Diary of William S. White, April 13, 1861

FALL OF FORT SUMTER.

The ball has opened; crowds of eager citizens may be seen gathered together at the corners of the streets excitedly discussing the grand topic of the day, and that topic is war. Yes! bloody, destructive war will soon be upon us in all its horror. Oh, God! grant us the power and fortitude to withstand the terrible calamity now hanging o'er us, which no power, save that of Divine interposition, can prevent.

Dispatch after dispatch, from the far South, comes over the magnetic wires, and soon the astounding news, "big with the fate" of a new-born people, is shouted by a thousand tongues that

“SUMTER HAS FALLEN."

The crowds on the street soon become a dense mass—calm, dignified men seem instantly transformed into wild Secessionists; there are no Unionists now; we are all determined to stand by the South, right or wrong—too late for discussion now—with her to conquer or die.

Some one in the crowd cries out, "For the Governor's House." This was received with a shout, and as “Honest John Letcher" had been excessively Union, the crowd rushed furiously toward the Governor's mansion, and after repeated calls, Governor Letcher made his appearance, not a little discomposed by the clamor and confusion of this excited mob. He attempted to speak, but the maddened populace suspected "Honest John" was still unwilling to come out boldly for the Confederate cause, and consequently his remarks were unheard, save by those immediately around him.

Only half appeased were the dizzy and infatuated mass. Some other excitement was wanted, and the "Star Spangled Banner" floated, as it were, half timidly upon the highest point of our State Capitol, and each star seemed to weep as the Demon of Death stretched forth his mighty wings to begin his sad flight.

"Tear down that accursed flag," was shouted by the crowd, and immediately some half dozen, bolder than the rest, rushed quickly into the Capitol, in which the State Convention was then sitting, hurried up the steps, and in less time than I take to write this the Star Spangled Banner was torn from its flag-staff, and supplanted by Virginia's proud motto, "Sic Semper Tyrannis."

Peal after peal of long continued applause rent the air, seeming to ascend up to the very throne of Heaven and calling upon God to witness the stern determination of the Southern people. The few Unionists who still madly clung to the fond hope that peace would yet be restored, threatened vengeance on the Secessionists for tearing down the United States flag, and, in fact, it was said that "Honest John" went so far as to order out the "Public Guard" to disperse the crowd collected on the Capitol Square.

Well was it for the "Guard," and also for “Honest John" that such was not the case, for had they made their appearance, a terrible riot would have been the inevitable consequence.

Indeed, the times and the Richmond people remind me much of the run-mad Red Republicanism of France, for never were a people so enthusiastically mad as now. However, any nation to be successful, must first be baptized in the blood of its own citizens, and now we are to have this theory brought practically into effect.

Nightfall, instead of quieting the excitement, seemed if possible to add fresh fuel to the flame. The crowded streets and wild shouts of the people, together with the lurid glare of an hundred tar-barrels, torches steeped in rosin, and rockets whirling high above the houses, presented a spectacle rarely witnessed by our somewhat apathetic people of Richmond.

Already the work of Revolution has commenced. Far away on the coast of South Carolina the smoke and din of battle has awakened the people of Virginia, who too long have slumbered when work should have been done, to the consciousness that the war cloud, with all its pent up fury, is now bursting upon them. The question now most agitating the public mind is—“What will be the action of the Virginia Convention, now sitting in the State-House, and elected as it was by such an overwhelming Union majority?"

They cannot withstand this outside pressure brought to bear upon them, and must either remove to some other point in the State or pass the Ordinance of Secession at an early date, and then leave it to the people whether or not we will cast our lot with our sister Southern States. My mind is fully made up to join the Southern army no matter whether Virginia secedes or not, though from the time I can remember I have bitterly opposed the doctrine of secession.

SOURCE: William S. White, A Diary of the War; or What I Saw of It, p. 89-91

John Tyler to Julia Gardiner Tyler, March 24, 1861

Mr. Bruce has the floor for Monday. The Peace Conference plan has gone the way of all the Capulets. The committee makes it the basis of a new scheme, and Baldwin yesterday made an appeal to me to sustain it, as they had sought to make it conform to my views. I shall most probably present my own project. The public mind is undergoing great changes. Summers' speech will be out on Monday, and mine the next day. They are called the great speeches of the session. Tyler, of the Enquirer, tells me that the demand for mine increases daily, while that for Summers' falls off. I shall distribute copies freely throughout my district. Have you any information of what is the sentiment of Charles City? New Kent is right.

I stopped just here to await the mail, under hope of a letter from you. The mail has arrived and my hope is realized. You can scarcely imagine the anxiety with which I opened it. I have not heard from home before since I left. The storm had cut off all intercommunication until Friday. By Capt. Hill I wrote you Saturday, sending down a box containing the lace. I hope you received it. I dined on Friday at J. T. Brown's, son-in-law to Mr. Willcox, of Petersburg. Mrs. B.'s father, Mr. Southall, is a member of the convention. Mrs. Brown discharged the duties well, —— made many enquiries about you. I wrote you that I had been up to see Julia. Mrs. Pegram speaks highly of her. Mr. McFarland, on hearing she was at Mrs. Pegram's, said he would send his daughter to see her. He has been very attentive. I hope she will be here to-day to see me. . .

I forgot to say that Mr. Ritchie showed me a letter from Mrs. Ritchie, expressing high praise of my letter of a month ago. Le Pays comes to me regularly. I send a letter from Robert to Gardie. Read it for him.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 629

John Tyler to Colonel David Lion Gardiner, April 5, 1861

RICHMOND, April 5, 1861.

MY DEAR COLONEL: After great delay my speech in the convention has but now seen the light. I hasten to send you the paper containing it, and will, as soon as I can have it so printed, send you a pamphlet copy for the library. I send a paper also to your mother. It is destined to a large circulation, which would have been quadrupled had it been published at an earlier day.

We are still listening to speeches, but go to serious work to-day—the work of voting. I think the prospect is that we shall adopt an ultimatum, and there rest for the present. I hope it may be a strong one. The people of the State are becoming very restless. I wish that the speech could be extensively published in the North and West. The convention will adjourn in some ten days.

Gardie has had the measles at home, and Julia has it here at Miss Pegram's school. They are both doing well. Gardie, I hope is over it, and Julia, without a change, will soon be. The other children I suppose will have it. I almost wish it. I hope that your wife is perfectly well, and that your mother enjoys this fine weather.

With affectionate regards, yours truly,

JOHN TYLER.

SOURCE: Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p. 630

Gerrit Smith to Senator Charles Sumner, December 5, 1864 [Extract]

An amendment implying that without it, the constitution would authorize or even tolerate slavery, would do great injustice to those who adopted the constitution. It would be wickedly blotting their memory. So much stress has been laid on the history of the constitution, it may well be said that there are two constitutions, the one the historical, and the other the literal. The former is that which has ruled the country. Terrible, all the way, has been its rule. The cry of many millions to an avenging God has come of it. The soaking of our land with blood has also come of it. That the history of the constitution has so cursed us is because it is so almost universally held to be a pro-slavery history. In other words, that this historical constitution has so cursed us is because of the ever urged and almost universally accepted claim that the literal constitution was made in the interest of slavery. Alas for the people to whom the angel of the Apocalypse cried “woe, woe, woe,” if they suffered more than America has suffered from this historical constitution! That there is much for slavery in the history of the constitution I admit. But that there is also much in it against slavery I affirm. Pro-slavery interests however have succeeded in keeping the latter out of sight. The rejection in the convention, which framed the constitution, of the motion to require “fugitive slaves” to be delivered up, and the unanimous adoption the next day of the motion to deliver up, no “fugitive slaves,” but persons from whom labor or service is due, is a historical fact against slavery. So too is Mr. Madison's unopposed declaration in the convention, that it would be “wrong to admit in the constitution the idea that there could be property in man.” And so also is that convention's unanimous substitution of the word “service” for “servitude” for the avowed reason that servitude expresses the condition of slaves and service that of freemen. Nothing however of all this did I need to say. What this thing is, which is called the history of the constitution — what is this historical constitution as I have termed that history — is really of no moment. What it is in the light of the records of the convention referred to, or of the records of the “Virginia Convention” or any other convention, or what it is on the pages of the “Federalist,” or of any other book, or of any newspaper, should not be made the least account of. The aggregate of all those whose words contributed to make up this historical constitution, is but a comparative handful. The one question is — What is the literal constitution? For it is that and that only, which the people adopted, and which is therefore the constitution. They did not adopt the discussions of the convention which framed it. These were secret. They did not adopt what the newspapers said of the constitution. Newspapers in that day were emphatically “few and far between.” But even had they been familiar with the newspapers and with the discussions, their one duty would nevertheless have been to pass upon the simple letter of the constitution. As Judge Story so well says: “Nothing but the text itself was adopted by the people.” And I add that what the people intended by the constitution is to be gathered solely from its text; and that what the people intended by it and not what its framers or the commentators upon it intended, is the constitution. So we will take up the text of the constitution to learn what and what alone is the constitution. Its very preamble tells us that it is made to “secure the blessings of liberty.” Thus, even in the porch of her temple doth Liberty deign to meet us. Strange indeed would it be were she to desert us in its apartments! She does not. In our progress through the constitution we find it pleading the power of the whole nation to maintain in every State “a republican form of government.” Pro-slavery men tell us that this was no more than a republican government of the aristocratic Greek and Roman type; and that therefore men can consistently be bought and sold under it. But when the fathers gave us the constitution the political heavens were all ablaze with a new light — the light of the truth “that all men are created equal,” and that the great end of government is to maintain that equality. Ere we get through the constitution — ere Liberty has led us all the way through her temple — we meet with the slavery-forbidding declaration that: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law!”

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

What an argument it is in favor of the anti-slavery character of the constitution, that not so much as one line, no, nor one word of it, need be changed in order to bring it into perfect harmony with the most radical and sweeping anti-slavery amendment. And how strongly is this character argued from the fact, that were constitutional phrases, as innocent and inapplicable as these which are relied on to rob the noblest black man of his liberty, to be made the ground for robbing the meanest white man of his, or even the meanest white man of his meanest dog, such use of them would be instantly and indignantly scouted by all! And how strongly is it also argued from the fact, that a stranger to America and to her practice of making church and State and all things minister to slavery, could see absolutely nothing, could suspect absolutely nothing in the constitution, which might be seized on to turn that also to the foul and diabolical service?

But why should we stop with an anti-slavery amendment? Immeasurably more needed is an amendment to the effect that race or origin shall not work a forfeiture of any civil or political rights. Even an anti-slavery amendment may not be permanent. A race, whilst deprived of rights which other races enjoy, can have no reasonable assurance that it will be protected against even slavery. But make it equal with them, in rights, and it will be able to protect itself.

SOURCE: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 177-9