William Cullen Bryant to Abraham Lincoln, December 25, 1860

New York Dec. 25, 1860

My dear Sir,

The rumor having got abroad that you have been visited by a well known politician of New York who had a good deal to do with the stock market and who took with him a plan of compromise manufactured in Wall Street, it had occurred to me that you might like to be assured of the manner in which those Republicans who have no connection with Wall Street regard a compromise of the slavery question. The feeling of decided aversion to the least concession was never stronger than it is now. The people have given their verdict and they do not expect that either their representatives in Congress or their politicians out of Congress will attempt to change or modify it in any degree. The restoration of the Missouri Compromise would disband the Republican Party. Any other concession recognizing the right of slavery to protection or even existence in the territories would disgust and discourage the large majority of Republicans in the state and cool their interest in the incoming administration down to the freezing point. Whatever else be done the slavery question, so far as it is a federal question must remain as it is or the Republican party is annihilated. Nor will any concession of the sort proposed satisfy the South. South Carolina cannot be hired to return to the Union by any thing short of the removal of all restraints on the African slave trade. To do that would convert at once into friends of the Union, a class of the Southern politicians who are now doing a great deal to foment the discontents of the South and might effect what the Wall Street managers hope to bring about by restoring the Missouri line, and give protection to slavery South of it.

You will excuse me if I say a word concerning the formation of the Cabinet. I am glad to hear that it is decided to have regard to the in its composition, to that part of the Republican party which is derived from the old democratic party. It would be most unfortunate if the Cabinet were to be so constituted as to turn the policy of the administration into the old whig channels. To instance a single branch of that policy – the policy of restraints upon trade for the advantage of the manufacturers. We of the old democratic party who are the friends of free trade are perfectly willing that this should be regarded as an open question, but we shall be placed in immediate antagonism to the administration, the moment this is made a part of its governing policy. A bigot to protection placed at the head of the Treasury department would at once open a controversy on that question which would be carried on with zeal, perhaps with heat.

You will I know excuse these suggestions. If not vile they are at least disinterested. I have not, that I know of the remotest interest in politics except that our country should be governed with wisdom and justice, and with the allowance of the largest liberty in all things consistent with good order. You will receive perhaps from me letters in favor of persons desiring some office under the federal government or see my signature to recommendations got up by them or their friends. I pray you, in all these cases to believe, that no personal favor will be conferred on me, in any possible instance by bestowing the desired office on the person whom I may recommend. What I say for them should be taken as my opinion of their fitness and nothing more.

I am, dear Sir,

very truly yours

W. C. Bryant.

P. S. In regard to the slave trade, the zeal for its restoration arises from its profitableness. Large capitals are invested in it and it is the most lucrative of all branches of commerce.

W. C. B.

SOURCES: Abraham Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Abraham Lincoln to William Cullen Bryant, December 29, 1860

Springfield, Illinois, December 29, 1860.

My dear Sir:

Yours of the 25th is duly received. The “well-known politician” to whom I understand you to allude did write me, but not press upon me any such compromise as you seem to suppose, or in fact, any compromise at all.

As to the matter of the cabinet, mentioned by you, I can only say I shall have a great deal of trouble, do the best I can.

I promise you that I shall unselfishly try to deal fairly with all men and all shades of opinion among our friends.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.

SOURCE: Roy P. Basler, Editor, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 4, p. 163

William Cullen Bryant to Abraham Lincoln, January 3, 1861

New York January 3d 1861.

My dear Sir,

I have this moment received your note Nothing could be more fair or more satisfactory than the principle you lay down in regard to the formation of your council of official advisers. I shall always be convinced that whatever selection you make it will be made conscientiously.

The community here had been somewhat startled this morning by the positiveness with which a report had been circulated, reaching this city from Washington that Mr. Simon Cameron was to be placed in the Treasury Department. Forgive me if I state to you how we all should regard such an appointment – I believe I may speak for all parties, except perhaps some of the most corrupt in our own – The objection to Mr. Cameron would not be that he does not opinion hold such opinions as we approve, but that there is among all who have observed the course of our public men an utter, ancient and deep seated dullness of his integrity – whether financial or political. The announcement of his appointment, if made on any authority deserving of credit would diffuse a feeling almost like despair. I have no prejudices against Mr Cameron except such as arise from observing in what transactions he has been engaged as I have reason to suppose that whatever opinion had been formed respecting him in this part of the country has been formed on perfectly impartial and disinterested grounds. I pray you, again, to excuse this my giving you this trouble. Do not reply to this letter – Only let us have honest rigidly upright men in the departments – whatever may be their notions of public policy. I am, dear Sir,

Very truly &c &c

W C Bryant

Hon. A. Lincoln.

SOURCES: Abraham Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

William Cullen Bryant to Abraham Lincoln, January 4, 1861

New York January 4th 1861.

My dear Sir,

I wrote to you yesterday concerning the rumored intention to give Mr. Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania a place in the Cabinet which you are to form. I had then scarcely spoken to any body on the subject, but since that time I have heard the matter much discussed and I assure you that the general feeling is one of consternation.

Mr. Cameron has the reputation of being concerned in some of the worst intrigues of the democratic party a few years back. His name suggests to every honest Republican in this State no other than disgusting associations, and they will expect nothing from him when in office but repetition of such transactions. At present those who favor his appointment, in this State, are the men who last winter seduced our legislature into that shamefully corrupt course by which it was disgraced. If he is to form one of the Cabinet, the Treasury Department, which rumor assigns him, is the very last of the public interests which ought to be committed to his charge.

In the late election, the Republican party, throughout the Union, struggled not only to overthrow the party that sought the extension of slavery, but also to secure a pure and virtuous administration of the government. The first of these objects we have fully attained, but if such men as Mr. Cameron are to compose the Cabinet, however pure and upright the Chief Magistrate may himself be, and it is our pride and rejoicing that in the present instance we know him to be so, – we shall not have succeeded in the second.

There is no scarcity of able and upright men who would preside over the Treasury department with honor. I believe Mr. Gideon Welles of Hartford has been spoken of. There is no more truly honest man, and he is equally wise and enlightened. We have a man here in New York whom I should rejoice to see at the head of that department, Mr Opdyke, the late Republican candidate for Mayor of this city a man who had made finance the subject of long and profound study, and whom no possible temptation could move from his integrity. If a man from Pennsylvania is wanted, that State has such whose probity has never been questioned – so that there will be no need to take up with a man hackneyed in those practices which make politics a sordid game played for the promotion of personal interests.

I must again ask you to pardon this freedom for the sake of its motive. It has cost me some effort to break through my usual reserve on such matters, but I feel a greater interest in the success and honor of your administration than in that of any which have preceded it

I am dear sir, truly yours,

W C Bryant

Hon. A. Lincoln

[An extract from this letter, though misdated as February 5, 1861, may be found in Parke Godwin’s, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, Volume 1, p. 152-3 included below:]

New York, February 5th, 1861

I wrote to you yesterday! in regard to the rumored intention of giving Mr. Simon Cameron, of Pennsylvania, a place in the Cabinet. I had not then spoken much with others of our party, but I have since heard the matter discussed, and the general feeling is one of consternation. Mr. Cameron has the reputation of being concerned in some of the worst intrigues of the Democratic party. His name suggests to every honest Republican in the State no other associations than these. At present, those who favor his appointment in this State are the men who last winter so shamefully corrupted our Legislature. If he is to have a place in the Cabinet at all, the Treasury department is the last of our public interests that ought to be committed to his hands.

In the last election, the Republican party did not strive simply for the control, but one of the great objects was to secure a pure and virtuous administration of the Government. In the first respect we have succeeded; but, if such men as Cameron are to form the Cabinet, we shall not have succeeded in the second. There are able men who would fill the place of Secretary of the Treasury whose integrity is tried and acknowledged. I believe Mr. Gideon Welles, of Hartford, has been spoken of. There is no more truly upright man, and few men in public life are so intelligent. If we look to New York, we have Mr. Opdyke, the late Republican candidate for Mayor of this city, a man also who has made finance a long study, and whom no temptation could cause to swerve in the least respect from the path of right. [Illegible.] . . .

SOURCES: Abraham Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; Parke Godwin, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, Volume 1, p. 152-3

William Cullen Bryant to Abraham Lincoln, November 10, 1860

New York, November 10, 1860

To A. Lincoln, President-elect:

You will not, I hope, find what I have to say in this letter intrusive or unreasonable. If you should, you will, of course, treat it as it deserves to be treated. I have no doubt that you receive frequent suggestions from various quarters respecting the selection of your Cabinet when you take the Executive chair. It is natural that your fellow-citizens who elected you to office should feel a strong interest in regard to the choice of those men who are to act as your advisers and your special assistants in the administration of affairs. The confidence of the people in the wisdom and the virtue of the Government depends in a good degree on that choice. You will therefore, I trust, most readily pardon a little zeal in this matter, even if it should go somewhat beyond the limits of a well-bred courtesy.

You have numerous friends in this quarter, and they are among the most enlightened and disinterested of the Republican party, who would be greatly pleased if your choice of a Secretary of State should fall on Mr. Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio. He is regarded as one of the noblest and truest of the great leaders of that party, as a man in all respects beyond reproach — which you know few men are. He is able, wise, practical, pure — no associate of bad men, nor likely to counsel their employment in any capacity. A Cabinet with such a man in its principal department, associated with others worthy to be his colleagues, would immediately command the public confidence. Of course, I do not expect you to make any reply to this letter. You will receive it as an expression of my sincere desire for the success of your administration.

SOURCE: Parke Godwin, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, Volume 1, p. 150

William Cullen Bryant to John M. Forbes, October 16, 1862

Office Of The Evening Post,

New York, October 16, 1862.

My Dear Sir, — What your friend says of Grant may be the truth, so far as he is acquainted with his history. But I have friends who profess to be acquainted with him, and who declare that he is now a temperate man, and that it is a cruel wrong to speak of him as otherwise. I have in my drawer a batch of written testimonials to that effect. He reformed when he got or was put out of the army, and went into it again with a solemn promise of abstinence. One of my acquaintances has made it his special business to inquire concerning his habits, of the officers who have recently served with him or under him. None of them have seen him drunk, or seen him drink. Their general testimony is that he is a man remarkably insensible to danger, active, and adventurous.

Whether he drinks or not, he is certainly a fighting general, and a successful fighter, which is a great thing in these days.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 335-6

John M. Forbes to William Cullen Bryant, February 27, 1862

Boston, February 27,1862.

My Dear Sir, — I think you are wrong in opposing the new order of Stanton as to telegrams. I have had much experience with the telegraph as a business engine, and I know what it must be in war. The weakest and most discouraging point in our war management up to this time has been the looseness with which the telegraph has been left open: and Stanton's move to control it seems to me one of the best things he has done. I only hope he will have a sharp censor or superintendent, and do the thing thoroughly. I urged this measure very strongly in the spring, and was disgusted at the apathy of the higher powers. For with Baltimore and Washington and the public offices ever full of traitors, the free use of the telegraph seemed to me to put Washington in the power of the enemy.

The telegraph is a mighty engine of war, and, if used up to its capacity, is enough to turn the scale.

Upon our single track railroads we find that the erection of a telegraph is worth to us more than a double track would be without the wires. It increases the availability of our engines, cars, and men enormously, besides the value for safety. I mention this as an illustration of what good it may do to the army if put under sharp systematic management; and beyond all, how dangerous, if the enemy are permitted to share its use and our secrets!

Very truly yours,

J. M. Forbes.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 291

John M. Forbes to William Cullen Bryant, January 27, 1862

Boston, January 27,1862.

I have your note. I knew you always as the champion of sound finance. Your article sets forth the effect on the poor; others have been solely looking to its injury to the rich.  . . . In great haste, yours truly.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 281-2

William Cullen Bryant to John Bigelow, Esq., December 14, 1859

new York, December 14, 1859.

Probably Mr. Seward stays in Europe till the first flurry occasioned by the Harper's Ferry affair is over; but I do not think his prospects for being the next candidate for the Presidency are brightening. This iteration of the misconstruction put on his phrase of “the irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery” has, I think, damaged him a good deal, and in this city there is one thing which has damaged him still more. I mean the project of Thurlow Weed to give charters for a set of city railways, for which those who receive them are to furnish a fund of from four to six hundred thousand dollars, to be expended for the Republican cause in the next Presidential election. This scheme was avowed by Mr. Weed to our candidate for mayor, Mr. Opdyke, and others, and shocked the honest old Democrats of our party not a little. Besides the Democrats of our party, there is a bitter enmity to this railway scheme cherished by many of the old Whigs of our party. They are very indignant at Weed's meddling with the affair, and between Weed and Seward they make no distinction, assuming that, if Seward becomes President, Weed will be “viceroy over him.” Notwithstanding, I suppose it is settled that Seward is to be presented by the New York delegation to the convention as their man.

Frank Blair, the younger, talks of Wade, of Ohio, and it will not surprise me if the names which have been long before the public are put aside for some one against which fewer objections can be made.

Our election for mayor is over. We wished earnestly to unite the Republicans on Havemeyer, and should have done so if he had not absolutely refused to stand when a number of Republicans waited on him, to beg that he would consent to stand as a candidate.

Just as the Republicans had made every arrangement to nominate Opdyke, he concluded to accept the Tammany nomination, and then it was too late to bring the Republicans over. They had become so much offended and disgusted with the misconduct of the Tammany supervisors in appointing registrars, and the abuse showered upon the Republicans by the Tammany speakers, and by the shilly-shallying of Havemeyer, that they were like so many unbroke colts; there was no managing them. So we had to go into a tripartite battle; and Wood, as we told them beforehand, carried off what we were quarrelling for. Havemeyer has since written a letter to put the Republicans in the right. “He is too old for the office,” said many persons to me when he was nominated. After I saw that letter I was forced to admit that this was true.

Your letters are much read. I was particularly, and so were others, interested with the one — a rather long one — on the policy of Napoleon, but I could not subscribe to the censure you passed on England for not consenting to become a party to the Congress unless some assurance was given her that the liberties of Central Italy would be secured. By going into the Congress she would become answerable for its decisions, and bound to sustain them, as she was in the arrangements made by her and the other great powers after the fall of Napoleon — arrangements the infamy of which has stuck to her ever since. I cannot wonder that she is shy of becoming a party to another Congress for the settlement of the affairs of Europe, and I thought that reluctance did her honor. I should have commented on your letter on this subject if it had been written by anybody but yourself. . . .

The Union-savers, who include a pretty large body of commercial men, begin to look on our paper with a less friendly eye than they did a year ago. The southern trade is good just now, and the western rather unprofitable. Appleton says there is not a dollar in anybody's pocket west of Buffalo.

SOURCE: Parke Godwin, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, Volume 2, p. 127-8

John M. Forbes to William Cullen Bryant, January 22, 1862

Boston, January 22, 1862.

. . . I have not seen set forth so distinctly as it deserves the point that while speculators, and gamblers, and indeed shrewd men in active business can take care of themselves, no matter how vicious the currency tinkering may be, it is the women and minors, the helpless and the poor generally, upon whom a vicious currency and its consequences are sure to fall hardest. The savings banks represent the accumulations of the poor, and the effect on them ought to be strongly painted; but in point of fact the savings in the hands of the people are larger than those in the banks, and these belong to a still poorer class, who do not accumulate enough to make deposits, or who have not the habits of thrift of the savings bank depositors. Upon this poorer class the loss is going to be still sharper. . . .

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 281-2

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, June 16, 1864

My Dear Charles, — I hope you like our Baltimore work. The unanimity and enthusiasm were most imposing. I voted against the admission of Tennessee, because I did not want the convention to meddle with the question; and, since she only wanted to come in to help do what we were sure to do without her, I thought that, as the cause was exactly the same for both of us, she should give us forbearance while we gave her sympathy. But it was impossible to resist the torrent, and they all came in. There is no harm done. I cannot but think Sumner wrong. If all New York rebels, I am still a citizen of the United States. That is the simple, obvious, necessary ground.

The committee of one from each State appointed me to write the official letter to the President, and refused to instruct me. I sent it yesterday, having read it to Mr. Bryant and to Raymond. They were both entirely pleased with everything in it.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 178-9

Diary of William Howard Russell: March 20, 1861

The papers are still full of Sumter and Pickens. The reports that they are or are not to be relieved are stated and contradicted in each paper without any regard to individual consistency. The “Tribune” has an article on my speech at the St. Patrick's dinner, to which it is pleased to assign reasons and motives which the speaker, at all events, never had in making it.

Received several begging letters, some of them apparently with only too much of the stamp of reality about their tales of disappointment, distress, and suffering. In the afternoon went down Broadway, which was crowded, notwithstanding the piles of blackened snow by the curbstones, and the sloughs of mud, and half-frozen pools at the crossings. Visited several large stores or shops — some rival the best establishments in Paris or London in richness and in value, and far exceed them in size and splendor of exterior. Some on Broadway, built of marble, or of fine cut stone, cost from £6,000 to £8,000 a year in mere rent. Here, from the base to the fourth or fifth story, are piled collections of all the world can produce, often in excess of all possible requirements of the country; indeed I was told that the United States have always imported more goods than they could pay for. Jewellers' shops are not numerous, but there are two in Broadway which have splendid collections of jewels, and of workmanship in gold and silver, displayed to the greatest advantage in fine apartments decorated with black marble, statuary, and plate

New York has certainly all the air of a “nouveau riche.” There is about it an utter absence of any appearance of a grandfather — one does not see even such evidences of eccentric taste as are afforded in Paris and London, by the existence of shops where the old families of a country cast off their “exuviӕ” which are sought by the new, that they may persuade the world they are old; there is no curiosity shop, not to speak of a Wardour Street, and such efforts as are made to supply the deficiency reveal an enormous amount of ignorance or of bad taste. The new arts, however, flourish; the plague of photography has spread through all the corners of the city, and the shop-windows glare with flagrant displays of the most tawdry art. In some of the large booksellers' shops — Appleton's for example — are striking proofs of the activity of the American press, if not of the vigor and originality of the American intellect. I passed down long rows of shelves laden with the works of European authors, for the most part, oh shame! stolen and translated into American type without the smallest compunction or scruple, and without the least intention of ever yielding the most pitiful deodand to the authors. Mr. Appleton sells no less than one million and a half of Webster's spelling-books a year; his tables are covered with a flood of pamphlets, some for, others against coercion; some for, others opposed to slavery, — but when I asked for a single solid, substantial work on the present difficulty, I was told there was not one published worth a cent. With such men as Audubon and Wilson in natural history, Prescott and Motley in history, Washington Irving and Cooper in fiction, Longfellow and Edgar Poe in poetry, even Bryant and the respectabilities in rhyme, and Emerson as essayist, there is no reason why New York should be a paltry imitation of Leipsig, without the good faith of Tauchnitz.

I dined with a litterateur well known in England to many people a year or two ago — sprightly, loquacious, and well informed, if neither witty nor profound — now a Southern man with Southern proclivities, — as Americans say; once a Southern man with such strong anti-slavery convictions, that his expression of them in an English quarterly had secured him the hostility of his own people — one of the emanations of American literary life for which their own country finds no fitting receiver. As the best proof of his sincerity, he has just now abandoned his connection with one of the New York papers on the republican side, because he believed that the course of the journal was dictated by anti-Southern fanaticism. He is, in fact, persuaded that there will be a civil war, and that the South will have much of the right on its side in the contest. At his rooms were Mons. B–––, Dr. Gwin, a Californian ex-senator, Mr. Barlow, and several of the leading men of a certain clique in New York. The Americans complain, or assert, that we do not understand them, and I confess the reproach, or statement, was felt to be well founded by myself at all events, when I heard it declared and admitted that “if Mons. Belmont had not gone to the Charleston Convention, the present crisis would never have occurred.”

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 24-6

William Cullen Bryant to John M. Forbes, August 27, 1861

Office Of The Evening Post,

New York, August 27, 1861.

I do not much like the idea of putting Sherman into the Treasury Department. He would make, I think, a better secretary of war. The great objection I have to him in the Treasury Department is that, so far as I understand the matter, he is committed, as the saying is, to that foolish Morrill tariff. Yet I am very certain that it would be considered by the country an immense improvement of the Cabinet to place him in the War Department. The country has a high opinion of his energy and resolution and practical character.

Of Governor Andrew I do not know as much as you do, though I have formed a favorable judgment of his character and capacity — not a very precise one, however. . . .

They talk of H. here as they do with you, but I am persuaded that the disqualification I have mentioned would breed trouble in the end. The dissatisfaction with Cameron seems to grow more and more vehement every day. His presence taints the reputation of the whole Cabinet, and I think he should be ousted at once. I am sorry to say that a good deal of censure is thrown here upon my good friend Welles, of the Navy Department. He is too deliberate for the temper of our commercial men, who cannot bear to see the pirates of the rebel government capturing our merchant ships one after another and defying the whole United States navy. The Sumter and the Jeff Davis seem to have a charmed existence. Yet it seems to me that new vigor has of late been infused into the Navy Department, and perhaps we underrated the difficulties of rescuing the navy from the wretched state in which that miserable creature Toucey left it. There is a committee of our financial men at present at Washington, who have gone on to confer with the President, and it is possible that they may bring back a better report of the Navy Department than they expected to be able to make.

Rumor is unfavorably busy with Mr. Seward, but as a counterpoise it is confidently said that a mutual aversion has sprung up between him and Cameron. This may be so. The “Times,” I see, does not spare Cameron, nor the “Herald.” There is a good deal of talk here about a reconciliation between Weed and Bennett, and a friendly dinner together, and the attacks which the “Herald” is making upon the War and Navy Department, are said to be the result of an understanding between them. Who knows, or who cares much?

I have emptied into this letter substantially all I have to say. There are doubtless men in private life who would fill the War Department as well as any I have mentioned, but the world knows not their merits, and might receive their names with a feeling of disappointment.

P. S. — With regard to visiting Naushon, I should certainly like it, and like to bring my wife. I have another visit to make, however, in another part of Massachusetts; but I shall keep your kind invitation in mind and will write you again.

W. C. B.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 242-4

John M. Forbes to William Cullen Bryant, August 24, 1861

Naushon, August 24,1861.

Yours of the 21st received. The objection which you suggest to Mr. H. is a very strong one. We need a man in the War Department who, when the right time comes, will not hesitate a moment to assail the weakest point of the enemy. Our Governor Andrew seemed to me to hit the nail on the head when he rebuked Butler for offering to put out any fire in the enemy's camp. The time has come when we can no longer afford to “make war with rose-water,” and it was a great mistake in Congress to limit the confiscation of property to that of rebels found in arms against us. All the property of open rebels should be forfeited the first week of the next Congress; this would enable us to proclaim emancipation in the border States with a fixed compensation for all valuable slaves belonging to loyal citizens, without a very large bill for Virginia.

I had hoped that H. was man enough to go in for such a measure and advocate it as a boon to the loyal citizens of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, putting it upon the ground of military necessity. If he is not up to this we don't want him; but it is not worth while to try to get rid of Cameron without at the same time making quite sure of a better man. You remember the old story of the trapped fox begging his friend the hawk not to drive off the half-sated swarm of flies only to give place to a new cloud of them — and hungry ones? I wish you would go a step further, and suggest a successor. Is there no one who could take Chase's place, and give him the War? I forget whether I suggested to you James Joy, of Detroit. He would do well for the War, better for the Interior, from his thorough knowledge of the West. Lincoln, Trumbull, Chandler, and all the Western men know him. He is the most able, decided, and plucky man that I know. How would Sherman do for the Treasury, and Chase for War?

As the matter stands now, the effort to displace Cameron will be coupled with one to put in H., and if the latter is not the right man, we had better rub along as we are, until the right man turns up. Governor Andrew has all the moral qualities; but he is perhaps too pronounced an anti-slavery man, and works too much upon details himself, not using other men. He would kill himself in the Cabinet. . . .

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 241-2

William Cullen Bryant to John M. Forbes, August 21, 1861

Office Of The Evening Post,

New York, August 21,1861.

My Dear Sir, — It does not seem to me at all indiscreet or imprudent to make the change in the Cabinet which you suggest. Indeed, I think that Mr. Cameron's retirement would, instead of being impolitic, be the most politic thing that could be done, by way of giving firmness to public opinion and strengthening the administration with the people. The dissatisfaction here is as great as with you, and I hear that at Washington it is expressed by everybody, except Cameron's special friends and favorites, in the strongest terms. If I am rightly informed, there is nothing done by him with the promptness, energy, and decision which the times demand, without his being in a manner forced to it by the other members of the Cabinet, or the President. A man who wants to make a contract with the government for three hundred mules, provided he be a Pennsylvanian, can obtain access to him, when a citizen of East Tennessee, coming as the representative of the numerous Union population of that region, is denied. There are bitter complaints, too, of Cameron's disregard of his appointments and engagements in such cases as that I have mentioned.

Mr. Lincoln must know, I think, that Cameron is worse than nothing in the Cabinet, and a strong representation concerning his unpopularity and unacceptableness, of which he may not know, may lead him to take the important resolution of supplying his place with a better man. I do not think the newspapers are the place to discuss the matter, but I make no secret of my opinion.

I am, dear sir, truly yours,

Wm. C. Bryant.

P. S. — I open my letter to say another word on the subject of yours. It does not appear to me that H. would be the man for the War Department, for the reason that he might give us trouble on the slavery question. Cameron has managed that part of our relations with the seceding States very badly, and I feel H. would do no better. He would do very well in the place of Smith; but with the exception of making a place for him, it might not be of much consequence whether Smith were retained or not, though he adds no strength to the Cabinet. Some here talk of requiring the dismissal of Seward, but I fear this would be asking more than it is possible to get, and might endanger the success of the scheme for getting rid of Cameron.

W. C. B.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 236-7

Washington News

WASHINGTON, April 30. – Wm. Cullen Bryant of Virginia, nephew of Gov. James Barbour, has been appointed Chief of the Bureau of Inspection of the P. O. Department.

The vote in the Senate refusing by four majority to refer the subject of the confiscation of rebel property to a Select Committee, was regarded as a test vote between the friends and opponents of the measure, and a triumph of the former

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