Showing posts with label Thomas Jefferson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Jefferson. Show all posts

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Thomas Jefferson: [Extract:] Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1774

The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty's negative: thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice.

SOURCE: Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America: Set Forth in Some Resolutions Intended for the Inspection of the Present Delegates of the People of Virginia, Now in Convention, p. 28-9

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

Diary of Sergeant David L. Day: February 22, 1864

WILLIAMSBURG.

Washington's birthday. How well Virginians have emulated his example and teachings is this day apparent. God pity, the Mother of Presidents.

This classic old town, next to Jamestown, is the oldest in the state. It is full of historical reminiscences and a great field for the antiquarian. Until near the close of the 17th century this was simply a suburb of Jamestown and was called the middle plantation. After the burning of Jamestown by Bacon and the accession of William III to the throne, matters here began to assume a brighter aspect. Situated midway between the York and James rivers, which are here four miles apart, and enjoying the patronage of the king, the colonists became ambitious and thought the town would extend each way to the rivers and become the London of the New World.

For some time the founding of a college had been agitated and after the accession of William the charter was granted, he making large endowments of land and money in furtherance of the object. This was the second college in the British colonies, and in honor of the king and queen was named William and Mary. The great object of it was to educate in Virginia a succession of Church of England clergymen. After the erection of the college the town was laid out and named Williamsburg in honor of the king. From this time, under the patronage of the king and gentlemen of rank and wealth who came over and took up settlement, the town went ahead. A church, state-house and other public buildings were erected. An immense residence was built for the colonial governors and called the King James palace.

The town was the capital of the state or colony, and here the burgesses were wont to meet. It grew in population and wealth, and up to the time of the breaking out of the revolution was the most aristocratic and loyal town in all the colonies. The first thing that disturbed this truly loyal people was the debates in the house of burgesses on the stamp act, about the year 1765. Patrick Henry, then a young man and just elected to the house, opposed the act and with all his powers of reasoning and eloquence, advocated resistance to it. In these debates he gained the displeasure of some of the older members and especially those resident here. At this time Thomas Jefferson, a student in the college here, began to get interested in public affairs; he often looked in on the house of burgesses and listened to the debates, and a dozen years afterwards, in his declaration of independence, shone out the principles he there learned. Henry continued a member of the house of burgesses for several years, advocating the cause of the colonies, and in the Virginia convention to choose delegates to attend a congress of the colonies to be holden at Philadelphia to draft a declaration, he advocated it with all his impassioned eloquence, closing with those memorabile words: “I know not what others may think, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

About the time that Governor Gage of Massachusetts attempted to seize the stores at Concord, a similar proceeding took place here, under the direction of Lord Dunmore, the colonial governor. At midnight Capt. Collins of the armed schooner Magdalen, with a company of marines, entered the town and carried off twenty barrels of powder from the public magazine. This so incensed the people in the adjoining counties that they rose in arms and demanded a return of the powder or they would march on the town. Dunmore, becoming frightened, moved his family aboard a ship at Jamestown, and some of the leading citizens quieted the people by promising them the powder should be returned or paid for. But those promises were not kept, and Patrick Henry, at the head of about 1500 militia moved on the town, declaring he would have the powder or would make a reprisal from the public treasury. When within about fifteen miles from here he was met by a courier who paid for the powder, thus ending the expedition.

A year or two afterwards Henry was chosen governor of the colony, and on his coming here brought with him quite a force of militia. On Henry's approach Gov. Dunmore went aboard a vessel and the fleet sailed down the river. Lord Dunmore was the last colonial governor and the last occupant of the palace. Ilenry so hated everything that pertained to kings or royalty that he positively refused to occupy the palace, and it was left to go to decay and ruins. Nothing now remains of it save the foundations and a few scattering bricks.

WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE.

Is now a mass of ruins; a company of the 11th Pennsylvania cavalry were the vandals. As this company were returning from a scout they were fired on with one or two shots from out the college as they were riding past. Instead of surrounding the building and capturing the murderers, they set it on fire and burned it to the ground. This college was located at the extreme western end of the town, and was a fine brick building over 100 feet in length and three stories high, with two tower entrances about 80 feet apart, in one of which was a fine bell. In front is a large park, coming to a point, forming the main entrance some 30 rods in front of the building. On each side of the gate are large live oak trees. In this park are situated four large old English style houses, two on each side and facing each other. They are about 40 feet square, two stories high, with a four-cornered roof coming to a point at the top. These were the residences of the officers and tutors of the college.

The college stands facing down the main street, which is quite a mile long; straight as a line and very wide, giving a fine view from the college. This is the second or third time that this college has been burned, but this last time seems to have been without cause or reason.

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH,

An antiquated structure of gothic architecture, its brown spire and slender turrets pointing to where man's heart should oftener turn, is situated near the center of the town. It is built of brick brought over from England; they are very different in shape and color from those made in this country. There are no services held here now, but that doesn't matter much as it needs something more than the grace of God to keep this people in the line of duty and loyalty to the government. Their great need just at present is gunpowder. The churchyard contains over an acre, and is a cemetery where countless generations sleep forgot, and where rests his head upon the lap of earth the youth to fortune and to fame unknown.

THE OLD STATE HOUSE.

Situated not far from the church, is a plain old brick building about 60 feet long and about 30 feet wide, built on a basement story. The entrance is from a portico reached by a wide flight of steps. Here in these classic halls have been discussed grave questions of state-the destinies of the colonies, and as one walks through them, he can easily imagine he hears the voice of Patrick Henry saying: “The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to your ears the clash of resounding arms."

THE INSANE ASYLUM

Is a large, massive, prison-looking building, filled with the unfortunate wards of the State of Virginia, but who are now the wards of the nation, and are being well and tenderly cared for. On pleasant days the mild and harmless patients have the liberty of the yard, which is spacious, well laid out and set with trees. At the entrance gates are small brick houses into which they can go when so disposed. At the gates they will stand and talk with the passers-by, asking a thousand questions and all manner of favors. Some of them are intelligent and will converse for a few minutes in a rational manner, when they will switch off on their crazy talk and lingo. This is said to be the oldest insane institution in the United States, having been founded previous to the revolutionary war, but the present building would seem to be of more recent construction.

KING JAMES' PALACE.

I have not been able to get much history of this, when or by whom it was built, and the only tradition I have been able to gather is that it was a magnificent and gorgeous establishment, where the colonial governors lived in great pomp and state. All there is left of it now is a small piece of brick work about four feet high on one of the south-west corners or angles. It was situated on the north side of the town, and back some 30 or 40 rods from the main street on which it fronted. It is difficult to form much of an idea of this building, as only the foundations are left, and a part of these are only dimly traced; but it must have been a very extensive affair. It was all of 125 feet front and 50 feet deep, with two wings in the rear extending back nearly 100 feet, leaving an open court or garden. The foundations on the front and ends show several angles, as though fashioned after some of the old English castles. The height of it can only be guessed, but probably it was not less than three stories.

The grounds and gardens which surrounded it were extensive, and must have been tastefully laid out, if one can judge by tracing the old walls, and by the few remaining shrubs and bushes which survive. The grounds in front extended to the street, making a lawn or park of some two or three acres. This has been a good deal curtailed, having been built over on three sides, leaving a common or park on the street of about an acre, called the Palace Green. Why such an establishment as this was. built in this wilderness is only a matter of conjecture. It certainly was far beyond the needs of the colonial governors, and was probably built with an eye to its being a convenient refuge for royalty in case of adverse fortunes at home. Why it should have been left to decay and ruin is more than we at this day can understand. After the loyalists had left on the breaking out of the war, there probably was no one who cared enough about it to look after it, and the colonists so hated everything that pertained to royalty that it was left to the bats and owls, and in time went to ruin. Patrick Henry refused to occupy it while governor, and his successors followed his example. Egad! but what good cheer and right royal times must have been had here in those good old colony times, but the old palace to ruins has gone, leaving no memories or associations clustering around it save that it was the king's palace.

SOURCE: David L. Day, My Diary of Rambles with the 25th Mass. Volunteer Infantry, p. 124-8

Sunday, March 21, 2021

Major-General David Hunter to Jefferson Davis, April 23, 1863

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE SOUTH,    
Hilton Head, S.C., April 23, 1863. 
JEFFERSON DAVIS, Richmond, Va. :

The United States flag must protect all its defenders, white, black, or yellow. Several negroes in the employ of the Government in the Western Department have been cruelly murdered by your authorities and others sold into slavery. Every outrage of this kind against the laws of war and humanity which may take place in this department shall be followed by the immediate execution of the rebel of highest rank in my possession. Man for man, these executions will certainly take place for every one sold into a slavery worse than death. On your authorities will rest the responsibility of having inaugurated this barbarous policy, and you will be held responsible in this world and in the world to come for all the blood thus shed.

In the month of August last you declared all those engaged in arming the negroes to fight for their country to be felons, and directed the immediate execution of all such as should be captured. I have given you long enough to reflect on your folly. I now give you notice that unless this order is immediately revoked I will at once cause the execution of every rebel officer and every rebel slaveholder in my possession. This sad state of things may be kindly ordered by an all-wise Providence to induce the good people of the North to act earnestly and to realize that they are at war. Thousands of lives may thus be saved.

The poor negro is fighting for liberty in its truest sense, and Mr. Jefferson has beautifully said, "In such a war there is no attribute of the Almighty which will induce him to fight on the side of the oppressor."

You say you are fighting for liberty. Yes, you are fighting for liberty—liberty to keep 4,000,000 of your fellow-beings in ignorance and degradation; liberty to separate parents and children, husband and wife, brother and sister; liberty to steal the products of their labor, exacted with many a cruel lash and bitter tear; liberty to seduce their wives and daughters, and to sell your own children into bondage; liberty to kill <ar20_449> these children with impunity, when the murder cannot be proven by one of pure white blood. This is the kind of liberty—the liberty to do wrong—which Satan, chief of the fallen angels, was contending for when he was cast into hell.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

D. HUNTER,     
Major-General, Commanding.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 14 (Serial No. 20), p. 448-9

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Alexander H. Stephens: The Cornerstone Speech, March 21, 1861

Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the Committee, and Fellow-Citizens:—For this reception you will please accept my most profound and sincere thanks. The compliment is doubtless intended as much, or more, perhaps, in honor of the occasion, and my public position, in connection with the great events now crowding upon us, than to me personally and individually. It is however none the less appreciated by me on that account. We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.

[There was a general call from the outside of the building for the speaker to go out, that there were more outside than in.]

The Mayor rose and requested silence at the doors, that Mr. Stephens' health would not permit him to speak in the open air.

Mr. STEPHENS said he would leave it to the audience whether he should proceed indoors or out. There was a general cry indoors, as the ladies, a large number of whom were present, could not hear outside.

Mr. STEPHENS said that the accommodation of the ladies would determine the question, and he would proceed where he was.

[At this point the uproar and clamor outside was greater still for the speaker to go out on the steps. This was quicted by Col. Lawton, Col. Freeman, Judge Jackson, and Mr. J. W. Owens going out and stating the facts of the case to the dense mass of men, women, and children who were outside, and entertaining them in brief speeches--Mr. Stephens all this while quietly sitting down until the furor subsided.]

Mr. STEPHENS rose and said : When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time—I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. [Loud applause.] I very much regret that every one who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or any thing very entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear them.
I was remarking, that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]

This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark. It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. [Applause.] Some changes have been made. Of these I shall speak presently. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but these, perhaps, meet the cordial approbation of a majority of this audience, if not an overwhelming majority of the people of the Confederacy. Of them, therefore, I will not speak. But other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.]

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way—but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?
The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefitted by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice. [Applause.] And it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Another feature to which I will allude, is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives—may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government. It is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle.

Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, inforcing, or defending his views of policy; his only resort was through the medium of an organ. In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to. This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system. In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ. [Rapturous applause.]

[A noise again arose from the clamor of the crowd outside, who wished to hear Mr. Stephens, and for some moments interrupted him. The mayor rose and called on the police to preserve order. Quiet being restored, Mr. S. proceeded.]

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy. [Applause.).

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other—though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution-African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.]

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just-but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfuly against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted ; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo—it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material—the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know, that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to his laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner”—the real “corner-stone”—in our new edifice. [Applause.]

I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph. [Immense applause.]

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that “in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” [applause,] and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

But to pass on: Some have propounded the inquiry whether it is practicable for us to go on with the confederacy without further accessions? Have we the means and ability to maintain nationality among the powers of the earth ? On this point I would barely say, that as anxiously as we all have been, and are, for the border States, with institutions similar to ours, to join us, still we are abundantly able to maintain our position, even if they should ultimately make up their minds not to cast their destiny with us. That they ultimately will join us—be compelled to do it—is my confident belief; but we can get on very well without them, even if they should not.

We have all the essential elements of a high national career. The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we embrace five hundred and sixty-four thousand square miles and upward. This is upward of two hundred thousand square miles more than was included within the limits of the original thirteen States. It is an area of country more than double the territory of France or the Austrian empire. France, in round numbers, has but two hundred and twelve thousand square miles. Austria, in round numbers, has two hundred and forty-eight thousand square miles. Ours is greater than both combined. It is greater than all France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, including England, Ireland, and Scotland, together. In population we have upward of five millions, according to the census of 1860; this includes white and black. The entire population, including white and black, of the original thirteen States, was less than four millions in 1790, and still less in '76, when the independence of our fathers was achieved. If they, with a less population, dared maintain their independence against the greatest power on earth, shall we have any apprehension of maintaining ours now?

In point of material wealth and resources, we are greatly in advance of them. The taxable property of the Confederate States cannot be less than thirty-two hundred millions of dollars! This, I think I venture but little in saying, may be considered as five times more than the colonies possessed at the time they achieved their independence. Georgia, alone, possessed last year, according to the report of our comptroller-general, six hundred and seventy-two millions of taxable property. The debts of the seven confederate States sum up in the aggregate less than eighteen millions, while the existing debts of the other of the late United States sum up in the aggregate the enormous amount of one hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars. This is without taking into the account the heavy city debts, corporation debts, and railroad debts, which press, and will continue to press, as a heavy incubus upon the resources of those States. These debts, added to others, make a sum total not much under five hundred millions of dollars. With such an area of territory as we have—with such an amount of population—with a climate and soil unsurpassed by any on the face of the earth-with such resources already at our command—with productions which control the commerce of the world—who can entertain any apprehensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or not?

It is true, I believe I state but the common sentiment, when I declare my earnest desire that the border States should join us. The differences of opinion that existed among us anterior to secession, related more to the policy in securing that result by co-operation than from any difference upon the ultimate security we all looked to in common.

These differences of opinion were more in reference to policy than principle, and as Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in 1801, after the heated contest preceding his election, there might be differences of opinion without differences on principle, and that all, to some extent, had been federalists and all republicans; so it may now be said of us, that whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in having a co-operation with our border sister slave States, if the worst came to the worst, that as we were all co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not. [Continued applause.]

In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me, that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this, an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. [Great applause.] Their works speak for them; the provisional government speaks for them; the constitution of the permanent government will be a lasting monument of their worth, merit, and statesmanship. [Applause.]

But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the result of this revolution?

Will every thing, commenced so well, continue as it has begun? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Providence, may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry, patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail—if we become divided—if schisms arise—if dissensions spring up—if factions are engendered if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable. We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue, that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is essential to good government. Organized upon principles of perfect justice and right-seeking amity and friendship with all other powers—I see no obstacle in the way of our upward and onward progress. Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.

The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new assimilation. [Loud applause.] Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them.

But at first we must necessarily meet with the inconveniences and difficulties and embarrassments incident to all changes of government. These will be felt in our postal affairs and changes in the channel of trade. These inconveniences, it is to be hoped, will be but temporary, and must be borne with patience and forbearance.

As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been.

The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorousiy as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would fain hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry. [Enthusiastic cheering.]

The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party—present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.” Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund, necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after—though they come from the labor of the slave. [Continued applause.]

Mr. Stephens reviewed at some length, the extravagance and profligacy of appropriations by the Congress of the United States for several years past, and in this connection took occasion to allude to another one of the great improvements in our new constitution, which is a clause prohibiting Congress from appropriating any money from the treasury, except by a two-third vote, unless it be for some object which the executive may say is necessary to carry on the government.

When it is thus asked for, and estimated for, he continued, the majority may appropriate. This was a new feature.

Our fathers had guarded the assessment of taxes by insisting that representation and taxation should go together. This was inherited from the mother country, England. It was one of the principles upon which the revolution had been fought. Our fathers also provided in the old constitution, that all appropriation bills should originate in the representative branch of Congress, but our new constitution went a step further, and guarded not only the pockets of the people, but also the public money, after it was taken from their pockets. · He alluded to the difficulties and embarrassments which seemed to surround the question of a peaceful solution of the controversy with the old government. How can it be done? is perplexing many minds. The President seems to think that he cannot recognize our independence, nor can he, with and by the advice of the Senate, do so. The constitution makes no such provision, A general convention of all the States has been suggested by some.

Without proposing to solve the difficulty, he barely made the following suggestion:

“That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?” This he merely offered as a suggestion, as one of the ways in which it might be done with much less violence by constructions to the constitution than many other acts of that government. [Applause.] The difficulty has to be solved in some way or other—this may be regarded as a fixed fact.

Several other points were alluded to by Mr. Stephens, particularly as to the policy of the new government toward foreign nations, and our commercial relations with them. Free trade, as far as practicable, would be the policy of this government. No higher duties would be imposed on foreign importations than would be necessary to support the government upon the strictest economy.

In olden times the olive branch was considered the emblem of peace; we will send to the nations of the earth another and far more potential emblem of the same, the cotton plant. The present duties were levied with a view of meeting the present necessities and exigencies, in preparation for war, if need be; but if we have peace, and he hoped we might, and trade should resume its proper course, a duty of ten per cent. upon foreign importations it was thought might be sufficient to meet the expenditures of the government. If some articles should be left on the free list, as they now are, such as breadstuffs, etc., then, of course, duties upon others would have to be higher—but in no event to an extent to embarrass trade and commerce. He concluded in an earnest appeal for union and harmony, on part of all the people in support of the common cause, in which we were all enlisted, and upon the issues of which such great consequences depend.

If, said he, we are true to ourselves, true to our cause, true to our destiny, true to our high mission, in presenting to the world the highest type of civilization ever exhibited by man--there will be found in our lexicon no such word as fail.

Mr. Stephens took his seat, amid a burst of enthusiasm and applause, such as the Athenæum has never had displayed within its walls, within “the recollection of the oldest inhabitant.”

[REPORTER'S NOTE.—Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator.—G.]

SOURCES: Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, In Public and Private, p. 717-29; Frank Moore, Editor, The Rebellion Record: A Diary of American Events, Volume 1, p. 44-9

Sunday, July 14, 2019

John A. Quitman to the Citizens of Adams County, Mississippi, July 17, 1832

To the Citizens of Adams County.

I have just learned that there has been industriously circulated a notice, anonymously signed “Many Citizens,” calling a public meeting of the citizens of Adams County adverse to the election of judges by the people, and opposed to nullification, for the purpose “of bringing out, if reconciliation should be found impracticable, another candidate in my place, and desiring me to attend.” Such a desire coming from friends I would cheerfully comply with, but I can not recognize the authors of such a course as “friends nor can I permit myself to be made the football of political opponents. I have protested, and do again solemnly protest, against making my private political or religious opinions the test of my qualification for the convention. The former have been brought before the public without my consent or agency. They are now branded by terms odious and unmeaning to the public ear, and party excitement is brought to bear upon me. To the calm and deliberate expression of the public will I will most cheerfully submit. I can not, in justice to my friends, accept the invitation of those whom I must consider political opponents, and the time is too short to give this notice full circulation before the contemplated meeting. I therefore respectfully request that those of my fellow-citizens who feel interested in this matter will assemble at the court-house in Natchez on Friday next, at 11 o'clock, when I will candidly express my views of the relation which the states and general government bear to each other, and endeavor to show that the doctrines which I entertain were not “invented by Mr. Calhoun and first propagated by Mr. Hayne,” but were propagated by Mr. Jefferson in 1798, and have ever since been the true test of Republican and ultra Federal doctrines, and continue to be the grand landmarks of distinction between the advocates of a constitutional government and the arbitrary despotism of an oligarchy.

John A. Quitman.
Monmouth, July 17th, 1832.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 113-4

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

John F. H. Claiborne to John A. Quitman, October 20, 1830

Soldier's Retreat, Oct. 20th, 1830.

My dear Sir, — Your name is mentioned in connection with the senatorial election. I have mentioned it myself in correspondence with members of the Legislature. Do you desire to be a candidate? If so, it will be expedient and proper to take bold ground on the leading questions of the day. You are not regarded strictly as a party man, but your sentiments are believed to be in harmony with the great body of the people. As chancellor, I admire your course in standing aloof from politics; but if you become a candidate, not pledges, but avowals become necessary. My intention is to vote for George Poindexter. He desires the place, and it is due to his services and great abilities. In your general views I think you harmonize; I know you do as to the relative powers of the state and federal governments, and the dangerous propensity of the latter to usurp power. This is the last opportunity we shall have to recognize the services of Poindexter. He is old and infirm, but his intellect shines as brilliantly as ever, and his name will give strength to our section. I know he has bitter and powerful enemies in this county, and that my support of him will stimulate my opponents and alienate many of my friends; but he was the schoolmate, and, in after life and in troublesome times, the friend of my father. I know, too, that he is a Republican of the school of Jefferson, and I will vote for him to the last, if I sacrifice myself by so doing. I have already heard of menaces, but how little they know me who fancy that threats or opposition ever changed my purpose! From the past, and from the rebellious blood I inherit, they should know me better. You are my second choice. If Poindexter can not be elected, and you authorize your name to be brought forward, I will gladly support you. I do not believe our friend Colonel Wilkins desires the place. I know he can not be elected as interests now stand, and I have so informed him in the presence of Colonel Campbell, and given him names and reasons.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 95-6

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Diary of Captain Luman Harris Tenney: Sunday, March 5, 1865

Saddled up early but did not move out. One hundred men pulled down the burned bridges. More destruction of R. R. Went out with forage detail. Camped under the hill on which is the home of Thomas Jefferson. Rations and ammunition.

SOURCE: Frances Andrews Tenney, War Diary Of Luman Harris Tenney, p. 146

Monday, October 15, 2018

Abraham Lincoln’s Address to the Mayor Bishop and the Citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio, February 12, 1861

Mr. Mayor, Ladies, and Gentlemen: Twenty-four hours ago, at the capital of Indiana. I said to myself I have never seen so many people assembled together in winter weather. I am no longer able to say that. But it is what might reasonably have been expected — that this great city of Cincinnati would thus acquit herself on such an occasion. My friends, I am entirely overwhelmed by the magnificence of the reception which has been given, I will not say to me, but to the President-elect of the United States of America. Most heartily do I thank you, one and all, for it.

I am reminded by the address of your worthy mayor that this reception is given not by any one political party, and even if I had not been so reminded by his Honor I could not have failed to know the fact by the extent of the multitude I see before me now. I could not look upon this vast assemblage without being made aware that all parties were united in this reception. This is as it should be. It is as it should have been if Senator Douglas had been elected. It is as it should have been if Mr. Bell had been elected; as it should have been if Mr. Breckinridge had been elected; as it should ever be when any citizen of the United States is constitutionally elected President of the United States. Allow me to say that I think what has occurred here today could not have occurred in any other country on the face of the globe, without the influence of the free institutions which we have unceasingly enjoyed for three quarters of a century.

There is no country where the people can turn out and enjoy this day precisely as they please, save under the benign influence of the free institutions of our land.

I hope that, although we have some threatening national difficulties now — I hope that while these free institutions shall continue to be in the enjoyment of millions of free people of the United States, we will see repeated every four years what we now witness.

In a few short years, I, and every other individual man who is now living, will pass away; I hope that our national difficulties will also pass away, and I hope we shall see in the streets of Cincinnati — food old Cincinnati — for centuries to come, once every four years, her people give such a reception as this to the constitutionally elected President of the whole United States. I hope you shall all join in that reception, and that you shall also welcome your brethren from across the river to participate in it. We will welcome them in every State of the Union, no matter where they are from. From away South we shall extend them a cordial good-will, when our present difficulties shall have been forgotten and blown to the winds forever.

I have spoken but once before this in Cincinnati. That was a year previous to the late presidential election. On that occasion, in a playful manner, but with sincere words, I addressed much of what I said to the Kentuckians. I gave my opinion that we as Republicans would ultimately beat them as Democrats, but that they could postpone that result longer by nominating Senator Douglas for the presidency than they could in any other way. They did not, in any true sense of the word, nominate Mr. Douglas, and the result has come certainly as soon as ever I expected. I also told them how I expected they would be treated after they should have been beaten; and I now wish to recall their attention to what I then said upon that subject. I then said, “When we do as we say, — beat you, — you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. I will tell you, so far as lam authorized to speak for the opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institutions; to abide by all and every compromise of the Constitution; and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerate men — if we have degenerated — may, according to the examples of those noble fathers, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and treat you accordingly.”

Fellow-citizens of Kentucky! — friends!—brethren! may I call you in my new position? I see no occasion, and feel no inclination, to retract a word of this. If it shall not be made good, be assured the fault shall not be mine.

And now, fellow-citizens of Ohio, have you, who agree with him who now addresses you in political sentiment— have you ever entertained other sentiments toward our brethren of Kentucky than those I have expressed to you? If not, then why shall we not, as heretofore, be recognized and acknowledged as brethren again, living in peace and harmony again one with another? I take your response as the most reliable evidence that it may be so, trusting, through the good sense of the American people, on all sides of all rivers in America, under the providence of God, who has never deserted us. that we shall again be brethren, forgetting all parties, ignoring all parties. My friends, I now bid you farewell.

SOURCES: John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Editors, Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Volume 1, p. 674-6

Monday, September 3, 2018

Last Will and Testament of Thomas Jefferson, May 16, 1826

I, Thomas Jefferson, of Monticello, in Albemarle, being of sound mind and in my ordinary state of health, make my last will and testament in manner and form as follows:

I give to my grandson Francis Eppes, son of my dear deceased daughter Mary Eppes, in fee simple, all that part of my lands at Poplar Forest lying west of the following lines, to wit: beginning at Radford's upper corner, near the double branches of Bear Creek and the public road, and running thence in a straight line to the fork of my private road, near the barn; thence along that private road, (as it was changed in 1817,) to its crossing of the main branch of North Tomahawk Creek; and from that crossing, in a direct line over the main ridge which divides the North and South Tomahawk, to the South Tomahawk, at the confluence of two branches where the old road to the Waterlick crossed it, and from that confluence up the northermost branch, (which separate M'Daniels' and Perry's fields,) to its source; and thence by the shortest line to my western boundary. And having, in a former correspondence with my deceased son-in-law John W. Eppes, contemplated laying off for him, with remainder to my grandson Francis, a certain portion in the southern part of my lands in Bedford and Campbell, which I afterwards found to be generally more indifferent than I had supposed, and therefore determined to change its location for the better; now to remove all doubt, if any could arise on a purpose merely voluntary and unexecuted, I hereby declare that what I have herein given to my said grandson Francis, is instead of, and not additional to, what I had formerly contemplated. I subject all my other property to the payment of my debts in the first place. Considering the insolvent state of the affairs of my friend and son-in-law Thomas Mann Randolph, and that what will remain of my property will be the only resource against the want in which his family would otherwise be left, it must be his wish, as it is my duty, to guard that resource against all liability for his debts, engagements or purposes whatsoever, and to preclude the rights, powers, and authorities over it, which might result to him by operation of law, and which might, independently of his will, bring it within the power of his creditors, I do hereby devise and bequeath all the residue of my property, real and personal, in possession or in action, whether held in my own right, or in that of my dear deceased wife, according to the powers vested in me by deed of settlement for that purpose, to my grandson Thomas J. Randolph, and my friends Nicholas P. Trist and Alexander Garrett, and their heirs, during the life of my said son-in-law Thomas M. Randolph, to be held and administered by them, in trust, for the sole and separate use and behoof of my dear daughter Martha Randolph, and her heirs; and aware of the nice and difficult distinction of the law in these cases, I will further explain by saying, that I understand and intend the effect of these limitations to be, that the legal estate and actual occupation shall be vested in my said trustees, and held by them in base fee, determinable on the death of my said son-in-law, and the remainder during the same time be vested in my said daughter and her heirs, and of course disposable by her last will, and that at the death of my said son-in-law, the particular estate of the trustees shall be determined, and the remainder, in legal estate, possession, and use, become vested in my said daughter and her heirs, in absolute property forever. In consequence of the variety and indescribableness of the articles of property within the house at Monticello, and the difficulty of inventorying and appraising them separately and specifically, and its inutility, I dispense with having them inventoried and appraised; and it is my will that my executors be not held to give any security for the administration of my estate. I appoint my grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph, my sole executor during his life, and after his death, I constitute executors my friends Nicholas P. Trist and Alexander Garrett, joining to them my daughter Martha Randolph, after the death of my said son-in-law Thomas M. Randolph. Lastly, I revoke all former wills by me heretofore made; and in witness that this is my will, I have written the whole with my own hand on two pages, and have subscribed my name to each of them this sixteenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six.

SOURCE: Paul Leicester Ford, Editor, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: 1816-1826, p. 392-4

Codicil to the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Jefferson, March 17, 1826

I, Thomas Jefferson, of Monticello, in Albemarle, make and add the following codicil to my will, controlling the same so far as its provisions go:

I recommend to my daughter Martha Randolph, the maintenance and care of my well beloved sister Anne Scott, and trust confidently that from affection to her, as well as for my sake, she will never let her want a comfort. I have made no specific provision for the comfortable maintenance of my son-in-law Thomas M. Randolph, because of the difficulty and uncertainty of devising terms which shall vest any beneficial interest in him, which the law will not transfer to the benefit of his creditors, to the destitution of my daughter and her family, and disablement of her to supply him: whereas, property placed under the exclusive control of my daughter and her independent will, as if she were a feme sole, considering the relation in which she stands both to him and his children, will be a certain resource against want for all.

I give to my friend James Madison, of Montpellier, my gold-mounted walking staff of animal horn, as a token of the cordial and affectionate friendship which for nearly now an half century, has united us in the same principles and pursuits of what we have deemed for the greatest good of our country.

I give to the University of Virginia my library, except such particular books only, and of the same edition, as it may already possess, when this legacy shall take effect: the rest of my said library, remaining after those given to the University shall have been taken out, I give to my two grandsons-in-law Nicholas P. Trist and Joseph Coolidge. To my grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph, I give my silver watch in preference of the golden one, because of its superior excellence. My papers of business going of course to him, as my executor, all others of a literary or other character I give to him as of his own property.

I give a gold watch to each of my grandchildren, who shall not have already received one from me, to be purchased and delivered by my executors to my grandsons, at the age of twenty-one, and granddaughters at that of sixteen.

I give to my good, affectionate, and faithful servant Burwell, his freedom, and the sum of three hundred dollars, to buy necessaries to commence his trade of glazier, or to use otherwise, as he pleases.

I give also to my good servants John Hemings and Joe Fosset, their freedom at the end of one year after my death; and to each of them respectively, all the tools of their respective shops or callings; and it is my will that a comfortable log-house be built for each of the three servants so emancipated, on some part of my lands convenient to them with respect to the residence of their wives, and to Charlottesville and the University, where they will be mostly employed, and reasonably convenient also to the interests of the proprietor of the lands, of which houses I give the use of one, with a curtilage of an acre to each, during his life or personal occupation thereof.

I give also to John Hemings the service of his two apprentices Madison and Eston Hemings, until their respective ages of twenty-one years, at which period respectively, I give them their freedom; and I humbly and earnestly request of the legislature of Virginia a confirmation of the bequest of freedom to these servants, with permission to remain in this State, where their families and connections are, as an additional instance of the favor, of which I have received so many other manifestations in the course of my life, and for which I now give them my last, solemn, and dutiful thanks.

In testimony that this is a codicil to my will of yesterday's date, and that it is to modify so far the provisions of that will, I have written it all with my own hand in two pages, to each of which I subscribe my name, this seventeenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six.

SOURCE: Paul Leicester Ford, Editor, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: 1816-1826, p. 394-6

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Charles J. McDonald* to Howell Cobb, July 7, 1846

Macon [ga.], 7th July, 1846.

Dear Cobb, I am here, and a moment's leisure gives me the opportunity to inquire of you what the Democratic party intend to do? Can it be possible that the unanimity of the committee which reported on the proceedings of the Memphis Convention is an indication of the mind of Congress on the subject? It is reported that a majority of the democratic members of Congress from Virginia will follow that committee in trampling down the cherished doctrines of her Jeffersons and Madisons on the construction of the Constitution of the United States. It is by the strict construction alone, which they practiced and enjoined, that Congress can be kept within the bounds prescribed for it by the people who formed the instrument which gave it being. The people never intended to give their representatives the right to assume power by implication. The power to regulate commerce gives no authority to create roads or canals. It is the authority to prescribe the rules or laws which shall govern the commercial intercourse between the States. It is to be hoped that the perilous doctrine will be at once rebuked. Mr. Madison about twenty years ago vetoed a bill with such objects. Can you get the Maysville veto for me? I suppose all the high protectionists will, to a man, support a doctrine which will draw from the Treasury annually twenty millions of dollars. That sum can be lost in the unfathomable bed of the Mississippi every year without any improvement in its ever varying channel. Will the whole Democracy of the West be drawn from their positions by the apparent interest of their constituents in the stupendous expenditures to which this policy will give rise? These men are too apt to be swerved from duty by an interested ambition. No political death is so sweet as that in which a man falls a sacrifice to noble principles. I have not heard from you on this subject, but I take it for granted that you are not a convert to this new faith. Let me hear from you.

I am sorry to hear of the dissensions in the Democratic ranks at Washington. Can they not be healed? The party have treated Mr. Polk unkindly in not sustaining his patriotic measures in regard to our foreign relations. They have given the Whigs a decided advantage, and the whole course of Congress in regard to the Oregon question has shown the ignoble spirit that would concede to power what it would maintain against a nation less able to defend its usurpations.

Why has Mr. Polk passed by the army, which distinguished itself in the late battles, in making his appointments?
_______________

* Governor of Georgia, 1839-1843; candidate for the governorship in 1851 on the Southern Rights ticket, defeated by Howell Cobb. Judge of the supreme court of Georgia, 1856-1861.

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. 84-5

Friday, July 13, 2018

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

Columbus, Aug 20h [1860]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, April 1, 2018

Robert Toombs to Congressman Alexander H. Stephens, January 24, 1845

Washington [ga.], Jany. 24th, 1845.

Dear Stephens, . . . I can hear nothing of local politics. There is a dead calm. The report of the Finance Committee is doing us much good. It has struck the Locos dumb. Crawford's administration has certainly been eminently successfull and has made him very popular. If we can get him to run again we can carry the State and retrieve our fortunes in Georgia. The course of the Democracy in Congress on Texas and the tariff is doing them mischief in this State, and if our local press would handle those questions now in the present calm of the public mind much could be made out of them; but very few of our papers are worth a straw. As soon as I get able I shall open upon them in several of the papers. Now is the proper time to affect the public mind. I did not see how you voted on that Rail Road iron question. That duty ought to be repealed or greatly reduced. It should be a low revenue duty only. 1st. Because it is greatly to the interest of the country to encourage internal improvements and thereby cheapen internal transportation which benefits all classes and especially the agricultural classes. 2ondly. R. R. iron not being an article of general consumption, competition is not likely to become sufficient within a reasonable time to cheapen the article and compensate for the duty. Hence the duty will continue to be a bounty to the manufacturer, and under that state of facts no article ought to be protected. I am able only to suggest my objections and not enforce them. The most foolish thing Mr. Clay did during the campaign was to write that foolish letter to Pennsylvania pledging his opposition to any modification of the tariff of 1842. It is a good law but it is not perfect; nor did human ingenuity ever make a perfect revenue law. It never will. His letter to Bronson and his N. Carolina speech contained the true doctrine on the tariff. I am unwilling to go an inch further. I care not a fig for the clamors of that American Beotia (Pennsylvania). If the whole duty on R. R. iron was repealed her agonies would give me no pain. Annexation by Congress gives me considerable trouble. I am in great doubt about it. The words of the Constitution ex vi termini are sufficient to embrace the case, and I am clear from the action of the Convention that the Convention did not intend to limit the power to the admission of States from the then territory of the United States. I think the Convention were then looking to the acquisition of Louisiana. It was absolutely necessary to our western States. I am therefore clear in the opinion, nothwithstanding Mr. Jefferson's opinion to the contrary, that the acquisition of Louisiana by treaty and then its admission was perfectly constitutional; but I am not clear that it would have been constitutional without such previous acquisition by treaty. But from the best reflection I can give it, it being a question of doubt, I would decide it in favour of the popular will and, I therefore honestly believe, the public safety and the safety of the Union, and go for Foster's plan. Benton's division of the territory will not answer. I would yield nothing upon [the] slavery question below 36½ degrees latitude — and I don't like that. Congress has no right to interfere with the social relations of the inhabitants of any State. And the Missouri Compromise was all wrong and could only be defended because it practically yielded nothing.

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. 60-2

Friday, February 23, 2018

Gerrit Smith, August 27, 1859

It is, perhaps, too late to bring slavery to an end by peaceable means, — too late to vote it down. For many years I have feared, and published my fears, that it must go out in blood. These fears have grown into belief. So debanched are the white people by slavery that there is not virtue enough left in them to put it down. If I do not misinterpret the words and looks of the most intelligent and noble of the black men who fall in my way, they have come to despair of the accomplishment of this work by the white people. The feeling among the blacks that they must deliver themselves gains strength with fearful rapidity. No wonder, then, is it that intelligent black men in the States and in Canada should see no hope for their race in the practice and policy of white men. . . . Whoever he may be that foretells the horrible end of American slavery is held both at the North and the South to be a lying prophet, — another Cassandra. The South would not respect her own Jefferson's prediction of servile insurrection; how then can it be hoped that she will respect another's? . . . And is it entirely certain that these insurrections will be put down promptly, and before they can have spread far? Will telegraphs and railroads be too swift for even the swiftest insurrections? Remember that telegraphs and railroads can be rendered useless in an hour. Remember too that many who would be glad to face the insurgents would be busy in transporting their wives and daughters to places where they would be safe from that worst fate which husbands and fathers can imagine for their wives and daughters. I admit that but for this embarrassment Southern men would laugh at the idea of an insurrection, and would quickly dispose of one. But trembling as they would for beloved ones, I know of no part of the world where, so much as in the South, men would be like, in a formidable insurrection, to lose the most important time, and be distracted and panic-stricken.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 544

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Address of the Union State Central Committee

To the People of Pennsylvania:

In the midst of a fierce conflict for the national life – responding to calls for large reinforcements to enable our armies to successfully combat with traitors – cheerfully meeting the payment of extraordinary taxation to supply the Government with money to conduct the war, the submitting to an immense increase in the prices of living, the people of Pennsylvania have nevertheless been able for three years to maintain a prosperity, and secure a healthy operation in all the branches of their trade, unprecedented in the annals of any country while engaged in the prosecution of a war.  In the trials of this bloody war, with the struggle just reaching its climax, the people of Pennsylvania suddenly find themselves involved in a political contest invested with the highest importance, because fraught with the most momentous issues.  Ordinarily, heretofore, political contests meant only a choice of policy as to the manner of administering the Government.  The struggle of parties was for the possession of the powers of Government, and merely to control their operation.  How, however, our political contests have resolved themselves into a direct and a positive issue for the safety and the permanence of the Government; because, politically as well as sectionally, the contest at the ballot-box and in the battle-field must decide whether the Union shall exist or perish with the triumph or defeat of one or the other of the contending parties.  Hence the unwonted importance with which our political campaigns are now invested. — Parties are now divided on issued which vitally concern the Government.  They are composed of friends and enemies of that government.  To choose between these parties equally interests the cause of loyalty and that of treason.  No man can stand neutral between the two, and all that are not fairly for the Government will be justly recognized as its enemy. — Admitting that such is the new importance assumed by our political contests, we have an excuse as well as a justification for entering on the contest fast approaching, for the amendments to the Constitution, with all the zeal in our nature, and all the devotion that should characterize the patriot and the lover of his country in his effort to serve it.

It was seem that on an amendment to the Constitution granting the soldier a right to vote there should be no division.  Among a free people particularly, who are admitted always to be the most intelligent, such a right should be so well grounded in common and statute law as to need no action, at this late day, for its exercise and vindication.  The soldier, in all lands, alike among civilized and barbaric nations, has ever been admitted to the highest honors conferred by the governments beneath whose banners he fought.  His valor, his sacrifices, and his devotion, have ever been regarded as themes for the poet, subjects for the painter, and material for the historian; and thus the calling of arms became one of honor – one which elicited the noble rivalries of compatriots, and, where civilization refined for the instincts and elevated the character of men, war has been so conducted as to force combatants to respect and honor each other’s qualities – the victor still to treat the vanquished as a MAN.  The Constitution and laws expressly declare that no man shall be deprived of his citizenship, except for high crimes of which he shall be chard and proven guilty.  He must be summoned to meet such a charge of criminality in the presence of judges whose oaths bind them to do him entire justice.  He must be insured a trial by a jury sworn impartially to consider his case.  If found guilty, the sentence of his judges may result in his disfranchisement – but disfranchisement is not aimed at as a result of his punishment.  Disfranchisement as a direct punishment is only made to follow the highest crime known against the State.  Yet in the face of these facts, and in opposition to all equity, there are those in the State who insist that disfranchisement should follow the highest service which a man can perform for his Government.  There is a strong party to-day in Pennsylvania, regularly organized, controlled by able leaders and sustained by astute and learned advocates, insisting that the service of a citizen as a soldier – the periling of life and limb in the support of the Government, the giving up of domestic endearments, the sacrifice of business interests, and the yielding  of all personal comforts, forfeit for those thus engaged all political right, every franchise of a free-born or constitutionally adopted American citizen.  The monstrous iniquity of such a claim is at once apparent, however it has been maintained by our highest judicial tribunals.  Its injustice can only be sustained by sophistries founded in the worst political prejudices, so that the sooner the Constitution and laws are made plain and rendered explicit on this subject, and posted where every man can read and understand them, just so soon do we secure the strength and majesty of the Government in the confidence and respect of the governed – just so soon do we make our good old State worthy of the past valor of her sons, and glorious in the future.  American citizenship has its virtues and these their merits.  Each virtue can only be exalted by serving the Government under which they flourish; but if that service is made a badge of degradation, will it not be more natural for men of honor and spirit and true courage to resist its rendition than voluntarily to accept its duties?  The citizen-soldier feels when he takes up arms it is to defend, not destroy, his political rights.  The man who sacrifices his business interests, and for a stipulated time surrenders his personal liberty, cannot understand why he should be deprived of his political rights.  The service of arms does not blunt the judgment or blur the ability of a citizen to exercise the elective franchise.  It rather gives him a new title to the enjoyment of such a right, and fits him for the highest privileges of a free Government.  Unlike the masses of Europe, the great body of the American people are intelligent, possessed of educations affording the heights knowledge.  While war for a time may change the habits of such people, it cannot affect their sense of justice, their appreciation of power, and their love of Government.  It cannot lessen their ability for self-government.  If it could, the war in which we are now engaged for the defence of the Government and the safety of the public weal had better be stopped immediately.

The Democratic leaders now oppose the enfranchisement of the soldier.  In the olden time of the Democratic leaders, such as Jefferson, Jackson, Snyder and Shultze insisted that the elective franchise followed the flag under which a soldier fought.  If that flag was potent, on the sea and the land, to protect a man in war, why should it not possess the other virtues of continuing his political franchises?  If it made the deck of a vessel above which it waved the soil of the country represented by it, regardless of the sea or clime in which it floated, so also does it carry with it for the soldier who fights beneath its folds any political rights which these heroes enjoyed before they were mustered into the service; and on this soundly democratic argument the soldiers who fought in Mexico were able to exercise a freeman’s right in the wilds of the chapparel, the heats of the seashore, the din of conflict, and in the shadow of battlemented castles, the same as if they had been at home in their respective wards and precincts.  If men fighting thousands of miles from home – cut off from all communication – scarcely informed at the time on the issues of the political campaign, were able and entitled to exercise the right of the franchise, is it not fair to suppose that citizens of a like intelligence, engaged in the same service of the Government within the limits of its authority, distant only a few miles from home, conversant with all the issues involved in the political contest, in daily communication with their friends, and in perusal also of journals discussing the questions at stake – is it not fair to suppose that such men are entitled to the exercise of all their political rights?  Only those who act from perverted policy on this subject, will seek to evade the responsibility of such a question.  This is proven by the judicial history already attached to this question.  When it was deemed expedient, as it was undoubtedly considered by the democratic leaders then, the elective franchise was extended to the absent soldiers in Mexico; but in the midst of a war waged by the upholders of an institution from which the Democratic leaders thrive all their strength, George W. Woodward, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and lately the candidate of the Democratic party for Governor, judicially denied the soldiers the exercise of the elective franchise; denied our brave defenders the right almost in the same breath in which he declared the right of the States of the South to rebel and secede from the Union!  Fair men can see no difference in an American soldier voting in Mexico, while fighting beneath the flag of his country, and the same soldier citizen under the same circumstances voting in a rebellious State.  Time nor place, within the limits of a free government, or in the service thereof, cannot influence, should not be permitted to affect the rights of a freeman.  The government which is not able to insure him these inherent rights is unworthy his support.  The authority of a free government, which seeks to degrade a freeman while periling his life in its defence, is a despotism more fearful than that which denies all right to the governed.  It is not possible that such a government can last.  At some period in its history, if the rights of its defenders be disregarded as the Democratic leaders now deny the right of the franchise to the soldiers, it will need arms to protect it both from foreign and domestic foes, and perish eventually, an object to mean for defence.

In advocating the soldier’s right to vote, the loyal men of Pennsylvania are sustained by a faith in the fact that his service is such as to secure him not merely all the rights he enjoyed before he entered the army, but increased dignity and power at the hands of the Republic.  The enemies of this great principle oppose it only for reasons of expediency.  There was a time when the Democratic leaders claimed that the army was largely and even almost wholly composed of their partisan followers.  When they were most clamorous in insisting upon the recognition of such a claim, the supporters of the principle, opposed politically to these leaders were most earnest and even persistent in its advocacy.  To them it was a principle of justice too sacred to be disregarded – too noble to be rejected – too important in its relations to the very genius and vitality of the Republic to be denied to all the people thereof, alike shoes who risk the perils of battle in its defence and those who run no danger of life, limb or property in the service of Government, and who still claim its highest immunities and most sacred privileges.  On the second day of August ensuing this question will come practically before the People of Pennsylvania.  We do not doubt the result of the election as to the acceptance of rejection of the soldier’s right to vote.  But we would be false to the party which we represent, and recreant to the creed which we adore, if we failed to avow in advance our approval of granting this great right to our brave defenders.  Pennsylvania has many thousands of her citizens now in the army. – They have all gone forth inspired by a sublime faith in the strength of a free Government to crush a wicked conspiracy, and does it become us, while enjoying the halcyon blessings of peace at home, while the limbs of our soldiers are wet with their own blood, and their weapons are dripping with the gore of traitors, to say to them, “You have forfeited your citizenship; you are no longer worthy of participating in the control of a free Government; your positions must be with the slaves of the South among the disgraced and degraded of God’s children?  We cannot believe that the people of Pennsylvania are prepared to send such a message to their fellow-citizens in the armies of the republic.  We cannot believe that so foul a disgrace awaits our war-warn but still intrepid heroes.  The hearts of the great majority of the people at home are too full of gratitude for a return of great service by galling neglect.  Our faith in the justice of the people renders us confident in the establishment and vindication of the political rights of the soldier.  But that fault must be accompanied by works.  Hence it becomes the duty of the State Central Committee to urge on the friends of the soldier actively to labor for the triumph of this effort in his behalf.  Let it be said of our fellow-citizens now absent as soldiers, that as our victorious armies planted their banners in the capital of treason, it was beneath their folds in Richmond each hero of the Keystone State exercised the freeman’s right of the elective franchise for a president to administer the Government to a reunited Union, to States once more loyal, to a people again at peach and blessed with prosperity.

SIMON CAMERON, Chairman.

A. W. BENEDICT,
WIEN FORNEY,
Secretaries.

— Published in The Jeffersonian, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania,Thursday, July 14, 1864, p. 2