Senator Salmon P. Chase to Milton Sutliff,* January 7, 1851

Washington, Jany 7, 1851.

My Dear Sir, I am not certain whether I replied to your letter of the 22nd which I received in New York where I spent Christmas. At any rate I will write you a few lines now.

I rejoice greatly in the unanimity which characterizes the action of the majority of the free democrats in the Legislature and I still more rejoice in their determination to make good their title to the name of democrats by their acts. We reproach the old line democracy for their inconsistency in allying themselves with slaveholders to effect their purposes. We profess to see more clearly and to follow more unreservedly the teachings of Jefferson. But in what is our inconsistency less, if we yield to alliances with the Black Power or Monopoly Power, for the sake of carrying particular points of our own. My only hope for the triumph of our antislavery principles is by consistent action upon a truly democratic platform under the democratic banner & with the democratic name. If our brethren of the old Line see us consistent they will infallibly be drawn to cooperation & final union with us. Designing men may delay this for a time, but as you remark the continuances will be at their costs.

Giddings, now, thinks, I believe, very much as I do on this subject, and when you all go home in the spring a movement in the right direction of tremendous power may be and should be made.

But to secure our greatest efficiency we should have papers of the right stamp at the most important points. The “Standard” should be placed under vigorous editorial control and its circulation extended as far as possible. I am in hopes we shall not be long without a genuine antislavery democratic paper at Cincinnati. The true Democrat at Cleveland is far from what we need. Its Whig sympathies paralyze its efficiency for good. I have conversed with Mr. Vaughan, whom I cordially esteem for his many good qualities, though I differ widely from him as to the proper course to be pursued by the Free democracy, upon this subject, but he is not at all inclined to adopt the views which seem to me obviously sound. Do — let me beg of you — consult our friends and if it be a possible thing get the Standard into right hands and under vigorous headway, I am willing to be taxed what is right.

I am glad that Col. Medary takes a liberal view of things. His paper favors cooperation between old line democrats and the radical democrats, and has drawn down upon itself the wrath of some of the Hunkers — I hope our friends will make up, by their support, all it loses by the hostility of the proslavery folk.

There is nothing new here. Give my best regards to Pardee — “a brother beloved,” though unknown in the flesh.

_______________

* Lent by Mr. Homer E. Stewart, Warren, Ohio.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 227-8

John Stuart Mill to John L. Motley, January 26, 1863

Blackheath Park, Kent,

January 26, 1863.

Dear Sir: You may imagine better than I can tell you how much your letter interested me. I am obliged to you for the information respecting the first settlers in New England. I did not know that there were so many people of family among them, though I knew there were some. And I was quite aware that the place which the refuse went to was Virginia — all the popular literature of the century following shows that colony to have been the one regarded as the Botany Bay of that time. But my argument did not turn upon this, nor was I thinking of race and blood, but of habits and principles. New England, as I understand it, was essentially a middle-class colony; the Puritans, in the higher classes, who took part in its foundation, were persons whose sympathies went in a different channel from that of class or rank. The Southern colonies, on the contrary, were founded upon aristocratic principles, several of them by aristocratic men as such, and we know that the greatest of them, Virginia, retained aristocratic institutions till Jefferson succeeded in abolishing them.

Concerning the Alabama, most people of sense in this country, I believe, are reserving their opinion until they hear what the government has to say for itself. My own first impression was that the government was not bound, nor even permitted, by international rules to prevent the equipment of such a vessel, provided it allows exactly similar liberty to the other combatant. But it is plain that notion was wrong, since the government has shown by issuing an order, which arrived too late, that it considered itself bound to stop the Alabama. What explanation it can give of the delay will be shown when Parliament meets; and what it ought to do now in consequence of its previous default, a person must be better acquainted than I am with international law to be able to judge. But I expect to have a tolerably decided opinion on the subject after it has been discussed.

I write you in much better spirits than I have been in since I saw you. In the first place, things are now going in a more encouraging manner in the West. Murfreesboro is an important as well as a glorious achievement, and from the general aspect of things I feel great confidence that you will take Vicksburg and cut off Arkansas and Texas, which then, by your naval superiority, will soon be yours. Then I exult in (what from observation of the politics of that State I was quite prepared for, though not for the unanimity with which it has been done) the passing over of Missouri from slavery to freedom — a fact which ought to cover with shame, if they were capable of it, the wretched creatures who treated Mr. Lincoln's second proclamation as waste paper, and who described the son of John Quincy Adams as laughing in his sleeve when he professed to care for the freedom of the negro. But I am now also in very good heart about the progress of opinion here. When I returned I already found things better than I expected. Friends of mine, who are heartily with your cause, who are much in society, and who speak in the gloomiest terms of what the general feeling was a twelvemonth ago, already thought that a change had commenced; and I heard every now and then that some person of intellect and influence, whom I did not know before to be with you, was with you very decidedly.

You must have read one of the most powerful and most thorough pieces of writing in your defense which has yet appeared, under the signature “Anglo-Saxon,” in the “Daily News.” That letter is by Goldwin Smith, and though it is not signed with his name, he is willing (as I am authorized to say) that it should be known. Again, Dr. Whewell, one from whom I should not have expected so much, feels, I am told, so strongly on your side that people complain of his being rude to them on the subject, and he will not suffer the “Times” to be in his house. These, you may say, are but individual cases. But a decided movement in your favor has begun among the public since it has been evident that your government is really in earnest about getting rid of slavery. I have always said that it was ignorance, not ill will, which made the majority of the English public go wrong about this great matter. Difficult as it may well be for you to comprehend it, the English public were so ignorant of all the antecedents of the quarrel that they really believed what they were told, that slavery was not the ground, scarcely even the pretext, of the war. But now, when the public acts of your government have shown that at last it aims at entire slave-emancipation, that your victory means this, and your failure means the extinction of all present hope of it, many feel very differently. When you entered decidedly into this course, your detractors abused you more violently for doing it than they had before for not doing it, and the “Times” and “Saturday Review” began favoring us with the very arguments, almost in the very language, which we used to hear from the West Indian slaveholders to prove slavery perfectly consistent with the Bible and with Christianity. This was too much — it overshot the mark.

The antislavery feeling is now thoroughly raising itself. Liverpool has led the way by a splendid meeting, of which the “Times” suppressed all mention. But you must have seen a report of this meeting; you must have seen how Spence did his utmost, and how he was met; and that the object was not merely a single demonstration, but the appointment of a committee to organize an action on the public mind. There are none like the Liverpool people for making an organization of that sort succeed, if once they put their hands to it. The day when I read this, I read in the same day's newspaper two speeches by cabinet ministers: one by Milner Gibson, as thoroughly and openly with you as was consistent with the position of a cabinet minister; the other by the Duke of Argyll, a simple antislavery speech, denouncing the pro-slavery declaration of the Southern bishops; but his delivery of such a speech at that time and place had but one meaning. I do not know if you have seen Cairnes's lecture, or whether you are aware that it has been taken up and largely circulated by religious societies and is in its fourth edition. A new and enlarged edition of his great book is on the point of publication, and will, I have no doubt, be very widely read and powerfully influential.

Foreigners ought not to regard the “Times” as representing the British nation. Of course a paper which is so largely read and bought and so much thought of as the “Times” is must have a certain amount of suitability to the people that buy it. But the line it takes on any particular question is much more a matter of accident than is supposed. It is sometimes better than the public, and sometimes worse. It was better on the Competitive Examinations and on the Revised Educational Code, in each case owing to the accidental position of a particular man who happened to write in it — both which men I could name to you. I am just as fully persuaded as if I could name the man that the attitude it has long held respecting slavery, and now on the American question, is equally owing to the accidental interests or sympathies of some one person connected with the paper. The “Saturday Review,” again, is understood to be the property of the bitterest Tory enemy America has — Beresford Hope.

Unfortunately, these papers, through the influence they obtain in other ways, and in the case of the “Times” very much in consequence of the prevailing notion that it speaks the opinions of all England, are able to exercise great power in perverting the opinions of England whenever the public is sufficiently ignorant of facts to be misled. That, whenever engaged in a wrong line, writers like those of the “Times” go from bad to worse, and at last stick at nothing in the way of perverse and even dishonest misrepresentation, is but natural to party writers everywhere; natural to those who go on day after day working themselves up to write strongly in a matter to which they have committed themselves and breathing an atmosphere inflamed by themselves; natural, moreover, to demagogism both here and in America, and natural, above all, to anonymous demagogism, which, risking no personal infamy by any amount of tergiversation, never minds to what lengths it goes, because it can always creep out in time and turn round at the very moment when the tide turns.

Among the many lessons which have been impressed on me by what is now going on, one is a strong sense of the solidarite (to borrow a word for which our language has no short equivalent) of the whole of a nation with every one of its members, for it is painfully apparent that your country and mine habitually judge of one another from their worst specimens. You say that if England were like Cairnes and me there would be no alienation; and neither would there if Americans were like you. But I need not use soft words to you, who, I am sure, detest these things as much as I do. The low tricks and fulsome mob flattery of your public men and the bullying tone and pettifogging practice of your different cabinets (Southern men chiefly, I am aware) toward foreigners have deeply disgusted a number of our very best people, and all the more so because it is the likeness of what we may be coming to ourselves. You must admit, too, that the present crisis, while it has called forth a heroism and constancy in your people which cannot be too much admired, and to which even your enemies in this country do justice, has also exhibited on the same scale of magnitude all the defects of your state of society — the incompetency and mismanagement arising from the fatal belief of your public that anybody is fit for anything, and the gigantic pecuniary corruption which seems universally acknowledged to have taken place, and, indeed, without it one cannot conceive how you can have got through the enormous sums you have spent.

All this, and what seems to most of us entire financial recklessness (though, for myself, I do not pretend to see how you could have done anything else in the way of finance), are telling against you here, you can hardly imagine how much. But all this may be, and I have great hopes that it will be, wiped out by the conduct which you have it in your power to adopt as a nation. If you persevere until you have subdued the South, or at all events all west of the Mississippi; if, having done this, you set free the slaves, with compensation to loyal owners, and (according to the advice of Mr. Paterson, in his admirable speech at Liverpool) settle the freed slaves as free proprietors on the unoccupied land; if you pay honestly the interest on your own national debt, and take measures for redeeming it, including the debt without interest which is constituted by your inconvertible paper currency — if you do these things, the United States will stand very far higher in the general opinion of England than they have stood at any time since the War of Independence. If, in addition to this, you have men among you of a caliber to use the high spirit which this struggle has raised, and the grave reflections to which it gives rise, as means of moving public opinion in favor of correcting what is bad and of strengthening what is weak in your institutions and modes of feeling and thought, the war will prove to have been a permanent blessing to your country such as we never dared hope for, and a source of inestimable improvement in the prospects of the human race in other ways besides the great one of extinguishing slavery.

If you are really going to do these things you need not mind being misunderstood — you can afford to wait.

Believe me, dear sir,

Yours very truly,

J. S. Mill.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 307-14

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: November 1, 1862

Gen. Winder's late policemen have fled the city. Their monstrous crimes are the theme of universal execration. But I reported them many months ago, and Gen. Winder was cognizant of their forgeries, correspondence with the enemy, etc. The Secretary of War, and the President himself, were informed of them, but it was thought to be a “small matter.”

Gen. Lee made his appearance at the department to-day, and was hardly recognizable, for his beard, now quite white, has been suffered to grow all over his face. But he is quite robust from his exercises in the field. His appearance here, coupled with the belief that we are to have the armistice, or recognition and intervention, is interpreted by many as an end of the war. But I apprehend it is a symptom of the falling back of our army.

I have been startled to-day by certain papers that came under my observation. The first was written by J. Foulkes, to L. B. Northrop, Commissary-General, proposing to aid the government in procuring meat and bread for the army from ports in the enemy's possession. They were to be paid for in cotton. The next was a letter from the Commissary-General to G. W. Randolph, Secretary of War, urging the acceptance of the proposition, and saying without it, it would be impossible to subsist the army. He says the cotton proposed to be used, in the Southwest will either be burned or fall into the hands of the enemy; and that more than two-thirds is never destroyed when the enemy approaches. But to effect his object, it will be necessary for the Secretary to sanction it, and to give orders for the cotton to pass the lines of the army. The next was from the Secretary to the President, dated October thirtieth, which not only sanctioned Colonel Northrop's scheme, but went further, and embraced shoes and blankets for the Quartermaster-General. This letter inclosed both Foulkes's and Northrop's. They were all sent back to-day by the President, with his remarks. He hesitates, and does not concur. But says the Secretary will readily see the propriety of postponing such a resort until January — and he hopes it may not be necessary then to depart from the settled policy of the government — to forbear trading cotton to the Yankees, etc. etc.

Mr. Benjamin, Secretary of State, has given Mr. Dunnock permission to sell cotton to the Yankees and the rest of the world on the Atlantic and Gulf coast. Can it be that the President knows nothing of this? It is obvious that the cotton sold by Mr. Dunnock (who was always licensed by Mr. Benjamin to trade with people in the enemy's country beyond the Potomac) will be very comfortable to the enemy. And it may aid Mr. Dunnock and others in accumulating a fortune. The Constitution defines treason to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I never supposed Mr. Randolph would suggest, nay urge, opening an illicit trade with “Butler, the Beast.” This is the first really dark period of our struggle for independence.

We have acres enough, and laborers enough, to subsist 30,000,000 of people; and yet we have the spectacle of high functionaries, under Mr. Davis, urging the necessity of bartering cotton to the enemy for stores essential to the maintenance of the army! I cannot believe it is a necessity, but a destitution of that virtue necessary to achieve independence. If they had any knowledge of these things in Europe, they would cease their commendations of President Davis.

Mr. Randolph says, in his letter to the President, that trading with ports in possession of the enemy is forbidden to citizens, and not to the government! The archives of the department show that this is not the first instance of the kind entertained by the Secretary. He has granted a license to citizens in Mobile to trade cotton in New Orleans for certain supplies in exchange, in exact compliance with Gen. Butler's proclamation. Did Pitt ever practice such things during his contest with Napoleon? Did the Continental Government ever resort to such equivocal expedients? A member of Washington's cabinet (and he, too, was a Randolph) once violated the “settled policy of the government,” but he was instantly deprived of the seals of office. He acted under the advice of Jefferson, who sought to destroy Washington; and the present Secretary Randolph is a grandson of Jefferson. Washington, the inflexible patriot, frowned indignantly upon every departure from the path of rectitude.

I can do nothing more than record these things, and Watch!

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 179-81

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: October 10, 1862

Mr. Brooks called this morning to get me to draft a passport bill, which he said he would get Congress to pass. I doubt it. I wrote the bill, however. He says fifteen or twenty members of Congress visit his house daily. They dine with him, and drink his old whisky. Mr. B. has a superb mansion on Clay Street, which he bought at a sacrifice. He made his money at trade. In one of the rooms Aaron Burr once dined with Chief Justice Marshall, and Marshall was assailed for it afterward by Mr. Jefferson. It was during Burr's trial, and Marshall was his judge. Mr. Wickham, who was Burr's counsel, then occupied the house, and gave a dinner party. Marshall did not know Burr was to be one of the guests. I got these facts from Mr. Foote, whom I met there the other evening.

A letter from Gen. Bragg to the President, indicates but too clearly that the people of Kentucky hesitate to risk the loss of property by joining us. Only one brigade has been recruited so far. The general says 50,000 more men are requisite. Can he have them? None!

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 167-8

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: March 28, 1862

Mr. Benjamin has been promoted. He is now Secretary of State. .

His successor in the War Department is G. W. Randolph, a lawyer of modest pretensions, who, although he has lived for several years in this city, does not seem to have a dozen acquaintances. But he inherits a name, being descended from Thomas Jefferson, and, I believe, likewise from the Mr. Randolph in Washington's cabinet. Mr. Randolph was a captain at Bethel under Magruder; and subsequently promoted to a colonelcy. Announcing his determination to quit the military service more than a month ago, he entered the field as a competitor for the seat in Congress left vacant by the death of President Tyler. Hon. James Lyons was elected, and Col. Randolph got no votes at all.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 117

Diary of Judith W. McGuire: February 23, 1862

Notwithstanding the violence of the rain yesterday, the Capitol Square, the streets around it, and the adjacent houses, were crowded. The President stood at the base of that noble equestrian statue of Washington, and took the oath which was taken by the “Father of his Country” more than seventy years ago — just after the “great rebellion,” in the success of which we all, from Massachusetts to Georgia, so heartily gloried. No wonder that he spoke as if he were inspired. Was it not enough to inspire him to have the drawn sword of Washington, unsheathed in defence of his invaded country, immediately over his head, while the other hand of his great prototype points encouragingly to the South? Had he not the life-like representations of Jefferson, George Mason, and, above all, of Patrick Henry, by his side? The latter with his scroll in his outstretched hand, his countenance beaming, his lips almost parted, and seeming on the point of bursting into one blaze of eloquence in defence of his native South. How could Southern tongues remain quiet, or Southern hearts but burn within us, when we beheld our heroes, living and dead, surrounding and holding up the hands of our great chief? By him stood his cabinet, composed of the talent and the patriotism of the land; then was heard the voice of our beloved Assistant Bishop, in tones of fervid eloquence, beseeching the blessings of Heaven on our great undertaking. I would that every young man, from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, could have witnessed the scene.

Last night was the first levee. The rooms were crowded. The President looked weary and grave, but was all suavity and cordiality, and Mrs. Davis won all hearts by her usual unpretending kindness. I feel proud to have those dear old rooms, arousing as they do so many associations of my childhood and youth, filled with the great, the noble, the fair of our land, every heart beating in unison, with one great object in view, and no wish beyond its accomplishment, as far as this world is concerned. But to-day is Saturday, and I must go to the hospital to take care of our sick — particularly to nurse our little soldier-boy. Poor child, he is very ill!

SOURCE: Judith W. McGuire, Diary of a Southern Refugee, During the War, p. 95-6

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, July 12, 1864

And how is Ashfield? I should have written you there before if I had supposed there was a post-office at such a height. Do you have to eat oil more than three times a day to keep warm in this weather? We don't. But then we live upon an island in the temperate zone. Or are you warmed by the news of the isolation of Washington? There is something comical about it which I cannot escape, with all the annoyance. The great Dutch Pennsylvania annually sprawling on its back, and bellowing to mankind to come and help it out of the scrape, is perfectly ludicrous. I hope that this year all the States will learn that, while they have no efficient and organized militia, they will be constantly harassed by raids to the end of the war. We have all kinds of rumors here at every moment, from which you are free. But the sense of absurdity and humiliation is very universal. These things weaken the hold of the administration upon the people; and the only serious peril that I foresee is the setting in of a reaction which may culminate in November and defeat Lincoln, as it did Wadsworth in this State. I wish we had a loyal governor, and that New York city was virtuous.

Have you thought what a vindication this war is of Alexander Hamilton? I wish somebody would write his life as it ought to be written, for surely he was one of the greatest of our great men, as Jefferson was the least of the truly great; or am I wrong? Hamilton was generous and sincere. Was Jefferson either? In Franklin's life how the value of temperament shows itself! It was as fortunate for him and for us as his genius.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 180-1

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: April 16, 1861

This day the Spontaneous People's Convention met and organized in Metropolitan Hall. The door-keeper stood with a drawn sword in his hand. But the scene was orderly. The assembly was full, nearly every county being represented, and the members were the representatives of the most ancient and respectable families in the State. David Chalmers, of Halifax County, I believe, was the President, and Willoughby Newton, a life-long Whig, among the Vice-Presidents. P. H. Aylett, a grandson of Patrick Henry, was the first speaker. And his eloquence indicated that the spirit of his ancestor survived in him. But he was for moderation and delay, still hoping that the other Convention would yield to the pressure of public sentiment, and place the State in the attitude now manifestly desired by an overwhelming majority of the people. He was answered by the gallant Capt. Wise, who thrilled every breast with his intrepid bearing and electric bursts of oratory. He advocated action, without reference to the other Convention, as the best means of bringing the Unionists to their senses. And the so-called Demosthenean Seddon, and G. W. Randolph (grandson of Thomas Jefferson), Lieut.-Gov. Montague, James Lyons, Judge Robertson, etc., were there. Never, never did I hear more exalted and effective bursts of oratory. And it was apparent that messages were constantly received from the other Convention. What they were, I did not learn at the moment; but it was evident that the Unionists were shaking in their shoes, and they certainly begged one — just one —  day's delay, which was accorded them. The People's Convention agreed to adjourn till 10 o'clock A.M. the next day. But before we separated a commotion was observed on the stage, and the next moment a Mr. P., from Gov. Wise's old district, rushed forward and announced that he had just arrived from Norfolk, where, under instructions, and with the acquiescence of Gov. Letcher, he had succeeded in blocking the channel of the river; and this would either secure to us, or render useless to the United States, certain ships of the navy, stores, armament, etc., of the value of millions of dollars. This announcement was received with the wildest shouts of joy. Young men threw up their hats, and old men buttoned their coats and clapped their hands most vigorously. It was next hinted by some one who seemed to know something of the matter, that before another day elapsed, Harper's Ferry would fall into the hands of the secessionists.

At night the enthusiasm increases in intensity, and no further opposition is to be apprehended from the influence of Tim Rives, Baldwin, Clemens, etc. etc. It was quite apparent, indeed, that if an ordinance of secession were passed by the new Convention, its validity would be recognized and acted upon by the majority of the people. But this would be a complication of the civil war, now the decree of fate.

Perhaps the occurrence which has attracted most attention is the raising of the Southern flag on the capitol. It was hailed with the most deafening shouts of applause. But at a quiet hour of the night, the governor had it taken down, for the Convention had not yet passed the ordinance of secession. Yet the stars and stripes did not float in its stead; it was replaced by the flag of Virginia

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 20-1

Remarkable Requests – Will of Capt. Levy, of the Navy

From the N. Y. Post

The will of Captain Uriah P. Levy, U. S. N., came up for probate in the Surrogate’s Court to-day.  Mrs. Levy receives only her right of dower and all the household furniture, plate, &c. so long as she shall remain unmarried, excepting what is otherwise bequeathed, to revert upon her death or marriage.  Captain Levy’s nephew, Ashel S. Levy, receives the Washington farm, in Albemarle, Virginia, with all the negro slaves, &c., and $5,00 [sic] in cash, also his gold box with the freedom of the city of New York.

He leaves to his brother, Jos. M. Levy, $1,000 in cash and mortgage on his house in Baltimore, to his brother Isaac Levy, $1,000 and all debts due him on notes, to Mitchell M. Levy, son of his brother, Joseph P. Levy, $1,000 in cash, to Eliza Hendricks, of Cincinnati, Ohio, the income of $1,000 to his nephew Morton Phillips, of New Orleans, his gold hunting watch and $500, to Colonel T. Moses of South Carolina a sliver urn, formerly belonging to Dr. Philips on which is engraved, “From Captain Uriah P. Levy, United States Navy, to his kinsman, Colonel Franklin Moses, Senator of the State of South Carolina, as a testimony of my affection.”

There are also legacies of $100 each to Captain John B. Montgomery, Captain Lawrence Kearney and Captain Francis Gregory, United States Navy, and Benj. F. Butler, to purchase mourning rings.  To Lieutenants Peter Turner and John Moffat, U. S. Navy, and Dr. John J. Cohen and Jacob J. Cohen, Jr., Col. M. Cohen, United States Navy, Lieutenant Lanier, Captain Wm. Meroine and Commodore Thomas Ap C Jones, each $25, to purchase mourning rings.

The will directs the executors to erect a monument at Cypress Hills, to consist of a full length statue of Captain Levy, in iron or bronze, in the full uniform of a Captain of the United States Navy and holding his hand a scroll on which shall be inscribed, “Under this monument,” or “In the memory of Uriah P. Levy – Captain in the United States Navy, Father of the Law for Abolition of the Barbarous Practice of Corporal Punishment in the Navy of the United States.”  The monument is to cost $6,000, and the body is to be buried under it.

To the Historical Society are bequeathed three paintings – the Wreck of the Medusa frigate, by Gericault, the Descent of the infant Jesus and Virgin Confessing the Bishop of Rouen, and a Rural Scene by Carl Bonner.  He then bequeaths his farm and estate at Monticello, Va., formerly belonging to President Thomas Jefferson, with all the residue of his estate, “to the People of the United States,” or such persons as Congress shall appoint to receive it, and especially all my real estate in the city of New York in trust for the sole and only purpose of establishing and maintaining at the farm in Monticello, Va., an agricultural school for the purpose of educating, as practical. farmers children of the Warrant Office of the United States Navy whose fathers are dead, the children to be supported by this fund from the ages of twelve to sixteen.”  For fuel and fencing said farm school, [the] will bequeaths two hundred acres of woodland of his Washington farm, Va.

The will especially requires that no professorships be established in said school and no professors being employed, the school being intended for charity and not for pomp.  In case Congress refuses to carry out the intention of this bequests the property is bequeathed to the people of Virginia for the same purpose, and incase the legislature of Virginia declines to received the trust the property is to go to the Portuguese Hebrew Congregation in this city and the Old Portuguese Hebrew Congregation in Cherry street, Philadelphia, and the Portuguese Hebrew Congregation of Richmond Va., for the establishment of said school at Monticello, for the children of all denominations, Hebrew and Christian.

Should this fund be more than sufficient for the support of children of warrant officers of the navy, the children of sergeant-majors of the United States army are to be included in the benefit – the balance to be for the benefit of children of seamen.  He further bequeaths $1,000 to the Portuguese Hebrew Hospital of this city.

The executors are Benjamin F. Butler, D. V. S. Coddington, Ashel S. Levy, Jos. H. Patten, Joshua Cohen, Jacob J. Cohen, George Carr, and John B. Blake, who are also created trustees of the estate.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, June 7, 1862, p. 1

Mr. Clay On The Texas Question

The following Letter from Mr. CLAY to the Editors was forwarded from Raleigh on the day of its date, but did not reach our hands in time for the publication earlier than to-day.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER

RALEIGH, April 17, 1844

GENTLEMEN:  Subsequent to my departure from Ashland, in December last, I received various communications from popular assemblages and private individuals, requesting an expression of my opinion upon the question of the Annexation of Texas to the United States. I have forborne to reply to them, because it was not very convenient, during the progress of my journey, to do so, and for other reasons. I did not think it proper, unnecessarily, to introduce at present a new element among the other exciting subjects which agitate and engross the public mind. The rejection of the overture of Texas, some years ago, to become annexed to the United States, had met with general acquiescence. Nothing had since occurred materially to vary the question. I had seen no evidence of a desire being entertained, on the part of any considerable portion of the American people, that Texas should become an integral part of the United States. During my sojourn in New Orleans, I had, indeed, been greatly surprised, by information which I received from Texas, that, in the course of last fall, voluntary overture had proceeded from the Executive of the United States to the Authorities of Texas to conclude a treaty of Annexation; and that, in order to overcome the repugnance felt by any of them to a negotiation upon the subject, strong and, as I believed, erroneous representations had been made to them of a state of opinion in the Senate of the United States favorable to the ratification of such a treaty. According to these representations, it had been ascertained that a number of Senators, varying from thirty-five to forty-two, were ready to sanction such a treaty. I was aware, too, that holders of Texas lands and Texas scrip, and speculators in them, were actively engaged in promoting the object of annexation. Still, I did not believe that any Executive of the United States would venture upon so grave and momentous a proceeding, not only without any general manifestation of public opinion in favor of it, but in direct opposition to strong and decided expressions of public disapprobation. But it appears that I was mistaken. To the astonishment of the whole nation, we are now informed that a treaty of annexation has been actually concluded, and is to be submitted to the Senate for its consideration. The motives for my silence, therefore, no longer remain, and I feel it to be my duty to present an exposition of my views and opinions upon the question, for what they may be worth, to the public consideration. I adopt this method as being more convenient than several replies to the respective communications which I have received.

I regret that I have not the advantage of a view of the treaty itself, so as to enable me to adapt an expression of my opinion to the actual conditions and stipulations which it contains. Not possessing that opportunity, I am constrained to treat the question according to what I presume to be the terms of the treaty. If, without the loss of national character, without the hazard of foreign war, with the general concurrence of the nation, without any danger to the integrity of the Union, and without giving an unreasonable price for Texas, the question of annexation were presented, it would appear in quite a different light from that in which, I apprehend, it is now to be regarded.

The United States acquired a title to Texas, extending, as I believe, to the Rio del Norte, by the treaty of Louisiana. They ceded and relinquished that title to Spain by the treaty of 1819, by which the Sabine was substituted for the Rio del Norte as our western boundary. This treaty was negotiated under the Administration of Mr. Monroe, and with the concurrence of his Cabinet, of which Messrs. Crawford, Calhoun, and Wirt, being a majority, all Southern gentlemen, composed a part. When the treaty was laid before the House of Representatives, being a member of that body, I expressed the opinion, which I then entertained, and still hold, that Texas was sacrificed to the acquisition of Florida. We wanted Florida; but I thought it must, from its position, inevitably fall into our possession; that the point of a few years, sooner or later, was of no sort of consequence, and that in giving five millions of dollars and Texas for it, we gave more than a just equivalent. But, if we made a great sacrifice in the surrender of Texas, we ought to take care not to make too great a sacrifice in the attempt to re-acquire it.

My opinions of the inexpediency of the treaty of 1819 did not prevail. The country and Congress were satisfied with it, appropriations were made to carry it into effect, the line of the Sabine was recognised by us as our boundary, in negotiations both with Spain and Mexico, after Mexico became independent, and measures have been in actual progress to mark the line, from the Sabine to Red river, and thence to the Pacific ocean. We have thus fairly alienated our title to Texas, by solemn national compacts, to the fulfilment of which we stand bound by good faith and national honor. It is, therefore, perfectly idle and ridiculous, if not dishonorable, to talk of resuming our title to Texas, as if we had never parted with it. We can no more do that than Spain can resume Florida, France Louisiana, or Great Britain the thirteen colonies, now composing a part of the United States.

During the administration of Mr. Adams, Mr. Poinsett, Minister of the United States at Mexico, was instructed by me, with the President's authority, to propose a re-purchase of Texas; but he forbore even to make an overture for that purpose. Upon his return to the United States, he informed me, at New Orleans, that his reason for not making it was, that he knew the purchase was wholly impracticable, and that he was persuaded that, if he made the overture, it would have no other effect than to aggravate irritations, already existing, upon matters of difference between the two countries.

The events which have since transpired in Texas are well known. She revolted against the Government of Mexico, flew to arms, and finally fought and won the memorable battle of San Jacinto, annihilating a Mexican army and making a captive of the Mexican President. The signal success of that Revolution was greatly aided, if not wholly achieved, by citizens of the United States who had migrated to Texas. These succors, if they could not always be prevented by the Government of the United States, were furnished in a manner and to an extent which brought upon us some national reproach in the eyes of an impartial world. And, in my opinion, they impose on us the obligation of scrupulously avoiding the imputation of having instigated and aided the Revolution with the ultimate view of territorial aggrandizement. After the battle of San Jacinto, the United States recognised the independence of Texas, in conformity with the principle and practice which have always prevailed in their councils of recognising the Government “de facto,” without regarding the question de jure. That recognition did not affect or impair the rights of Mexico, or change the relations which existed between her and Texas. She, on the contrary, has preserved all her rights, and has continued to assert, and so far as I know yet asserts, her right to reduce Texas to obedience, as a part of the Republic of Mexico. According to late intelligence, it is probable that she has agreed upon a temporary suspension of hostilities; but, if that has been done, I presume it is with the purpose, upon the termination of the armistice, of renewing the war and enforcing her rights, as she considers them.

This narrative shows the present actual condition of Texas, so far as I have information about it. If it be correct, Mexico has not abandoned, but perseveres in the assertion of her rights by actual force of arms, which, if suspended, are intended to be renewed. Under these circumstances, if the Government of the United States were to acquire Texas, it would acquire along with it all the incumbrances which Texas is under, and among them the actual or suspended war between Mexico and Texas. Of that consequence there cannot be a doubt. Annexation and war with Mexico are identical. Now, for one, I certainly am not willing to involve this country in a foreign war for the object of acquiring Texas. I know there are those who regard such a war with indifference and as a trifling affair, on account of the weakness of Mexico, and her inability to inflict serious injury upon this country. But I do not look upon it thus lightly. I regard all wars as great calamities, to be avoided, if possible, and honorable peace as the wisest and truest policy of this country. What the United States most need are union, peace, and patience. Nor do I think that the weakness of a Power should form a motive, in any case, for inducing us to engage in or to depreciate the evils of war. Honor and good faith and justice are equally due from this country towards the weak as towards the strong. And, if an act of injustice were to be perpetrated towards any Power, it would be more compatible with the dignity of the nation, and, in my judgment, less dishonorable, to inflict it upon a powerful instead of a weak foreign nation. But are we perfectly sure that we should be free from injury in a state of war with Mexico? Have we any security that countless numbers of foreign vessels, under the authority and flag of Mexico, would not prey upon our defenceless commerce in the Mexican gulf, on the Pacific ocean, and on every other sea and ocean? What commerce, on the other hand, does Mexico offer, as an indemnity for our losses, to the gallantry and enterprise of our countrymen? This view of the subject supposes that the war would be confined to the United States and Mexico as the only belligerents. But have we any certain guaranty that Mexico would obtain no allies among the great European Powers? Suppose any such Powers, jealous of our increasing greatness, and disposed to check our growth and cripple us, were to take part in behalf of Mexico in the war, how would the different belligerents present themselves to Christendom and the enlightened world? We have been seriously charged with an inordinate spirit of territorial aggrandizement; and, without admitting the justice of the charge, it must be owned that we have made vast acquisitions of territory within the last forty years. Suppose Great Britain and France, or one of them, were to take part with Mexico, and, by a manifesto, were to proclaim that their objects were to assist a weak and helpless ally to check the spirit of encroachment and ambition of an already overgrown Republic, seeking still further acquisition of territory, to maintain the independence of Texas, disconnected with the United States, and to prevent the further propagation of slavery from the United States, what would be the effect of such allegations upon the judgment of an impartial and enlightened world?

Assuming that the annexation of Texas is war with Mexico, is it competent to the treaty-making power to plunge this country into war, not only without the concurrence of, but without deigning to consult Congress, to which, by the Constitution, belongs exclusively the power of declaring war?

I have hitherto considered the question upon the supposition that the annexation is attempted without the assent of Mexico. If she yields her consent, that would materially affect the foreign aspect of the question, if it did not remove all foreign difficulties. On the assumption of that assent, the question would be confined to the domestic considerations which belong to it, embracing the terms and conditions upon which annexation is proposed. I do not think that Texas ought to be received into the Union, as an integral part of it, in decided opposition to the wishes of a considerable and respectable portion of the Confederacy. I think it far more wise and important to compose and harmonize the present Confederacy, as it now exists, than to introduce a new element of discord and distraction into it. In my humble opinion, it should be the constant and earnest endeavor of American statesmen to eradicate prejudices, to cultivate and foster concord, and to produce general contentment among all parts of our Confederacy. And true wisdom, it seems to me, points to the duty of rendering its present members happy, prosperous, and satisfied with each other, rather than to attempt to introduce alien members, against the common consent and with the certainty of deep dissatisfaction. Mr. Jefferson expressed the opinion, and others believed, that it was never in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution to add foreign territory to the confederacy, out of which new States were to be formed. The acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida may be defended upon the peculiar ground of the relation in which they stood to the States of the Union. After they were admitted, we might well pause awhile, people our vast wastes, develop our resources, prepare the means of defending what we possess, and augment our strength, power, and greatness. If hereafter further territory should be wanted for an increased population, we need entertain no apprehensions but that it will be acquired by means, it is to be hoped, fair, honorable, and constitutional.

It is useless to disguise that there are those who espouse and those who oppose the annexation of Texas upon the ground of the influence which it would exert, in the balance of political power, between two great sections of the Union. I conceive that no motive for the acquisition of foreign territory would be more unfortunate, or pregnant with more fatal consequences, than that of obtaining it for the purpose of strengthening one part against another part of the common Confederacy. Such a principle, put into practical operation, would menace the existence, if it did not certainly sow the seeds of a dissolution of the Union. It would be to proclaim to the world an insatiable and unquenchable thirst for foreign conquest or acquisition of territory. For if to-day Texas be acquired to strengthen one part of the Confederacy, to-morrow Canada may be required to add strength to another. And, after that might have been obtained, still other and further acquisitions would become necessary to equalize and adjust the balance of political power. Finally, in the progress of this spirit of universal dominion, the part of the Confederacy which is now weakest, would find itself still weaker from the impossibility of securing new theatres for those peculiar institutions which it is charged with being desirous to extend.

But would Texas, ultimately, really add strength to that which is now considered the weakest part of the Confederacy? If my information be correct, it would not. According to that, the territory of Texas is susceptible of a division into five States of convenient size and form. Of these, two only would be adapted to those peculiar institutions to which I have referred, and the other three, lying west and north of San Antonio, being only adapted to farming and grazing purposes, from the nature of their soil, climate, and productions, would not admit of those institutions. In the end therefore, there would be two slave and three free States probably added to the Union. If this view of the soil and geography of Texas be correct, it might serve to diminish the zeal both of those who oppose and those who are urging annexation.

Should Texas be annexed to the Union, the United States will assume and become responsible for the debt of Texas, be its amount what it may. What it is, I do not know certainly; but the least I have seen it stated at is thirteen millions of dollars. And this responsibility will exist, whether there be a stipulation in the treaty or not expressly assuming the payment of the debt of Texas. For I suppose it to be undeniable that, if one nation becomes incorporated in another, all the debts, and obligations, and incumbrances, and wars of the incorporated nation, become the debts, and obligations, and incumbrances, and wars of the common nation created by the incorporation.

If any European nation entertains any ambitious designs upon Texas, such as that of colonizing her, or in any way subjugating her, I should regard it as the imperative duty of the Government of the United States to oppose to such designs the most firm and determined resistance, to the extent, if necessary, of appealing to arms to prevent the accomplishment of any such designs. The Executive of the United States ought to be informed as to the aims and views of foreign Powers with regard to Texas, and I presume that, if there be any of the exceptionable character which I have indicated, the Executive will disclose to the co-ordinate departments of the government, if not the public, the evidence of them. From what I have seen and heard, I believe that Great Britain has recently formally and solemnly disavowed any such aims or purposes – has declared that she is desirous only of the independence of Texas, and that she has no intention to interfere in her domestic institutions. If she has made such disavowal and declaration, I presume they are in the possession of the Executive.

In the future progress of events, it is probable that there will be a voluntary or forcible separation of the British North American possessions from the parent country. I am strongly inclined to think that it will be best for the happiness of all parties that, in that event, they should be erected into a separate and independent Republic. With the Canadian Republic on one side, that of Texas on the other, and the United States, the friend of both, between them, each could advance its own happiness by such constitutions, laws, and measures, as were best adapted to its peculiar condition. They would be natural allies, ready, by co-operation, to repel any European or foreign attack either. Each would afford a secure refuge to the persecuted and oppressed driven into exile by either of the others. They would emulate each other in improvements, in free institutions, and in the science of self-government. Whilst Texas has adopted our Constitution as the model of hers, she has, in several important particulars, greatly improved upon it.

Although I have felt compelled, from the nature of the inquiries addressed to me, to extend this communication to a much greater length than I could have wished, I could not do justice to the subject, and fairly and fully expose my own opinions in a shorter space. In conclusion, they may be stated in a few words to be, that I consider the annexation of Texas, at this time, without the assent of Mexico, as a measure compromising the national character, involving us certainly in war with Mexico, probably with other foreign Powers, dangerous to the integrity of the Union, inexpedient in the present financial condition of the country, and not called for by any general expression of public opinion.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. CLAY.

– Published in Daily National Intelligencer, Washington, D.C., Saturday, April 27, 1844, p. 3

Jefferson's Prophesy

President Jefferson’s instincts were known to be against human slavery.  From Edmond Bacon’s new work on Jefferson appears the following prophesy:

“No servants ever had a kinder master than Jefferson’s.  He did not like slavery.  I have heard him talk a great deal about it.  He always though it a bad system.  I have heard him prophesy that we should have just such trouble with it as we are having now.”

Similar prediction[s] have been made by nearly all the founds of the republic.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, April 5, 1862, p. 3

Jeff. Davis’ Inauguration – The Scene

When at the Restoration, Louis XVIII returned to Paris, as was received with demonstrations of welcome by the populace, the official Moniteur of the following day put in his mouth some pithy observations most apt for the occasion.  “But I never said anything of the kind,” said the King to one of his Court when he read it.  “Sire,” replied the official, “it is necessary that your Majesty should have said so.”

Somewhat so with Jeff. Davis’ inaugural, tho’ it was, no doubt, pronounced by him as printed.  In reading it we must bear in mind that he was under a necessity of saying what befitted the occasion, with little reference to facts, or exactness of statement.  His position required him to present the most hopeful and encouraging aspects of the struggle into which he may be said  himself to have plunged the people of the Confederate States.

He would have played his role very badly indeed in the drama that was being enacted, if he had ventured upon a candid and sincere exposition of the real state of affairs.  Necessity as manager, had written down his part for him, and he could not deviate without spoiling the play, and being, as the theatrical phrase has it, “damned” by boxes, pit and gallery.  The select audience would not permit even a star performer to lay aside the lion and announce himself as “Nick Bottom, the Weaver.”  He must roar in character.

The august ceremonial of inauguration, in the accounts given of it in the Richmond papers, serious as they are, seems more like a burlesque than the solemn inauguration of a “permanent government” by men in their right wits.  Yet we doubt not the crowd of adventurers, F. F. coxcombs, swaggerers, lavish of “the last drop of blood” but careful of the first, behaved with all the solemnity befitting such an occasion.

The ceremonies, it appears by the programme, took place upon a platform erected for the purpose, against the east front of the Washington monument.  To this Jeff. refers to his exordium: “On this, the birthday of the man most identified with the establishment of American Independence, and beneath the monument erected to commemorate his heroic virtues and those of his compatriots, we have assembled, &c.  The stage is described as “extending from the pedestal in front of the statue of Mason to that in front of Jefferson.”

That Monument in Capitol Square, Richmond, is one of the noblest works of art in America. – Those who have seen and studied it, united in pronouncing it alike worthy of the great subject and of the distinguished artist Crawford, who designed and partially executed the work.  The main figure is a colossal equestrian statue of Washington.  Around it, upon subordinate pedestals, are statures of life size, of Jefferson, Henry, Mason and others – Virginia’s sons in the period when she produced heroes and statesmen of honest renown in all time.

These figures are in bronze, cast at the royal foundry, Munich.  The monument itself is designed to commemorate to posterity genuine heroism and patriotic devotion.  The very shadow – even the very steps of that noble monumental structure, are chosen as the place of inaugurating a government founded upon the overthrow of  that which those great men organized, and having as it’s “corner stone,” that slavery which they one and all abhorred.  The utterance to-day by either of the four Virginians named, of the sentiments they promulgated, in their lifetimes, would cause him or them to be driven from “the sacred soil” of Virginia, as “Abolitionists” and traitors to the Davis Confederacy.  It was the presence of these magnificent effigies of these founders of the National Government that the arch conspirators chose for displaying before the world their formal organization for its overthrow.  With impious lips, the Chief pretended to invoke such an example in justification of his crime.  How applicable the following words of Washington to this scene enacted near his statue:

“The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.  The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government, presupposes THE DUTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL TO OBEY THE ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT.”

Again:

“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which CUNNING, AMBITIOUS AND UNPRINCIPLED MEN will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and TO USURP FOR THEMSELVES THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT.”

The assemblages there that day, we may well suppose, was made up in no small part, of an empty and pretentious class of Virginians, foplings proud of ancestry whose virtues are grown obsolete.  But Virginia surely is not without some men in whom “the ancient spirit is not dead.  Let us imagine such as one present on that occasion.  As he regards first that magnificent monument, and the silent figures of Virginia’s heroic men, and then turns and listens to the specious harangue of the living trickster, demagogue and traitor, must he not be reminded of the degenerates of another age and country, who “built the tombs of the prophets and garnished the sepulchers of the righteous,” but were ready to stone him who should follow such just example?

Was it not Washington who said “it is my most ardent wish to see some plan of emancipation adopted in Virginia?”

Did not Jefferson say in reference to slavery: “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just, and that justice cannot sleep forever.  The almighty has no attribute that could take sides with us in such a contest.”

And Mason – quite another from him of that name who figures now – declared in the most forcible language, the dangerous and corrupting tendencies of slavery in its effects upon the white race.

Patrick Henry (whom the sculptor has represented in the attitude of high wrought passion, in which he might be imagined when he exclaimed “Give me liberty or give me death!”) bore his testimony no less emphatic against that system by which Virginia makes men and women one of her two staple crops for the market.

Regarding that the whole scene together, and thinking of the desecration of that presence by such a pageant of treason, one might almost have expected the spirits of the mighty dead to utter audible rebuke through the bronze lips of the statues erected to their memory. – St. Louis Democrat.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 2

Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, April 22, 1820

Monticello, April 22, 1820.

I thank you, dear Sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one State to another, would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a State. This certainly is the exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the Constitution has taken from them and given to the General Government. Could Congress, for example, say, that the non-freemen of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other State?

I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect.

TH. JEFFERSON

SOURCE: Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Editor, Memoirs, Correspondence and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Late President of the United States, Volume 4, p. 332-3



Natural Rights

The object which every man his in view in the surrender of his natural sovereignty is that he may be protected in this rights from the abuse of the same in other men.  He does not yield by conventions, rights which the social state can neither give nor deprive him of.  Under pretence of that surrender, whenever more is demanded of him than the compact justifies or than is dearer to him than safety, protection and life itself, then it becomes a usurpation – an unmitigated despotism.  The surrender of rights must be equal among all who enter into the social state, as the objects secured by it are the same.  There must be, for the sake of securing the peaceful enjoyment of the equal rights possessed, and inequality in civil matters, as there must be the rulers and the people; but this of itself is the result of the political equality which exists in the body and we cheerfully acquiesce in it.

The criminal code of all governments consists in prohibitions, as whatever is not prohibited by law, the subject deems himself safe to do.  Thus, we retain rights which no human institutions can deprive us of, which are not the gifts of society, but are inherent by nature.

We know that there are some governments which do not recognize the inalienable rights of humanity.  Our own does; but the South, by degrading men into chattels, virtually disavows it, and this has been the fatal mistake that has occasioned the evils which are now upon us.  Jefferson, Washington, and others saw it, and so have many since their day.  Slavery was in the country, some disposition must be made of it, and this, as a temporary device, was deemed the only one practicable.  It was never thought, by the founders of our Constitution, that slavery would remain under it as a fixture.  It was then, as now, a “peculiar institution.”  It was the clay mixing with the iron in the toes of the great metallic image.  It never was, it never can be, the normal condition of a free and enlightened people.  It ignores and neglects the rights of nature, which no local compact can do with safety, because it neither had the right nor fully the ability to do it.  If “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not enjoyed by all men, then they are not enjoyed by any man.  Society cannot and ought not to attempt to confer them as privileges.  It should admit them as rights; but this can never be done where slavery exists, and therefore, the necessity of abolishing it as a most unnatural and oppressive institution among any people, and especially a people claiming to be free.  But we are not of those who would sever the States of this Union to accomplish the object nor would we do it by unjust or arbitrary measures.  The growth of free principles, and the evils growing out of slavery, will kill it as soon as the safety of the Union and the country will admit.

If the appeal is made to the many in the decision of this question of slavery, the utmost impartiality ought to be exercised, and the strictest adherence to justice ought to be demanded.  The Judge, who pronounces his verdict should be bound down to the strictest rules, for whenever expediency convenience or presumption is taken into the account, the decision may be warped by prejudice, and the flood-gates of despotism may be opened still wider.  Nothing but an inflexible adherence to the principles of general right can preserve the purity, consistency and stability of a free state.  The slaves should themselves be heard in their own defence, as they are an important party in this suit.  This has been overlooked, but is the chief matter to be considered in the adjustment of the case.  The North and the South can never settle this difficulty in the absence of the party suffering.  They must be heard, unless both determine to destroy or ignore their manhood and reduce them, not by civil law but by natural law to chattels – and this can never be done.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Tuesday Morning, April 1, 1862, p. 2

Washington Correspondence

WASHINGTON, April 15, 1862.

Was the battle at Pittsburgh a victory, or was it not a victory? Did the secretary of War “put his foot in it,” in making it the subject of devout thanksgiving, or did he not? These are about the commonest questions agitated here just now. I think the general judgment is very clearly – certainly it is mine – that it was a victory, but not one to brag about, very much; and that Secretary Stanton was a little more hasty and inconsiderate than the occasion justified, in the extent and character of his thanks.

Mrs. Harlan and Mrs. Fales from Iowa, left here a few days ago for Pittsburg, to assist in the nursing of our wounded soldiers. Mrs. Harlan is the wife of our estimable Senator, and has all the season manifested a practical interest in the welfare of our soldiers. Of Mrs. Fales I desire to speak especially, for she is deserving of public notice. She is the wife of Mr. Joseph T. Fales, and was formerly a resident of Burlington. Her husband is an Assistant Examiner in the Patent Office. From the first arrival of troops here, she has devoted her attention exclusively to alleviating the sufferings of the sick and wounded. Day and night she has been wherever her services were most needed, and I have been greatly surprised that she or any other woman was physically able to endure such incessant and exhausting labor. Nevertheless she goes about her business with a daily renewed vigor, not with any desire for notoriety, but under a sense of plain Christian duty. And she brings to the discharge of her duties and unusual fund of practical good sense and efficiency.

Our friend Samuel F. Miller, of Iowa, has just left here. If a new circuit is created west of the Mississippi, he will be a candidate for nomination to the Supreme Bench of the United States. I think you will agree with me that there are few men who, in all respects, are better fitted for the position, and certainly to men of our ways of thinking few would be more satisfactory. I would be very glad to swap off for him any member now sitting on that Bench.

The speech of Senator Grimes on the connection of negroes with the army, yesterday, meets with much applause from all those who have a realizing sense of the condition and tendency of things. It goes to the root of the matter, and many of those to whom his ideas are distasteful think – “fear,” they say – that “to this complexion must we come at last.” The delay in traveling towards the goal to which we are traveling and must travel, is costing us an amount of debt and blood that, in the retrospect, will cause us to shudder, and to ask why we should have been so blind, so reluctant, and so cowardly.

The next encounter with the Merrimac is awaited with the liveliest interest here, and I am persuaded is also a matter of much fear at the Navy Department, notwithstanding the bold face that is assumed. Several new kinds of shot have been provided for the Monitor, among them shells with a liquid that takes fire on explosion, similar to, or the same as, those that have been experimentally exploded there during the winter. Of their frightful nature, I have been witness. Water has no effect in quenching their flames.

The Com. Levy, of the Navy, who was buried with such honors in New York, two or three weeks ago, was a Jew, and the possessor of the homestead of Thomas Jefferson, “Monticello.” He was very rich. He has not, however, been allowed to enjoy the estate of Mr. Jefferson, as having married his own niece, the gentlemen of the region notified him, on its purchase, that he could not be allowed to live among them, on account of this marital alliance, at which they expressed an exceeding disgust. They gave him the privilege of residing on it one month in the year, merely that he might be able to look after its condition. A short time since it was “confiscated” by Virginia, though the Union army are likely soon to bring it back for the benefit of his heirs.

It would seem strange, that people, and a daily paper, right here in this city, should, as they do, vehemently maintain, even yet, that there were no wooden guns at Centerville, and try to bring those into contempt and ridicule who maintain the fact. And strange, too, that such a journal as Harper’s Weekly, that must know the facts should persistently lampoon and caricature, in the must imprudent and malignant manner people of character for asserting and insisting on the veracity of the statement. There are hundreds here who saw those guns. Mr. Julian, of the War Committee, told me he saw them himself, and should have counted them if he ever supposed their existence would have been questioned. Mr. Elbert, from Iowa, just appointed Secretary of Colorado, was there early with his brother, who is an officer in the army, and tells me the same thing; and that it was apparent that they had long been there, - in fact no other guns could stand upon their foundations without breaking through. Surely the partisanship of McClellan must be very blind and bitter to need the denial of such indisputable facts. Still, perhaps I am myself quite as unreasonable in the other extreme, for it is my deliberate and unimpassioned opinion that the war has not disclosed and cannot disclose such another stupendous humbug as Gen. McClellan. I greatly fear an unfortunate result in the limited (though immensely important) field to which his department has finally been reduced, though the extent and character of his force together with the completeness of its equipment give me a moderate degree of assurance that the campaign cannot fail.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, April 26, 1862, p. 1