on?] previous occasion. He thought the correspondence between the Governors of Virginia & Pennsylvania & General Washington was in reference to a fugitive from labor; and seemed somewhat reluctant to admit my correction that it related to a fugitive from justice.

At my sister in law's I found her brother who is about to settle in Texas reading the speech to her aloud. I hope he will carry its truths with him.

Our friends in Ohio are in good spirits; and the vote for Hale & Julian will be respectable — not so great as it would have been had there been no conspiracy against me, but still as large, I hope, as that of 1848. Most of the democratic free soilers have been too far alienated by that conspiracy to be immediately brought back. I shall do what I can.

Our State fair will be held at Cleveland on the 15th. 1 mean to be there, so will have an opportunity to see how the land lies; and will advise you as to prospects.

You ought to carry Massachusetts for the Independent Democracy. You can do it if you have faith enough and works answerable. I am glad to see that you are going to work in earnest. You must do it. When Douglas, Houston, Cass & other champions of the Compromise Democracy are traversing the Union for their candidates we cannot honorably fail in our devotion to a nobler cause and better men.

Faithfully yours,
[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. ChaseAnnual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 247-8

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Abraham Lincoln to Erastus Corning and Others, June 12, 1863

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, June 12, 1863.
Hon. ERASTUS CORNING,  and others:

GENTLEMEN: Your letter of May 19,* inclosing the resolutions of a public meeting held at Albany, N.Y., on the 16th of the same month, was received several days ago.

The resolutions as I understand them are resolvable into two propositions — first, the expression of a purpose to sustain the cause of the Union, to secure peace through victory, and to support the Administration in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion; and secondly, a declaration of censure upon the Administration for supposed unconstitutional action, such as the making of military arrests. And from the two propositions a third is deduced, which is that the gentlemen composing the meeting are resolved on doing their part to maintain our common Government and country despite the folly or wickedness, as they may conceive, of any Administration. This position is eminently patriotic, and as such I thank the meeting and congratulate the nation for it. My own purpose is the same; so that the meeting and myself have a common object, and can have no difference except in the choice of means or measures for effecting that object.

And here I ought to close this paper and would close it if there was no apprehension that more injurious consequences than any merely personal to myself might follow the censures systematically cast upon me for doing what in my view of duty I could not forbear. The resolutions promise to support me in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion, and I have not knowingly employed nor shall I knowingly employ any other. But the meeting by their resolutions assert and argue that certain military arrests and proceedings following them for which I am ultimately responsible are unconstitutional. I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the Constitution the definition of treason, and also the limiting safeguards and guarantees therein provided for the citizen on trials of treason, and on his being held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, and in criminal prosecutions his right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. They proceed to resolve “that these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against the pretensions of arbitrary power were intended more especially for his protection in times of civil commotion.” And apparently to demonstrate the proposition the resolutions proceed:

They were secured substantially to the English people after years of protracted civil war, and were adopted into our Constitution at the close of the Revolution.

Would not the demonstration have been better if it could have been truly said that these safeguards had been adopted and applied during the civil wars and during our Revolution instead of after the one and at the close of the other! I, too, am devotedly for them after civil war and before civil war and at all times, “except when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require” their suspension.

The resolutions proceed to tell us that these safeguards “have stood the test of seventy-six years of trial under our republican system under circumstances which show that while they constitute the foundation of all free government they are the elements of the enduring stability of the Republic.” No one denies that they have so stood the test up to the beginning of the present rebellion if we except a certain occurrence at New Orleans, nor does any one question that they will stand the same test much longer after the rebellion closes. But these provisions of the Constitution have no application to the case we have in hand, because the arrests complained of were not made for treason — that is, not for the treason defined in the Constitution, and upon the conviction of which the punishment is death — nor yet were they made to hold persons to answer for any capital or otherwise infamous crimes, nor were the proceedings following in any constitutional or legal sense “criminal prosecutions.” The arrests were made on totally different grounds and the proceedings following accorded with the grounds of the arrests. Let us consider the real case with which we are dealing and apply it to the parts of the Constitution plainly made for such cases.

Prior to my installation here it had been inculcated that any State had a lawful right to secede from the National Union, and that it would be expedient to exercise the right whenever the devotees of the doctrine should fail to elect a President to their own liking. I was elected contrary to their liking, and accordingly so far as it was legally possible they had taken seven States out of the Union, had seized many of the U.S. forts, and had fired upon the U.S. flag, all before I was inaugurated, and of course before I had done any official act whatever. The rebellion thus begun soon ran into the present civil war, and in certain respects it began on very unequal terms between the parties. The insurgents had been preparing for it for more than thirty years, while the Government had taken no steps to resist them. The former had carefully considered all the means which could be turned to their account. It undoubtedly was a well-pondered reliance with them that in their own unrestricted efforts to destroy Union, Constitution, and law all together the Government would in great degree be restrained by the same Constitution and law from arresting their progress. Their sympathizers pervaded all departments of the Government and nearly all communities of the people. From this material, under cover of “liberty of speech, liberty of the press and habeas corpus, they hoped to keep on foot amongst us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers, and aiders and abettors of their cause in a thousand ways. They knew that in times such as they were inaugurating by the Constitution itself the habeas corpus might be suspended, but they also knew that they had friends who would make a question as to who was to suspend it, meanwhile their spies and others might remain at large to help on their cause. Or if as has happened the Executive should suspend the writ without ruinous waste of time instances of arresting innocent persons might occur, as are always likely to occur in such cases, and then a clamor could be raised in regard to this which might be at least of some service to the insurgent cause.

It needed no very keen perception to discover this part of the enemy's programme so soon as by open hostilities their machinery Was fairly put in motion. Yet thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guaranteed rights of individuals I was slow to adopt the strong measures which by degrees I have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the Constitution and as indispensable to the public safety. Nothing is better known to history than that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such cases. Civil courts are organized chiefly for the trials of individuals, or at most a few individuals acting in concert, and this in quiet times and on charges of crimes well defined in the law. Even in times of peace bands of horse-thieves and robbers frequently grow too numerous and powerful for ordinary courts of justice. But what comparison in numbers have such bands ever borne to the insurgent sympathizers even in many of the loyal States? Again a jury frequently has at least one member more ready to hang the panel than to hang the traitor. And yet again he who dissuades one man from volunteering or induces one soldier to desert weakens the Union cause as much as he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this dissuasion or inducement may be so conducted as to be no defined crime of which any civil court would take cognizance.

Ours is a case of rebellion — so-called by the resolutions before me; in fact a clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of rebellion; and the provision of the Constitution that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it” is the provision which specially applies to our present case. This provision plainly attests the understanding of those who made the Constitution that ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to “cases of rebellion” — attests their purpose that in such cases men may be held in custody whom the courts acting under ordinary rules would discharge. Habeas corpus does not discharge men who are proved to be guilty of defined crime, and its suspension is allowed by the Constitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who cannot be proved to be guilty of defined crime, “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” This is precisely our present case — a case of rebellion, wherein the public safety does require the suspension. Indeed arrests by process of courts and arrests in cases of rebellion do not proceed altogether upon the same basis. The former is directed at the small percentage of ordinary and continuous perpetration of crime, while the latter is directed at sudden and extensive uprisings against the Government, which at most will succeed or fail in no great length of time. In the latter case arrests are made not so much for what has been done as for what probably would be done. The latter is more for the preventive and less for the vindictive than the former. In such cases the purposes of men are much more easily understood than in cases of ordinary crime. The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered he is sure to help the enemy; much more, if he talks ambiguously — talks for his country with “buts” and “ifs” and “ands.”

Of how little value the constitutional provisions I have quoted will be rendered if arrests shall never be made until defined crimes shall have been committed may be illustrated by a few notable examples. General John C. Breckinridge, General Robert E. Lee, General Joseph E. Johnston, General John B. Magruder, General William Preston, General Simon B. Buckner, and Commodore Franklin Buchanan, now occupying the very highest places in the rebel war service, were all within the power of the Government since the rebellion began and were nearly as well known to be traitors then as now. Unquestionably if we had seized and held them the insurgent cause would be much weaker. But no one of them had then committed any crime defined in the law. Every one of them if arrested would have been discharged on habeas corpus were the writ allowed to operate. In view of these and similar cases I think the time not unlikely to come when I shall be blamed for having made too few arrests rather than too many.

By the third resolution the meeting indicates their opinion that military arrests may be constitutional in localities where rebellion actually exists, but that such arrests are unconstitutional in localities where rebellion or insurrection does not actually exist. They insist that such arrests shall not be made “outside of the lines of necessary military occupation and the scenes of insurrection? Inasmuch, however, as the Constitution itself makes no such distinction I am unable to believe that there is any such constitutional distinction. I concede that the class of arrests complained of can be constitutional only when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require them, and I insist that in such cases they are constitutional wherever the public safety requires them, as well in places to which they may prevent the rebellion extending as in those where it may be already prevailing; as well where they may restrain mischievous interference with the raising and supplying of armies to suppress the rebellion as where the rebellion may actually be; as well where they may restrain the enticing men out of the army as where they would prevent mutiny in the army; equally constitutional at all places where they will conduce to the public safety as against the dangers of rebellion or invasion.

Take the peculiar case mentioned by the meeting. It is asserted in substance that Mr. Vallandigham was by a military commander seized and tried “for no other reason than words addressed to a public meeting in criticism of the course of the Administration and in condemnation of the military orders of the general.” Now if there be no mistake about this, if this assertion is the truth and the whole truth, if there was no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest as I understand was made for a very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avows his hostility to the war on the part of the Union, and his arrest was made because he was laboring with some effect to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it. He was not arrested because he was damaging the political prospects of the Administration or the personal interests of the commanding general, but because he was damaging the army upon the existence and vigor of which the life of the nation depends. He was warring upon the military and this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military power of the country then his arrest was made on mistake of fact which I would be glad to correct on reasonably satisfactory evidence.

I understand the meeting whose resolutions I am considering to be in favor of suppressing the rebellion by military force — by armies. Long experience has shown that armies cannot be maintained unless desertion shall be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case requires and the law and the Constitution sanction this punishment. Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father or brother or friend into a public meeting and there working upon his feelings till he is persuaded to write to the soldier boy that he is fighting in a bad cause, for the wicked Administration of a contemptible Government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that in such a case to silence the agitator and save the boy is not only constitutional but withal a great mercy.

If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when in the absence of rebellion or invasion the public safety does not require them; in other words, that the Constitution is not in its application in all respects the same in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security. The Constitution itself makes the distinction, and I can no more be persuaded that the Government can constitutionally take no strong measures in time of rebellion because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not a good medicine for a sick man because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting that the American people will by means of military arrests during the rebellion lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and habeas corpus throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his healthful life.

In giving the resolutions that earnest consideration which you request of me I cannot overlook the fact that the meeting speaks as “Democrats.” Nor can I with fall respect for their known intelligence and the fairly presumed deliberation with which they prepared their resolutions be permitted to suppose that this occurred by accident, or in any way other than that they preferred to designate themselves “Democrats” rather than “American citizens? In this time of national peril I would have preferred to meet you on a level, one step higher than any party platform, because I am sure that from such more elevated position we could do better battle for the country we all love than we possibly can from those lower ones where, from the force of habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfish hopes of the future we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity and strength in finding fault with and aiming blows at each other. But since you have denied me this I will yet be thankful for the country's sake that not all Democrats have done so. He on whose discretionary judgment Mr. Vallandigham was arrested and tried is a Democrat having no old party affinity with me; and the judge who rejected the constitutional views expressed in these resolutions by refusing to discharge Mr. Vallandigham on habeas corpus is a Democrat of better days than these, having received his judicial mantle at the hands of President Jackson. And still more, of all these Democrats who are nobly exposing their lives and shedding their blood on the battle-field I have learned that many approve the course taken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a single one condemning it. I cannot assert that there are none such.

And the name of President Jackson recalls an instance of pertinent history. After the battle of New Orleans and while the fact that the treaty of peace had been concluded was well known in the city, but before official knowledge of it had arrived, General Jackson still maintained martial or military law. Now that it could be said the war was over the clamor against martial law which had existed from the very first grew more furious. Among other things a Mr. Louaillier published a denunciatory newspaper article. General Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the U.S. judge (Hall) to order a writ of habeas corpus to relieve Mr. Louaillier. General Jackson arrested both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr. Hollander ventured to say of some part of the matter that “it was a dirty trick.” General Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to serve the writ of habeas corpus General Jackson took it from him and sent him away with a copy. Holding the judge in custody a few days the general sent him beyond the limits of his encampment and set him at liberty with an order to remain till the ratification of peace should be regularly announced or until the British should have left the southern coast. A day or two more elapsed, the ratification of the treaty of peace was regularly announced, and the judge and the others were fully liberated. A few days more and the judge called General Jackson into court and fined him $1,000 for having arrested him and the others named. The general paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas, then in the House of Representatives, took a leading part in the debates in which the constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to show who the journals would show voted for the measure.

It may be remarked: First, that we had the same Constitution then as now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now we have a case of rebellion; and, thirdly, that the permanent right of the people to public discussion, the liberty of speech and of the press, the trial by jury, the law of evidence and the habeas corpus suffered no detriment whatever by that conduct of General Jackson or its subsequent approval by the American Congress.

And yet let me say that in my own discretion I do not know whether I would have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. While I cannot shift the responsibility from myself I hold that as a general rule the commander in the field is the better judge of the necessity in any particular case. Of course I must practice a general directory and revisory power in the matter.

One of the resolutions expressed the opinion of the meeting that arbitrary arrests will have the effect to divide and distract those who should be united in suppressing the rebellion and I am specifically called on to discharge Mr. Vallandigham. I regard this as at least a fair appeal to me on the expediency of exercising a constitutional power which I think exists. In response to such appeal I have to say it gave me pain when I learned that Mr. Vallandigham had been arrested — that is, I was pained that there should have seemed to be a necessity for arresting him — and that it will afford me great pleasure to discharge him as soon as I can by any means believe the public safety will not suffer by it.

I further say that as the war progresses it appears to me opinion and action which were in great confusion at first take shape and fall into more regular channels so that the necessity for strong dealing with them gradually decreases. I have every reason to desire that it should cease altogether, and far from the least is my regard for the opinions and wishes of those who, like the meeting at Albany, declare their purpose to sustain the Government in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion. Still I must continue to do so much as may seem to be required by the public safety.

A. LINCOLN.
_______________

* See Vol. V, this series, p. 654.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Volume 6 (Serial No. 119), p. 4-10

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 1851

Washington City, Feb. 1851.

My Dear Sir, I am in debt to you, but not absolutely insolvent. I have taken to be sure rather an unreasonable stay of execution, but I always meant to pay up at last. But you will have even now to take payment in depreciated currency and that you will say is half way to repudiation. I can only give you a very hurried and unsatisfactory letter for your good one.

The papers will shew you that agitation has not been entirely excluded from the Senate. Clay has himself been the arch agitator. For myself I thought it a good occasion to appear in the character of a friend to the progress of business, and the postponement of slavery discussions, which would interfere with it at this session. I was really anxious for the progress of business — for the fate of cheap postage and the harbor & river bill depended upon it. And besides I decided to show the country the hypocrisy of those pretences which always put the "other public interests" in competition with "freedom" but never in competition with slavery. You will see my speech and I hope approve of it. It had one capital effect. It brought out Rhett in an able speech vindicating the same views of the fugitive servant clause of the Constitution which I adopt. These southern ultras are altogether more honest than the southern doughfaces. They believe slavery to be right most of them and the rest believe it to be a necessity. They all agree in believing that in the present state of the races in the slave states slavery is best for both and indeed indispensable to the safety of both. They believing and holding also that the Constitution recognizes their right of property in slaves, their conclusions are natural enough. They avow them boldly and act upon them. The Compromisers on the other hand, generally, regard slavery as a temporary institution; but use it as a means of gaining and retaining political power.

It seems to me that the only course for us who believe in equal rights without limitations or exceptions, is to act together. We shall be ruined if we undertake to act with the Whigs. We cannot merge in the Old Line Democracy, so long as it cleaves to its alliance with the slave power, without being submerged. It seems to me that our true course, in the event, that the young men's Democratic Convention in May fail, as I fear they will fail, to take ground on the slavery questions which we can approve, is to call a Convention of Radical Democrats or Jeffersonian Democrats to meet in June or thereabouts and organize throughout the State. This course will bring Hunkerism to its senses.

All on the subject of the Presidency is much as it was when I last wrote you. Douglas is figuring, but he can't come it.

Write me at Cincinnati immediately on receiving this. I expect to be there on Friday night or Saturday morning of next week: and I hope to be able to spend a day or two in Columbus before the Legislature adjourns. I desire much to see our friends there.

Miller of the Toledo Republican writes me that he is about to sell out. I am sorry; but if he and Riley can be secured for the Columbus paper the cause may not lose by it. Under existing circumstances it is very important to have a paper of the right kind at the Capital.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. ChaseAnnual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 232-4