Senator Henry Clay to James Harlan, January 26, 1849

NEW ORLEANS, January 26, 1849.

MY DEAR SIR,—I met with an accidental but violent fall a week ago, in carelessly descending a flight of stairs, to receive a gentleman who bore me a letter of introduction, and I got terribly bruised. I broke no bones, but it disabled me, for the present, from walking without assistance, and almost from writing.

I received yesterday your favor of the 12th, and to-day that of the 14th. I regret extremely that the use of my name, in connection with the office of Senator, should have created any division among the Whigs, or excited any dissatisfaction with any one. God knows that I have no personal desire to return to that body, nor any private or ambitious purposes to promote by resuming a seat in it. I expressed to you and to other friends, at the period of my departure from home, the exact state of my feelings, when I declared that I could not reconcile it to my feelings to become a formal or an avowed candidate; and that if the General Assembly had any other person in view, I did not wish to interfere with him. I added that, if, nevertheless, the Legislature thought proper to require my services in the Senate, deference to their will, a sense of public duty, and the hope of doing some good, would prompt me to accept the office.

These views are unchanged. According to them, it follows that I have no desire to have my name pressed upon the General Assembly, and I hope that it will not be presented, unless it is manifestly the free and voluntary wish of a majority of that body. It would be a great mortification to me to be thought to be solicitous for that office, and to be supposed to be seeking it from the reluctant grant of the Legislature. I hope that my friends will act in consonance with the state of my feelings, and not suffer my name to be used but on the conditions which I have stated.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 583-4

Senator Henry Clay to Thomas B. Stevenson, January 31, 1849

NEW ORLEANS, January 31, 1849.

MY DEAR SIR,—The breaking out of the cholera here prevented my meeting General Taylor in this city, as had been expected. I met him at Baton Rouge, but only long enough to exchange friendly salutations, without any opportunity to converse on public affairs.

About a fortnight ago I met with a terrible accidental fall, which, although fortunately I broke no bones, has for the present confined me to my lodgings, disabled me from walking, and almost from writing. To that cause is owing my not having earlier acknowledged the receipt of your friendly letter of the 25th ultimo.

I suppose that I shall be elected to the Senate by the General Assembly of Kentucky, in which case I shall hardly feel myself at liberty to decline, conferred as the office will be without any solicitation from me, without my being a candidate, and with the knowledge of a strong disinclination on my part to return to that body. Deference to the will of the General Assembly, a sense of duty, and the possibility of my being able to do some good, overcome my repugnance. If I go to Washington, it will be with an anxious desire that I shall be able to support the measures of the new Administration, in consequence of their conformity with Whig policy.

There seems to be yet some slight prospect of a settlement at Washington of the Free Soil question; but we shall see.

The cholera has nearly entirely disappeared from this city.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 584

Diary of Edward Bates: April 20, 1859

Today was published in St Louis papers (copied from the New York Tribune) a recent letter of mine to the Whig Committee of New York, in answer to their call upon me for my views and opinions on the politics of the country, and the signs of the times.¹

St. Louis, Feb. 24, 1859.

 

To Messrs. J. PHILIPS PHOENIX, WILLIS BLACKSTONE, H. M. BININGER, DAVID J. LILET AND H. R. SMITH, Committee, New York.

 

Sirs: A short time ago I was favored with your note of the 7th inst., covering a resolution of the Committee, to the effect that it is inexpedient at this time further to discuss or agitate the Negro question, but rather to turn the attention of the people to other topics — "topics of general importance, such as our Foreign Relations, including the Extension of Territory; the building of Railroads for National purposes; the improvement of our Harbors, the navigation of our Rivers to facilitate Internal Commerce; the subject of Currency, and a Tariff of Duties, and other means of developing our own internal resources, our home wealth, and binding together by ties of national and fraternal feelings, the various parts and sections of our widely extended Republic."

 

Your letter, gentlemen, opens a very wide field, in asking for my "opinion upon the subject, and my views as to the signs of the times." Books have been written upon these matters, and speeches delivered by the thousand ; and yet the argument seems as far from being exhausted as it was at the beginning ; and I take it for certain that you do not expect or desire me to discuss at large, all or any of these interminable quarrels. That I have opinions upon all or most of them, is true — not the opinions of this or that party, ready to be abandoned or modified to suit this or that platform, but my own opinions — perhaps the more fixed and harder to be changed because deliberately formed in the retirement of private life, free from the exigencies of official responsibility and from the perturbations of party policy. They are my own opinions, right or wrong.

 

As to the Negro question — I have always thought, and often declared in speech and in print, that it is a pestilent question, the agitation of which has never done good to any party, section or class, and never can do good, unless it be accounted good to stir up the angry passions of men, and exasperate the unreasoning jealousy of sections, and by those bad means foist some unfit men into office, and keep some fit men out. It is a sensitive question into whose dangerous vortex it is quite possible for good men to be drawn unawares. But when I see a man, at the South or the North, of mature age and some experience, persist in urging the question, after the sorrowful experience of the last few years, I can attribute his conduct to no higher motive than personal ambition or sectional prejudice.

 

As to the power of the General Government to protect the persons and properties, and advance the interests of the people, by laying taxes, raising armies and navies, building forts and arsenals, light houses, moles, and breakwaters, surveying the coasts and adjacent seas, improving rivers, lakes, and harbors, and making roads — I should be very sorry to doubt the existence of the power, or the duty to exercise it, whenever the constituted authorities have the means in their hands, and are convinced that its exercise is necessary to protect the country and advance the prosperity of the people.

 

In my own opinion, a government that has no power to protect the harbors of its country against winds and waves and human enemies, nor its rivers against snags, sands and rocks, nor to build roads for the transportation of its armies and its mails and the commerce of its people, is a poor, impotent government, and not at all such a government as our fathers thought they had made when they produced the Constitution which was greeted by intelligent men everywhere with admiration and gratitude as a government free enough for all the ends of legal liberty and strong enough for all the purposes of national and individual protection. A free people, if it be wise, will make a good constitution; but a constitution, however good in itself, did never make a free people. The people do not derive their rights from the government, but the government derives its powers from the people; and those powers are granted for the main, if not the only, purpose of protecting the rights of the people. Protection, then, if not the sole, is the chief end of government.

 

And it is for the governing power to judge, in every instance, what kind and what degree of protection is needful — whether a Navy to guard our commerce all around the world, or an Army to defend the country against armed invasion from without, or domestic insurrection from within; or a Tariff, to protect our home industry against the dangerous obtrusion of foreign labor and capital.

 

Of the existence of the power and duty of the Government to protect the People in their persons, their property, their industry and their locomotion, I have no doubt; but the time, the mode and the measure of protection, being always questions of policy and prudence, must of necessity be left to the wisdom and patriotism of those whose duty it is to make laws for the good government of the country. And with them I freely leave it, as the safest, and indeed the only, constitutional depository of the power.

 

As to our Foreign Policy generally, I have but little to say. I am not much of a progressive, and am content to leave it where Washington [Jefferson] placed it, upon that wise, virtuous, safe maxim — "Peace [. . .] with all nations; entangling alliance[s] with none." The greedy and indiscriminate appetite for foreign acquisition, which makes us covet our neighbor's lands, and devise cunning schemes to get them, has little of my sympathy. I view it as a sort of political gluttony, as dangerous to our body politic as gluttony is to the natural man — producing disease certainly, hastening death, probably. Those of our politicians who are afflicted with this morbid appetite are wont to cite the purchase of Louisiana and Florida, as giving countenance to their inordinate desires. But the cases are wholly unlike in almost every particular. Louisiana was indispensable to our full and safe enjoyment of an immense region which was already owned, and its acquisition gave us the unquestioned control of that noble system of Mississippi waters, which nature seems to have made to be one and indivisible, and rounded off the map of the nation into one uniform and compacted whole. Nothing remained to mar and disfigure our national plat, but Florida, and that was desirable, less for its intrinsic value, than because it would form a dangerous means of annoyance, in case of war with a Maritime Power, surrounded as it is, on three sides by the ocean, and touching three of our present States, with no barrier between. The population of Louisiana and Florida, when acquired, was very small compared with the largeness of the territory; and, lying in contact with the States, was easily and quickly absorbed into and assimilated with the mass of our people. Those countries were acquired, moreover, in the most peaceful and friendly manner, and for a satisfactory consideration.

 

Now, without any right or any necessity, it is hard to tell what we do not claim in all the continent south of us, and the adjacent islands. Cuba is to be the first fruit of our grasping enterprise, and that is to be gotten at all hazards, by peaceful purchase if we can, by war and conquest if we must.² But Cuba is only an outpost to the Empire of Islands and continental countries that are to follow. A leading Senator³ has lately declared (in debate on the Thirty Million bill⁴) that we must not only have Cuba, but all the islands from Cape Florida to the Spanish Main, so as to surround the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and make them our "mare clausum" like the Mediterranean, in old times, when the Roman Emperor ruled both its shores, from the pillars of Hercules to the Hellespont.⁵ This claim of mare nostrum implies, of course, that we must own the continent that bounds our sea on the west, as well as the string of islands that inclose it on the east — that is, Mexico, Central America, and all South America, so far south at least as the Orinoco.⁶ In that wide compass of sea and land there are a good many native governments, and provinces belonging to the strongest maritime powers, and a narrow continental isthmus which we ourselves, as well as England and France, are wont to call the highway of nations. To fulfill the grand conception, and perfect our tropical empire, we must buy or conquer all these torrid countries, and their mongrel populations. As to buying them, it strikes me that we had better waite [sic] awhile, at least until the Government has ceased to borrow money to pay its current expenses. And as to conquering them, perhaps it would be prudent to pause and make some estimate of costs and contingencies, before we rush into war with all maritime Europe and half America.

 

I am not one of those who believe that the United States is not an independent and safe nation, because Cuba is not a part of it. On the contrary, I believe that we are quite capable of self-defense, even if the "Queen of the Antilles" were a province of England, France or Russia; and surely, while it remains an appendage of a comparatively feeble nation, Cuba has much more cause to fear us than we have to fear Cuba. In fact, gentlemen, I cannot help doubting the honesty of the cowardly argument by which we are urged to rob poor old Spain of this last remnant of her Western empire, for fear that she might use it to rob us.

 

But suppose we could get, honestly and peaceably, the whole of the country — continental and insular — from the Rio Grande to the Orinoco, and from Trinidad to Cuba, and thus establish our mare clausum, and shut the gate of the world across the Isthmus, can we govern them wisely and well? For the last few years, in the attempt to govern our home Territories of Kansas and Utah, we have not very well maintained the dignity and justice of the nation, nor secured the peace and prosperity of the subject people.⁷ Can we hope to do better with the various mixed races of Mexico, Central and South America, and the West India Islands? Some of those countries have been trying for fifty years to establish republican governments on our model, but in every instance have miserably failed; and yet, there was no obstacle to complete success but their own inaptitude.

 

For my part, I should be grieved to see my country become, like Rome, a conquering and dominant nation; for I think there are few or no examples in history, of Governments whose chief objects were glory and power, which did ever secure the happiness and prosperity of their own people. Such Governments may grow great and famous, and advance a few of their citizens to wealth and nobility; but the price of their grandeur is the personal independence and individual freedom of their people. Still less am I inclined to see absorbed into our system, "on an equal footing with the original States," the various and mixed races (amounting to I know not how many millions) which inhabit the continent and islands south of our present border. I am not willing to inoculate our body politic with the virus of their diseases, political and social — diseases which, with them, are chronic and hereditary, and with us could hardly fail to produce corruption in the head and weakness in the members.

 

Our own country, as it is, in position, form and size, is a wonder which proclaims a wisdom above the wit of man. Large enough for our posterity, for centuries to come: All in the temperate zone, and therefore capable of a homogeneous population, yet so diversified in climates and soils, as to produce everything that is necessary to the comfort and wealth of a great people: Bounded east and west by great oceans, and bisected in the middle by a mighty river, which drains and fructifies the continent, and binds together the most southern and northern portions of our land by a bond stronger than iron. Beside all this, it is new and growing — the strongest on the continent, with no neighbor whose power it fears, or of whose ambition it has cause to be jealous. Surely such a country is great enough and good enough for all the ends of honest ambition and virtuous power.

It seems to me that an efficient home-loving Government, moderate and economical in its administration, peaceful in its objects, and just to all nations, need have no fear of invasion at home, or serious aggression abroad. The nations of Europe have to stand continually in defense of their existence; but the conquest of our county by a foreign power is simply impossible, and no nation is so absurd as to entertain the thought. We may conquer ourselves by local strifes and sectional animosities; and when, by our folly and wickedness, we have accomplished that great calamity, there will be none to pity us for the consequences of so great a crime.

 

If our Government would devote all its energies to the promotion of peace and friendship with all foreign countries, the advancement of Commerce, the increase of Agriculture, the growth and stability of Manufactures, and the cheapening, quickening and securing the internal trade and travel of our country ; in short, if it would devote itself in earnest to the establishment of a wise and steady policy of internal government, I think we should witness a growth and consolidation of wealth and comfort and power for good, which cannot be reasonably hoped for from a fluctuating policy, always watching for the turns of good fortune, or from a grasping ambition to seize new territories, which are hard to get and harder to govern.

 

The present position of the Administration is a sorrowful commentary upon the broad democracy of its professions. In theory, the people have the right and ability to do anything; in practice, we are verging rapidly to the One-Man power.

The President, the ostensible head of the National Democrats, is eagerly striving to concentrate power in his own hands, and thus to set aside both the People and their Representatives in the actual affairs of government. Having emptied the Treasury, which he found full, and living precariously upon borrowed money, he now demands of Congress to entrust to his unchecked discretion the War power, the Purse and the Sword. First, he asks Congress to authorize him, by statute, to use the Army to take military possession of the Northern Mexico, and hold it under his protectorate, and as a security for debts due to our citizens⁸ — civil possession would not answer, for that might expose him, as in the case of Kansas, to be annoyed by a factious Congress and a rebellious Territorial Legislature.

Secondly: Not content with this, he demands the discretionary power to use the Army and Navy in the South, also in blockading the coast and marching his troops into the interior of Mexico and New Granada, to protect our citizens against all evil-doers along the transit routes of Tehuantepec and Panama.⁹ And he and his supporters in Congress claim this enormous power upon the ground that, in this particular at least, he ought to be the equal of the greatest monarch of Europe. They forget that our fathers limited the power of the President by design, and for the reason that they had found out by sad experience that the monarchs of Europe were too strong for freedom.

 

Third: In strict pursuance of this doctrine, first publicly announced from Ostend,¹⁰ he demands of Congress to hand over to him thirty millions of dollars to be used at his discretion, to facilitate his acquisition of Cuba.¹¹ Facilitate how ? Perhaps it might be imprudent to tell.

 

Add to all this, the fact (as yet unexplained) that one of the largest naval armaments which ever sailed from our coast is now operating in South America, ostensibly against a poor little republic far up the Plate River,¹² to settle some little quarrel between the two Presidents.¹³ If Congress had been polite enough to grant the President's demand of the sword and the purse against Mexico, Central America and Cuba, this navy, its duty done at the south, might be made, on its way home, to arrive in the Gulf very opportunely, to aid the " Commander-in-Chief " in the acquisition of some very valuable territory.

 

I allude to these facts with no malice against Mr. Buchanan, but as evidences of the dangerous change which is now obviously sought to be made in the practical working of the Government — the concentration of power in the hands of the President, and the dangerous policy, now almost established, of looking abroad for temporary glory and aggrandizement, instead of looking at home, for all the purposes of good government — peaceable, moderate, economical, protecting all interests alike, and by a fixed policy, calling into safe exercise all the talents and industry of our people, and thus steadily advancing our country in everything which can make a nation great, happy, and permanent.

 

The rapid increase of the Public Expenditures (and that, too, under the management of statesmen professing to be peculiarly economical) is an alarming sign of corruption and decay.

 

That increase bears no fair proportion to the growth and expansion of the country, but looks rather like wanton waste or criminal negligence. The ordinary objects of great expense are not materially augmented — the Army and Navy remain on a low peace establishment— the military defenses are little, if at all, enlarged — the improvement of Harbors, Lakes and Rivers is abandoned, and the Pacific Railroad is not only not begun but its very location is scrambled for by angry sections, which succeed in nothing but mutual defeat. In short, the money to an enormous amount (I am told at the rate of $80,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year) is gone, and we have little or nothing to show for it. In profound peace with foreign nations, and surrounded with the proofs of National growth and individual prosperity, the Treasury, by less than two years of mismanagement, is made bankrupt, and the Government itself is living from hand to mouth, on bills of credit and borrowed money!

 

This humiliating state of things could hardly happen if men in power were both honest and wise. The Democratic economists in Congress confess that they have recklessly wasted the Public Revenue; they confess it by refusing to raise the Tariff to meet the present exigency, and by insisting that they can replenish the exhausted Treasury and support the Government, in credit and efficiency, by simply striking off their former extravagances.

 

An illustrious predecessor of the President is reported to have declared "that those who live on borrowed money ought to break." I do not concur in that harsh saying; yet I am clearly of opinion that the Government, in common prudence (to say nothing of pride and dignity), ought to reserve its credit for great transactions and unforeseen emergencies. In common times of peace, it ought always to have an established revenue, equal, at least, to its current expenses. And that revenue ought to be so levied as to foster and protect the Industry of the country employed in our most necessary and important manufactures.

 

Gentlemen, I cannot touch upon all the topics alluded to in your letter and resolution. I ought rather to beg your pardon for the prolixity of this answer. I speak for no party, because the only party I ever belonged to has ceased to exist as an organized and militant body.

 

And I speak for no man but myself.

 

I am fully aware that my opinions and views of public policy are of no importance to anybody but me, and there is good reason to fear that some of them are so antiquated and out of fashion as to make it very improbable that they will ever again be put to the test of actual practice.

 

Most respectfully,

EDWARD BATES.

The Republican publishes the letter to gratify the curiosity of my numerous friends throughout the country, but gives no opinion, neither praise nor censure.

The Evening News is rapturous in its applause, and glorifies me without measure or moderation.

The New York City papers eagerly published the letter, with few editorial comments, for the most part with moderate praise — I have seen only the Tribune (Greel[e]y's¹⁴) The Times (Raymond's¹⁵) the Express (Brooks'¹⁶) and the Herald (Bennett's¹⁷)[.]

I expected a sour reception from the Republican papers — Especially the Tribune and Times — on account of my openly opposing the further agitation of the Negro question. The Tribune,¹⁸ tho' well pleased with the rest of the letter, is clearly not well pleased with that part, but makes a distinction in my favor, between the two kinds of opposition to aggitation [sic] — one (with which he charges Hiram Ketchum¹⁹) he characterises as subserviency to the 'Slave power' and a tacit aid to their efforts to propagate and extend slavery. The other (which he supposes may be my position) a desire to stop the slavery aggitation [sic], with a view to more national questions, but with a readiness to resist the efforts of the Southern propagandists in their efforts to spread slavery where we do not find it.

The letter I think, is well written and effective. But some of my friends, I am sure, think me imprudent, in coming out so plainly upon the subjects treated of. I am not so timid, perhaps not so prudent as they — Upon the whole, the letter has been most favorably received in St Louis.

_______________

¹ This present version of the letter is that of the New York Tribune of April 16, 1859.

² This was the substance of the Ostend Manifesto which Buchanan as Minister to Great Britain had joined Ministers John Y. Mason and Pierre Soulé in promulgating. As Secretary of State under President Polk, Buchanan had tried to buy Cuba. In his second, third, and fourth annual messages he urged Congress to cooperate with him in securing it by negotiation.

³ Robert Toombs of Georgia: Whig state legislator, 1837-1840, 1841-1844 ; states' rights Democratic congressman, 1845-1853 ; U. S. senator, 1853-1861. He was later a leader in the Georgia Secession Convention, and congressman, brigadier-general, and secretary of State under the Confederacy.

⁴ January, 1859, Senate Reports, 35 Cong., 2 Sess., ser. no. 994, doc. no. 351. The bill purposed to appropriate $30,000,000 "to facilitate the acquisition of Cuba by negotiation." Senator Slidell (infra, Nov. 24, 1859, note 89) introduced it on January 10. 1859 (Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 277) ; it was reported favorably by the Committee on Foreign Relations of which he was chairman, on January 24, 1859 (ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 538) ; it was debated at great length on January 24, February 9-10, February 15—17, February 21, and February 25 (ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 538-544, 904-909, 934-940, 960968, 1038, Appendix [155-169], 1058-1063, 1079-1087, 1179-1192, 1326-1363) ; but because of opposition, it was withdrawn on February 26 (ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 13S51387). At the next session, on December 8, 1859, Senator Slidell reintroduced this bill (ibid., 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 53), had it referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations on December 21 (ibid., 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 199), reported it out favorably to the Senate on May 30, 1860, but because of opposition did not push it (ibid., 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 2456). He promised to call it up again at the next session, but when that time arrived was too busy seceding to bother about Cuba.

⁵ On January 24, Toombs had said, "Cuba has fine ports, and with her acquisition, we can make first the Gulf of Mexico, and then the Caribbean Sea, a mare clausum. Probably younger men than you or I will live to see the day when no flag shall float there except by permission of the United States of America . . . that development, that progress throughout the tropics [is] the true, fixed unalterable policy of the nation." Ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 543.

⁶ I. e., as far as Venezuela.

⁷ Bitterness over the slavery question had reached the point of armed conflict, raids, and murder in Kansas in 1855-1856, and Utah was at this time subject to frequent Indian raids. It was in 1859, too, that the Republicans tried to prohibit polygamy in Utah and the Democrats succeeded, probably with slavery in other territories in mind, in preventing Congressional legislation on the subject.

⁸ Dec. 6, 1858, James D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, V, 514. See infra, Feb. 15, 1860.

⁹ J. D. Richardson, op. cit., V, 516_517.

¹⁰ Supra, April 20, 1859, note 2.

¹¹ J. D. Richardson, op. cit., V, 508-511.

¹² Rio de La Plata in South America.

¹³ An expedition of some 19 ships, 200 guns, and 2.500 men which was sent against Paraguay because a vessel of that nation had fired upon the United States steamer Water Witch. A mere show of force sufficed to secure both an apology and an indemnity on February 10, 1859. The President of Argentina was so interested and so pleased that he presented the commander with a sword.

¹⁴ Infra, Feb. 2, 1860, note 47.

¹⁵ Infra, Feb. 4, 1860, note 61.

¹⁶ Infra, Sept. 20, 1860, note 12.

¹⁷ James Gordon Bennett: journalist in Boston, New York, and Charleston; then Washington correspondent; next editor of the New York Courier and Enquirer, 1829-1832, and of the Pennsylvanian, 1832-1833 ; and finally editor-owner of the New York Herald, 18351867. He made the Herald one of the most enterprising and spectacular of papers and kept it independent. He had supported Taylor (Whig) in 1848, Pierce (Democrat) in 1852, Fr6mont (Republican) in 1856, and was to support Douglas against Lincoln in 1860 and Lincoln against McClellan in 1864, Johnson against the Radicals in 1865-1866 and the Radicals against Johnson in 1866-1867. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Bennett wished to let the Southern States go in peace, but when war came he supported it.

¹⁸ For editorial comment see the New York Tribune, April 16, 1859.

¹⁹ Chairman of the Whig General Committee of New York City. Bates originally sent his letter to Ketchum in February, but it disappeared and he had to recopy it out of his letter-book and resend it for publication. Ibid., April 16, 1859. Ketchum represented moderate anti-Seward opinion in New York, was a delegate to the National Union Convention in Baltimore, but opposed the formation of a third party. He promised to support Mr. Bates if he were nominated by the Republicans.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 1-10

Edward Bates to the Whig Committee of New York, February 24, 1859

St. Louis, Feb. 24, 1859.

To Messrs. J. PHILIPS PHOENIX, WILLIS BLACKSTONE, H. M. BININGER, DAVID J. LILET AND H. R. SMITH, Committee, New York.

Sirs: A short time ago I was favored with your note of the 7th inst., covering a resolution of the Committee, to the effect that it is inexpedient at this time further to discuss or agitate the Negro question, but rather to turn the attention of the people to other topics — "topics of general importance, such as our Foreign Relations, including the Extension of Territory; the building of Railroads for National purposes; the improvement of our Harbors, the navigation of our Rivers to facilitate Internal Commerce; the subject of Currency, and a Tariff of Duties, and other means of developing our own internal resources, our home wealth, and binding together by ties of national and fraternal feelings, the various parts and sections of our widely extended Republic."

Your letter, gentlemen, opens a very wide field, in asking for my "opinion upon the subject, and my views as to the signs of the times." Books have been written upon these matters, and speeches delivered by the thousand ; and yet the argument seems as far from being exhausted as it was at the beginning ; and I take it for certain that you do not expect or desire me to discuss at large, all or any of these interminable quarrels. That I have opinions upon all or most of them, is true — not the opinions of this or that party, ready to be abandoned or modified to suit this or that platform, but my own opinions — perhaps the more fixed and harder to be changed because deliberately formed in the retirement of private life, free from the exigencies of official responsibility and from the perturbations of party policy. They are my own opinions, right or wrong.

As to the Negro question — I have always thought, and often declared in speech and in print, that it is a pestilent question, the agitation of which has never done good to any party, section or class, and never can do good, unless it be accounted good to stir up the angry passions of men, and exasperate the unreasoning jealousy of sections, and by those bad means foist some unfit men into office, and keep some fit men out. It is a sensitive question into whose dangerous vortex it is quite possible for good men to be drawn unawares. But when I see a man, at the South or the North, of mature age and some experience, persist in urging the question, after the sorrowful experience of the last few years, I can attribute his conduct to no higher motive than personal ambition or sectional prejudice.

As to the power of the General Government to protect the persons and properties, and advance the interests of the people, by laying taxes, raising armies and navies, building forts and arsenals, light houses, moles, and breakwaters, surveying the coasts and adjacent seas, improving rivers, lakes, and harbors, and making roads — I should be very sorry to doubt the existence of the power, or the duty to exercise it, whenever the constituted authorities have the means in their hands, and are convinced that its exercise is necessary to protect the country and advance the prosperity of the people.

In my own opinion, a government that has no power to protect the harbors of its country against winds and waves and human enemies, nor its rivers against snags, sands and rocks, nor to build roads for the transportation of its armies and its mails and the commerce of its people, is a poor, impotent government, and not at all such a government as our fathers thought they had made when they produced the Constitution which was greeted by intelligent men everywhere with admiration and gratitude as a government free enough for all the ends of legal liberty and strong enough for all the purposes of national and individual protection. A free people, if it be wise, will make a good constitution; but a constitution, however good in itself, did never make a free people. The people do not derive their rights from the government, but the government derives its powers from the people; and those powers are granted for the main, if not the only, purpose of protecting the rights of the people. Protection, then, if not the sole, is the chief end of government.

And it is for the governing power to judge, in every instance, what kind and what degree of protection is needful — whether a Navy to guard our commerce all around the world, or an Army to defend the country against armed invasion from without, or domestic insurrection from within; or a Tariff, to protect our home industry against the dangerous obtrusion of foreign labor and capital.

Of the existence of the power and duty of the Government to protect the People in their persons, their property, their industry and their locomotion, I have no doubt; but the time, the mode and the measure of protection, being always questions of policy and prudence, must of necessity be left to the wisdom and patriotism of those whose duty it is to make laws for the good government of the country. And with them I freely leave it, as the safest, and indeed the only, constitutional depository of the power.

As to our Foreign Policy generally, I have but little to say. I am not much of a progressive, and am content to leave it where Washington [Jefferson] placed it, upon that wise, virtuous, safe maxim — "Peace [. . .] with all nations; entangling alliance[s] with none." The greedy and indiscriminate appetite for foreign acquisition, which makes us covet our neighbor's lands, and devise cunning schemes to get them, has little of my sympathy. I view it as a sort of political gluttony, as dangerous to our body politic as gluttony is to the natural man — producing disease certainly, hastening death, probably. Those of our politicians who are afflicted with this morbid appetite are wont to cite the purchase of Louisiana and Florida, as giving countenance to their inordinate desires. But the cases are wholly unlike in almost every particular. Louisiana was indispensable to our full and safe enjoyment of an immense region which was already owned, and its acquisition gave us the unquestioned control of that noble system of Mississippi waters, which nature seems to have made to be one and indivisible, and rounded off the map of the nation into one uniform and compacted whole. Nothing remained to mar and disfigure our national plat, but Florida, and that was desirable, less for its intrinsic value, than because it would form a dangerous means of annoyance, in case of war with a Maritime Power, surrounded as it is, on three sides by the ocean, and touching three of our present States, with no barrier between. The population of Louisiana and Florida, when acquired, was very small compared with the largeness of the territory; and, lying in contact with the States, was easily and quickly absorbed into and assimilated with the mass of our people. Those countries were acquired, moreover, in the most peaceful and friendly manner, and for a satisfactory consideration.

Now, without any right or any necessity, it is hard to tell what we do not claim in all the continent south of us, and the adjacent islands. Cuba is to be the first fruit of our grasping enterprise, and that is to be gotten at all hazards, by peaceful purchase if we can, by war and conquest if we must.² But Cuba is only an outpost to the Empire of Islands and continental countries that are to follow. A leading Senator³ has lately declared (in debate on the Thirty Million bill⁴) that we must not only have Cuba, but all the islands from Cape Florida to the Spanish Main, so as to surround the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and make them our "mare clausum" like the Mediterranean, in old times, when the Roman Emperor ruled both its shores, from the pillars of Hercules to the Hellespont.⁵ This claim of mare nostrum implies, of course, that we must own the continent that bounds our sea on the west, as well as the string of islands that inclose it on the east — that is, Mexico, Central America, and all South America, so far south at least as the Orinoco.⁶ In that wide compass of sea and land there are a good many native governments, and provinces belonging to the strongest maritime powers, and a narrow continental isthmus which we ourselves, as well as England and France, are wont to call the highway of nations. To fulfill the grand conception, and perfect our tropical empire, we must buy or conquer all these torrid countries, and their mongrel populations. As to buying them, it strikes me that we had better waite [sic] awhile, at least until the Government has ceased to borrow money to pay its current expenses. And as to conquering them, perhaps it would be prudent to pause and make some estimate of costs and contingencies, before we rush into war with all maritime Europe and half America.

I am not one of those who believe that the United States is not an independent and safe nation, because Cuba is not a part of it. On the contrary, I believe that we are quite capable of self-defense, even if the "Queen of the Antilles" were a province of England, France or Russia; and surely, while it remains an appendage of a comparatively feeble nation, Cuba has much more cause to fear us than we have to fear Cuba. In fact, gentlemen, I cannot help doubting the honesty of the cowardly argument by which we are urged to rob poor old Spain of this last remnant of her Western empire, for fear that she might use it to rob us.

But suppose we could get, honestly and peaceably, the whole of the country — continental and insular — from the Rio Grande to the Orinoco, and from Trinidad to Cuba, and thus establish our mare clausum, and shut the gate of the world across the Isthmus, can we govern them wisely and well? For the last few years, in the attempt to govern our home Territories of Kansas and Utah, we have not very well maintained the dignity and justice of the nation, nor secured the peace and prosperity of the subject people.⁷ Can we hope to do better with the various mixed races of Mexico, Central and South America, and the West India Islands? Some of those countries have been trying for fifty years to establish republican governments on our model, but in every instance have miserably failed; and yet, there was no obstacle to complete success but their own inaptitude.

For my part, I should be grieved to see my country become, like Rome, a conquering and dominant nation; for I think there are few or no examples in history, of Governments whose chief objects were glory and power, which did ever secure the happiness and prosperity of their own people. Such Governments may grow great and famous, and advance a few of their citizens to wealth and nobility; but the price of their grandeur is the personal independence and individual freedom of their people. Still less am I inclined to see absorbed into our system, "on an equal footing with the original States," the various and mixed races (amounting to I know not how many millions) which inhabit the continent and islands south of our present border. I am not willing to inoculate our body politic with the virus of their diseases, political and social — diseases which, with them, are chronic and hereditary, and with us could hardly fail to produce corruption in the head and weakness in the members.

Our own country, as it is, in position, form and size, is a wonder which proclaims a wisdom above the wit of man. Large enough for our posterity, for centuries to come: All in the temperate zone, and therefore capable of a homogeneous population, yet so diversified in climates and soils, as to produce everything that is necessary to the comfort and wealth of a great people: Bounded east and west by great oceans, and bisected in the middle by a mighty river, which drains and fructifies the continent, and binds together the most southern and northern portions of our land by a bond stronger than iron. Beside all this, it is new and growing — the strongest on the continent, with no neighbor whose power it fears, or of whose ambition it has cause to be jealous. Surely such a country is great enough and good enough for all the ends of honest ambition and virtuous power.

It seems to me that an efficient home-loving Government, moderate and economical in its administration, peaceful in its objects, and just to all nations, need have no fear of invasion at home, or serious aggression abroad. The nations of Europe have to stand continually in defense of their existence; but the conquest of our county by a foreign power is simply impossible, and no nation is so absurd as to entertain the thought. We may conquer ourselves by local strifes and sectional animosities; and when, by our folly and wickedness, we have accomplished that great calamity, there will be none to pity us for the consequences of so great a crime.

If our Government would devote all its energies to the promotion of peace and friendship with all foreign countries, the advancement of Commerce, the increase of Agriculture, the growth and stability of Manufactures, and the cheapening, quickening and securing the internal trade and travel of our country ; in short, if it would devote itself in earnest to the establishment of a wise and steady policy of internal government, I think we should witness a growth and consolidation of wealth and comfort and power for good, which cannot be reasonably hoped for from a fluctuating policy, always watching for the turns of good fortune, or from a grasping ambition to seize new territories, which are hard to get and harder to govern.

The present position of the Administration is a sorrowful commentary upon the broad democracy of its professions. In theory, the people have the right and ability to do anything; in practice, we are verging rapidly to the One-Man power.

The President, the ostensible head of the National Democrats, is eagerly striving to concentrate power in his own hands, and thus to set aside both the People and their Representatives in the actual affairs of government. Having emptied the Treasury, which he found full, and living precariously upon borrowed money, he now demands of Congress to entrust to his unchecked discretion the War power, the Purse and the Sword. First, he asks Congress to authorize him, by statute, to use the Army to take military possession of the Northern Mexico, and hold it under his protectorate, and as a security for debts due to our citizens⁸ — civil possession would not answer, for that might expose him, as in the case of Kansas, to be annoyed by a factious Congress and a rebellious Territorial Legislature.

Secondly: Not content with this, he demands the discretionary power to use the Army and Navy in the South, also in blockading the coast and marching his troops into the interior of Mexico and New Granada, to protect our citizens against all evil-doers along the transit routes of Tehuantepec and Panama.⁹ And he and his supporters in Congress claim this enormous power upon the ground that, in this particular at least, he ought to be the equal of the greatest monarch of Europe. They forget that our fathers limited the power of the President by design, and for the reason that they had found out by sad experience that the monarchs of Europe were too strong for freedom.

Third: In strict pursuance of this doctrine, first publicly announced from Ostend,¹⁰ he demands of Congress to hand over to him thirty millions of dollars to be used at his discretion, to facilitate his acquisition of Cuba.¹¹ Facilitate how ? Perhaps it might be imprudent to tell.

Add to all this, the fact (as yet unexplained) that one of the largest naval armaments which ever sailed from our coast is now operating in South America, ostensibly against a poor little republic far up the Plate River,¹² to settle some little quarrel between the two Presidents.¹³ If Congress had been polite enough to grant the President's demand of the sword and the purse against Mexico, Central America and Cuba, this navy, its duty done at the south, might be made, on its way home, to arrive in the Gulf very opportunely, to aid the " Commander-in-Chief " in the acquisition of some very valuable territory.

I allude to these facts with no malice against Mr. Buchanan, but as evidences of the dangerous change which is now obviously sought to be made in the practical working of the Government — the concentration of power in the hands of the President, and the dangerous policy, now almost established, of looking abroad for temporary glory and aggrandizement, instead of looking at home, for all the purposes of good government — peaceable, moderate, economical, protecting all interests alike, and by a fixed policy, calling into safe exercise all the talents and industry of our people, and thus steadily advancing our country in everything which can make a nation great, happy, and permanent.

The rapid increase of the Public Expenditures (and that, too, under the management of statesmen professing to be peculiarly economical) is an alarming sign of corruption and decay.

That increase bears no fair proportion to the growth and expansion of the country, but looks rather like wanton waste or criminal negligence. The ordinary objects of great expense are not materially augmented — the Army and Navy remain on a low peace establishment— the military defenses are little, if at all, enlarged — the improvement of Harbors, Lakes and Rivers is abandoned, and the Pacific Railroad is not only not begun but its very location is scrambled for by angry sections, which succeed in nothing but mutual defeat. In short, the money to an enormous amount (I am told at the rate of $80,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year) is gone, and we have little or nothing to show for it. In profound peace with foreign nations, and surrounded with the proofs of National growth and individual prosperity, the Treasury, by less than two years of mismanagement, is made bankrupt, and the Government itself is living from hand to mouth, on bills of credit and borrowed money!

This humiliating state of things could hardly happen if men in power were both honest and wise. The Democratic economists in Congress confess that they have recklessly wasted the Public Revenue; they confess it by refusing to raise the Tariff to meet the present exigency, and by insisting that they can replenish the exhausted Treasury and support the Government, in credit and efficiency, by simply striking off their former extravagances.

An illustrious predecessor of the President is reported to have declared "that those who live on borrowed money ought to break." I do not concur in that harsh saying; yet I am clearly of opinion that the Government, in common prudence (to say nothing of pride and dignity), ought to reserve its credit for great transactions and unforeseen emergencies. In common times of peace, it ought always to have an established revenue, equal, at least, to its current expenses. And that revenue ought to be so levied as to foster and protect the Industry of the country employed in our most necessary and important manufactures.

Gentlemen, I cannot touch upon all the topics alluded to in your letter and resolution. I ought rather to beg your pardon for the prolixity of this answer. I speak for no party, because the only party I ever belonged to has ceased to exist as an organized and militant body.

And I speak for no man but myself.

I am fully aware that my opinions and views of public policy are of no importance to anybody but me, and there is good reason to fear that some of them are so antiquated and out of fashion as to make it very improbable that they will ever again be put to the test of actual practice.

Most respectfully,

EDWARD BATES.

_______________

² This was the substance of the Ostend Manifesto which Buchanan as Minister to Great Britain had joined Ministers John Y. Mason and Pierre Soulé in promulgating. As Secretary of State under President Polk, Buchanan had tried to buy Cuba. In his second, third, and fourth annual messages he urged Congress to cooperate with him in securing it by negotiation.

³ Robert Toombs of Georgia: Whig state legislator, 1837-1840, 1841-1844; states' rights Democratic congressman, 1845-1853; U. S. senator, 1853-1861. He was later a leader in the Georgia Secession Convention, and congressman, brigadier-general, and secretary of State under the Confederacy.

⁴ January, 1859, Senate Reports, 35 Cong., 2 Sess., ser. no. 994, doc. no. 351. The bill purposed to appropriate $30,000,000 "to facilitate the acquisition of Cuba by negotiation." Senator Slidell (infra, Nov. 24, 1859, note 89) introduced it on January 10. 1859 (Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 277) ; it was reported favorably by the Committee on Foreign Relations of which he was chairman, on January 24, 1859 (ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 538) ; it was debated at great length on January 24, February 9-10, February 15—17, February 21, and February 25 (ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 538-544, 904-909, 934-940, 960968, 1038, Appendix [155-169], 1058-1063, 1079-1087, 1179-1192, 1326-1363) ; but because of opposition, it was withdrawn on February 26 (ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 13S51387). At the next session, on December 8, 1859, Senator Slidell reintroduced this bill (ibid., 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 53), had it referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations on December 21 (ibid., 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 199), reported it out favorably to the Senate on May 30, 1860, but because of opposition did not push it (ibid., 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 2456). He promised to call it up again at the next session, but when that time arrived was too busy seceding to bother about Cuba.

⁵ On January 24, Toombs had said, "Cuba has fine ports, and with her acquisition, we can make first the Gulf of Mexico, and then the Caribbean Sea, a mare clausum. Probably younger men than you or I will live to see the day when no flag shall float there except by permission of the United States of America . . . that development, that progress throughout the tropics [is] the true, fixed unalterable policy of the nation." Ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 543.

⁶ I. e., as far as Venezuela.

⁷ Bitterness over the slavery question had reached the point of armed conflict, raids, and murder in Kansas in 1855-1856, and Utah was at this time subject to frequent Indian raids. It was in 1859, too, that the Republicans tried to prohibit polygamy in Utah and the Democrats succeeded, probably with slavery in other territories in mind, in preventing Congressional legislation on the subject.

⁸ Dec. 6, 1858, James D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, V, 514. See infra, Feb. 15, 1860.

⁹ J. D. Richardson, op. cit., V, 516-517.

¹⁰ Supra, April 20, 1859, note 2.

¹¹ J. D. Richardson, op. cit., V, 508-511.

¹² Rio de La Plata in South America.

¹³ An expedition of some 19 ships, 200 guns, and 2.500 men which was sent against Paraguay because a vessel of that nation had fired upon the United States steamer Water Witch. A mere show of force sufficed to secure both an apology and an indemnity on February 10, 1859. The President of Argentina was so interested and so pleased that he presented the commander with a sword.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Editor, Annual Report of The American Historical Association For The Year 1930, Vol. 4, The Diary Of Edward Bates, pp. 1-9

Robert C. Winthrop to John J. Crittenden, May 13, 1852

BOSTON, May 13, 1852.

MY DEAR MR. CRITTENDEN,—I received a welcome letter from you weeks ago, for which I have often thanked you in spirit, and now tender you my cordial acknowledgments in due form. I trust that we are going to meet you all again this summer. You must come to Newport and resume your red republican robes and bathe off the debilities of a long heat at Washington. I wish you could be here at Commencement, July 22. Between now and then the great question of candidacy will be settled. How? How? Who can say? However it be, this only I pray,—give us a chance in Massachusetts to support it effectively. I do believe that we can elect Webster, Fillmore, Scott, or Crittenden, if there shall not be an unnecessary forcing of mere shibboleths down our throats. There is not an agitator in the whole Whig party here—no one who cares to disturb anything that has been done. As to the fugitive slave law, though I never thought it a wise piece of legislation, nor ever believed that it would be very effective, I have not the slightest doubt that it will long survive the satisfaction of the South and stand on the statute-book after its efficiency has become about equal to that of '93. But tests and provisos are odious things, whether Wilmot or anti-Wilmot. Webster is here, and his arrival has been the signal for a grand rally among his friends. There is no doubt but Massachusetts would work hard for him if he were fairly in the field, and I think there will be a general consent that he shall have the votes of all our delegates; but, what are they among so many? Do not let anybody imagine, however, that we shall bolt from the regular nominee, whoever he be, unless some unimaginably foolish action should be adopted by the convention.

Believe me, my dear sir, always most cordially and faithfully your friend and servant,

R. C. WINTHROP.

J. J. CRITTENDEN.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 36

Senator Charles Sumner to Thomas Wentworth Higginson,* September 5, 1851

More than ever do I feel the importance to our cause of preventing the Commonwealth from passing into the hands of Webster Whiggery. This, of course, can be prevented only by a combination—I wish a complete community of principle would allow it to be a union—with the Democrats. Regretting that they are not more essentially with us, I feel that we shall throw our staff away if we reject the opportunity which seems offered of their cooperation against the Whigs. With a mutual understanding of each other, and with a real determination to carry the combination honestly through in the hope of sustaining our great cause, I cannot doubt the result. Webster and Winthrop will be defeated. Perhaps, at the present moment, no political event connected with elections would be of greater advantage to freedom. I fear from what I have heard that these views may not entirely harmonize with but I feel that our aims are so nearly identical, my sympathy yours; with your earnestness is so complete, that I do not think we could differ substantially as to the true course to be pursued if we could see each other and fully interchange opinions.

_______________

* This letter to Mr. Higginson, as well as another to Mr. Whittier, written a few days later, were intended to remove their doubts as to the policy of further co-operation with the Democrats.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 254

Senator Charles Sumner to George Sumner, September 30, 1851

The field of our national politics is still shrouded in mist. Nobody can clearly discern the future. On the Whig side, Fillmore seems to me the most probable candidate; and on the Democratic side, Douglas. I have never thought Scott's chances good, while Webster's have always seemed insignificant. His course lately has been that of a madman. He declined to participate in any of the recent celebrations,¹ cherishing still a grudge because he was refused the use of Faneuil Hall. The mayor told me that Webster cut him dead, and also Alderman Rogers, when they met in the apartments of the President. The papers-two Hunkers — have hammered me for calling on the President.² It is shrewdly surmised that their rage came from spite at the peculiarly cordial reception which he gave me. Lord Elgin I liked much; he is a very pleasant and clever man, and everybody gave him the palm among the speakers. I was not present at the dinner, and did not hear him.

There is a lull now with regard to Cuba. The whole movement may have received an extinguisher for the present; but I think we shall hear of it when Congress meets, in a motion to purchase this possession of Spain. This question promises to enter into the next Presidential election. The outrages caused by the Fugitive Slave bill continue to harass the country. There will be no end to them until that bill becomes a dead letter. It is strange that men can be so hardened to violations of justice and humanity, as many are now, under the drill of party. Mr. Webster has done more than all others to break down the North; and yet he once said, in taunt at our tameness, “There is no North!” The mischief from his course is incalculable. His speech at the reception of the President was regarded—and I think justly—by many Englishmen as insulting.

Our State politics promise to be very exciting. There has been a prodigious pressure upon me to take the field; but thus far I have declined. Under present circumstances I do not see my way to speaking. I am unwilling to defend the coalition, as in so doing I shall seem to be defending my own election; and I do not wish to seem to pursue Winthrop. His defeat seems to me inevitable, though in a contest like the present there must be an allowance for accidents and for treachery.

_______________

¹ Railroad Jubilee, Sept. 15, 1851.

² September 17, in Boston, on the occasion of the Railroad Jubilee. Sumner, as already seen, had strongly condemned President Fillmore a year before for approving the Fugitive Slave bill.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 254-5

Senator Charles Sumner to John Greenleaf Whittier, October 7, 1851

Will not Higginson see the matter in a practical light? I respect him so much, and honor his principles so supremely, that I am pained to differ from him; but I do feel that we must not neglect the opportunity afforded by alliances—not fusion with the Democrats to prevent the Whigs from establishing themselves in the State. Palfrey is now earnestly of this inclining; so is Hopkins; also Burlingame, and all these stood out before.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 255

Senator Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, October 24, 1851

I heard of your illness, while I was in New York, with great regret. Time and distance did not allow me to see you at your suburban retreat, although I wished very much to confer with you, particularly on the subject of your letter. Let me say frankly, however, that I despair of any arrangement by which any candidate can be brought out on the Democratic side so as to receive active support from antislavery men. Nor do I see much greater chance on the Whig side. The tendency of both the old parties at present is to national conventions; and in both of these our cause will perish. The material for a separate organization, by which to sustain our principles, seems to exist nowhere except in Massachusetts. Had the Barnburners kept aloof from the Hunkers in 1849, the Democratic split would have been complete throughout the free States, and it would have affected sympathetically the Whig party. A new order of things would have appeared, and the beginning of the end would have been at hand. But the work in some way is to be done over. There will be no peace until the slave-power is subdued. Its tyranny must be overthrown, and freedom, instead of slavery, must become the animating idea of the national government. But I see little chance of any arrangement or combination by which this truly Democratic idea can be promoted in the next Presidential contest.

The politicians are making all their plans to crush us, and they seem to be succeeding so well that all our best energies and most unflinching devotion to principles can alone save us. For myself I see no appreciable difference between Hunker Democracy and Hunker Whiggery: in both, all other questions are lost in the 'single idea' of opposition to the Free Soil sentiment. Nor can I imagine any political success, any party favor or popular reward, which would tempt me to compromise in any respect the independent position which I now hold.

It is vain to try to get rid of this question of the slave-power except by victory over it; and our best course, it seems to me, is to be always ready for the contest. But I am a practical man, and desire to act in such way as best to promote the ideas which we have at heart. If you can show me the road, I am ready to follow. . . The two years before us will be crucial years, years of the Cross. But I know that better times will soon come. For God's sake, stand firm! I hope John Van Buren will not allow himself to be enmeshed in any of the tempting arrangements for mere political success. He is so completely committed to our cause that he can hope for nothing except by its triumph. I know no one who has spoken a stronger or more timely word for us than he has. I am much attached to him personally. I admire his abilities, and am grateful for what he has done; but I feel that if he would surrender himself more unreservedly to the cause he would be more effective still. Few have such powers.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 255-6

David M. Stone to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, March 25, 1856

OFFICE OF THE JOURNAL OF COMMERCE,        

NEW YORK, [N. Y.], March 25th, 1856.

DEAR SIR: I believe I had the pleasure of meeting you once, but waiving any claim to old acquaintance, I avail myself of the kind introduction of Mr Cisco, to say a few words in regard to the proposed modification of the Tariff.

The Manufacturers at the North and East believed for many years that the old Whig party was the only organization which cared a button for their interests, and that a high protective tariff was essential to their salvation. The more sagacious among them have at last opened their eyes, and finding that the hot-house system is not conducive to a healthy growth, are anxious to try the free-trade method of struggling for life in the open field. The only real difficulty in the way of this, is the tax upon raw materials, which the manufacturers of all other countries are allowed to import free, or at a merely nominal charge. The free-trade party tried in Walker's time to secure this, but the opposition was so wedded to the principle of protection, that it was found impossible to obtain a majority for it. Our woolen manufacturers, especially, need such legislation as shall take off the restrictions which a blind policy has formerly imposed upon their raw material; and thinking men in all sections of the country, without distinction of party, have advocated the measure of relief proposed. I have written, within the last eighteen months two pamphlets upon this subject, which have been widely circulated, and the response from solid men in all parts of the country, has been in favor of the scheme. I think that I have shown conclusively that it will benefit the wool growers quite as much as the manufacturers, and my views have been approved by a very large number of leading agriculturists and farmers. I rec[eive]d a long letter from Gov[ernor] Wright of Ind[ian]a some time since, assenting to my views, and confirming my opinion that those who control public sentiment at the West are with us on this question. Mr. Houston of Al[abam]a consented to this, last session, and at my suggestion, placed wool and many other raw materials in a schedule at a nominal duty; this bill passed the House, but failed in the Senate for want of time.

The measure is likely to be opposed, however, by those politicians who have heretofore been the most clamorous friends of the manufacturer. Greely hesitates not to declare, privately, that it shall not pass this session, but must be kept back for use in the next Pres[idential Campaign. Seward has sullenly agreed not to combat it openly, but as I learn from some of his own friends who have been on to Washington, on purpose to see him, he will prevent its success if he can without personal exposure. James of R[hode] I[sland] has drawn up his bill based on free trade in raw materials, but in order to effect his reelection, has levied the duties on other importations far too high. I send, herewith, a leading article from the Journal of Commerce of Saturday, commenting upon his scheme. Our merchants here are becoming impatient that a plan against which so little can be said, should meet so many delays. The manufacturing interests have been closeted at Boston, and feeling more than ever absolved from party ties, are fastening their eyes upon those Conservative Statesmen who are known to be honest, to see if now that there is an opportunity to do something for the prosperity of the country, without building up one at the expense of another, they may not find help in some whom they have not been accustomed to regard as friends.

Mr. Guthrie has been highly applauded for his services in repeating and enforcing the recommendations of Mr. Walker upon this subject, and there needs but a voice to be heard above the din of faction upon the floor of Congress, to draw the hearts of all the Commercial classes into one channel. Where shall we look but to you? Standing midway between the North and South, ever on the side of right in the past, and (if the signs of the times be true) to be still more largely trusted in the future, who so fit a spokesman for the public of all sections in this crisis as yourself?

Mr. W. W. Stone of this city (with whom I can claim no connection notwithstanding the name) a member of the firm of Lawrence, Stone and Co. one of the most respectable domestic houses in the country, and intimately connected with Eastern Merchants and Manufacturers, visits Washington to-day. He has been an earnest advocate of this revision of the Tariff for several years, and would like to converse with you in regard to it. He has formerly acted with the Whig party, but in the present unsettled state of political affairs, feels no party responsibilities, and has, I am sure, the welfare of the country at heart. He will speak to you more at large of the state of feeling at the East from which you will see that I have not written unadvisedly.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 184-5

 

Senator Henry Clay to Nicholas Dean, June 21, 1849

ASHLAND, June 21, 1849.

MY DEAR SIR,—I received your favors of the 1st and 4th instant. I regret extremely that many of the appointments of the Executive are so unsatisfactory to the public; and still more that there should be just occasion for it. I fear that the President confides that matter too much to the Secretaries, and that they have selfish and ulterior views in the selections which they make. It is undeniable that the public patronage has been too exclusively confined to the original supporters of General Taylor, without sufficient regard to the merits and just claims of the great body of the Whig party. This is both wrong and impolitic.

You tell me that it will be difficult to repress an expression of the Whig dissatisfaction, prior to the meeting of Congress. I should be very sorry if this was done so early, if it should become necessary (I hope it may not) to do it at all. I think there ought not to be any denunciation of the Administration, unless it is rendered proper for its plans of public policy. If before these are developed, the Administration should be arraigned, it would be ascribed to disappointment as to the distribution of the patronage of Government. It will be different, if, contrary to what we have a right to hope and expect, the Administration should fail to support and recommend the great measures of the Whig party.

As to myself, I need not say to you, that I shall go to Washington, if I am spared, with a firm determination to oppose or support measures according to my deliberate sense of their effects upon the interests of our country.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 587-8

Thomas A. Glover to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, June 23, 1855

NEW YORK, [N. Y.], June 23, 1855.

MY DEAR SIR: Desirous of urging, most strongly, upon you the necessity of your coming to New York to participate in the celebration of the Anniversary of the Young Men's Democratic Club I cannot but write you again upon this subject, having addressed you some days since from Baltimore.

This celebration is one of much importance at this time, and if successful will have much weight upon the results of the coming campaign in our state. A campaign that must decide the position of New York in 56, whether she will stand among her Sister States, supporting the time-honored principles of the National Democracy or whether she will be found aiding and abetting, giving vigor and sustaining the treasonable combinations of Whiggery and KnowNothingism, Abolitionism Maine lawism, proscription and Priest craft.

To aid and direct the Democracy of our State, in reestablishing her power, and asserting her supremacy we must look to Statesmen from beyond our geographical boundaries. Men who dare assert the majesty of the laws and whose courage and devotion has sustained the Republic in obedience to Constitutional enactments.

Within ourselves we have few, if any such men. Their alliances their preferences and their prejudices have lost them the confidence of the people and if the Democratic Masses of our State are to be united it must be through their reliance upon the young and untainted men of our State, advised, counselled and directed by the bold, vigorous minds of Southern men.

To ensure a co-operative action of the North and South to restore confidence and to complete their success the Democracy must profess and practice a common faith, vigorous in combatting error, valiant in vanquishing a Common enemy, they must adopt the principles of the early fathers of the Republic, they must go back to first principles they must stand where Washington, Jefferson Monroe and Jackson stood, pledged to sustain the Constitution of the nation, and pledged to sustain the individual rights of the States. Protecting themselves from assault from wishing and guaranteeing as just and an equal protection to their Sister States. And sir, we feel now, in our State that the hour is propitious that the Democracy of our State are prepared to take a conservative yet positive position upon these issues, and your coming among us at this time, will do much towards the speedy consummation of this result. We earnestly and cordially invite you. We offer you a sincere and cordial welcome to our city and cannot but hope you find your engagements such as to permit of your acceptance. We have also addressed Hon. M. R. Garnett and from the urgent manner of Mr. Wise as expressed in his letter to him I presume he will come.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 165-6

Daniel Webster to Richard M. Blatchford, Sunday, November 3, 1850—6 p.m.

Elms Farm, Sunday evening,

November 3, 1850, six o'clock.

MY DEAR SIR,—I expect to take my leave of Franklin tomorrow morning, and the last thing I propose to do, is to write to you. I have now been here a fortnight, having arrived on Monday, the 21st of October. It is the longest visit which I have paid to my native place for many years, and it has been quite agreeable. It is hard to say when I shall look on these hills and vales again, for so many successive days.

Your visit is a marked part of the occasion, and I like to repeat the expression of the pleasure it has afforded me. I sometimes wonder that you should take any interest in those scenes or these things; but that you do is so much the better and the happier for me. You left me on Friday, the 1st of this month. I did not leave home on that day, as I had a good deal of company. Yesterday I was quite alone till afternoon, when I went to Boscawen, to see and take leave of my relatives. To-day the weather has been damp, threatening rain, and I have been out no further than to the barn. The clouds seem now dispersing themselves, and I look for a good day tomorrow. I duly received your note of Friday from Boston. The Union meeting was a stirring and spirited occasion, but what may be the end, I do not know. I expressed to you, you know, three weeks ago, my fears of a decisive split in the Whig party, and I now strongly fear that result. Nevertheless, my dear Sir, I go to Washington to stay for a longer or a shorter time, but determined to do my duty while I do stay. Of personal consequences, I grow every day more and more careless.

To-morrow is Amin Bey's dinner. Then I go to Marshfield for a day, and then South. I have been quite well since you left, though I must confess all the time melancholy, at leaving a place which is dear to my recollection, and which I cannot expect to see often. But away with low spirits. Dum vivimus, vivamus.

P. S. The stars are all out, but it is too warm for them to be very bright. The night is so perfectly still that one may hear the trickling of the little brooks. Or else it is the fall in the Winnipiseogee, away up near “Tin Corner.”

I have got 'em.¹

Yours,

D. W.

_______________

¹ During Mr. Blatchford's visit at Franklin, to which this letter alludes, Mr. Webster expressed much anxiety to find a pair of steel spectacles which his father had worn the last ten years of his life; he feared they were lost, but said he should devote a day to hunting for them; he found them, and told Mr. Blatchford of it by the words "I have got 'em."

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 399-400

John M. Clayton to John J. Crittenden, October 8, 1851

BUENA VISTA, DELAWARE, October 8, 1851.

MY DEAR CRITTENDEN,—Square yourself, for I have a favor to ask of you for one of my friends. Don't knit your brows, nor utter one of those significant snorts which you are accustomed to give when reading anything unpleasant, especially an application for an office. I must have what I am about to ask for, and if you grant it I will give you a receipt in full, and do you be thankful that I let you off so easily; for the appointment I want is no great affair, and it will do more to make the administration popular in this section of the country than any other appointment they could make.

I want you to obtain a promise from President Fillmore to appoint Charles I. Dupont, Jr., a purser in the navy of the United States, on the happening of the first vacancy.

Now, if I had you with me, just seated in the arm-chair opposite my table, I would talk to you in my own peculiar and sensible way; and I would give you such reasons as would start you right off to obtain the promise of this appointment. Deprived, as I am, of the influence of my colloquial eloquence, which was always deservedly great upon you, I shall present my wishes in less vivid colors and with much more feeble power by the aid of my pen.

I have often boasted to you of the Dupont family of Delaware; I have told you how proud I was of their friendship, and therefore I need not repeat to you the story of their merits. Eleuthere Irene Dupont and Victor Dupont, sons of one of the most virtuous and distinguished noblemen of France, both narrowly escaped the malice of Robespierre and the deadly hostility of the Jacobins during the French Revolution, and emigrated to this country and settled on the banks of the Brandywine, where, by their industry and talents, they converted what was but a rocky desert into one of the most beautiful and enchanting portions of our country. No men were more beloved and honored in their day, and it has always been with me a source of high gratification, amidst the struggles of this life, to reflect that I enjoyed their friendship and kind regard. Each of these left a family, whose sons are all highly esteemed and beloved in Delaware for their own virtues. Victor left two sons, Charles I. Dupont, the celebrated manufacturer of the Brandywine, known to you as your friend, and Captain S. F. Dupont, one of the most distinguished officers of our navy. Young Dupont, the applicant, is the son of Charles. He is a young man of the finest qualities of heart and head, well educated, moral, temperate, and industrious, of business habits, and possessing the same character, integrity, and honor which mark every member of the family, without an exception.

Now, my dear Crittenden, these Duponts have spent a fortune for the Whig party, and have never received a favor from it, for they never desired any, they have been the chief prop and support of our party ever since its origin; they did more to build it up, originally, than any other family in the State, and but for their powerful influence we should have sent two Locofoco senators to Congress for the last twenty years.

Charles has now set his heart upon the appointment of his son as a purser, and he is sustained in this application not only by the just influence of his relatives and personal friends, but by all the Whigs of the State and the friends of the administration, who feel that they owe more and have paid less to these Duponts than to any other family.

I think I am boring you with some things as well known to you as to me; let me, therefore, cut my letter short by begging you, as soon as you have read this letter, to go down and see the President, and tell him he would do more to gratify his friends by this little appointment than he could by a full mission abroad. Take a glass of Bourbon whisky before you start; call on Graham, and get him to go along with you, and do not leave the President until you get a promise that young Dupont shall have the first vacancy. This little appointment will do more to enable us to redeem the State at the next election than anything else the President could do for us.

I am, dear Crittenden, faithfully yours,

JOHN M. CLAYTON.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 10-11