Charles Sumner to Congressman Charles Allen, October 15, 1850

Nothing is clearer to me than this. Our friends should if possible secure the balance of power in the Legislature, so as to influence the choice of senator. Some are sanguine that we can choose one of our men. I doubt this; but by a prudent course, and without any bargain, we can obtain the control of the Senate. We can then at least dictate to the Whigs whom they shall send. But this cannot be done except by thinning the Whig ranks. I fear that the course in Middlesex¹ will jeopard Palfrey's position and our whole movement. I wash my hands of it.

_______________

¹ Opposition to union between Democrats and Free Soilers for the election of members of the Legislature, led by Samuel Hoar, R. H. Dana, Jr., and Anson Burlingame. It proved ineffective against the strong current in favor of union.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 218-9

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

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

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

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

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

R.

MRS. HAYES.

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

Messrs. Brooks And Sumner — published May 26, 1856

With regard to the assault upon Mr. Sumner, by Col Brooks, a statement was made in the Senate on Friday, by Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, which represent that Mr. S. was taken at very great disadvantage by his assailant. The following however, is said to be the authentic account of the affair.

Mr. Brooks waited at the Porter’s Lodge about an hour yesterday, and as long this morning, hoping to meet Mr. Sumner, with a view to attack him. Failing in this, he entered the Senate chamber to-day, just as that body adjourned, and seeing several ladies present, seated himself on the opposite side of Mr. Sumner. Soon all disappeared but one. He then request a friend to get her out, when he immediately approached Mr. Sumner, and said, in a quiet tone of voice:—

Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech with great care, and with as much impartiality as I am capable of and I feel it my duty to say to you that you have published a libel on my State, and uttered a slander upon a relative, who is aged and absent, and I am come to punish you.

At the concluding words Mr. Sumner attempted to spring to his feet, showing fight, but whilst in the act was struck by Col. Brooks a backhanded blow across the head with a gutta percha cane, near an inch thick, but hollow, and he continued striking him right and left until the stick was broken into fragments and, Mr. Sumner was prostrated and bleeding on the floor. No one took hold of Col. Brooks during the time, so quick was the operation; but immediately afterwards Mr. Crittenden caught him around the body and arms, when Col. B. said, “I did not wish to hurt him much, but only to whip him.”

No one knew of the anticipated attack but the Hon. H. A. Edmunson, of Virginia, who happened not to be present when the attack commenced. It was reported on the streets for several days previous that Mr. Sumner would be armed when he delivered his speech, and that if occasion required it he should use his weapons. He was not armed when attacked by Colonel Brooks to-day.

We append a sketch of the proceedings in the House of Representatives, on Friday, touching the affair:

Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, rising to a question of privilege, offered the following:

Whereas on the 23rd of May the Hon. Preston S. Brooks and Hon. Lawrence M. Keitt, members of the House from South Carolina, and other members, either as principals or accessories, perpetrated a violent assault on the person of Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator of the United States from Massachusetts, while remaining in his seat in the Senate Chamber, and while in the performance of the duties appertaining to his official station.  Therefore,

Resolved, That a select committee of five members be appointed by the Speaker to investigate the subject and report on the facts with such resolution in reference thereto as in their judgment may be proper and necessary for the vindication of the character of this House, and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers, and employ a clerk and sit during the session of the House.

A debate ensued upon a point of order.

Mr. Smith of Virginia, suggested to Mr. Campbell the propriety of striking out the preamble. It assumed as fact that which could only be ascertained as such on examination. Mr. Campbell was willing to modify the preamble, which he did to read: “Whereas it is represented, etc.” It was, he said, due to the House and all parties that facts should be presented in some authentic form, and could only be done fully and fairly through the committee.

Mr. Clingman said he was satisfied with the statement in the preamble that it was a gross falsehood, but he did not mean that Mr. Campbell had intentionally made an untrue declaration. The gentleman mistook him.

The Speaker decided the proposition in order. He said, substantially that it was represented or charged that a member of the House had assaulted a Senator while in discharge of his official duties. The Senate could not interfere with a member of the House, but it belonged to the House, if one of its members had violated the privilege of the Senate, to make an investigation, it being the prober tribunal for that purpose. The Senate being a co-ordinate branch of Congress, and covered by some constitutional privilege, it was the duty of The Chair to receive Mr. Campbell’s proposition as a question of privilege.

Mr. Clingman appealed from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Craige was satisfied Mr. Keitt was not concerned in the matter in any way stated.

Mr. Campbell replied that if it should be passed, certainly no wrong would be done.

Mr. Keitt said he thought the dignity of the House required the investigation. His personal relations with the parties [had] always been those of friendship.

Mr. Paine inquired: is this resolution the result of precedent of action outside this hall or of [causas]?

Mr. Campbell replied that not one word had he heard passed by a member of any party as to such a course. He was influenced alone by the dictates of his own judgment and sense of public duty. As to who perpetrated the outrage; he only knew from what he had heard, although he saw Mr. Sumner lying in the ante-room adjoining the Senate Chamber with gashes on his head to the bone, and blood flowing over him.

Mr. Clingman repeated that he would leave the offender, Mr. Brooks, to answer to the law.

Mr. Letcher said that several years ago Postmaster General Hubbard was attacked by George Briggs, a member of the House, yet neither he [Mr. Letcher] nor Mr. Campbell thought it proper to bring the subject to the attention of the House.

The Speaker made a personal explanation. He had not been a party to any deliberation or consultation on this matter; and had no knowledge of the proposition until it was made from the clerk’s desk.

Mr. Brooks explained. I take the entire responsibility on myself, and state on my honor as a gentleman, no human being besides myself know when or where the transaction was intended to be made.

Mr. McQueen informed Mr. Campbell that a process had been instituted against his colleague, Mr. Brooks, who was amenable to the laws of the country. Mr. Campbell said he had no purpose to put any party in a false position, but he merely wished to ascertain the facts, there being so many rumors prevalent.

Mr. Haven appealed to Mr Campbell to omit the name of Mr. Keitt from the preamble.

Mr. Campbell assented.

Several gentlemen wanted him to strike of the words “other members,” but he refused, saying he had reasons for retaining them.

Mr. Keitt remarked that as his name had been withdrawn, he would say that he did not know the time nor the place where the act would be committed, and when it was committed he was behind the chair of the President of the Senate, with gentlemen from his own State, and he didn’t see the beginning of it. Therefore he had not the slightest preconsert with his colleague.

Under the operation of the previous question, Mr. C.’s proposition was adopted—yeas 93; nays 68.

The Speaker appointed Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, Allison, Cobb, of Georgia, Greenwood and Spinner, the committee. Mr. Allison was excused at his own request.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, May 26, 1856, p. 2

Daniel Webster’s Speech on the Compromise Bill, June 17, 1850

On the 7th of March, Sir, I declared my opinion to be, that there is not a square rod of territory belonging to the United States, the character of which, for slavery or no slavery, is not already fixed by some irrepealable law. I remain of that opinion. This opinion, Sir, has been a good deal canvassed in the country, and it has been the subject of complaints, sometimes respectful and decorous, and sometimes so loud and so empty as to become mere clamor. But I have seen no argument upon any question of law embraced in that opinion which shakes the firmness with which I hold it, or which leads me to doubt the accuracy of my conclusions as to that part of the opinion which regarded the true construction, or, I might with more propriety say, almost the literal meaning, of the resolutions by which Texas was admitted into the Union. I have heard no argument calculated in the slightest degree to alter that opinion. The committee, I believe, with one accord, concurred in it. A great deal of surprise, real or affected, has been expressed in the country at the announcement by me of that opinion, as if there were something new in it. Yet there need have been no surprise, for there was nothing new in it. Other gentlemen have expressed the same opinion more than once; and I myself, in a speech made here on the 23d of March, 1848, expressed the same opinion, almost in the same words; with which nobody here found any fault, at which nobody here cavilled or made question, and nobody in the country.

With respect to the other ground on which my opinion is founded, that is, the high improbability, in point of fact, that African slavery could be introduced and established in any of the territories acquired by us in pursuance of the late treaty with Mexico, I have learned nothing, heard nothing, from that day to this, which has not entirely confirmed that opinion. That being my judgment on this matter, I voted very readily and cheerfully to omit what is called the Wilmot Proviso from these territorial bills, or to keep it out, rather, when a motion was made to introduce it. I did so upon a very full and deep conviction, that no act of Congress, no provision of law, was necessary, in any degree, for that purpose; that there were natural and sufficient reasons and causes excluding for ever African slavery from those regions. That was my judgment, and I acted on it; and it is my judgment still. Those who think differently will, of course, pursue a different line of conduct, in accordance with their own judgments. That was my opinion then, and it has been strengthened by every thing that I have learned since; and I have no more apprehension to-day of the introduction or establishment of African slavery in these territories, than I have of its introduction into and establishment in Massachusetts.

Well, Sir, I have voted not to place in these territorial bills what is called the Wilmot Proviso, and by that vote have signified a disposition to exclude the prohibition, as a thing unnecessary. I am now called upon to vote upon this amendment, moved by the honorable member from Louisiana,¹ which provides that the States formed out of New Mexico and Utah shall have the right and privilege of making their own constitutions, and of presenting those constitutions to Congress conformably to the Constitution of the United States, with or without a prohibition against slavery, as the people of those Territories, when about to become States, may see fit.

I do not see much practical utility in this amendment, I agree. Nevertheless, if I should vote, now that it is presented to me, against it, it might leave me open to the suspicion of intending or wishing to see that accomplished in another way hereafter which I did not choose to see accomplished by the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso. That is to say, it might seem as if, voting against that form of exclusion or prohibition, I might be willing still that there should be a chance hereafter to enforce it in some other way.

Now I think that ingenuousness and steadiness of purpose, under these circumstances, compel me to vote for the amendment, and I shall vote for it. I do it exactly on the same grounds that I voted against the introduction of the proviso. And let it be remembered that I am now speaking of New Mexico and Utah, and other territories acquired from Mexico, and of nothing else. I confine myself to these; and as to them, I say that I see no occasion to make a provision against slavery now, or to reserve to ourselves the right of making such provision hereafter. All this rests on the most thorough conviction, that, under the law of nature, there never can be slavery in these territories. This is the foundation of all. And I voted against the proviso, and I vote now in favor of this amendment, for the reason that all restrictions are unnecessary, absolutely unnecessary; and as such restrictions give offence, and create a kind of resentment, as they create a degree of dissatisfaction, and as I desire to avoid all dissatisfaction, as far as I can, by avoiding all measures that cause it, and which are in my judgment wholly unnecessary, I shall vote now as I voted on a former occasion, and shall support the amendment offered by the honorable member from Louisiana. I repeat again, I do it upon the exact grounds upon which I declared, upon the 7th day of March, that I should resist the Wilmot Proviso.

Sir, it does not seem to strike other Senators as it strikes me, but if there be any qualification to that general remark which I made, or the opinion which I expressed on the 7th of March, that every foot of territory of the United States has a fixed character for slavery or no slavery; if there be any qualification to that remark, it has arisen here, from what seems to be an indisposition to define the boundaries of New Mexico; that is all the danger there is. All that is part of Texas was, by the resolutions of 1815, thrown under the general condition of the Texan territory; and let me say to gentlemen, that if, for want of defining the boundaries of New Mexico, by any proceeding or process hereafter, or by any event hereafter, any portion which they or I do not believe to be Texas should be considered to become Texas, then, so far, that qualification of my remark is applicable. And therefore I do feel, as I had occasion to say two or three days ago, that it is of the utmost importance to pass this bill, to the end that there may be a definite boundary fixed now, and fixed for ever, between the territory of New Mexico and Texas, or the limits of New Mexico and the limits of Texas. Here the question lies. If gentlemen wish to act efficiently for their own purposes, here it is, in my poor judgment, that they are called upon to act. And the thing to be done, and done at once, is to fix the boundaries of New Mexico.

Mr. President, when I see gentlemen from my own part of the country, no doubt from motives of the highest character and for most conscientious purposes, not concurring in any of these great questions with myself, I am aware that I am taking on myself an uncommon degree of responsibility. The fact, that gentlemen with whom I have been accustomed to act in the Senate took a different view of their own duties in the same case, naturally led me to reconsider my own course, to reëxamine my own opinions, to rejudge my own judgment. And now, Sir, that I have gone through this process, without prejudice, as I hope, and certainly I have done so under the greatest feeling of regret at being called upon by a sense of duty to take a step which may dissatisfy some to whom I should always be desirous of rendering my public course and every event and action of my public life acceptable, yet I cannot part from my own settled opinions. I leave consequences to themselves. It is a great emergency, a great exigency, that this country is placed in. I shall endeavor to preserve a proper regard to my own consistency. And here let me say, that neither here nor elsewhere has any thing been advanced to show that on this subject I have said or done any thing inconsistent, in the slightest degree, with any speech, or sentiment, or letter, or declaration that I ever delivered in my life; and all would be convinced of this if men would stop to consider and look at real differences and distinctions. But where all is general denunciation, where all is clamor, where all is idle and empty declamation, where there is no search after truth, no honest disposition to inquire whether one opinion is different from the other, why, every body, in that way of proceeding, may be proclaimed to be inconsistent.

Now, Sir, I do not take the trouble to answer things of this sort that appear in the public press. I know it would be useless. Those who are of an unfriendly disposition would not publish my explanations or distinctions if I were to make them. But, Sir, if any gentleman here has any thing to say on this subject, though I throw out no challenge, yet if any gentleman here chooses to undertake the task, and many there possibly are who think it an easy task, to show in what respect any thing that I said in the debate here on the 7th of March, or any thing contained in my letter to the gentlemen of Newburyport, is inconsistent with any recorded opinion of mine since the question of the annexation of Texas arose, in 1837, I will certainly answer him with great respect and courtesy, and shall be content to stand or fall by the judgment of the country.

Sir, my object is peace. My object is reconciliation. My purpose is, not to make up a case for the North, or to make up a case for the South. My object is not to continue useless and irritating controversies. I am against agitators, North and South. I am against local ideas, North and South, and against all narrow and local contests. I am an American, and I know no locality in America; that is my country. My heart, my sentiments, my judgment, demand of me that I shall pursue such a course as shall promote the good, and the harmony, and the union of the whole country. This I shall do, God willing, to the end of the chapter.

_______________

¹ Mr. [Pierre] Soulé.

SOURCE: Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. 5, p. 381-5

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, June 10, 1864

The caucus of the New Hampshire members of the legislature friendly to the Administration has resulted in the substitution of Cragin for John P. Hale. This will be a sore and sad disappointment to Hale, who had until recently thought himself invincible in New Hampshire. Although I have no doubt he would make terms with the Copperheads if he could, they would not with him, and it therefore seems scarcely possible that it can be otherwise than he will be fully and finally defeated. I rejoice at it, for he is worthless, a profligate politician, a poor Senator, an indifferent statesman, not without talents, though destitute of industry, and I question his integrity. He has some humor, is fond of scandal, delights in defaming, loves to oppose, and is reckless of truth in his assaults. The country will sustain no loss from his retirement. As chairman of the Naval Committee and the organ of communication between the Navy Department and the Senate, he has rendered no service, but has been a constant embarrassment and obstruction. During the whole of this civil war, when all our energies and efforts were exerted in the cause of the Union and the country, no assistance, no word of encouragement even, has ever come to the Department from John P. Hale; but constant assaults, insinuations, and pronounced, if not wilful and deliberate, misrepresentations have emanated from him. Of course, I shall not regret his defeat, for though his term does not expire till the close of this Administration, and my connection with the Government may terminate at the same time, I am glad that his factious conduct is not indorsed by his State, and that the buffoon and vilifier will not be in a position to do further injury. He has been less offensive this session than heretofore, whether because he had become aware that his conduct did not meet the approval of the people and the election was at hand, I care not to judge. A letter from Admiral Gregory, inclosing a report from himself and Chief Engineer King on the Chimo, one of the light-draught monitors, gives a bad account. There have been mistakes and miscalculations in this class of vessels of a serious character. Stimers and Fox have had them in charge, and each has assured me that my apprehensions were groundless. Fox has been persistent in this matter, and assumed that the objections were wholly groundless. Admiral Gregory has also given me strong assurances that all was right. The Chimo, the first, would, he said, be a little deep, but this would be obviated in all the others, and not very bad in her case. I am not satisfied with Stimers’s management, yet Fox has in this matter urged what has been done. The report indicates unfitness on the part of Stimers, who miscalculated or made no calculation for displacement, has become vain, and feared to acknowledge his error.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 51-3

Henry Clay to John J. Crittenden, May 11, 1826

Washington, May 11, 1826.

Dear Crittenden,—I have received your acceptable favor of the 27th. The affair with Mr. R[andolph], to which you refer with so much kindness, was unavoidable (according to that standard, my own feelings and judgment, to which its decision exclusively belonged). I rejoiced at its harmless issue. In regard to its effect upon me, with the public, I have not the smallest apprehension. The general effect will not be bad. I believe it is the only similar occurrence which is likely to take place here. As to McDuffie and Trimble, the general opinion here is that Trimble obtained a decided advantage, and in that opinion I understand some of the friends of McDuffie concur. You will not doubt it when you read Trimble's speech, who really appears on that occasion to have been inspired. Mr. Gallatin is appointed to England, and there is general acquiescence in the propriety of his appointment. Our senator, Mr. R., made a violent opposition to Trimble's nomination, and prevailed upon four other senators to record their negatives with him. He is perfectly impotent in the Senate, and has fallen even below the standard of his talents, of which, I think, he has some for mischief, if not for good. The judiciary bill will most probably be lost by the disagreement between the two Houses as to its arrangements. This day will decide. My office is very laborious. Amidst sundry negotiations and interminable correspondence, I have, nevertheless, found time during the winter and spring to conclude two commercial treaties,—one with Denmark and one with Guatemala, which have had the fortune to be unanimously approved by the Senate. Publication deferred till ratified by the other parties. I am rejoiced at the prospect you describe of the settlement of our local differences. It will be as I have ever anticipated. I think, with deference to our friends, there has been all along too much doubt and despair. On the other hand, you should not repose in an inactive confidence. I believe with you, that some of the Relief party have been alienated from me. Not so, however, I trust with Blair, to whom I pray you to communicate my best respects.

Yours, faithfully,

Henry Clay.

SOURCES: Mrs. Chapman Coleman, The Life of John J. Crittenden, Volume 1, p. 65; C. N. Feamster, Calendar of the Papers of John Jordan Crittenden, p. 32

Senator James Harlan, May 9, 1862

I shall detain the Senate for but a moment longer.

General Halleck, in an official communication addressed to the adjutant general of the State of Iowa, has mentioned the Iowa troops at the battle before Fort Donelson as “the bravest of the brave.” Nor do I know that General Grant, or any other general, has ever withheld just commendation. I therefore repeat that I have no personal grievance to redress for myself or for the troops of my State. And I would have remained silent on this subject in the Senate, if the speech of the Senator from Ohio had not made it necessary for me to speak; for I do not deem the Senate Chamber the proper place for criticisms on the conduct of a general in the field. I think it much better to present our personal convictions in relation to the character of our generals to the Secretary of War and to the President. For myself, I uniformly pursue this course, and regret that it has, in my judgment, become necessary to depart from it in this case. But, sir, it is often as dangerous and as wicked to praise the unworthy and incompetent as to detract from the meritorious. If my convictions are correct, it would be a crime for me to remain silent, and suffer influences to originate in the Senate Chamber which may result in restoring a general to an active command whom I and the people I in part represent deem unworthy of such a trust.

Iowa has sent to the field about twenty thousand troops. They have behaved, I think, well on every battle-field where they have appeared. As far as I know, no Iowa regiment has ever faltered in the discharge of duty, however perilous. Their numbers have been reduced by the casualties of the field and camp nearly one fourth. They give their lives with firmness to aid in restoring the supremacy of the laws. But, sir, they believe, and I believe, that a large per cent. of this loss was useless, and is justly attributable to the carelessness or inability of General Grant. And he shall not, with my consent, be continued in command. There is nothing in his antecedents to justify a further trial of his military skill. At Belmont he committed an egregious and unpardonable military blunder, which resulted in almost annihilating an Iowa regiment. At Fort Donelson, the right wing of our army, which was under his immediate command, was defeated and driven back several miles from the enemy's works. The battle was restored by General Smith, the enemy's works were stormed, and thus a victory was finally won. And so on the battle-field of Shiloh, his army was completely surprised, as I believe from all the facts I can procure, on Sunday, and nothing but the stubborn bravery of the men fighting by regiments and brigades, saved the army from utter destruction. The battle was afterwards restored and conducted by General Buell and other generals, who came on the field during the evening and night; and our forces ultimately succeeded in completely routing the enemy.

Now, sir, with such a record, those who continue General Grant in an active command will, in my opinion, carry on their skirts the blood of thousands of their slaughtered countrymen. With my convictions, I can neither do it myself nor silently permit it to be done by others.

SOURCE: The Congressional Globe, The Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Congress, p. 2036-7

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, January 21, 1852

Boston, January 21st, 1852.

My Dear Mann: — It seems an age since I have seen you and long since I have had a word about you. There was a saying about “icicles in breeches” reported of some member of the House, and of course we knew it was aut Mann aut Diabolus who originated it. Was there never any report of your remarks upon that occasion? if there was pray send it to me.

I have little to say to you that will be new or interesting. Of matters personal — first and foremost, my babies are well and beautiful and good; I hope yours are ditto. These little banyan branches of ours that are taking root in the earth keep us tied to it, and keep us young also. My wife is well; we are passing the winter at South Boston; and between Blind and Idiots and my chicks, the time flies rapidly away.

I have luckily secured Dr. Seguin, formerly the life and soul of the French school for idiots. . . .

As to politics, I know little of them. Alley¹ was in here just now and asked me what I thought of the present position of the Free-soil party; I replied that in my opinion it was so much diluted that it would not keep; that the most active Dalgetties had got comfortably placed in office, and did not trouble themselves much about Free-soil; that at the State House, among the Coalitionists, the first article of the creed was preservation and continuation of the Coalition as a means of retaining power — and that the 39th or 339th was Free-soil — just enough to satisfy outside impracticables like myself: in a word we were sold. He laughed and said — “You are more than half right.”

Alley is shrewd and honest, I think. Boutwell goes in for Davis's place [in the Senate] and will have to fight with Rantoul for it.

I told I. T. Stevenson the other day that there was one man whom the Lord intended to lift up to the State House and into the Gubernatorial Chair, in his own good time, and that was you. He replied he did not doubt the intention, but that you had been doing everything in your power to defeat it.

With kind regards to Mrs. M—.

Ever yours,

S. G. Howe.

_______________

¹ John B. Alley of Lynn, afterwards Congressman.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 361-3

Governor Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, February 14, 1860

Columbus, Feb. 14, I860.

Dear Sumner, Your congratulations, if not among the first, were by no means the least welcome; for I know the sincere & noble heart from which they came.

But I feel no pleasure in the thought of returning to the Senate. If circumstances warrant me in so doing I shall prefer to resign without taking my seat. These are days of too much concession to suit me.

We all remember you with love and admiration. Your picture hangs alone in my library over a framed autograph of Charles Carroll. It hangs with others, all of earnest men, in my dining room. I put them all up when I first opened my house, as a defiance to the proslavery men who would resist or debase republicanism — as symbols of my faith and my purposes.

Why should Seward retire from the Senate? Is he certain of the nomination at Chicago? I do not so read the signs exactly; but I shall not be disappointed, if such shall be the event. I look upon him as a great man, faithful to the cause of freedom & humanity, & worthy of any honor which can be conferred upon him. We don't agree in some views, but I should be ashamed of myself, if I could be moved to undervalue or decry him. On the contrary I heartily honor, & cheerfully praise &, if the Republicans choose him as their standard bearer, shall zealously support him.

Cordially your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 285-6

George L. Stearns to Samuel Gridley Howe, February 27, 1860

[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 27, 1860]

[Dr. S. G. Howe.]

I am so far on my return from Washington, where I had a good time. The Com. were civil and did not press me at all. I answered freely and they took all I said in good faith.

On reading my testimony, which took an hour and a half, I did not want to change a word, but made some additions; such as, “I have since changed my opinion,” etc. I was before them three hours, from eleven until two.

I saw a good deal of Sumner; he made me free of his room at all hours and was of great use to me. He is preparing a speech and will do justice to this affair, including the Senate Com. He said: I feel now perfectly easy with regard to slavery: it has received its death blow. This is not a quotation, but the spirit of his remarks.

Saw Adams, Burlingame, Wilson; nothing said worth reporting.

Washington, as it is to-day, is the meanest hole in creation, and Congress the meanest part of Washington. The members of both parties are split up into petty cliques, each intent on grinding its own little axe and trying to prevent all the others from using the grindstone. If they are our representatives, we are indeed of a low type.

Ever yours,

George L. Stearns.

SOURCE: Preston Stearns, The Life and Public Services of George Luther Stearns, p. 213

Thomas R. R. Cobb * to Howell Cobb, May 12, 1846

Athens, Ga., May 12, 1846.

My Dear Brother, . . . Toombs misrepresented me on the Oregon question. The Senate's Resolutions as amended by Owen met my hearty approbation. I preferred that there should be embodied in the resolutions a willingness to negotiate during the 12 mos.

Nobody talks of Oregon now. It is Mexico and War. I never saw the people more excited. A volunteer company could be raised in every county in Georgia. Our government has permitted itself to be insulted long enough. The blood of her citizens has been spilt on her own soil. It appeals to us for vengeance. Can we hesitate to deal out a just retribution? It is the general opinion here that England is pulling the wires. The quicker we know it the better. Let Congress act and that quickly. . . .

_______________

* Brother of Howell Cobb, a lawyer and author of a digest of the laws of Georgia, 1851, and of a legal treatise on slavery, 1858. He was not active In politics until the secession crisis In 1860-61. He became a brigadier-general in the Confederate army, and was killed in the battle of Fredericksburg.

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. 76-7

Governor Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, July 16, 1858

Columbus, July 16, 1858.

My Dear Sumner, Your brief parting note came to me like a note of music, sad but pleasant, wafted from the waters. How sorry I was that you were obliged to seek again in foreign lands the great boon of health; and yet I was glad to know that among those last remembered and I hope, last forgotten, was the friend whom you so early cheered in the great struggle for freedom, by your approval & regard. Very gratefully do I remember all your kindness in act and speech, and trust I shall ever show myself not unworthy altogether, by remaining true to the cause for services to which it was the valued reward.

We learn from the newspapers that you have submitted yourself to a most trying operation, and that the physicians give good hope of most beneficial results. Most earnestly do I hope, in common with many thousand friends of Human Liberty & Progress, that their best anticipations may be fully realized. I am anxious to hear your voice once more in the Senate, mirum spargens sonum. I want to see the Oligarchs and Serviles once more cowering under your rebukes of despotism & servility.

It is amazing to see to what depths of baseness some of the partizan presses in the interest of the Oligarchy will descend. Not content with half vindications of the assassination attempted upon you, several have had the infinite meanness to represent you as playing a part all the while you have been suffering from the effects of the assault. When will men learn decency?

Oh! if you shall be only able to take your seat again next winter in your full vigor! There is no one now who hates the army of slavery in its principle as you do. I should except Durkee. Even Hale rather regards its political iniquity as its chief abomination; though far from insensible to its moral evil. Add to Hale, Seward & perhaps Wilson, and I think all the rest are animated rather by opposition to the political encroachments of the Slave Power, than by an earnest desire to inaugurate the deliverence of millions from oppression.

The rise of the Know Nothing Party had a pernicious influence upon the growth of a true Antislavery Spirit. You remember that one of its aims was to be national; and to be national it must ignore the slavery question, or in other words become indifferent as to the progress of slavery in the north while the south tolerated no indifference. Some yielded to this under the idea that the south, or rather the slave oligarchy in the south, would adopt the policy of indifferentism as well as the north. Others adopted the policy because they really felt no opposition to the spread of slavery, & had become accustomed to regard all earnest Antislavery action as fanatical & incompatible with repose. When the American Party became republicanized as in Ohio & some other states, a number of its members refused to vote republican tickets because they believed the antislavery principle represented. Often these men held the balance of power in their particular states, districts or counties. Under these circumstances politicians soon began to think of conciliating them, and this disposition has induced a number of republican leaders to urge an abatement or modification of our Antislavery creed so as to make conciliation [illegible]. In many cases this policy has disgusted the earnest Antislavery men so much that they cease to cooperate heartily & there is danger of such departures from our original faith that division will take place, seriously affecting our prospects for the future. In Ohio my maxim has been “conciliate, but no abandonment of principle”; and I am happy to say that we have succeeded very thoroughly. At our recent State Convention, held on the ever memorable 13th, we reaffirmed all our articles of faith & at the same time made a ticket which will, I think, render it impossible for them to rally under their distinctive American flag at all. In other States I regret to see a less vigorous maintenance of principle or organization, especially in Pennsylvania & New York. In these States there seems to be a disposition to fuse upon simple opposition to the Administration, often without any & generally with little regard to Antislavery principles. In Massachusetts I fear something of the same tendency exists. I am willing to go as far as any man to conciliate, and would readily concede much for that object, in hope of producing a union of action which will overturn the Slave Power. But it is impossible for us who have so long contended for the denationalization of slavery & the exercise of the legitimate influence of the Government on the side of Freedom, to abandon [?] our great object for the sake of personal advantage, to sundry [?] individuals, or for the sake of simply putting down the present Administration.

I go to Massachusetts next week, if possible. I propose attending Commencement at Dartmouth, where my class is to meet. How I wish I could meet & confer with you. But I must [illeg. pursue?] you across the ocean instead; and I trust you will find time to let me hear from you as well as ability & inclination [sic]. Meantime be assured of my warm & continual affection.

Faithfully

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 277-9

Congressman Alexander H. Stephens to Governor George W. Crawford,* February 3, 1846

Washington, D. C., Feb. 3,1846.

Dear Crawford, Yours in relation to the Galphin claim came to hand last night and I will examine the case you cite. I turned over the papers relating to the claim to Judge Berrien some weeks ago who I think likewise turned them over to Mr. McDuffie who is to bring the subject before the Senate. This I think the better course. They have more time in the Senate, and being a smaller body are more disposed to attend to the real merits of the case. If a favourable report can be got through that body it will stand a much better chance in our House. And should it come there I would do all that labour, research and investigation can do to effect its passage. I have bestowed a good deal of attention to the subject and am clearly of opinion that it is founded in right and justice and ought to be passed. Our time however for some weeks, as you see from the papers, has been taken up almost exclusively with the Oregon debate, and when we will bring that to a close I am wholly unable to conjecture. Every one in the House I believe (myself alone excepted) is desirous of making a speech upon the subject. Even those who have spoken are anxious many of them to make another. But I suppose the debate will be ended in the House when it is taken up in the Senate, which will take place next week. It is a subject I feel no disposition to speak upon in its present shape and condition, and I partake very little of that excitement in relation to it which seems to prevail amongst others. I am for our rights as far as they are clear, and in maintaining them thus far I should not suffer myself to be influenced by any considerations growing out of a fear or apprehension of war. Nor do I conceive that the questions of peace or war are at all involved in terminating the joint occupancy under the convention of 1818. It seems to me that such a measure would only bring about a settlement of our boundary, which ought to be done, as our people are new going there in large companies for the purpose of colonizing. Whether this will lead to a rupture with England or not I cannot pretend to say. It ought not, and will not if properly managed. But one thing is certain, our government will have to recede from the position of Mr. Polk that our "title to the whole of the territory is clear and unquestionable ", or war will be inevitable unless I greatly mistake the temper of the British Government. The war however will not be the result of the giving the notice but subsequent legislation taking possession of the whole of the country. And this I am not prepared to do, and will not do, for I do not think our rights clear to that extent. And I moreover think that the whole subject is proper for negotiation and settlement upon terms of mutual compromise. And if I may go a step further I think this will be the result of the whole matter. If the notice is given, negotiations (if the President does his duty) will be opened, he will recede from his position, and the controversy will ultimately be ended in some sort of amicable adjustment. I can not bring myself to the belief that war will result. But enough of this. I am doing what I can to facilitate the settlement of the amount of our state at the Treasury Department, but my progress is slow. I sent you some papers upon this subject a few days ago.

P. S. — My health is good, much better than it has been for several years.

_______________

* Governor of Georgia, 1843-1847, Secretary of War in Taylor's Cabinet, 1849-1850. He was for many years attorney for the Galphin claimants.

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. 71-2

Robert Toombs to Alexander H. Stephens, February 16, 1845

Washington [ga.,] Feb. 16th, 1845.

[dear S]tephens,¹ I received your letter of 9th and hardly know [what to] write you about my prospects of getting to Taliaferro. [ I tell m]yself every five or six days that I am getting well [but the] slightest exercise or labour brings back the pains [in] my shoulders, arms and legs. I hope to get there but I fear I shall not be able, tho' I should dislike to be able and not have you there. Therefore unless very inconvenient I wish you would come. My physician thinks that I am clear of rheumatism and that my present pains are the result of spinal irritation which he says frequently succeeds as severe attacks as mine. I doubt he is right about it. I am generally free from pain when at rest but the slightest motion even writing a letter is accompanied with pain. I am thus particular that you may judge somewhat for yourself.

I have not answered the Times because I am wholly unequal to the labour. Except my letters to you I have not written as much as a sheet of paper since I was taken sick, until day before yesterday I wrote about half that amount to Berrien. As soon as I am able I shall give him a touch. The Whigs generally, indeed universally except Jenkins, as far as I have seen or heard from them, are satisfied with the course of yourself and Clinch on the Texas question. My means of knowing their opinions are of course limited. I have heard of no single man who objects to the terms of annexation embraced in the resolutions. A good man[y differ] with you as to the mode, but you are a sufficient judge] of the popular mind that the mode [exerts] no influence upon the people generally. Man[y who dif]fer with you as to the mode think that y[our own] course will have a good effect upon the state [of opinion] here by killing it off as a party question. It [may] have that effect, but I am not without my misgiving[s.] If Berrien could have voted with you I think such would likely have been the case, but his voting the other way, connected with the fact that the measure will be lost by the votes of slaveholding Senators will I think prevent that result. From that state of facts I fear it will still be a party question in the South. In that event the divisions of the Whig party even on the mode of annexation must needs be an element of weakness and not of strength. The terms of annexation are certainly very favourable to the South, better than I ever supposed could pass either branch of Congress; and I deeply regret that the form in which they come up prevents their passage through the Senate. I see nothing but evil to our party and the country that can come out of this question in future. You ought to send copies of your speech to all of our editors for immediate publication. It will put you right before the country. Your speech is a good one, tho' I have rarely found myself differing with [you on] so many points. I concur with you in but one of [your re]asons for desiring annexation and that is that [it will] give power to the slave states. I firmly believe [that in] every other respect it will be an unmixed evil to us [        ] and not without natural disadvantages as well as [advanta]ges. Tho' I can not bring myself to concur with [you] on the constitutional question, I shall not commit myself publicly on that point without further time and a more full investigation. It strikes me that a satisfactory answer to your argument drawn from the admission of N. Carolina and R. Island is to be found in the Constitution itself. Altho' the government was to go into operation on the ratification of nine states the other states could by the very terms of the Constitution come in at any time afterwards. I hope and trust the question will take such a direction in the Senate as not to bring our friends even in apparent collision. Archer's report² gave me the backache to read it. Its style is really ridiculous. It is either a long ways behind or before the age. He “writes bombast and calls it a style.” Write me as soon as you get this whether you will come to T. Court. Come if you can and let us talk over these matters. For I can not write. We must commence the spring campaign early and vigorously.

_______________

¹ Corner of the original letter mouse-eaten.

² William S. Archer, of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, had presented a report, Feb. 4, 1845, contending that Texas could be annexed only by treaty, and not by act of Congress.

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. 63-5

Senator Charles Sumner to Henry Wilson, April 25, 1851

Cragie House, Cambridge, April 25, 1851.

My Dear Wilson, — I have this moment read your remarks of last night, which I think peculiarly happy. You touched the right chord. I hope not to seem cold or churlish in thus withdrawing from all the public manifestations of triumph to which our friends are prompted. In doing so, I follow the line of reserve which you know I have kept to throughout the contest; and my best judgment at this moment satisfies me that I am right.

You who have seen me familiarly and daily from the beginning to the end will understand me, and, if need be, can satisfy those, who, taking counsel of their exultation, would have me mingle in the display. But I shrink from imposing any .thing more upon you.

To your ability, energy, determination, and fidelity our cause owes its present success. For weal or woe, you must take the responsibility of having placed me in the Senate of the United States.

I am prompted also to add, that, while you have done all this, I have never heard from you a single suggestion of a selfish character, looking in any way to any good to yourself: your labors have been as disinterested as they have been effective. This consideration increases my personal esteem and gratitude.

I trust that you will see that Mr. B's resolves¹ are passed at once as they are, and the bill as soon as possible. Delay will be the tactics of the enemy.

Sincerely yours,

Charles Sumner.

The Hon. Henry Wilson.

_______________

¹ J[oseph] T. Buckingham’s, on slavery.

SOURCES: Elias Nason & Thomas Russell, The Life and Public Services of Henry Wilson, p. 93-4; Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 249

Junius Hillyer* to Howell Cobb, February 15, 1846

Athens, [ga.,] Feb. 15th, 1846.

Dear Howell, I have just returned from Clark court and in the morning I must start to Walton, but I cannot longer defer writing to you. You must accept as my excuse for not having written often that I have constantly visited Chase's¹ office and had the pleasure of seeing your letters to him, so that through that channel I have been in constant communication with you and from Chase, Mitchell and others you have I thought been so far in communication with me as to make it not very important for me to address you directly.

It is true our editors do not speak with as much zeal on Texas as I think they ought but I do believe that our people are looking with a deep interest on the issue of the question in the Senate; what will be the fate of the bill I do not know but I do believe that if annexation is defeated the wrath of the people of Georgia will be visited on the Whigs after such a sort that they will feel the effects of it during the lives of the present generation. We take for granted since the report of the committee that our Senator Mr. Berrien will oppose it. That his doing so will be against the wishes of a very large majority it seems to me he must know. It is for him however to reconcile it to his conscience to vote directly contrary to the known will of his constituents. Do your best. Let not the measure be lost. . . .

_______________

* A Democratic leader resident at Athens, Ga., Cobb's home. He was judge of the superior court of Georgia (western circuit), 1841-1845; Congressman from Georgia, 1851-1855; Solicitor of the United States Treasury, 1857-1861.

¹ Albon Chase, editor of the “Southern Banner,” at Athens, Ga.

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. 63

Alexander H. Stephens to James Thomas, February 11, 1845

Washington, D. C., Feb. 11, 1845.

Dear Thomas, Let me know what you think of my speech upon Texas and what the Whigs of Hancock think of my vote upon the same. From the Chronicle and Sentinel¹ I infer that they do not sustain it; but certainly they forget the true position of the Whigs of Georgia last year upon that subject. I haven't time to say more. No news here. Benton it is thought will defeat the measure in the Senate. He wishes it kept open. Polk has not got here yet, and nobody knows who will be in his cabinet.

_______________

¹ The Chronicle and Sentinel of Augusta was a leading Whig organ in Georgia.

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. 62

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, January 9, 1864

Grimes tells me that the reports in last evening's papers are meagre and perverted, doing no justice to the Navy Department as it stood before the Senate, nor to the debate of yesterday. He says Hale was entirely used up, and had not a single friend in the Senate. Senator Clark, Hale's colleague, came to see me; says he has privately admonished Hale of the injury he was doing the country, as well as bringing ruin upon himself, by his strange course. I am, personally, not sorry that Hale makes this exhibition of his vicious mind and tendencies. Utterly indifferent to the rights and feelings of others, holding a position of power and yet not of responsibility, he has slandered and defamed the good more than the bad, and delighted to show his immensity and ability from his place to abuse.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 507-8

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 23, 1854

Washington, Jany 23, 1854.

My Dear Sir: Wrote you a day or two since. Today the Nebraska Bill was called up, but was postponed till Monday. It is designed to press it through the Senate for fear of the awakening of popular indignation. I send you the Bill as now proposed to be amended. I send you, also, the original Report [of the] Bill from which you will see how material the attraction is. I also enclose with this an appeal in the Era. The signs all indicate Storms ahead.

I am fully advised that the amend'ts as they now stand were [made after] consultation with Pierce and that the Administration with a good deal of trepidation has resolved to risk its fortunes upon the bill as it now stands. Many of its warm friends say they are sure to go down upon it. There is certainly great alarm & misgiving. Cass told me today that he was not consulted, & was decidedly against the renewal of the agitation: but he will vote with the proslavery side. A personal & near friend of the Presidents called on me tonight & told me that Cass was excluded from consultations. They meant to drag him along. Even New Hampshire wavers about supporting the Bill. Maine is in a rebellion, all Rhode Island except perhaps Jones is against it. Every northern Whig Senator without exception is against it; Houston & Benton are against it

I hope the Columbian will [get the] slips of the Appeal and circulate it through the Legislature. You [don't] need to be told who wrote it. Please see to having the slips struck off & circulated.

I suppose the Senatorial [question] decided in this time. Feeling no interest in it, since no man can be elected who is not proslavery I only desire to call the attention of the people to a much greater matter. I am sorry to hear that you have electioneered for Manypenny. I like him personally, but I would cut off my right hand sooner than aid him or any other man to reach a position in which he will make Ohio the vassal of the Slave Power.

I shall soon return among the people and I mean to see whether shams will rule forever. I know that the advocates must bite the dust and they shall

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 256-7

Cololnel Addison Farnsworth to Captain William Thompson Lusk, December 20, 1862

New-York, December 20th, 1862.

My dear Lusk:

Your last letter has not been answered before this, because of the reason that you — ye army of the Potomac — were on the move before it reached me, and I felt disposed to await your arrival in Richmond! The “turn of things” lately, however, has induced me to alter my mind.

In regard to the matter of the Majorship, I must confess I was “dead beat.” They got “way ahead” of me. I'll explain all to you satisfactorily when we meet.

I suppose you have seen Dr. McDonald, and that he has told you how “on the 29th of October, Gen. Burnside wrote a letter to the War Department, recommending me for a Brigadiership,” and how the said letter was sent to Gen. McClellan for his approval, and never returned. Now, if that letter could be reproduced and sent again to the War Department, nothing would prevent me from soon pocketing a Brigadier's Commission. I'll tell you a joke about the Brigadiership, rather at my expense however. The other day Thurlow Weed was sitting with the President — Generallissimo Lincoln — when Col. Farnsworth's card was sent in. Weed, supposing that the card represented this individual, remarked, “By the way, Mr. President, my call on you was particularly in relation to Col. Farnsworth.” And then he “put in” for me, leaving with the promise that my name should be sent in to the Senate immediately. Three or four days thereafter, to the astonishment of Mr. Weed, he saw an announcement in the papers that Col. Farnsworth of Illinois had been appointed a Brigadier! In fact, the Illinois Farnsworth secured his promotion at the expense of the New-York Farnsworth. Mr. Weed and others are now pushing the thing for me, but as every Col. in the army is now an applicant for a Brigadiership, I am not disposed to rely solely upon the aid and influence of politicians. That letter from Burnside would fix the thing at once. In the event of my promotion, you can rely upon the Lieut.-Colonelcy. Keep mum on the subject. Of course this matter is in my own hands. As soon as my name is sent in to the Senate, I shall go to Albany at once. I can do far more with Seymour than a Black Republican. Now keep quiet and get your straps. I am getting better — leg improving a little. Great excitement here among ye people in relation to Fredericksburg affair. Don't be surprised to hear in a few days that “Old Abe” has been forced to abdicate or change his cabinet.

Regards to all. Yours,

A. Farnsworth.

SOURCE: William Chittenden Lusk, Editor, War Letters of William Thompson Lusk, p. 251-2