Diary of Henry Greville: Thursday, January 3, 1861

The King of Prussia¹ died yesterday at Sans-Souci.

The American Secession question now occupies public attention more than any other subject. Mr. Motley, who is here, considers it as certain, but does not think the Northern States will thereby lose any of their importance.

Fanny Kemble writes to me, December 9:

'What can I tell you, except that the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency appears to be precipitating the feud between the Northern and Southern States to immediate and most disastrous issues? The Cotton-growing States declare their purpose of at once seceding from the Union—the Slave-growing States depend upon them for their market, but depend still more upon the undisturbed security of the Union for the possibility of raising in safety their human cattle.

‘The Northern States seem at last inclined to let the Southern act upon their long threatened separation from them—the country is in a frightful state of excitement from one end to the other.

'The commercial and financial interests of all the States are already suffering severely from the impending crisis. It is a shame and a grief to all good men to think of the dissolution of this, in some respects, noble and prosperous confederacy of States. It is a horror to contemplate the fate of these insane Southerners if, but for one day, their slaves should rise upon them, when they have ascertained, which they will be quick enough to do, that they are no longer sure of the co-operation of the North in coercing their servile population. In short, there is no point of view from which the present position of this country can be contemplated which is not full of dismay. Conceive the position of the English in India if they had known beforehand of the murderous projected rising of the natives against them and had been without troops, arms, means of escape, or hope of assistance, and you have something like the present position of the Southern planters. God knows how fervently I bless that Providence which turned the worldly loss of my children's property, by their father's unprincipled extravagance, into so great a gain. Their shares were sold more than a year ago, and it will never be their fate to inflict injustice and oppression, or tremble before impending retribution.'

_______________

¹ Frederick William IV.

SOURCE: Alice Countess of Stratford, Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville: 1857-1861, p. 339-41

Diary of Henry Greville: Wednesday, February 20, 1861

London.—I came here yesterday for the levee to-day. I found a letter from Naples from Lady Holland written before the fall of Gaeta, giving a satisfactory account of the state of affairs there. They are beginning public works and various improvements to the town.

From Paris they write that the King of Naples excites the warmest interest there in all classes, and that the army and navy are all in his favour, and he is looked upon as ‘le digne petit fils de Henri IV.,’ and it is fervently hoped that Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi may go together to the infernal regions—so differently do people look on things on opposite sides of the Channel.

The Italian Parliament was opened by Victor Emmanuel in person on Monday. His speech was

very adroit, and in some degree reassuring to the friends of peace.

The American Secession seems to be almost accomplished, and any compromise to be more and more hopeless. A letter received from Fanny Kemble a short time ago (January 17) says:

I think the secesssion of the Southern States sooner or later inevitable, and I devoutly hope that the cowards on all sides will not be able to poultice up the festering sore which must break out again, and will only have gangrened the whole body of this nation still deeper. Matters have gone so far with South Carolina, that she has seceded-firing upon United States vessels entering Charlestown Harbour is a very pretty intimation of their animus, and it is, moreover, the avowed object of the Southern politicians to embroil some portion of the Slave States so thoroughly with the Federal Government, that all compromise shall be impossible, and that the Southern States least inclined to secede (and there are many, all the border ones, whose interest is decidedly opposed to secession), shall be compelled, as a point of honour, to throw in their lot with the seceders against the North. The election of Lincoln is really and truly a mere pretext; the match that has fired the train long ago prepared for exploding. When I first came to this country, it was convulsed with the threatened secession of South Carolina on the tariff question. Old Andrew Jackson was President then, and compelled her to adhere to her allegiance; but in a letter to a friend he wrote that the South was bent upon a separation, and sooner or later would accomplish it upon one pretext or another; he even foretold it would be on that of the slavery question.

‘The fact is, the Southern States see and feel very bitterly the immense preponderance of wealth, activity, industry, intelligence, and prosperity of the North. They neither see nor believe what is the truth, that slavery, and nothing else, is the cause of their inferiority in all these particulars, and are now acting upon the insane belief that separation from the bond (which alone preserves them in their present state of comparative safety and prosperity) of the Union will turn the scale of national importance in their favour. Meantime they are rushing into an abyss of danger and difficulty—they are on the very verge of civil war. All good men throughout the country look with grief and horror upon the mad career on which they are entering. In the North, many would give up almost everything to avert the horrors of bloodshed on the land, by the hands of Americans fighting against each other. In the South, a majority would willingly endure anything rather than such a result, but they are panic-stricken under a fierce and inexorable reign of terror by which the infatuated men bent upon dividing the country compel them to join the Southern movement. It is hideous and piteous to see the gulf of ruin dug by their own folly and wickedness under the towering fabric of that material prosperity with which, even as it were yesterday, they amazed the world! For my own part, I believe it is not only inevitable, but desirable, that the South should separate from the North. Slave-holding produces a peculiar character which has nothing in common with a Christian republic founded by Englishmen of the eighteenth century.

The Southerners are fond of calling themselves the Chivalry of the South, and verily they are as ignorant, insolent, barbarous, and brutal as any ironclad robbers of the middle ages. They are, in fact, a remnant of feudalism and barbarism, maintaining itself with infinite difficulty by the side of the talent and most powerful development of commercial civilisation. I believe the fellowship to be henceforth impossible; I hope to God it will prove so, for then the Slave States will hasten down into a state of social and political degradation, such that the whole population will abandon them; they will become a wilderness of fertile land, peopled with black savages; the northern men will then reconquer them, and for ever abolish slavery on the continent! This is my theory.'

SOURCE: Alice Countess of Stratford, Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville: 1857-1861, p. 350-3

Senator Daniel S. Dickinson to Henry Orr, September 13, 1853

BINGHAMTON, N. Y., September 13, 1853.

MY DEAR SIR—I have this moment received your favor of the 10th, calling my attention to a communication in the Washington Union, charging me in substance with having favored and advocated the Wilmot Proviso in the Senate of the United States, in 1847, and presenting partial extracts of a speech I then made to prove it.

The "free-soil" journals of this State have recently made a similar discovery, probably aided by similar optics; but as these journals, because of this very speech, and the vote thereon, honored me with the distinction of stereotyping my name enclosed in black lines, at the head of their columns for months, and recommended that I be burned in effigy, and treated with personal indignities and violence, it gave me little concern to see them endeavoring to divert attention from their own position by assaulting me in an opposite direction. Nor, since the Washington Union has furnished its contribution, should I have thought the matter worth my notice. Those who are pursuing me in my retirement, whether as open and manly opponents or otherwise, have their service to perform and their parts assigned them, and I have no more disposition to disturb their vocation than I have to inquire as to the nature and amount of their wages, or question the manner in which they execute their work.

I was honored with a seat in the Senate of this State four years, and there introduced resolutions upon the subject of slavery, and spoke and voted thereon; was President of the same body two years, and was seven years a Senator in Congress—from the annexation of Texas until after the passage of the compromise measures. I have, too, for the last twenty years, often been a member of conventions—county, State and national; have presented resolutions, made speeches and proposed addresses; and if, in my whole political course, a speech, vote, or resolution can be found favoring the heresy of "freesoil," I will consent to occupy a position in the public judgment as degraded as the most malevolent of that faction, or its most convenient accomplice.

Near the close of the session of 1847, I returned to my seat in the Senate from a most painful and distressing domestic affliction, and found the Three Million bill under discussion, during which the Wilmot Proviso (so called) was offered, and my colleague, General Dix, presented resolutions from our Legislature, passed with great unanimity, instructing us to vote in favor of the proviso. General Dix advocated the adoption of the proviso, and voted for it. I spoke against its adoption and voted against it, and, in so doing, aroused against me free-soil and abolition malignity throughout the country.

The main subject under discussion was the propriety of placing a fund of three millions in the hands of the President for the purpose of negotiating a treaty of peace with Mexico by the purchase of territory. The proviso was an incidental question, and treated accordingly. Neither my frame of mind nor the exigencies of the occasion afforded me an adequate opportunity to consider or discuss the question; but the whole drift and spirit of what I did say upon the subject, although imperfectly reported, was against all slavery agitation, as will be seen by the following extracts:

“As though it were not enough to legislate for the government of such territory as may be procured under and by virtue of this appropriation, if any shall be made—which of course rests in uncertainty—this amendment, forsooth, provides for the domestic regulation of ‘any territory on the continent of America which shall hereafter be acquired by or annexed to the United States, or in any other manner whatever.’ And thus this wholesome and pacific measure must be subjected to delay and the hazards of defeat, the war must be prosecuted afresh with all its engines of destruction, or abandoned by a craven and disgraceful retreat; one campaign after another be lost, while the wily and treacherous foe and his natural ally, the vomito, are preying upon the brave hearts of our patriotic soldiery; that we may legislate, not merely for the domestic government of Mexican territory in the expectation that we may hereafter obtain it, but that we may erect barriers to prevent the sugar manufacturer and cotton planter of the South from extending his plantation and his slavery towards the polar regions.

 

“If, then, the popular judgment shall commend that pioneer benevolence, which seeks to provide for the government of territory which, though its acquisition yet ‘sleeps in the wide abyss of possibility,’ may be acquired by this proposed negotiation; if the appropriation shall be made and a negotiation opened, and the President shall propose to accept for indemnity, and the Mexican government to cede a portion of territory, and terms shall be stipulated and a treaty be made between the two governments and ratified by both; and the territory be organized by the legislation of Congress; what adequate encomiums shall be lavished upon that more comprehensive philanthropy and profound statesmanship, which, in a bill designed to terminate a bloody and protracted war, raging in the heart of an enemy's country, casts into this discussion this apple of domestic discord under the pretence of extending the benevolent ægis of freedom over any territory which may at any time or in any manner, or upon any part of the continent, be acquired by the United States? It is no justification for the introduction of this element of strife and controversy at this time and upon this occasion, that it is abstractly just and proper, and that the Southern States should take no exception to its provisions. All knew the smouldering materials which the introduction of this topic would ignite—the sectional strife and local bitterness which would follow in its train; all had seen and read its fatal history at the last session, and knew too well what controversies, delays, and vexations must hang over it—what crimination and recrimination would attend upon its toilsome and precarious progress, and what hazard would wait upon the result—how it would array man against man, State against State, section against section, the South against the North, and the North against the South—and what must be, not only its effects and positive mischiefs, but how its disorganizing and pernicious influences must be extended to other measures necessary to sustain the arm of government.

 

“This bill not only suffered defeat at the last session, but has been subjected to the delays, hazards, and buffetings of this, by reason of this misplaced proviso. Upon it the very antipodes of agitation have met and mingled their discordant influences. This proviso, pretending to circumscribe the limits of slavery, is made the occasion for the presentation of declaratory resolves in its favor, and the bill becomes, as if by mutual appointment, the common battle ground of abstract antagonisms; each theoretic agitation is indebted to the other for existence, and each subsists alone upon the aliment provided ready to its hand by its hostile purveyor. The votaries of opposing systems seem to have drawn hither to kindle their respective altar-fires, and to vie with each other in their efforts to determine who shall cause the smoke of their incense to ascend the highest. Both are assailing the same edifice from different angles, and for alleged opposing reasons— both declare that their support of the bill depends upon the contingency of the amendment, and the efforts of both unite in a common result, and that is, procrastination and the hazard of defeat. The common enemy is overlooked and almost forgotten, that we may glare upon each other over a side issue and revive the slumbering elements of controversy, in proposing to prescribe domestic regulations for the government of territory which we have some expectation we may hereafter, possibly, acquire. This exciting and troublesome question has no necessary connection with this bill, and if, indeed, it can ever have any practical operation whatever, it would certainly be equally operative if passed separately.         *          *          *          *          *          *

 

“But suppose we do not, after all, as we well may not, obtain by negotiations any part of Mexican territory, what a sublime spectacle of legislation will a clause like this present to the world? It will stand upon the pages of the statute as an act of the American Congress designed to regulate the government of Mexican territory, but whose operation was suspended by the interposition of the Mexican veto; a chapter in our history to be employed by our enemies as evidence of rapacity, of weakness, and depraved morals; a target for the jeers and scoffs of the kingly governments of the earth, for the derision of Mexico herself, and the general contempt of mankind—a lapsed legacy to the memory of misplaced benevolence and abortive legislation.

 

“And what is more humiliating is, that the enemies of popular freedom throughout the world are scowling with malignant gratification to see this great nation unable to prosecute a war against a crippled and comparatively feeble enemy, without placing in the foreground of its measures this pregnant element of controversy, which the world sees and knows is the canker which gnaws at the root of our domestic peace; and when it is known that from this cause, especially, we have practically proved our inability to unite in the prosecution of a war, or to provide measures to establish peace, we shall be regarded as a fit object for contumely, and be laughed to scorn by the despicable government with which we are at strife, and which we have hesitated to strike because of her weakness and imbecility."

That part of the speech which, with more ingenuity than candor, has been clipped out to suit the necessities of my accusers and convict me of “free soil” sentiments, was my explanation of the general sentiment of the Northern people, in reply to a suggestion that all must be abolitionists, because the legislature instructed upon all questions relating to slavery with great unanimity. The following is the extract:

“So far as I am advised or believe, the great mass of the people at the North entertain but one opinion upon the subject, and that is the same entertained by many at the South. They regard the institution as a great moral and political evil, and would that it had no existence. They are not unaware of the difficulties which beset it, and do not intend to provoke sectional jealousies and hatred by ill-timed and misplaced discussions. They will not listen to the cry of the fanatic, or favor the design of the political schemer from the North or the South; nor will they ever disturb or trench upon the compromises of the constitution. They believe the institution to be local or domestic: to be established or abolished by the States themselves, and alone subject to their control; and that federal legislation can have very little influence over it. But being thus the institution of a local sovereignty, and a franchise peculiar to itself, they deny that such sovereignty or its people can justly claim the right to regard it as transitory and erect it in the Territories of the United States without the authority of Congress, and they believe that Congress may prohibit its introduction into the Territories while they remain such,” &c.

The legislative instructions were nearly unanimous, and the popular sentiment of the State was equally harmonious. Being a believer in and advocate for the doctrine of instruction (which up to that time had been only employed to uphold the principles of the constitution), and being anxious to represent and reflect, wherever I could, the true sentiment of my State, I indicated my willingness on a future and suitable occasion to vote as the legislature had instructed, without any repetition of its direction; but subsequent events and developments and further reflection admonished me, that I should best discharge my duty to the constitution and the Union by disregarding such instructions altogether; and although they were often afterwards repeated, and popular indignities threatened, I disregarded them accordingly.

And now, my dear sir, I leave this matter where, but for your kind letter, I should have permitted it to repose-upon the judgment of a people who have not yet forgotten, nor will they soon forget, who sustained and who assailed their country's constitution in the moment of its severest trial, the perversions of necessitous politicians to the contrary not withstanding. But it was perhaps due to confiding friends, that the sinister misrepresentation should be corrected; and I thank you for the attention which enabled me to do it.

Sincerely yours,

D. S. DICKINSON.

TO HENRY E. ORR, Esq., Washington, D. C.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 476-81

Isaac Edward Holmes* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, June 8, 1855

CHARLESTON, [S. C.], 8th June, 1855.

MY DEAR HUNTER: Some weeks since I rec[eive]d y[ou]r letter and thank you for y[ou]r efforts in behalf of my brother. I seldom ask anything and rather opine, that my last request is made. I sincerely congratulate you on the success of the Virginia Election. I feared the result, and believe the victory truly auspicious. If the Know Nothings had succeeded, if the Frontier State of the Southern Confederacy had "given-way" our institutions would have been placed in great hazard; as it is, "They are by no means safe." Fanaticism never goes-back and for the first time in our history, abolitionism has the ascendant in Congress.

I see that Senator Wilson has declared, That henceforth no Slave owner, or pro-slavery man shall be President. As the Democratic party are a minority in the North, and as the entire South will most probably act as one man in the next Election, it is essential that we have a Southern man for our Candidate. The sooner we make up the Issue, the better. If we are to be in a hopeless minority, and the Slave States to remain "in statu quo," We must share the fate of the British West Indies. Not only will slavery be abolish[e]d in the District, but in the Territories. Not only additional Slave States be excluded, but free ones made Ad Libitum until the constitution is altered and the entire labour of the South be destroyed. This cant be termed speculation. The effect is as sure as the result of any cause can be. It is my sincere desire that the Union may be saved, but its salvation depends upon the next Presidential Canvass. Virginia must lead off. There should commence an active correspondence between the politicians of the Old Dominion and the Leaders of the Northern Democracy. Before we go into a Caucus we should have a distinct understanding upon all the leading points. Otherwise we should have only a Southern Caucus, irrespective of parties, and proceed to an ulterior organization. I hope Wise may pursue the true course, and "entrenous," I hope that his ambition may not be so stimulated by his late Triumph as to aspire to the purple. Virginia ought to give the President. Her position at this time is potential, and amongst her own people there should be entire unanimity before going into Caucus. Remember that the nominating Caucus will meet during the next Session of Congress, not a Twelve month hence. I am not a politician, but I deem the times so pregnant, that, if alive next Winter, my efforts shall be given to prepare the Southern mind for the Presidential Election. South Carolina, whilst she keeps in the rear of Virginia, must nevertheless be represented in the Caucus. She must no longer be isolated. Thank God, the Cuba question seems settled for awhile. It promised much distraction, and I employed my pen, for the first time these many years, in the endeavor to show the Southern States that the acquisition of Cuba was not to their benefit. One of my pieces or letters was transferred to the National Intelligence[r]. I am writing you from the sick Chamber of Mrs. Holmes who has for a long period been confin[e]d to her room. Alas with little prospect of a recovery. I hope that y[ou]r own family are well.

_______________

* A Representative in Congress from South Carolina, 1839-1851.

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. 164-5

Senator John C. Calhoun to Andrew Pickens Calhoun, July 24, 1849

Fort Hill 24th July 1849

MY DEAR ANDREW, I sent you a Messenger, containing a copy of my communication in reference to Benton's Speech. I hope you have received it; and trust it will be extensively circulated in the South West. It will be published in all our papers.

It is high time the South should begin to prepare. I see no hope of bringing the North to a sense of justice, but by our united action, and for that purpose, a Convention of the South is indispensable. To that point our efforts should be directed. The first step towards it is to put an end to the old party divisions, which might be effected by an understanding between a few prominent leaders on both sides, and short and well written Articles through the leading presses of both parties, showing the folly and danger of continuing our party warfare when our existence is at Stake. The next step is an organization of all the Southern States as has been done in this State. The Convention ought to be held before the meeting of Congress, but that, I take it, is impracticable. It ought to be called before the Year ends, to meet next summer. The call ought to be addressed to the people of the South, who are desirous of saving the Union and themselves, if the former be possible; but who at the same time are prepared, should [the] alternative be forced on us, to resist rather than submit. Such a call could not fail to secure a large delegation from every Southern State, and what is important, a harmonious one, on the essential point. The call might be made by the members of the Legislatures of one or more Southern States, or by the members of Congress from the South, when they meet in Washington. The call itself would have a powerful effect on Congress. Could not Alabama be induced to make the call? Atlanta would be a good point for the meeting.

I am making good progress in the work I have on hand. I have finished the Discourse on the elementary principles of Govt. and have made considerable advance in the Discourse on our system of Govt. The work will hit the lines both here and in Europe; and, I think, cannot fail to make a deep impression. I hope to have it completed before I leave home; and intend to take it with me to put to press in New York, early next year. I would be glad to show it to you and have your opinion on it before I publish.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 769

 

Charles Mason to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, April 5, 1851

ALTO, KING GEORGE [COUNTY, Va.], April 5, 1851.

MY DEAR SIR: The subject of a Southern Convention, has become a topic of very great excitement in our County; and owing to the unfair report of the proceedings of our second, joint meeting (which has been charged on the chairman) a good deal of angry and desultory discussion has ensued. The question has, unfortunately, assumed a party character here, and an effort is being made to stifle the independent action of the friends of a convention, on the ground, that we ought to submit to an accidental majority against us. We do not feel the force of any such obligation, either morally or politically, and do not intend to yield. Although we shall be too late to unite with the district convention to assemble at Tappahannock on the 10th, yet we can confirm the action of that meeting. We shall call a meeting for our general muster, and I will be greatly obliged to you, if in your power and not subjecting you to too much trouble, to fortify me with documents to sustain our position. I want evidence to show how many Southern States have recommended the Convention; and to controvert the assertion if I can, that six of them have, in their legislative capacities, gone against it, that Tennessee, herself, has refused to allow it to meet within her borders. If these States have done so, of which I have seen no evidence, I would be glad to be informed what is the ground of their opposition, and whether they are not Whig States? I want moreover to show what portion of the people of Tennessee are opposed to its assembling in Nashville. I have to contend singly and alone against my brother, who is a practiced speaker, and Col[onel] Taylor who is a loud talker, but our party [will] go for it, with great unanimity. Fitzhugh spoke at our last court, but not in good taste, and with little effect. Newton is warm for it, and I learn is open in his denunciations of the administration; so are Washington and Garnett of the same county, and I am looking forward to no distant day, when Westmoreland will become a member of the Democratic family of Counties. I sincerely wish the meeting of the Convention were not so near; the people are just beginning to wake up to the importance of the question. I would give a great deal to have you among us for a short time; we want some potent voice and lofty spirits to rouse the sleeping energies of the South to a sense of their danger. If we can not see you personally, I should be glad to have a letter from you, of such a character as you may deem prudent and politic to read at our meeting. I am sure it would do a great deal of good; but if you think otherwise, of course no use will be made of any communications, you may honor me with.

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. 126-7

Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, December 19, 1850

WASHINGTON, [D. C.], December 19, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR: I am very much obliged to you for your kind letter and attention to the subject which I brought under your consideration when we last met.

The communications which I had received from my Government at that time inclosed some correspondence from a resident at Jamaica, stating his belief that the House of Assembly of that Island would be disposed to offer small grants of land to immigrants of color, and to defray a portion of the expense of their transit from the United States.

This person moreover stated that he believed that many slave proprietors in this country would be willing to manumit their slaves if they were sure of being able thus to dispose of them.

Her Majesty's Government however, expressed no distinct opinion on these subjects; but requested me to obtain information as to the feeling of the slave proprietors of the Southern States, with respect to giving liberty to their slaves, and with respect to sending negroes who had received their freedom, to any foreign country where they would be sure of good treatment, observing that if the substance of the correspondence forwarded to me were correct, arrangements might probably be made for receiving such persons as those alluded to, in the British West Indies: and by another communication received, I was instructed to ask for any farther information I might require from H[er] M[ajesty]'s Gov[ernmen]t in order to deal practically with this question. In reply to the above mentioned communications, I stated that I did not think that emancipation of negroes for the purpose of their emigration to the West Indies would be carried to any great extent, but that I did believe that there was a disposition on the part of the Slaveholding states to get rid of their present free negro population and I observed that I should endeavour to ascertain from persons well qualified to give me an opinion on the subject, the regulations under which such an arrangement could be made, whilst in the meantime I suggested that if the Colonies in question passed any law securing a tolerable existence to free negroes emigrating thereto, such a law would obtain attention here; and that it was probable that the Legislature of the Southern States would adopt measures for facilitating the egress of the free portion of their colored population.

In this position the question now remains, Her Majesty's Gov[ernmen]t probably waiting for farther information from me; and such information I should very much desire to obtain from you.

Indeed I would observe that before I could make any suggestions to you on this subject, I should have to refer again to Her Majesty's Gov[ernmen]t, which would have to refer to the authorities at Jamaica, and on receiving their opinion, would have again to communicate with me, when the proposals would have to be discussed here and if any alterations were then necessary, further proceedings of the same dilatory character, would be required: Whereas if you could furnish me with a plan for some arrangement that would suit you, this would immediately receive the attention of Her Majesty's Gov[ernmen]t and that of the Legislature of Jamaica; and either be settled at once there or if any modification were necessary, transmitted thence hither, and arranged between us in a very short space of time.

Will you therefore consider of this matter and come and dine with me here on the 29th inst. (since I may be absence during the holidays) at 6 o'clock in a quiet way, and we will then talk over and come to some determination with respect to it?

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. 121-2

Senator John C. Calhoun’s Resolutions,* March, 1850.

[Resolutions dictated to Joseph A. Scoville by Mr. Calhoun, a few days before his death.]

Resolved That the States composing the Southern portion of the Union cannot be deprived of their full and equal rights in the territory acquired from Mexico, or any other belonging to the Union without violating the constitution, perpetrating an act of gross injustice, destroying their equality as members of the Union, and by retarding their growth and accelerating that of the States composing the northern portion of the Union, destroying the equilibrium of Government.

Resolved that the assertion that the inhabitants of the territories have [blank] . . . is utterly destitute of foundation, is in derogation of the Sovereignty of the States composing the Union to which the territories are declared by the Constitution to belong and in whom the sovereignty over them resides is revolutionary and anarchical in its character, treasonable in its tendency and wholly unsustained by the practice of the Government.

Resolved that to make a constitution and form a State involves the highest powers of sovereignty and that it cannot of course be rightfully performed by inhabitants residing in the territories without the permission of Congress or the representatives of the United States to whom the territories belong or in whom the sovereignty over them reside.

Resolved that the attempt of the inhabitants of California to make a Constitution and form a State without the permission of Congress is an offence against the joint Sovereignty of the States of the Union and that the instrument purporting to be the Constitution of California is utterly void and of no binding force on the inhabitants thereof, nor on this Government, or the States it represents and the so called State but a name without any reality whatever.

Resolved that all acts on the part of any department of this Government or of the Citizens of the U. S. intended to encourage, or aid the inhabitants of California to make a Constitution and form a State (if without the permission of Congress there have been such acts) are utterly unauthorized by the Constitution and inconsistent with the allegiance due to the joint Sovereignty of the States of the Union.

Resolved that it is not within the Constitutional competency of Congress to give validity to the instrument purporting to be the Constitution of California (or) and to admit the inhabitants of California into the Union as a State under it, because according to the fundamental principles of our system of Govt. Constitutions derive their validity from the people by whom and for whom it was [they were] made, and because it would [be] inconsistent with and subversive of this principle to act on the assumption that Congress could [give] validity to the instrument and make it a Constitution by the act of admitting of its inhabitants into the Union.

Resolved that the States of the Southern portion of the [Union] are not opposed to the proviso, which usually bears the name of its Author, because it bears it but because its aim is to deprive the States (South) of their due Share in the territories of the Union, by a palpable violation of the Constitution by a total disregard of any principle of justice and equality, to be followed if adopted by a subvertion of their equality as members of the Union.

Resolved that any attempt to admit the inhabitants of California with the intention to evade the opposition to the proviso ought to excite a still more stern and indignant opposition because it would accomplish the same thing in a manner more objectionable and involve other constitutional objections peculiar to itself and of a deeper and graver character if possible [than] what have been set forth in the preceding resolutions.

Resolved that they are more objectionable because it would effect indirectly and surreptitiously what the proviso proposes to effect openly and directly because it would exclude the Said States more effectually from said territory by being inserted in the instrument purporting to be a Constitution, and what would be claimed to be a Con[stitutio]n if Congress should endorse [it], than it would be if inserted in the provisions of a territorial Govt., while it would be equally unjust and unfair as if excluded by a constitution of the [illegible] or by act of Congress, in as much as the citizens of said States have been precluded from emigrating to said territory by the action of this Govt. and thereby of having a voice in the formation of said instrument.

Resolved that the time has arrived when the said States owe it to themselves and the other States comprising the Union to settle fully and forever all the questions at issue between them.

_______________

* This rough draft the editor owes to the kindness of Mr. Edward Spann Hammond, of Blackville, S. C., who writes that Mr. Calhoun dictated it in articulo mortis, expecting to retouch it on rising from his couch, when he invoked—one of his last utterances—“one hour more to speak in the Senate,” when, he declared, “I can do more good than on any past occasion in my life.”

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 785-7

John Tyler to Robert Tyler, August 14, 1860

VILLA MARGARET, August 14, 1860.

DEAR ROBERT: The country is undoubtedly in an alarming condition. While I think you are too bitter on Douglas, yet I consider his course, and that of his friends, unfortunate. In truth, I see nothing to approve on either side. The eight Southern States, had they remained in the Charleston convention, might easily have defeated him, and, making a proper selection, might have waived a platform altogether. Bell becomes stronger every day, as is proven in the Missouri election; but still I persuade myself that Breckenridge will carry majorities in most of the Southern States and the plurality in Virginia; but of course everything is in doubt by the division in the Democratic ranks. Let things result as they may, I fear that the great Republic has seen its last days.

But I did not mean to do more than to say to you that you had better make us a visit here for a short time. We have a delightful place, and a change of air would benefit you in all probability. Your friend, C. H. Mallory, expresses a great desire to see you.

Love to all.

Your father,

J. TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 560

William T. Sherman to David F. Boyd, April 4, 1861

OFFICE ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, St. Louis, April 4, 1861.

MY DEAR FRIEND: I promised you all to keep you advised of my whereabouts that we may interchange from time to time the thoughts and feelings of respect and affection which I feel assured still subsists between us. By the caption of this letter you will see me in a rail road office, of which I am the president with a salary of two thousand dollars. I have my entire family in a good house, 226 Locust St., with plenty of room and a hearty welcome for friends who come to me from the four quarters of the globe, and I will believe that you, or Smith, or the Doctor,¹ yea Mr. St. Ange, may some summer come up to this great city, the heart of North America, and see me and mine.

I acted with energy, went to Washington, satisfied myself that Lincoln was organizing his administration on pure party principles, concluded it was no place for me who profess to love and venerate my whole country and not a mere fraction — and forthwith to Lancaster, pulled up stakes, to Cincinnati, and embarked all hands, with carpets, chairs, beds, kitchen utensils, even my household servants, and before one month of my vacating my berth in Louisiana, I was living in St. Louis.

I see my way ahead for one year and must trust to the future, and having an abundance of faith in St. Louis with its vast fertile surrounding country, I feel no uneasiness. My two eldest girls are in a Catholic school and this morning I put my boy Willy in a public school, so that with the exception of some trifling articles of furniture I am settled.

My duties here are clearly within my comprehension, and indeed I think I can actually make myself more than useful to the stockholders by giving personal attention, which heretofore has devolved on hirelings. In politics I do not think I change with country. On the negro question I am satisfied there is and was no cause for a severance of the old Union, but will go further and say that I believe the practice of slavery in the South is the mildest and best regulated system of slavery in the world, now or heretofore. But, as there is an incongruity in black and white labor, I do think in the new territories the line of separation should be drawn before rather than after settlement. As to any guarantees I would favor any approved by Rives, Bell, Crittenden and such men whose patriotism cannot be questioned.

On the question of secession however I am ultra. I believe in coercion and cannot comprehend how any government can exist unless it defend its integrity. The mode and manner may be regulated by policy and wisdom, but that any part of a people may carry off a part of the common territory without consent or purchase I cannot understand. Now I know as well as I can know anything uncertain that Louisiana cannot belong to a string of Southern States. She must belong to a system embracing the Valley States. It may be those Valley States may come to Louisiana, but ultimately one way or another, the Valley of the Mississippi must be under one system of government. Else quarrels, troubles, and confusions, worse than war, will be continuous.

My brother John is now senator, and quite a man among the Republicans, but he regards me as erratic in politics. He nor politicians generally can understand the feelings and opinions of one who thinks himself above parties, and looks upon the petty machinery of party as disgusting. There are great numbers here who think like me, and at the election here a few days ago the Black Republicans were beaten, because the country expected of Mr. Lincoln a national and not a party government. Had the Southern States borne patiently for four years, they could have had a radical change in 1864 that might have lasted twenty years. Whereas now, no man is wise enough to even guess at future combinations.

I hope you are all well, that the Seminary continues to prosper, that you have a clever superintendent, and that one day not far distant we may sail under the same flag. My best respects to the Jarreaus and all friends.

_______________

¹ Dr. Clarke.—ED.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 375-7

William T. Sherman to John Sherman, May 8, 1860

ALEXANDRIA, LA., May 8, 1860.

. . . There is one point which you concede to the Southern States, perfect liberty to prefer slavery if they choose; still, you hit the system as though you had feeling against it. I know it is difficult to maintain perfect impartiality. In all new cases, it is well you should adhere to your conviction to exclude slavery because you prefer free labor. That is your perfect right, and I was glad to see that you disavowed any intention to molest slavery in the district.

Now, so certain and inevitable is it that the physical and political power of this nation must pass into the hands of the free states, that I think you can well afford to take things easy, bear the buffets of a sinking dynasty, and even smile at their impotent threats. You ought not to expect the southern politicians to rest easy when they see and feel their crisis so long approaching, and so certain to come absolutely at hand. . .  But this year's presidential election will be a dangerous one; may actually result in Civil War, though I still cannot believe the South would actually secede in the event of the election of a Republican. . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 211-2

George Thompson’s Reply to Professor Daniel D. Whedon, February 18, 1835

23 BRIGHToN STREET, FEB. 18, 1835.

To the Editor of Zion's Herald:

SIR — I have just read in your paper of to-day a letter signed D. D. Whedon, and headed “Foreign Interference.” I am ignorant of the profession or station of the writer. If he be a Christian man, and continue one a few years longer, he will, I believe, deeply lament the publication of the sentiments which that letter contains. Under what extraordinary circumstances of excitement it was written I cannot say. I hope it was not a cool closet composition; for with the belief that it had been written deliberately, I should be compelled to draw conclusions very unfavorable to the character of the writer's heart.

He declares it right to denounce the measures of the Papists in this country as “infamous and impertinent foreign interference;” and then asks, in reference to myself, “but with what severer epithet [severer than infamous and impertinent!] shall we characterize the man who comes to lecture the citizens of these United States upon the most delicate and most vital of all the PoliTICAL questions which agitate this distracted nation?” In other words, who comes to “open his mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.” Your correspondent proceeds — “Did that gentleman come, commissioned from some foreign clubs, to collect meetings and nominate an American President, it might be borne with comparative patience; but to come to apply the principles of the gospel to a system which reduces to the most brutal subjection one-sixth portion of our home-born population of these United States; — which puts out the eyes of the soul, defaces the image of the Maker, and leaves the wretched victim to grope sightless and hopeless to the judgment of an equal God; — which tears the infant from its mother's bosom, and brands it as a beast for the shambles; — which converts into solemn mockery the charter of man’s rights, and all the forms of justice; — which renders null and void the holy bond of matrimony;—which denies the Book of Life to two millions, who without it are destitute of that knowledge which begets a hope beyond the grave; — which punishes with DEATH the second offence of teaching an immortal being the way to heaven: to apply the principles of eternal righteousness to such a system is a work which requires “better credentials than a diploma from any foreign Society, of whatever character or of whichever sex.” Your correspondent is “right,” and I am thankful that such credentials are at hand. Whenever your correspondent is disposed, I will, in his presence, spread these credentials before any impartial American audience he can collect, and allow him all the space he wishes to question their sufficiency, or invalidate their authority.

There is every evidence that your correspondent deems himself a staunch patriot, — so staunch that he dare not trust himself to comment upon the extensive patronage which the Anti-Slavery Association of this country have extended towards me, lest he should be “betrayed into language half as strong” as the “perpetration of such an act deserves.”

From the 57th page of the life of Richard Watson, I make the following extract. It is the language of that distinguished ornament of the Methodist body, and will perhaps show that the work in which I am engaged is as patriotic as writing unkind and violent articles against the friends of the enslaved :—

“To what, then, ought patriotism to be directed? It has secured our civil rights; it has organized our armies; it has rendered our navy invincible; it has extended our commerce, and enlarged our dominions: but there is yet one object to be accomplished, without which well appointed armies, an invincible navy, extended commerce and enlarged dominion, will add little to our dignity, our happiness, or our real strength; — I mean, the correction of our MoRALs. Immorality and irreligion as certainly dry up the resources of a nation, and hasten its downfall, as a worm at the root of the finest plant will cause it to fade, to wither, and to die. Wickedness arms God against us; and if he ‘speak concerning a nation, to pluck it up and to destroy,’ no counsels, however wise, no plans, however judicious, no exertions however vigorous, can avert the sentence — “Righteousness exalteth a nation ; and every endeavor to promote it is PATRIOTIC.”

Adopting Mr. Watson's views of “patriotism,” I plead for the liberation from hateful and unjust bonds of 2,250,000 human, immortal, blood-ransomed beings. Am I worse than “infamous” and “impertinent” for this?

I plead that the hindrances to moral and religious improvement may be removed, and the colored population, instead of “perishing for lack of knowledge,” enjoy the blessings of education, grow up in “the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” and in his fear discharge all the duties of civil, social, and domestic life. Am I worse than “infamous” and “impertinent” for doing this?

I plead that the BIBLE may be given to millions of accountable beings who are prohibited from looking into its pages. Am I worse than “infamous” and “impertinent” for doing this?

I plead for the abolition of temptations and opportunities to licentiousness, profligacy, and impurity, and the presentation of motives to chastity, honor and fidelity. Am I worse than “infamous” and “impertinent” for doing this?

I plead for the recognition, protection, sanctification and security of the marriage tie. Am I worse than “infamous” and “impertinent” for doing this?

I plead for the abolition of a practice that robs the fathers and mothers of this land of two hundred new born infants a day, and introduces that number of hapless innocents into all the pollution and degradation of hopeless thraldom. Am I worse than “infamous” and “impertinent” for doing this?

But enough. Let the Christian world judge between me and my accuser. I fear not the verdict.

I desire to register my unfeigned gratitude to God for the success which he has uniformly granted to the fearless publication of the truth upon the subject of Slavery. Our cause is advancing rapidly. Its advocates may smile upon all opposition. Any attempt to prevent the spread of abolition sentiments, or crush the spirit which is now going through the land, is as vain, (to say nothing of its wickedness,) as to attempt to hurl the Rocky Mountains from their foundations, or roll back the waters of the Mississippi. We may adopt the language of the dying Wesley — “The best of all is, God is with us.”

To D. D. Whedon I would kindly say — Take the letter you have published to your closet, your knees, and your God. Pray earnestly for wisdom, truth, and charity. Contemplate the state of things in the Southern States of the country you profess to love. Let the slave stand before you in the awful attributes of a deathless and accountable being. Reflect upon your own responsibility to plead his cause and promote his present and eternal good, — and then say, whether you have done well to seek to bring down upon the head of a stranger, and the slave's advocate, a relentless storm of popular indignation ?

I will offer no reply to your remarks on my country. They are wholly unworthy the Christian — the patriot – and the man.

In respect to the “fulness of hospitality” which you say you would “pour upon me” if I were an inactive and indifferent observer of the wrongs of the slave, — I beg to say that I am quite content to relinquish the enjoyment, and see it reserved for the “Christian brother” who can “forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain.”

Pardon, Mr. Editor, these protracted remarks. I doubt not you will follow the dictates of justice whether you insert or reject what I have written. It is not likely I shall soon trouble you again. Heaven bless your country, and send a speedy and peaceful triumph to the cause of the oppressed! “The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice!”

— “All is in his hand whose praise I seek,

Whose frown can disappoint the proudest work,

Whose approbation prosper even mine.”

Very respectfully yours,

GEO. THOMPSON.

SOURCE: Isaac Knapp, Publisher, Letters and Addresses by G. Thompson [on American Negro Slavery] During His Mission in the United States, From Oct. 1st, 1834, to Nov. 27, 1835, p. 41-4

Notes of Justice J. A. Campbell, Copy “A,” March 15, 1861

No. 1.

I feel perfect confidence in the fact that Fort Sumter will be evacuated in the next five days, and that this is felt to be a measure imposing vast responsibility upon the administration.

I feel perfect confidence that no measure changing the existing status of things prejudicially to the Southern Confederate States is at present contemplated.

I feel entire confidence that any immediate demand for an answer to the communication of the Commissioners will be productive of evil and not of good. I do not believe that it should be pressed.

I earnestly ask for a delay until the effect of the evacuation of Fort Sumter can be ascertained — or at least for a few days, say ten days.

J. A. C.

15th of March, 1861.

SOURCE: Samuel Wylie Crawford, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-1861, p. 330

Diary of William Howard Russell: March 22, 1861

A snow-storm worthy of Moscow or Riga flew through New York all day, depositing more food for the mud. I paid a visit to Mr. Horace Greeley, and had a long conversation with him. He expressed great pleasure at the intelligence that I was going to visit the Southern States. “Be sure you examine the slave-pens. They will be afraid to refuse you, and you can tell the truth.” As the capital and the South form the chief attractions at present, I am preparing to escape from “the divine calm” and snows of New York. I was recommended to visit many places before I left New York, principally hospitals and prisons. Sing-Sing, the state penitentiary, is “claimed,” as the Americans say, to be the first “institution” of its kind in the world. Time presses, however, and Sing-Sing is a long way off. I am told a system of torture prevails there for hardened or obdurate offenders — torture by dropping cold water on them, torture by thumb-screws, and the like — rather opposed to the views of prison philanthropists in modern days.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 26

Diary of William Howard Russell: March 19, 1861

The morning newspapers contain reports of last night's speeches which are amusing in one respect, at all events, as affording specimens of the different versions which may be given of the same matter. A “citizen” who was kind enough to come in to shave me, paid me some easy compliments, in the manner of the “Barber of Seville,” on what he termed the “oration” of the night before, and then proceeded to give his notions of the merits and defects of the American Constitution. “He did not care much about the Franchise — it was given to too many he thought. A man must be five years resident in New York before he is admitted to the privileges of voting. When an emigrant arrived, a paper was delivered to him to certify the fact, which he produced after lapse of five years, when he might be registered as a voter; if he omitted the process of registration, he could however vote if identified by two householders, and a low lot,” observed the barber, “they are — Irish and such like. I don't want any of their votes.”

In the afternoon a number of gentlemen called, and made the kindest offers of service; letters of introduction to all parts of the States; facilities of every description — all tendered with frankness.

I was astonished to find little sympathy and no respect for the newly installed Government. They were regarded as obscure or undistinguished men. I alluded to the circumstance that one of the journals continued to speak of “The President” in the most contemptuous manner, and to designate him as the great “Rail-Splitter.” “Oh yes,” said the gentleman with whom I was conversing, “that must strike you as a strange way of mentioning the Chief Magistrate of our great Republic, but the fact is, no one minds what the man writes of any one, his game is to abuse every respectable man in the country in order to take his revenge on them for his social exclusion, and at the same time to please the ignorant masses who delight in vituperation and scandal.”

In the evening, dining again with my friend the banker, I had a favorable opportunity of hearing more of the special pleading which is brought to bear on the solution of the gravest political questions. It would seem as if a council of physicians were wrangling with each other over abstract dogmas respecting life and health, whilst their patient was struggling in the agonies of death before them! In the comfortable and well-appointed house wherein I met several men of position, acquirements, and natural sagacity, there was not the smallest evidence of uneasiness on account of circumstances which, to the eye of a stranger, betokened an awful crisis, if not the impending dissolution of society itself. Stranger still, the acts which are bringing about such a calamity are not regarded with disfavor, or, at least, are not considered unjustifiable.

Among the guests were the Hon. Horatio Seymour, a former Governor of the State of New York; Mr. Tylden, an acute lawyer; and Mr. Bancroft. The result left on my mind by their conversation and arguments was that, according to the Constitution, the Government could not employ force to prevent secession, or to compel States which had seceded by the will of the people to acknowledge the Federal power. In fact, according to them, the Federal Government was the mere machine put forward by a Society of Sovereign States, as a common instrument for certain ministerial acts, more particularly those which affected the external relations of the Confederation. I do not think that any of the guests sought to turn the channel of talk upon politics, but the occasion offered itself to Mr. Horatio Seymour to give me his views of the Constitution of the United States, and by degrees the theme spread over the table. I had bought the “Constitution” for three cents in Broadway in the forenoon, and had read it carefully, but I could not find that it was self-expounding; it referred itself to the Supreme Court, but what was to support the Supreme Court in a contest with armed power, either of Government or people? There was not a man who maintained the Government had any power to coerce the people of a State, or to force a State to remain in the Union, or under the action of the Federal Government; in other words, the symbol of power at Washington is not at all analogous to that which represents an established Government in other countries. Quid prosunt leges sine arms? Although they admitted the Southern leaders had meditated “the treason against the Union” years ago, they could not bring themselves to allow their old opponents, the Republicans now in power, to dispose of the armed force of the Union against their brother democrats in the Southern States.

Mr. Seymour is a man of compromise, but his views go farther than those which were entertained by his party ten years ago. Although secession would produce revolution, it was, nevertheless, “a right,” founded on abstract principles, which could scarcely be abrogated consistently with due regard to the original compact. One of the company made a remark which was true enough, I dare say. We were talking of the difficulty of relieving Fort Sumter — an infallible topic just now. “If the British or any foreign power were threatening the fort,” said he, “our Government would find means of relieving it fast enough.” In fact, the Federal Government is groping in the dark; and whilst its friends are telling it to advance boldly, there are myriad voices shrieking out in its ears, “If you put out a foot you are lost.” There is neither army nor navy available, and the ministers have no machinery of rewards, and means of intrigue, or modes of gaining adherents known to European administrations. The democrats behold with silent satisfaction the troubles into which the Republican triumph has plunged the country, and are not at all disposed to extricate them. The most notable way of impeding their efforts is to knock them down with the “Constitution” every time they rise to the surface and begin to swim out.

New York society, however, is easy in its mind just now, and the upper world of millionnaire merchants, bankers, contractors, and great traders are glad that the vulgar Republicans are suffering for their success. Not a man there but resented the influence given by universal suffrage to the mob of the city, and complained of the intolerable effects of their ascendency — of the corruption of the municipal bodies, the venality of electors and elected, and the abuse, waste, and profligate outlay of the public funds. Of these there were many illustrations given to me, garnished with historietts of some of the civic dignitaries, and of their coadjutors in the press; but it did not require proof that universal suffrage in a city of which perhaps three fourths of the voters were born abroad or of foreign parents, and of whom many were the scum swept off the seethings of European populations, must work most injuriously on property and capital. I confess it is to be much wondered at that the consequences are not more evil; but no doubt the time is coming when the mischief can no longer be borne, and a social reform and revolution must be inevitable.

Within only a very few hundreds of yards from the house and picture-gallery of Mons. B––– the representative of European millions, are the hovels and lodgings of his equals in political power. This evening I visited the house of Mons. B–––, where his wife had a reception, to which nearly the whole of the party went. When a man looks at a suit of armor made to order by the first blacksmith in Europe, he observes that the finish of the joints and hinges is much higher than in the old iron clothes of the former time. Possibly the metal is better, and the chasings and garniture as good as the work of Milan, but the observer is not for a moment led to imagine that the fabric has stood proof of blows, or that it smacks of ancient watch-fire. If he were asked why it is so, he could not tell; any more perhaps than he could define exactly the difference between the lustrous, highly-jewelled, well-greaved Achaian of New York and the very less effective and showy creature who will in every society over the world pass muster as a gentleman. Here was an elegant house — I use the word in its real meaning — with pretty statues, rich carpets, handsome furniture and a gallery of charming Meissoniers and genre pieces; the saloons admirably lighted — a fair fine large suite, filled with the prettiest women in the most delightful toilets, with a proper fringe of young men, orderly, neat, and well turned-out, fretting against the usual advanced posts of turbaned and jewelled dowagers, and provided with every accessory to make the whole good society; for there was wit, sense, intelligence, vivacity; and yet there was something wanting — not in host or hostess, or company, or house — where was it ?— which was conspicuous by its absence. Mr. Bancroft was kind enough to introduce me to the most lovely faces and figures, and so far enable me to judge that nothing could be more beautiful, easy, or natural than the womanhood or girlhood of New York. It is prettiness rather than fineness; regular, intelligent, wax-like faces, graceful little figures; none of the grandiose Roman type which Von Raumer recognized in London, as in the Holy City, a quarter of a century ago. Natheless, the young men of New York ought to be thankful and grateful, and try to be worthy of it. Late in the evening I saw these same young men, Novi Eboracenses, at their club, dicing for drinks and oathing for nothing, and all very friendly and hospitable.

The club-house is remarkable as the mansion of a happy man who invented or patented a waterproof hat-lining, whereby he built a sort of Sallustian villa, with a central courtyard, a l'Alhambra, with fountains and flowers, now passed away to the New York Club. Here was Pratt's, or the defunct Fielding, or the old C. C. C.'s in disregard of time and regard of drinks — and nothing more.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 19-23

John Lothrop Motley to Anna Lothrop Motley, February 9, 1861

31 Hertford Street,

February 9, 1861.

My Dearest Mother:  . . . I wrote you a long letter of eight pages yesterday, and then tossed it into the fire, because I found I had been talking of nothing but American politics. Although this is a subject which, as you may suppose, occupies my mind almost exclusively for the time being, yet you have enough of it at home. As before this letter reaches you it will perhaps be decided whether there is to be civil war, peaceable dissolution, or a patch-up, it is idle for me to express any opinions on the subject. I do little else but read American newspapers, and we wait with extreme anxiety to know whether the pro-slavery party will be able to break up the whole compact at its own caprice, to seize Washington and prevent by force of arms the inauguration of Lincoln. That event must necessarily be followed by civil war, I should think. Otherwise I suppose it may be avoided. But whatever be the result, it is now proved beyond all possibility of dispute that we never have had a government, and that the much eulogized Constitution of the United States never was a constitution at all, for the triumphant secession of the Southern States shows that we have only had a league or treaty among two or three dozen petty sovereignties, each of them insignificant in itself, but each having the power to break up the whole compact at its own caprice. Whether the separation takes place now, or whether there is a patch-up, there is no escaping the conclusion that a government proved to be incapable of protecting its own property and the honor of its own flag is no government at all and may fall to pieces at any moment. The pretense of a people governing itself, without the need of central force and a powerful army, is an exploded fallacy which can never be revived. If there is a compromise now, which seems possible enough, because the Northern States are likely to give way, as they invariably have done, to the bluster of the South, it will perhaps be the North which will next try the secession dodge, when we find ourselves engaged in a war with Spain for the possession of Cuba, or with England on account of the reopened African slave-trade, either of which events is in the immediate future.

But I find myself getting constantly into this maelstrom of American politics and must break off short.

I send you by this mail the London “Times” of the 7th of February. You will find there (in the parliamentary reports) a very interesting speech of Lord John Russell; but it will be the more interesting to you because it contains a very handsome compliment to me, and one that is very gratifying. I have not sent you the different papers in which my book has been reviewed, excepting three consecutive “Times,” which contain a long article. I suppose that “Littell's Living Age” reprints most of these notices. And the “Edinburgh,” “Quarterly,” and “Westminster Reviews” (in each of whose January numbers the work has been reviewed) are, I know, immediately reprinted. If you will let me know, however, what notices you have seen, I will send you the others in case you care for them.

We are going on rather quietly. We made pleasant country visits at Sidney Herbert's, Lord Palmerston's, Lady Stanhope's, Lord Ashburton's; but now the country season is pretty well over, Parliament opened, and the London season begun. I am hard at work in the State Paper Office every day, but it will be a good while before I can get to writing again.

I am most affectionately your son,

J. L. M.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 110-2

Salmon Brown, December 27, 1859

North Elba, Dec. 27, 1859.

Dear Sir, — Your letter to my mother was received to-night. You wish me to give you the facts in regard to the Pottawatomie execution, or murder, and to know whether my father was a participator in the act. I was one of his company at the time of the homicide, and was never away from him one hour at a time after we took up arms in Kansas; therefore I say positively that he was not a participator in the deed, — although I should think none the less of him if he had been there; for it was the grandest thing that was ever done in Kansas. It was all that saved the Territory from being overrun with drunken land-pirates from the Southern States. That was the first act in the history of Kansas which proved to the demon of Slavery that there was as much room to give blows as to take them. It was done to save life, and to strike terror through their wicked ranks.

Yours respectfully,

Salmon Brown.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 261-2

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, April 29, 1861

Shady Hill, 29 April, 1861.

I wish we could have a long talk together. Your last note found its answer in my heart. Everything is going on well here. The feeling that stirs the people is no outburst of transient passion, but is as deep as it is strong. I believe it will last till the work is done. Of course we must look for some reaction, — but I have no fear that it will bear any proportion to the force of the present current.

It seems to me to be pretty much settled by this unanimity of action at the North that we are not to have a divided Union. I almost regret this result, for I wish that the Southern States could have the opportunity of making a practical experiment of their system as a separate organization, and I fear lest when the time of settlement comes the weakness of the North may begin to show itself again in unmanly compliances.

But our chief danger at the present moment is lest the prevailing excitement of the people should overbear the wiser, slower, and more far-sighted counsels of Mr. Seward, — for it is he who more than any one else has the calmness and the prudence which are most requisite in this emergency. I am afraid that he is not well supported in the Cabinet, and I more than ever wish that he could have been our President. I am not satisfied that Mr. Lincoln is the right man for the place at this time.

Sumner dined with our Club on Saturday.¹ He did not make a good impression on me by his talk. He is very bitter against Seward; he expressed a great want of confidence in Scott, thinking him feeble and too much of a politician to be a good general; he doubts the honour and the good service of Major Anderson. There is but one man in the country in whom he has entire confidence, and in him his confidence is overweening.

After Sumner had gone Mr. Adams² came in and talked in a very different and far more statesmanlike way. His opinions are worthy of confidence. I think he is not thoroughly pleased with the President or the Cabinet, — but in him Mr. Seward has a strong ally.

You see that Caleb Cushing has offered his services to Governor Andrew. I understand that two notes passed on each side, — one a formal tender from Cushing of his services, which the Governor replied to with equal formality, stating that there is no position in the Massachusetts army which he can fill. Cushing's first letter was accompanied by another private one in which he offered himself to fill any position and expressed some of his sentiments on the occasion. To this Andrew answers that in his opinion Mr. Cushing does not possess the confidence of the community in such measure as to authorize him — the Governor — to place him in any position of responsibility, and that, even if this were not the case, Mr. Cushing does not possess his personal confidence to a degree which would warrant him in accepting his services. This is excellent. It is no more than Cushing deserves. Neither the people nor the Governor have forgotten, and they will never forgive, his speeches last November or December, or his previous course. . . .³

_______________

¹ The Saturday Club of Boston.

² Charles Francis Adams was appointed minister to England, March 20, 1861.

³ Cushing had presided at the Democratic National Convention which nominated Breckinridge to run against Lincoln.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 231-3