General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, April 3, 1886

ST. LOUIS, April 3, 1886.

Dear Brother: . . . I shall go to California to be in San Francisco August 3d-5th for the Encampment of the G. A. R., when, of course, I shall be forced to say something. It occurs to me that I should say something about the annexation of California to the Union. I know that Webster advised a friend of his as early as 1843-44 to go to California, because it surely would on the first pretext be captured and held by the United States.

I have all the executive documents for 1847, also the special Mexican War correspondence, but I fail to find Corwin's speech where he used the expression that were he a Mexican he would welcome the enemy (the Americans) "with bloody hands to hospitable graves." Can you get this speech for me, or an extract? I know that General Taylor believed that Texas did not reach the Rio Grande but was bordered by the River Nueces, and that the proclamation of war was based on an error that "American blood had been shed on American soil," and now comes Grant, who expresses more than a doubt if the first blood shed—Palo Alto—was not on "Mexican soil." Notwithstanding this, I believe the annexation of California was essential to the world's progress at that date. The Mexicans had held it for a hundred years without material improvement, whereas under our domination it at once began that wonderful development which we now experience. . . .

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 370-1

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, April 6, 1886

SENATE CHAMBER,        

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 6, 1886.

Dear Brother: Yours of the 3d is received. The speech of Mr. Corwin, to which you refer, was made in the United States Senate on the 11th of February, 1847, on the Mexican War. It is a very long speech, and is to be found on pages 211-218. Enclosed is the extract you refer to:

"If I were a Mexican I would tell you, 'Have you no room in our own country to bury your dead men?' If you come into mine we will greet you with bloody hands, and welcome you to hospitable graves." . . . .

The speech of Corwin's is worth reading through, as it gives fully his idea of the injustice of the war with Mexico, which I think was shared by the great body of intelligent people in the North, but was opposed by the cry "Our country, right or wrong!" which perhaps after war commences is the best public policy. . . .

Affectionately yours,

JOHN SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 371-2

Thomas Corwin to John J. Crittenden, Undated

WASHINGTON.

DEAR CRITTENDEN,—If Messrs. Crittenden and Burnley, or either of them, want exercise, let them visit the sick. Here I am ensconced, like a Hebrew of old, on my back, about to dine, but, unlike the Hebrew, with no stomach for dinner. Oh, these cursed influenzas, they fatten on Washington patronage alone! Hot water runs out of one eye like sap from a sugar-tree, or like lava from Vesuvius. The mucous membrane of my nose, "os frontis" and "os occipitis," is, of course, in a melting mood. Did you ever look into the technology of anatomy? If not, this Latin will be above “your huckleberry." Is there no news—no lies brought forth to-day? Has the Father of Lies been celebrating the 8th of January, and allowed his children a holiday? Is Kossuth a candidate for the Presidency? Oh, you should have seen Sam Houston last night, with a red handkerchief hanging down two feet from the rear pocket of his coat! He looked like the devil with a yard of brimstone on fire in his rear. All the candidates were there, and acted as if they thought themselves second fiddlers to the great leader of the orchestra in that humbug theatre.

Civilized men are all asses. Your gentleman of God's making, nowadays, is only to be found in savage life. God help us! Good-night,

THOMAS CORWIN.

Hon. J. J. CRITTENDEN.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 38

Daniel Webster to Daniel Fletcher Webster, July 23, 1850

Washington, July 23, 1850.

MY DEAR SON,—I gave directions yesterday, to have my old rooms arranged for me. This morning, at ten o'clock, I was sworn in, and I write this at my old high table, in my little room. The rooms are all clean, and very nice. Mr. Zantzinger is appointed agent and superintendent of the building, and Charles Brown¹ is put again on "Continental Establishment." Some other things must be done, which, with Mr. Derrick's advice, I shall dispatch at once, so as to avoid importunity.

Would Mr. Sargent come here, and be my private and confidential clerk, for eight hundred dollars a year? Or do you think of anybody who would do better?

The weather cooler, and I am well. D. W., Mr. Corwin, and Mr. Hall were sworn in to-day. Mr. Crittenden and Mr. Graham accept; Mr. Pearce, doubtful. Mr. Bates, not heard. from.

Remember me to Mrs. H. and Mr. H.

Yours,

D. W.

_______________

¹ A colored man who had been with Mr. Webster for many years.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 379

Senator Daniel Webster to Edward Curtis, June 16, 1850—6 a.m.

Monday [sic] morning, six o'clock, June 16, 1850.¹

MY DEAR SIR,—I received your communication in whole and half sheets, yesterday. The most important part told a story of which I was not aware. I shall be delighted beyond measure, if Dr. Cox shall succeed as well as present appearances lead to expect.

Washington is very still, and very few people in it. There is little doing in my department, and I believe not much in any other. The President goes to Old Point Comfort and Norfolk, about Friday. Some of the gentlemen go with him, and I stay behind. Mr. Corwin sets off for Ohio to-day or to-morrow. I intend to make a desperate effort to leave Washington, as soon as the President returns, and to get to New Hampshire for a day, and Marshfield for another. I am warmly pressed to pass through Concord, before the last day of the month. Things appear to be going on well in Massachusetts.

In regard to my own movements, when hot weather arrives, three things present themselves. First, The talked-of voyage; second, a trip to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada; third, a trial of the Virginia Springs.

In case this was resorted to, Mrs. Webster could go with me, and perhaps you and Mrs. Curtis might join us.

I understand the water has no lime in it; that the mountain air is delicious, and the scenery beautiful, and the living scant and poor. If on trial, this should be found to do no good, I might still go North. I much prefer the voyage, but the drawbacks are, the expense, and the necessity of rushing into high company. Then there is one other consideration, namely, where is it best for me to be, if there is to be a real campaign?

Yours,

D. W.

_______________

¹ This letter could either be June 16^th, which was a Sunday or June 17^th, which was a Monday.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 373-4

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, March 17, 1861

A long and interesting telegram by the America. The Inauguration on the 4th had gone off without disturbance of any kind, in the presence of some thirty thousand persons. Mr. Lincoln's address was both firm and mild,—firm against the constitutionality of secession, mild in assurances and language. Nothing in the telegram about convening the new Congress, nor about the new Tariff bill, though he noticed the passage of Corwin's resolution to amend the Constitution by expressly prohibiting Congress from meddling with slavery in the States, and approved it.

SOURCE: George Mifflin Dallas, Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, While United States Minister to Russia 1837 to 1839, and to England 1856 to 1861, Volume 3, p. 441-2

Diary of Congressman Rutherford B. Hayes: December 16, 1865

Last night a very pleasant meeting of Ohio men at Mr. James C. Wetmore's. Chief Justice Chase, both Senators, Judge Swayne, many of the Representatives, General Gilmore, Tom Corwin. A very happy time. Governor Corwin, happy, genial, full of humor. I saw him standing at some distance from where I was comfortably seated. I went to him and conducted him to my seat. He was happy, genial, and humorous as ever. Late in the evening he was struck with paralysis on the right side, soon became unconscious, and must die. So disappears the finest genius Ohio has ever produced; without an equal as a popular orator in this country. . . .

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 11

Diary of Congressman Rutherford B. Hayes: December 17, 1865

Corwin still living; wonderful tenacity of life. Macaulay, speaking of Sydney Smith, said to Mrs. Stowe: "Truly, wit, like charity, covers a multitude of sins. A man who has the faculty of raising a laugh in this sad, earnest world is remembered with indulgence and complacency always."

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 12

Congressman Rutherford B. Hayes to Lucy Webb Hayes: December 17, 1865

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 17, 1865.

MY DEAREST:—  I hope to start home in time to be with you Friday next. The Senate has not yet acted on our adjournment, and it is not quite settled.

The death of Uncle Moses [Boggs], so unlooked for, so peculiarly sad, has impressed me singularly. I don't like to think of it. This is the reason I didn't write when I heard of it. I put off talking about it and will now.

Tom Corwin was struck down in the midst of a scene in which he was one of the happiest and the cause of great happiness to others. He still lingers in a dying condition. — Love to boys all. Affectionately, yours ever,

R.

MRS. HAYES.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 12

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, December 20, 1864

Only three of us at the Cabinet meeting. Speed is attending the Court. The others absent, as usual, without cause, and the course pursued sustains them in this neglect. Seward is at the President's every day when there is no Cabinet-meeting and at a different hour on Cabinet days. As Stanton does not go to the President, the President goes to Stanton. Not unfrequently he hurries at the close to go to the War Department. Fessenden frets because there are no Cabinet consultations and yet stays away himself.

Old Tom Ewing of Ohio was hanging around the door of the Executive Mansion as I went in. I stopped for a moment to exchange civilities. Usher, who followed me, informed the President that the old man was waiting for an interview and thought of leaving, but U. advised him to remain now that he had got there. The President expressed his regret at Usher's advice and, turning to me, said, “You know his object?” I said it was probably Wilkes' case. The President said it was, and, notwithstanding Wilkes had abused both him and me, he was inclined to remit his sentence, looking inquiringly at me as he spoke. I told him that I should not advise it; that at the proper time and in the proper way something might be done, perhaps, without injury, though Wilkes had no claim, and this hiring old Mr. Ewing, who is selling his personal influence, is all bad. Usher took strong and emphatic ground against any favor to Wilkes, who is heartless and insubordinate.

It is a misfortune that the President gives his ear to a class of old party hacks like Ewing and Tom Corwin, men of ability and power in their day, for whom he has high regard but who are paid to come here and persuade the President to do wrong. Ewing would not, of himself, do or advise another to do what he beseeches of the President, except for money. All this the President has the sagacity to see, but hardly the will to resist. I shall not be surprised if he yields, as he intimated he was ready to do before any remark from me.

The Senate and House to-day passed an act in conformity with my recommendation, indorsed by the President, creating the office of Vice-Admiral, to correspond with the army grade of Lieutenant-General.

Mr. Usher relates a conversation he had with General Heintzelman at Steubenville in regard to General McClellan, in which General H. says he has been reading and reviewing the events and incidents of the Peninsular Campaign, and he is fully convinced that McClellan intended to betray the army. General H. tells how he was left and the guard at a bridge over which it was necessary he should pass was withdrawn, without notice to him, although he had sent three times to McClellan for instructions and received none. Other singular and unaccounted-for facts are mentioned.

I have heard these intimations from others who had similar suspicions and convictions, but I have never yet been willing to believe he was a traitor, though men of standing call him such. His conduct was strange and difficult to be reconciled with an intelligent and patriotic discharge of the duties of his position. I long ago, and early indeed, was satisfied his heart was not earnest in the cause. He wanted to be victorious in any conflict as he would in a game of chess. Massachusetts and South Carolina were equally at fault in his estimation, and he so declared to me at Cumberland on the Pamunkey in May, 1862.¹ The disasters before Richmond followed soon after, and these were succeeded by his inexcusable conduct and that of his subordinate generals in failing to reinforce and sustain Pope and our army at the Second Battle of Bull Run.

But while I have never had time to review the acts of that period, I still incline to the opinion that his conduct was the result of cool and selfish indifference rather than of treachery and positive guilt. General Heintzelman and others are not only prejudiced against him but positively inimical.

_______________

¹ See vol. i, p. 107.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 203-4

Robert Toombs to James Thomas, April 16, 1848

Washington, D. C. Apr. 16, 1848.

Dear Thomas, I received your letter of the 9th inst. today and I am very glad to hear you are improving. You did not state to what point in Kentucky you expected to direct your steps. I have an extensive acquaintance with the public men of Kentucky and could give or furnish you letters to almost any point, and if you know where you will probably remain longest and will write me I will procure such letters as would no doubt greatly increase the comfort and pleasure of your trip. I could send them to any point you might designate, if you are about leaving. Mr. Crittenden, my particular friend and messmate, will leave here for Kentucky about the first of June on a gubernatorial canvass in Kentucky. I will commend you to him especially, and I hope you may fall in with him somewhere in the state, if not at Frankfort, his residence. I will send by this mail or the next some letters for Louisville where I suppose you will most likely land in Kentucky. I hope you will find it convenient to call by Washington. There is much to see here to interest an intelligent stranger; men, if not things.

Clay has behaved very badly this winter. His ambition is as fierce as at any time of his life, and he is determined to rule or ruin the party. He has only power enough to ruin it. Rule it he never can again. In February while at Washington he ascertained that the Kentucky convention would nominate Taylor. He procured letters to [McMillen ?] that he would decline when he went home, and the Taylor men from Kentucky under this assurance wrote home to their friends not to push him off the track by nominating Taylor. Mr. Clay never intended to comply, but without now having the boldness to deny it he meanly hints at having changed his determination. Bah! He now can deceive nobody here. The truth is he has sold himself body and soul to the Northern Anti-slavery Whigs, and as little as they now think it, his friends in Georgia will find themselves embarrassed before the campaign is half over. I find myself a good deal denounced in my district for avowing my determination not to vote for him. It gives me not the least concern. I shall never be traitor enough to the true interests of my constituents to gratify them in this respect. I would rather offend than betray them. Mr. Botts of the House and Mr. Berrien of the Senate and Mr. Buckner of Kentucky are the only three men from the slave states who prefer Mr. Clay for our candidate, and there are not ten Southern representatives who would not support Genl. Taylor against him if he were nominated. The real truth is Clay was put up and pushed by Corwin and McLean, Greeley & Co. to break down Taylor in the South. Having made that use of him they will toss him overboard at the convention without decent burial. It is more than probable that a third candidate may be brought forward, and Scott stands a good chance to be the man. For my part I am a Taylor man without a second choice.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 103-4

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, December 22, 1863

Only Seward and myself were with the President at Cabinet-meeting. Seward is highly pleased with the course taken in regard to the captured letters. Wanted me to send him all of Trowbridge's which had not been published. I did so. He gave me a long confidential conversation about Mexican affairs which had been communicated by Mr. Corwin,¹ our Minister, under the strongest injunctions of secrecy. Before he got through, however, Seward let out that he had read the dispatch to Lord Lyons, and I think said he let Lord L. take it; assumed that Earl Russell, on learning the facts, would not feel more amiably disposed towards the French.

_______________

¹ Thomas Corwin.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 493

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, December 2, 1852

Washington, Dec^r. 2, 1852.

Dear Hamlin, Where are you? What are you about? The last I saw of you was that you attended a democratic celebration of Pierce's victory at Toledo. What did you mean by that?

I received yesterday a letter from Bigelow of the N. York Evg. Post (Bryant you know has gone to Europe) asking me to recommend a correspondent at Columbus. He says they are willing to pay a fair price for a letter a week. I named you to him; but expressed a doubt whether you could command the time; but said you would recommend some one if you would not write yourself. Had you not better undertake it? Let me know; and if you cannot recommend some one who will suit the Post.

People here seem quiet enough. Sumner and Seward dined with me today. Sumner is for agitation, Seward for lying low. Benton is here. I had a long talk with him yesterday Evening. He expects a regular setto on Pierce by all the vermin; and fears the result; though he expresses a good deal of confidence in the President elect. Tom Corwin tells me he has authorized the purchase of a residence in Kentucky, & means to leave Ohio! Bailey is well and thriving.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 248

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, July 11, 1848

Cincinnati, November 27, 1848.

My Dear Sir: Thanks for your welcome and cheering letter. It is truly grateful to me to feel how responsive to each other are our judgments and sympathies. Our struggle is ended — only for the present, I would say rather, it is just begun, did not the recollections of eight years of effort, amid difficulties and discouragement far formidable than any which now encompass us, carry me back to a much earlier date of the beginning of the Contest than many assign. The Buffalo Convention of 1848, and the movements which immediately issued in that, I would call the beginning of the end. I think that now, through the twilight of the present and the mist of the future, the end may be discovered — at least by eyes annointed with faith.

You have fought a glorious battle in old Massachusetts. Young Wisconsin, alone, can claim equal honors with you. You have had to contend with long-seated prejudices arrayed against our Presidential nominee and against the overbearing money power of the Lords of the Loom. Under the circumstances, you have, I suppose, equalled if not exceeded your own most sanguine expectations. We are looking now, with great anxiety for the result of the second trial in the District of Judge Allen and our noble Palfrey. Most earnestly do I hope that Massachusetts will honor herself by sending those true sons to represent her in the next Congress. She and Liberty will need them there.

Here in Ohio we did not do near so well as we expected — not near so well as we should have done had the vote been taken immediately after the Buffalo Convention. Many causes conspired to diminish our vote. The principal were the general impression, that the contest was between Taylor and Cass, and the idea, unceasingly disseminated, that General Taylor would not veto, would, in fact, favor the Wilmot Proviso. No man labored harder to produce these impressions than Mr. Corwin. He traversed the whole state, speaking to large assemblies and to small, at the principal points and obscure villages, saying every where, “I know Gen. Taylor will not veto the Proviso”, and endeavoring to convince the people, by his stories of Gen. Taylor's action in reference to the Seminole negroes, that he was, in fact, a man of antislavery opinions and sympathies. Whether he succeeded in convincing himself I don't know; but certain it is that he exerted a mighty influence in checking the development of anti-Taylor sentiment, and in persuading many who had resolved to oppose the Philadelphia nomination, to come out in favor of it. All this operated against us in two ways. While Mr. Corwin succeeded in detaching two or three votes here and two or three there from the Free Soil Cause, securing them for Taylor, the very fact of the defection of these votes induced more or less of those who had resolved to with-hold their votes from Cass and give them to Van Buren, to forego their determination and to fall back into their old ranks. This process, placing us between the upper and the nether millstone and diminishing our force by every turn of the wheel, was carried on very actively for several weeks preceding the election; and though we did all we could to counterwork it, yet, being scattered over a large territory with hardly any pecuniary resources and a very imperfect organization and little or no mutual concert or cooperation among our Committees or speeches, all our efforts did not avail much. The battle is now over and Senator Corwin and his co-workers have the satisfaction of having quietly reduced the Free Soil vote, without any other result than that, (which the Free Soilers have predicted ever since the nomination of Taylor), of giving the electoral suffrage of Ohio to General Cass. Whether Senator Corwin has shared in the impression he has endeavored to make upon the people I do not know. One thing is certain; he has lost entirely the confidence of the sincere and earnest antislavery men of the State. The very men, who eight months ago were his warmest friends — in fact his only reliable and fast friends in the State — are now converted into his most decided and stern opposers. They still admire his talents and esteem his social qualities, but they no longer respect his principles.

The results of the contest leave us here in Ohio, in a peculiar position. The election of Taylor makes his supporters anxious that their promises to the people in his behalf shall be, in some degree, kept. Should he veto the Wilmot Proviso or conduct his administration so as to indicate disfavor to it, we may look for another revolt among the Whigs. On the other hand the defeat of Cass has secured the last link that bound a large number of Democrats — in fact a great body of them in this State to the Slave Power. They have no longer any bond of union in their old organization. The spoils are gone — and the South is gone. Under these circumstances many of them are turning a wistful eye toward the Buffalo Platform, and I should not be greatly surprised if the coming winter should witness a union between the old Democracy and the Free Democracy in our Legislature upon the principles of our Platform. Already such a union is foreshadowed by the tone of the newspapers, and the course of events in the northern part of the State. Should it take place in any considerable section of the State it must pervade the whole. In the Legislature the Free Democrats together have the majority; and they may unite in the election of a senator; though this is more doubtful than their union in future contests. Whether this union takes place or not — and it can only take place through the adhesion of the old Democracy to one principle — the course of the Free Democracy it seems to me lies clear before them. Their path, no less of safety than of honor is straightforward. They have no choice, except shameful dereliction of principle, or bold and resolute perseverance.

This is true of every other State as it is of Ohio; and I am glad to see that the choice of our friends everywhere seems to be already made. Nowhere do I observe adjudications of wavering or retreat.

I agree with you that it is of great importance that an address should be issued to the People of the union embracing the topics and indicating our future course as suggested by you. It will be difficult to get any delegation appointed by the State Committee to prepare such an address. It seems to me that your suggestion that it should be issued by the Free Democrats in Congress is a good one; or possibly, it might come, with as much effect, from the Free Soil association of the District of Columbia, having been prepared with the advice and concurrence of our friends in Congress and out of Congress who may be gathered in Washington at the commencement of the session.

Our own State Convention will be held on the 29th, June, when we shall doubtless issue an address to the People of Ohio, and define our position on questions of State policy.

I shall be very glad to hear from you frequently. Our former correspondence and your published writings had taught me greatly to esteem you; and our limited intercourse last August was sufficient to make me feel towards you the strongest sentiments of friendship. Is it not Cicero who tells us that the strong ligament of friendship is “idem velle et idem nolle”? And is not this the tie between us! At any rate I claim your friendship by this title and shall hope that you will manifest your allowance of the claim, by writing me as often as your engagements will allow.

Faithfully and cordially yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 141-5

Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, September 22, 1847

Cincinnati, September 22, 1847.

My Dear Sir: I am not sure whether I have written to you since I received your admirable lecture on White Slavery in Barbary. I read it with very great pleasure and instruction, and in order that others might be profited and delighted also, I have sent my mite to the fund for putting it into the hands of all the professional men of New England.

Have you ever thought of the subject of Christian Slavery as connected with the Crusades? In your hands its capabilities would be well proved. That was an interesting scene at Damietta, when the Christian Slaves met their Crusader Deliverers.

I send you by this mail a very accurate, though somewhat too favorable, report of Mr. Corwin's late speech at Carthage. I also send you, enclosed, a clip from the Herald, quoting the Chronicle's account of Mr. Corwin's attack upon the Abolitionists. This part of Mr. Corwin's speech pleased the proslavery people, hereabouts, more than his censure of the war offended them. It pained me; for, though I was well aware that Mr. Corwin formerly sympathized little or not at all, with those who adopt an antislavery construction of the Constitution, and proposed to carry their construction out by a system of practical measures, I did hope that his late experience had taught him better, and that he was prepared to occupy high and independent anti-slavery ground. He is where he was, however, and there I must leave him, until he comes to a better mind.

And now what is the true policy of practical, do something antislavery men? Shall we stand apart Whigs, Democrats, and Liberty men, and neutralize each other? Or shall we unite? I am for Union. I care nothing for names. All that I ask for is a platform and an issue, not buried out of sight, but palpable and paramount. Can we not have such a platform—such an issue?

You mentioned in your letter of March last that the Constitutional views presented in the Vanzandt argument might be a basis of political action. They present what seems to me a fair and unexceptionable construction of the Constitution, — its true theory as I verily believe. Why cannot we all unite upon them, and so for the practical measures thence resulting, Wilmot Proviso, Slavery abolition in the District, and the like?

We shall hold our Liberty Convention in October. I wish sensible Anti-Slavery Whigs would be there. I shall try, with others, to have the nomination postponed until Spring or early summer. The presence of such Whigs and like-minded Democrats would aid this result materially: then, with the developments of the winter recommending it, we could form a powerful party of Independents in the Spring.

You have no doubt seen my name connected with the Liberty nominations this fall. Of course holding such views as I have expressed, I could not myself accept any nomination at this time; and should nominations be posponed until Spring I am strong in the faith that a more available man will then be found.

I am much obliged by your kind attentions to my partner when in Boston.

Always glad to hear from you, I shall be particularly pleased to have an early answer to this. Very truly your friend,

P. S. — Did you notice the review of the decision in the Vanzandt case in the last number of the West. Law Journal? It was written by a young lawyer here of great promise.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 122-4

Fitz Henry Warren to James S. Pike, December 16, 1860

Burlington, Iowa, December 16, 1860.

James Pike: I am fructified in spirit to see “J. S. P.” again at the foot of a Washington letter. How are you, and where have you been? I should have written to you a long time ago, but I have been busy all the season “crying in the wilderness,” and to some purpose, too, for we have done a large business in Iowa as well as in the “inductive” State of Maine.

Being at a safe distance from South Carolina and Georgia, I look on very calmly. Several gentlemen are to be killed before my turn comes. Oh for an hour of Old Hickory or Old Zach! Are we to have turbulent times? I do not exactly see the end, for I am ignorant what the new Administration is to be. Let Abraham put in Corwin for Secretary of Treasury; Pennington, Secretary of the Interior ; and Colfax, Postmaster-General, and we shall have a lovely time. That committee, with C. for chairman, will have an illustrious labor and parturiate a generation of mice.

Give me a letter occasionally, with a history of the green-room rehearsals and other items.

Who is to be senator from Maine?

Very truly, your friend,

Fitz-henry Warren.

James S. Pike, Esq.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 526

Thomas Corwin to James S. Pike

Wednesday, 2 P.M.

Do you go to dine with Bache to-day at five P.M.? If so, do you walk or ride? If the latter, shall I call at five precisely with a carriage? Mr. Pike, do you not know that you can travel at a cheaper rate with one carriage than two? Answer me truly by the bearer hereof.

Thos. Corwin.

J. S. Pike, Sixth Street.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 513

Congressman Israel Washburn, Jr. to James S. Pike, January 25, 1860

Washington, January 25, 1860.

Dear Pike: “Want of penetration!” “By the Lord, I knew ye!” but as I had been told that you were coming to Washington about this time, I supposed Greeley would be most likely to get the letter, and I desired mainly to thank the Tribune.

Tom Corwin has made a six hour’ speech, wise and witty, a little pro-slavery, a good deal anti-slavery, but quite likely to bring out twenty speeches on the two sides, and not unlikely in the end to elect a Democratic Speaker, and certain to make the country hold the Republicans responsible for the non-organization; i.e., responsible to a considerable extent. Only think, a six hours’ speech on all subjects under the sun addressed to the clerk, and this in rebuke of those Republicans who have labored all these weeks to bring the House to its duty, and prevent speaking on our side!

Are you for Edward Bates for President? A categorical answer requested.

Yours truly,

I. Washburn, Jr.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 479

Correspondence on Mexican Affairs

WASHINGTON, April 15. – The president, to-day, in response to a resolution of the House transmitted voluminous documents, embracing all the correspondence which has taken place since June last, relative to the affairs of Mexico.

From a hasty glance at the contents, it appears that on the 3d of that month, Mr. Seward in writing to Mr. Corwin, informs him that intelligence wearing an air of authenticity discloses a design on the part of the insurgents of this country to gain possession of Lower California, and that the President expects him to exercise his best judgment, not only to thwart this scheme but prevent Rebel armed vessels from finding shelter in Mexican ports, and from carrying arms through the territory of that Republic.

The defence of Mexican sovereignty is urged upon the attention of that Government, and the declaration made that the United States does not desire to acquire any part of Mexico.

On the 9th of June Mr. Corwin informs Mr. Seward that it had been his constant endeavor since his arrival at the City of Mexico to possess the Mexican mind of the true cause of our difficulties, and thus enable them to estimate the danger which would result for any unfavorable termination of them. He was quite sure that while the Mexican government would endeavor to preserve friendly relations with all European Powers on fair terms, it regarded the United States it true and only reliable friend in any struggle which might involve its national existence.

Toward the close of July Mr. Corwin, in the course of his dispatch, incidentally remarks that Europe is quite willing to see us humbled and will not fail to take [advantage] of our embarrassments to execute purposes of which she would not have dreamed had we remained at peace. This was said with reference to the joint intervention of England, France and Spain in the affairs of Mexico.

Mr. Seward, in writing to Mr. Corwin on the 2d of September, assures him the president greatly desired that the political States of Mexico, as an independent nation, should be permanently maintained. And in December, after speaking of the joint intervention, informed him that the Government could not consent to his return from Mexico, as desired.

From the embarrassment by which she is surrounded, which will be acceptable to the Senate It is known that Mr. Corwin negotiated a treated with [Mexico], but the Senate rejected it on the ground that it was advisable to assume, as was proposed, any portion of the principal or interest of the debt of Mexico, or which would require the concurrence of the European Powers In communicating this result to Mr. Corwin Mr. Seward says, April 3d, under these circumstances the President is unable to suggest to you any other mode conducing the deliverance of our sister republic.

I desire to direct your most earnest attention to the necessity of guarding against any such pledge of the resources of Mexico to Foreign Powers as might affect our cause injuriously, or impair the enabling of the people of Mexico to sustain the free Government established by their own choice. You will not leave the Government of Mexico in doubt for a moment that the Government of the United States is not indifferent to the perils by which they are menaced.

The Senate in Executive session to-day confirmed the following nominations:

Gov. S. D. Morgan of N.Y., to be Maj. Gen.; Carl Schurz, Col. Nathan Kimball of Ind. Vols, Paymaster Benj. Alford of the U.S.A., Capt. Geo. L. Hulsoff, of the Adjt. Gens. Dept., Wm Smith of Ohio, Col. Chas. Devins and Rufus Saxton of Mass., Col. Jas. H. Van Allen of the 3d Regt. N.Y. Cavalry, and Napoleon B. Buford of Ill., to be Brigadier Generals of Volunteers.

– Published in the Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, April 19, 1862

{Tribune’s Dispatch}

It is understood that the Department of the South, of which Gen. Hunter has been put in command, will be thoroughly re-organized. Gen. Sherman will be followed North by his Brigadier Generals Wright and Viele; but it is an unknown who will fill the place they vacate.

It is also believed that Gen. Hunter will rightfully treat South Carolina and Georgia as rebels, and not as sovereign States.

The Senate to-day ratified two treaties, the commercial treaty with the Ottoman Porte, and the Mexican extradition treaty, negotiated by Minister Corwin.

The Former [sic], which is extremely liberal in its provisions, provides for its continuance for 50 years. One stipulation of the latter is to the effect that the frontier States, the respective parties shall deliver up persons for whom, surrender application is made without delay and expense of an appeal to Washington or the City of Mexico, elicited much discussion, and finally passed by barely one more than the constitutional majority, 27 to 13.

– Published in the Burlington Daily Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Friday April 11, 1862