Arnold Buffum to William Lloyd Garrison, March 5, 1835

PHILADELPHIA, 3d mo. 5, 1835.

MY DEAR FRIEND, — Unwilling to do anything that could by possibility fan the flames which for a time seemed to threaten with riotous destruction our civil institutions, we have, in this city, for several months past abstained from public efforts, for promoting the glorious cause of human liberty. Still we have not been unmindful of the cries and groans of two millions of our countrymen in bondage. We have marked the accelerated progress of licentiousness and pollution in the slaveholding sections of our country; we have seen the hand of despotism extending its iron grasp over two hundred new born victims in every twenty-four hours; we have heard the lamentations of the bereaved mother when her darling babe has been torn from her bosom; we have observed the widely withering influence of an unholy prejudice against beings created, like ourselves, in the image of God; we have heard the sentiment advanced, by professed ministers of Him who came to undo the heavy burdens, and let the oppressed go free, that we ‘are but a set of misguided fanatics, unworthy of the public regard.’ All this we have silently borne for weeks and months that are past. But the claims of our fellowmen, who are suffering under the cruel yoke of oppression, have during this interval, often ascended in our orisons to the Throne of Grace, and the spirit of the Lord has been at work in the hearts of many people, preparing them for the reception of truth, and for active co-operation in the cause of universal freedom; and now we have been comforted and made to rejoice together, by the labors of a messenger of love, whom I verily believe the God of the oppressed has sent among us. Our beloved coadjutor, George Thompson, arrived here, from New-York, on the 2nd instant, and on the evening of the 3rd, delivered a Lecture in the ‘Reformed Presbyterian Church,’ in Cherry Street. No public notice had been given, yet such was the anxiety to hear him, that not less than one thousand persons assembled on the occasion and all were more than gratified. The interesting nature of the subject, the perfect understanding of it in all its bearings evinced by the speaker, the truly christian spirit with which he spoke of the wrong doers, all added to his commanding eloquence, carried conviction to the understanding and bore the hearts of his auditors along with him, and unfurled in many a bosom, the standard of immediate abolitionism.

One of our most estimable citizens, who has been favorable to colonization, said at the close of the meeting, that he would willingly go thirty miles at any time to hear such a discourse. I would attempt to give an outline of it, were it possible for me to do it justice, but I can only say, to all who would understand a christian's views and feelings, and know his arguments on the subject of slavery and its remedy, you must go and hear George Thompson for yourselves. He labors in the cause of God, and in behalf of that portion of the creation of God made in his own image, who are borne down by relentless oppression, in every portion of the habitable globe. He pleads with Christians of every name, to arouse from their lethargy, and in the name of the Master whom they profess to serve, to vindicate the right of man to be free; his motto is, ‘Man is man, endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’

Yesterday morning, our dear friend returned to New-York, to fulfil prior engagements in that city. Last evening our board of Managers unanimously adopted the following Resolution, viz:

‘Resolved, That the thanks of this Board be presented to our highly esteemed coadjutor, George Thompson, for the clear and forcible exposition of Abolition principles, presented in his address to an assemblage of our fellow-citizens last evening, and that he be most respectfully invited to return to this city as soon as previous engagements will permit, to plead before other congregations the cause of the oppressed,’

Last evening, our estimable friend, Amasa Walker, from your city, made an excellent address before our Anti-Slavery Society, and coadjutors from every quarter are coming up in the name of the God of hosts, to the furtherence of his righteous cause. Our hearts are animated with the increase of light; the day begins to dawn, the manacles of oppression will ere long be melted by the genial warmth of the Sun of Righteousness, and Ethiopia will stretch forth her hand to God.

Most truly, my friend, ever thine,

ARNOLD BUFFUM.

Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Boston.

SOURCE: Isaac Knapp, Publisher, Letters and Addresses by G. Thompson [on American Negro Slavery] During His Mission in the United States, From Oct. 1st, 1834, to Nov. 27, 1835, p. 45-7

Gerrit Smith to Henry Ward Beecher, May 20, 1863

Peterboro, May 20th, 1863.

Rev. Henry Ward Beecher:

My Dear Sir: I have read in the Independent your column on the late “Stonewall” Jackson. I honor him for his earnestness, sincerity, and devoutness. I grant that he was a deeply religious man. But I can not agree with you that his religion was of the Christ-type. How can it be in the light of your own admission, that he was “the champion of slavery” — the champion of that system which denies all right to husband, wife, child; all right to resist the ravisher or murderer; and which works and whips and markets men as beasts? How can it be in the light of your admission, that “he was fighting against the natural rights of man”? Nevertheless you declare him to be “a rare and eminent Christian.” I readily admit that even these enormous crimes against justice and humanity are compatible with high religiousness. But I can not admit that he who is guilty of them is grounded in the Christ-religion and is “eminent” in its graces. For the Christ-religion is simply a religion of justice. It does as it would be done by. It is for, and not “against the natural rights of man.” For it is simply the religion of nature.

I do not wonder that the Churches regard Jackson's as the Christ-religion. For the bundle of dogmas, Trinity, Atonement, Resurrection of the Body, Miracles, etc., which they make up and hold to be essential to salvation, he deeply believed in. I say not whether these dogmas are true or false — originating in fancies or in facts. I but say that they are no part of the Christ-religion. Natural justice toward God and man — so earnest and entire as to fill the heart and life with its presence and power — this, and this alone, is the essence and the all of that religion. Think not that I look for such justice where the Divine Spirit is not at work to produce it. In order to attain to it, depraved man — man who has run away from his nature — must be “born again.”

Jackson had the theology of a Church. But he certainly had not a large share of the religion of Christ. Christ was opposed to all the theologies; for he saw that they all stand in the way of the one true religion — the religion of reason and nature. A theological, or common Church religion, is a traditional religion, authenticated by miracles and other outward testimonies. At the best, it is but a history, and full of all the characteristic uncertainty of history. Moreover, if parts of the history, or of its accepted interpretation, shall prove false, then, as is held, the deceived disciple is lost. Such is the untrustworthy plank on which men are urged to embark their all. But Christ's religion is no historic nor external thing. It cometh not from the past, and it “cometh not with observation.” It “is within” us. It is written by the finger of God in the moral consciousness; and every one, who will listen to God's voice in his soul, will know this religion, or, in other words, will know what is right. "And why," says Jesus, “even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?” Instead of sending his hearers to Moses, he sends them to themselves. Instead of bidding them go to priests to get religion interpreted, he tells them to interpret it for themselves. Instead of making religious truths a mystery, which only the wise and learned can unravel, he thanks his Father for having “revealed them unto babes.” Instead of teaching a religion as fluctuating and uncertain as human testimony is fluctuating and uncertain, he teaches a religion founded and fashioned in human nature, and therefore as unchangeable as human nature — a religion the same in all climes and ages, because human nature is the same in all climes and ages. Instead of teaching a cabalistic and conventional religion, whose rules are hard and impossible to be understood, he teaches the natural and reasonable religion which has but one rule, and this rule so obvious and simple that all know it, and need nothing but honesty to apply it. All know how they would be done by, and hence all know what to do to others.

I am amazed that you make so much account of Jackson's theological bundle, and of his being “an active member of the Presbyterian Church, of which he was a ruling Elder.” These, in your esteem, suffice to carry him straight to heaven. I had supposed that your strong common-sense and large intelligence had long ago lifted you up out of the superstitious faith that any such things can carry any man to heaven. I had taken it for granted that you believed that it is his character, however induced — whether by himself or by Christ, or otherwise — that alone qualifies a man for heaven; so obvious is it, in the light of reason, that every man must go to his own place, and that what shall be his place must be determined, not by his theology, but by his character. But I was mistaken. For in the same breath in which you send Jackson to heaven, you argue out for him a thoroughly base and abominable character; even, to use your strong and eloquent words, a “comprehensive and fundamental degradation of heart and mind and soul.”

So, since it can not be in virtue of his character, it must be in virtue of his theology and ecclesiasticism, that you send Jackson to heaven. Or am I again mistaken? Perhaps you believe that the death of the body works moral changes; and that, though Jackson died with a bad character, he woke up with a good one.

But, notwithstanding I believe that our character in this life is that with which we begin the next, I have hope for “Stonewall” Jackson. And this hope for two reasons. First, I do not believe his character to be as bad as you make it. In many an instance, slaveholding does not deprave and debase the whole soul. Unconsciousness of its criminality, and a kindly exercise of its despotic power, are among the things which leave room for the growth of self-respect and other high virtues. Second, the Christ-religion will be more clearly seen, and more justly judged, in the next life; and mistaken and guilty, though still largely noble souls, like the “Stonewall” Jacksons, will hasten to exchange their miserable theologies for it. Nay, I trust that our Church-misled hero already begins to see more beauty and preciousness in the simple doctrine of doing as we would be done by, than in all the dogmas and prayers and rites of his corrupt and corrupting Church.

But I must stop. I meant to write only a few lines. How long, oh! how long, my great-souled brother, must we still wait for the open enlistment of your large powers against the theologies! I confess that you preach the religion of Jesus, and that you preach it with rare force and beauty. But, alas! how is this preaching counteracted by your preaching the theologies also! The cause of truth can not afford to have Henry Ward Beecher continue to mix up traditional trash, or even traditional sweetness or sublimities, with that religion. She needs him to be wholly, and not but partly, on her side.

With great regard, your friend,

Gerrit Smith.

SOURCES: Gerrit Smith, Gerrit Smith on Sectarianism, p. 19-22; Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 255-6

Amos A. Lawrence to Senator Jefferson Davis, December 22, 1859

Boston, December 22, 1859.

Dear Sir, — I am sorry to see, by a reported speech of yours, that you are among those who have been duped by vile fellows who believe that a large number of decent men in this part of the country are implicated in the affair of Harper's Ferry. Among other names I find my own, and I am the person alluded to as a cotton speculator who employed Brown to do his work. To show you how absurd this whole plan of libel will appear when it is examined, I will state my own case.

1st. I am the son of Amos Lawrence, now deceased, whom you knew, and who brought me up to be a “national” man, as we understand that term. 2d. I have been so decided in my own opposition to the formation of sectional parties, that those who voted for Fillmore in Massachusetts, in 1856, nominated me for governor, but I declined. They have requested me to be a candidate every year since that, and last year I did run against Mr. Banks. 3d. Though largely interested in cotton factories as a shareholder, I never owned a bale of cotton in my life, and never had any business with any person whom I knew as a speculator in cotton. Some years ago I took a great interest in our people who settled in Kansas, many of whom went from Lowell and Lawrence with their families. They were shockingly abused, and if it were not for my wife and seven children at home, I would have taken a more active part in that business. But that has passed long ago; it did not induce me to join the Republicans, though it did most of my friends. I took part with Mr. William Appleton and my relative Mr. F. Pierce in the Faneuil Hall meeting here the other day, and with most of our people am called a “hunker,” and even in Mississippi should be a law and order man. You will do me a favor, if you will prevent my being summoned to Washington on so foolish an errand as to testify about Harper's Ferry.

Respectfully and truly yours,

A. A. L.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 136-8

Thomas Wentworth Higginson to Louisa Storrow Higginson, August 29, 1856

August 29

We have excellent news from Kansas. . . . Our men are nicely settled in the northern part of Kansas, which is more peaceful. Colonel Topliff, who has just come from Lawrence, speaks quite encouragingly and thinks they can resist invasion.

Meanwhile it will be probably necessary for me to go out West again for several weeks¹ to the Nebraska border, and perhaps some way inside. But my mission will not be a very warlike one, and I have only the same general sense of possible danger that one has in setting foot in a ship or in the cars, or in running fast downstairs, or (if feminine) in meeting a drove of cows. . . . Frank Sanborn is to stop here to-morrow, safe back from the same ground I am going over.

_______________

¹ He had previously been sent to Chicago and St. Louis to aid emigrants.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 139

George L. Stearns to Mary Hall Stearns, about May 15, 1863

[Buffalo, New York.]

I comfort myself with the belief that this is our appointed work. I did not seek it; it sought me out. You did not seek it, but the divine spirit within you impelled the work which was so contrary to all your ideas of a happy life; and now we fully understand each other and the work that is before us. A sweet peace has come to my soul, so sweet that I welcome the sadness that comes with it.

I have no news of importance to write you except that Casimir has plead guilty to the theft, and has been sentenced to four years and six months' hard labor in the state prison of Kansas. How terrible the career of one so young and gifted. He writes that he could endure it if he was not obliged to work in the streets of Leavenworth with a ball and chain attached to his leg. My heart bleeds for him. With a career of useful and honorable service open to him, he has sacrificed all to a mean and pitiful vanity.

SOURCE: Preston Stearns, The Life and Public Services of George Luther Stearns, p. 293-4

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, May 30, 1852

Boston, May 30th, 1852.

Dear Sumner: — I have been remiss of late about writing to you, but have been hardly in a state to do more than make the movements which the treadmill of necessity enforces.

I note what you say about Felton, and your wish that I should not, in defending you, lose his friendship. I did indeed delay to the last moment answering his letter; not through fear of losing his friendship, but from a reluctance to undertake a disagreeable and vain task. On Thursday evening I wrote to him my reply; the ground I took was, that it would be utterly useless to try the case between you in the court of the reason; it must be removed to that of the affections. I then put it to him to say whether, if he should receive news of your death, he would not then begin to think that he should have made more allowance for your peculiarities of manner; and even if what he charged were true, whether he should not rather have kept in mind the many noble and endearing traits of character, and the devotion to principle which he admitted you to possess. I gave him credit for honesty of purpose, but told him that in my humble opinion his public course, or acts, had been hostile to the sacred cause of humanity. I wrote a long letter of which the above is the substance. The next evening he appeared at our children's fete, and said to me briefly but feelingly, “It is all right! all right!” and that was all.

We had a party got up on my plan. We had about fifty children, who came early in the afternoon and frolicked to their hearts' content. Afterward came their parents to tea, and on the whole we had about eighty persons, whose pleasure and enjoyment it was pleasant to behold. We had swinging and dancing, and running and tumbling; we had also music, and a theatrical representation for the big folks. Altogether it was a good affair, a religious affair. I say religious, for there is nothing which so calls forth my love and gratitude to God, as the sight of the happiness for which He has given the capacity and furnished the means; and this happiness is nowhere more striking than in the frolics of the young. It is true that the sight of any true happiness should call forth the same feeling; and if we only cultivated it, we should have a religion that all could enjoy, instead of one that is sad and repellent to all but a few minds of peculiar stamp.

My vacation is over, and my hopes of seeing you in Washington are over for the time. I was glad, as were all your friends here, to hear of your so courteously throwing down the gauntlet, and announcing by a sort of herald that you would soon appear in the arena. It is well-timed; for it gives you the advantage of satisfying the anti-slavery people, and does not give to Webster and others the advantage they might derive from your speaking before the nominations. What I said about a person to furnish information from Washington I supposed you would understand. It was for Kossuth, who wished especially not to have anyone recommended by Senator Cass, but one who would not be likely to be in the interests of either party. He has agents and informants in all the courts of Europe; he needs one in Washington; he is willing to pay a correspondent. It is not a spy, in the obnoxious sense of the word, but a man who, acting in the interests of humanity, will furnish information honourably obtained, to be honourably used. Do you know any such?

s. G. H.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 376-8

William T. Sherman to George Mason Graham, January 11, 1860

Seminary, Wednesday, January 11, 1860.

Dear General: . . . I will receive all who apply whether appointed or not, and would suggest that you send me a few blank appointments. This idea is suggested by the fact that a young man named Stokes rode one hundred twenty-five miles from Monroe on horseback simply to find out whether it “am a fact” that such an institution was in existence. He brought the enclosed letter. I tried to prevail on him to stay but he was ordered to return. I wrote Mr. Noble to send him back forthwith with two hundred dollars. He thought he could go and return in seven days but I allow ten. . .

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 107

Last Will and Testament of John Brown, December 1, 1859

Charlestown, Jefferson County, Va., Dec. 1, 1859.

I give to my son John Brown, Jr., my surveyor's compass and other surveyor's articles, if found; also, my old granite monument, now at North Elba, N. Y., to receive upon its two sides a further inscription, as I will hereafter direct; said stone monument, however, to remain at North Elba so long as any of my children and my wife may remain there as residents.

I give to my son Jason Brown my silver watch, with my name engraved on inner case.

I give to my son Owen Brown my double-spring opera-glass, and my rifle-gun (if found), presented to me at Worcester, Mass. It is globe-sighted and new. I give, also, to the same son $50 in cash, to be paid him from the proceeds of my father's estate, in consideration of his terrible suffering in Kansas and his crippled condition from his childhood.

I give to my son Salmon Brown $50 in cash, to be paid him from my father's estate, as an offset to the first two cases above named.

I give to my daughter Ruth Thompson my large old Bible, containing the family record.

I give to each of my sons, and to each of my other daughters, my son-in-law, Henry Thompson, and to each of my daughters-in-law, as good a copy of the Bible as can be purchased at some bookstore in New York or Boston, at a cost of $5 each in cash, to be paid out of the proceeds of my father's estate.

I give to each of my grandchildren that may be living when my father's estate is settled, as good a copy of the Bible as can be purchased (as above) at a cost of $3 each.

All the Bibles to be purchased at one and the same time for cash, on the best terms.

I desire to have $50 each paid out of the final proceeds of my father's estate to the following named persons, to wit: To Allan Hammond, Esq., of Rockville, Tolland County, Conn., or to George Kellogg, Esq., former agent of the New England Company at that place, for the use and benefit of that company. Also, $50 to Silas Havens, formerly of Lewisburg, Summit County, Ohio, if he can be found. Also, $50 to a man of Stark County, Ohio, at Canton, who sued my father in his lifetime, through Judge Humphrey and Mr. Upson of Akron, to be paid by J. R. Brown to the man in person, if he can be found;his name I cannot remember. My father made a compromise with the man by taking our house and lot at Munroville. I desire that any remaining balance that may become my due from my father's estate may be paid in equal amounts to my wife and to each of my children, and to the widows of Watson and Oliver Brown, by my brother.

John Brown.

John Avis, Witness.

_______________

• See Codicil to John Brown’s Last Will and Testament, December 2, 1859

SOURCES: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 616-7

Codicil to John Brown’s Last Will and Testament, December 2, 1859

Charlestown, Jefferson County, Va., Dec. 2, 1859.

It is my desire that my wife have all my personal property not previously disposed of by me; and the entire use of all my landed property during her natural life; and that, after her death, the proceeds of such land be equally divided between all my then living children; and that what would be a child's share be given to the children of each of my two sons who fell at Harper's Ferry; and that a child's share be divided among the children of my now living children who may die before their mother (my present beloved wife). No formal will can be of use when my expressed wishes are made known to my dutiful and beloved family.

John Brown.

My Dear Wife, — I have time to enclose the within and the above, which I forgot yesterday, and to bid you another farewell. “Be of good cheer,” and God Almighty bless, save, comfort, guide, and keep you to the end!

Your affectionate husband,

John Brown.

SOURCES: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 617

John Brown’s Instructions for his Tombstone Inscription

TO BE INSCRIBED ON THE OLD FAMILY MONUMENT AT NORTH ELBA.

Oliver Brown, born ——, 1839, was killed at Harper's Ferry, Va., Oct. 17, 1859.

Watson Brown, born ——, 1835, was wounded at Harper's Ferry, Oct. 17, and died Oct. 19, 1859. (My wife can fill up the blank dates as above.)

John Brown, born May 9, 1800, was executed at Charlestown, Va., Dec. 2, 1859.

_______________

[NOTE: These directions were delivered to Mrs. Brown after John Brown’s execution.]

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 617

John Knight to William Craft, October 22, 1850 – 11 p.m.

Boston, Oct. 22, 1850, 11 Oclk P. M.

Wm. Craft — Sir — I have to leave so Eirley in the moring that I cold not call according to promis, so if you want me to carry a letter home with me, you must bring it to the United States Hotel to morrow and leave it in box 44, or come your self to morro eavening after tea and bring it. let me no if you come your self by sending a note to box 44 U. S. Hotel so that I may know whether to wate after tea or not by the Bearer. If your wife wants to see me you cold bring her with you if you come your self.

JOHN KNIGHT.

P. S. I shall leave for home eirley a Thursday moring. J. K.

SOURCE: William Still, The Underground Railroad: A Record of Facts, Authentic Narratives, Letters &c., p. 372

George S. Denison to Salmon P. Chase, December 25, 1862

(Private)

New Orleans, December 25th, 1862.

Dear Sir: The mail has just arrived and I see that, among other charges, Gen. Butler is accused of interfering in various ways with the Custom House, to the great injury of commerce.

Gen. Butler has interfered with the Custom House in four instances, but not more.

1st. He ordered me not to permit the shipment of specie and plate, without his written consent to each shipment. His object was to prevent property liable to confiscation, being removed from the country. The Prussian Bark, “Essex,” had received on board several large cases of silver — and by Gen. Butler's orders, I refused a clearance until these cases were delivered up. They were delivered up, and clearance was then granted.

2nd. Gen. B. took possession of about $2,000. worth of printer's paper in the warehouse, for his official newspaper, “The Delta” —on the ground that it was a military necessity.

3rd. He took possession of forty barrels of brandy (imported two or three years ago) for hospital purposes — as a military necessity.

4th. He took possession of ten bales of blankets for hospital purpose, as a military necessity.

In each of the last three instances, I have his written order to deliver up the articles to the officer presenting the order — and in each he settled, I suppose, with the owners of the articles. Except in the above instances, Gen. Butler has not interfered with the Custom House business. I make this statement for your information.

I send you a paper containing Gen. Butler's farewell address, and Gen. Banks' proclamation concerning the Emancipation Proclamation. Each article explains itself. From appearances, I judge that Gen. Butler intends to join the extreme radicals, as the Democratic papers term the only party which (as it seems to me) appreciates the position. The Texas men are bitterly disappointed that they cannot invade Texas at once, and think great injustice has been done them. It seems to me that the thorough opening of the river is of most consequence just now — after which the whole Southwest falls easily. Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas are pretty well drained of men, but full of corn and cattle. The Rebels would like to retreat thither, but if the river is opened at once, they will be forced back toward, or into, Alabama. With the loss of the Three Southwestern states, the rebels lose one-half their material resources. They could not break through the line of defence (Mississippi River) to recover it. In no other way can the Confederate cause be so much injured, with so little expenditure on the part of the Gov't. of men, time and money. The Arkansas, White and Red Rivers and, in Louisiana, various bayous, enable Gunboats to penetrate in all directions to the heart of the country. Fifty thousand men, together with the Union forces now in Arkansas and at El Paso (Texas), would be fully able to accomplish this in two or three months, after the opening of the river — and provided Emancipation attended the march, success would be absolutely certain. Louisiana is virtually subdued already and wishes herself back in the Union. 1 hope Gen. Banks will adopt some such plan as the above and have told him so. Lest he might mistake my political position, I took the first opportunity to tell him also, what my opinions were, particularly in regard to Slavery.

According to the best information I can get — the rebels have at Vicksburg 12,000 men — at Jackson (and Grenada), 40,000 — & at Port Hudson, 20,000. The men are said to be deserting very fast. Port Hudson is twenty miles above Baton Rouge and is said to be much stronger than Vicksburg. Many believe that to be the point (instead of Vicksburg) where the great fight will be.

Our troops are moving up to Baton Rouge, where perhaps 20,000 have already arrived. All the old (Butler's) regiments will probably be sent up. I should judge that the attack on Port Hudson would take place in about ten days. Gen. Banks is expected to command in person.

Mobile is not fortified with such strength as is represented by Southern accounts. The Rebel gunboats there are of very little account. I have just seen a reliable (white) man who escaped from there five weeks ago. Admiral Farragut can take the place whenever he chooses.

Please do not authorize more officers for the Appraiser's Department, to be sent here from New York. One, Mr. Paulson, appointed by your order, has just arrived. He is one too much. I understand still another is to come. I want to keep down expenses, and this expense is entirely unnecessary. Mr. Sarjeant did wrong in making such representations as he did to you, concerning the want of Examiners here.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 342-4

John M. Forbes & William H. Aspinwall to Salmon P. Chase, April 18, 1863

London, April 18,1863.

SIR, — We beg leave to inform you that we have obtained a loan of £500,000, for the period of six months, from Messrs. Baring Brothers & Co., on the deposit of $4,000,000 of the 5-20 bonds handed us, and with the understanding that, in case of the issuing of letters of marque to cruise against British vessels, they shall have a right to claim a prompt reimbursement of their advance, by sale or otherwise, as you may elect. The existing agitation of the public mind, both in and out of Parliament, rendered this condition a sine quâ non, and we may safely express our doubt if any other house would have undertaken to make the loan; certainly none on terms so liberal. . . .

We wait impatiently the promised official statement of funded and floating debt, amount of currency notes, etc., and also of revenue from imports and from internal sources; they are much needed to remove the almost incredible misapprehensions which have been produced by false or undefined newspaper articles. . . .

Your obedient servants,

W. H. Aspinwall,

J. M. Forbes.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 41-2

Commandant Samuel F. DuPont to Gustavus V. Fox, December 16, 1861

Private

Wabash, 16 Dec

Port Royal

My Dear Sir

I have been merged in reports, surveys, sick, broken machinery &c, so this mail by Atlantic our favorite steamer only takes just such things and no general report of my proceedings which Mr. Welles and yrself would like to have. So I will jot down whatever comes up first.

1". Sherman thinks Fernandina wholly secondary now, and it must fall with Savannah. While I want to take it, more because it entered the original programme, and because it is a nice naval operation, though I am much of the same opinion. With this Harb. St. Helena, and Tybee Sound in the very centre of the stations we have as many harbours of refuge as I want — but I think it may help the Union people to hoist the flag there and so soon as Davis closes up Charleston with the Stone vessels I will take the matter up. In the meantime the Genl has unloaded the vessels — for which he was paying exorbitantly I mean those intended for F. and when I can get ready — if he gives me a Regiment with the marines, it may be quite enough to hold the place. The taking it will not be much, with my present knowledge of it.

2. I shall have Charleston closed this week. Davis was to sail this morg — but the Easterly weather makes work impossible on these bars, particularly with the hulks drawing so much water — they have been very troublesome, but will all pay in some way or other. I gave two yesterday unfit to go to sea again to the QrMaster for wharf and breakwater. The same for sheltering a landing on Tybee very necessary. Davis thinks he will succeed in closing main entrance at Charleston and so do I. Boutelle thinks not, but we will see — if it lasts till March or April it will be worth all the trouble.

3. The Sabine came in yesterday in want of water. St. Lawrence already in for the same purpose. Susquehannah out of coal and then the lame ducks in machinery and the easterly wind keeping in Drayton who with a Division is going to North Edisto and Stono. I felt almost sick at seeing so many vessels in port—but there will be a scattering tomorrow.

I cannot water the Sabine from our resources, she wants some repairs and she may as well go North. Ringgold has shown a good spirit and wishes to be fitted up and sent immediately back, but I declare to you in confidence you can keep her if you can find any use for her but do send me a gun boat or two. The St. Lawrence ought to go home too but I may force her into Brunswick and I am going to send R. Rodgers to reconnoitre there.

The Seminole is next to nothing because she can catch nothing. The Forbes goes to-day. I recommend sending her crew to the Recg. Ship and laying her up until the repairs are completed and then recommissioning — in this way we get rid of poor Newcomb without any notification to him — he is wholly incompetent to command such a vessel and she was the most valuable steamer of her size in my squadron. I have given her rifle gun to Missroon — who is anxious in his responsible position but the very man to be there. I am hurrying Sherman to get his guns down there.

4. All well at St. Helena under Nicholson and Truxtun. The Dale is paying for herself there. Henry Andrew just back from there — made the trip over via Beaufort and Coosaw in five hours! Luce went in her — reports highly as every body does of Mather her Capt. I am going to collect the Cotton again around that Sound letting the Andrew go around. There is much to be had and Nicholson and Truxtun want employment. The Gov. here shirks this cotton question, but I do not care for that. I collect it to keep it from being burnt.

5. Many thanks for Vermont. She will be all in all. She should have a condenser and a place fitted for Machine Shop. Sailing vessels are a drug, but steamers have their weak side — the breaking downs break my heart. Unadilla, Forbes, Flag, Florida, Seminole, tinkering all the time, and the three first done — Susquehannah touch and go. If you would like me to break up the inland Rebel Steamers I must have more Gunboats. Where is the Adger — all this time at Balt^o?

The most active vessel I have after the Gunboats is the Pawnee since she is under Drayton. How came his predecessor in command again after giving up so fine a ship, every one is speaking about it here.

Sherman is preparing for his campaign. I think he knows what he is about, and seems confident of doing something. I wish I could feel any degree of confidence in his troops. Some of our officers the other night while up beyond Beaufort, went out to the outer pickets and found every mother's son asleep and that is not all, they were a long time awaking them.

I am asked every day about that detailed report — do have it published. In great haste

Yrs most truly

S. F. Dupont

A Condenser in the Vermont — see King's report.

Tell Bridge no tobacco nor soap in Relief. Much wanted.

SOURCE: Robert Means Thompson & Richard Wainwright, Editors, Publications of the Naval Historical Society, Volume 9: Confidential Correspondence of Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 1861-1865, Volume 1, p. 78-81

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, April 18, 1864

The steamer Chenango exploded her boilers in New York Harbor, and I feared there might have been mischief, such as [an] incendiary shell in the coal, but the reports indicate that such was not the case.

I am gratified to find so many sagacious and able naval officers sustaining me and my course in relation to Du Pont. There is no man in the service who is so skillful and successful at intrigue as S. F. Du Pont. He has his cliques and has laid his plans adroitly, and may, for a time, be successful in deceiving the public by artful means, but it cannot last. Truth is mighty and will prevail.

Stocks have had a heavy fall to-day in New York, and there are reported failures. It is a temporary check, I apprehend, a reaction or pause resulting from some action of Mr. Chase in New York. He has doubtless effected a loan with the banks, and they have closed on some of their customers. Money, or investments, are tending to government securities, rather than railroad and other like investments, for the moment.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 14-5

Diary of Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes: October 31, 1863

On the 28th General Kelley reviewed the Third Brigade, [and] General Duffie's cavalry. A beautiful day; a fine spectacle. I had only nine companies of the Twenty-third here — a small affair. General Kelley is a gentlemanly man of fifty to sixty; not an educated man — nothing particularly noticeable about him. [The] 29th, the three generals with their young ladies, Miss Jones, Miss Scammon, and Miss Smith and staffs went to Fayette. I [am] left in command here at Charleston. [The] 29th, got into new quarters — wall-tents on boards.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 443

John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, October 25, 1830

Monmouth, Oct. 25th, 1830.

In answering your last, I will commence at home. Your friendly feelings have associated my name, in a certain contingency, with the senatorial election. A number of partial friends from other counties, and among them some of your fellow-members of the Legislature, have hinted the same thing, and I believe, if my political sentiments upon the great national questions which are now discussed were better understood, I should stand a respectable poll. I have, however, thus far succeeded by adhering to a rule, from which I must not now depart — to establish my reputation in the office conferred upon me before I seek another. The people expect that I will faithfully perform the responsible duties now confided to me, not only the duties of chancellor, but reporting my own decisions, and their expectations shall be fulfilled if in my power. Besides, much of my future reputation will depend upon these official opinions, and I am content to abide by the judgment which shall be pronounced upon them, not for the evidences of superior talent they are to exhibit, but for the marks of industry and a conscientious regard for the rights of suitors which they shall manifest. Under these circumstances, I would not, I assure you, become a candidate, even though my election was certain. I am induced by your frankness thus to give you my notions, the loud thoughts of a constituent and friend, who will ever counsel with and advise you, and never quarrel, although you may differ from him. I note what you say about Mr. Poindexter. I respect the feeling that makes you prefer your father's friend. I marked this as one of your characteristics when you were in my office, and it first attracted me to you. I, too, would prefer Poindexter if he had health and his former vigor. Our friends M'Niel and Merrick both saw him at Louisville, and they assure mo that he is unable to stand or move. What are we to do? We must have an intellectual man. R. J. Walker tells mo ho will not be a candidate. What is to be done but to take Wilkins? You are wrong in thinking that he does not desire the place. I am sure he does. Whether all his doctrines square with your and my views, is proper subject for inquiry.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 96-7

Alexander H. Stephens to the Editor of the Federal Union,* August 30, 1848

Clinton, Ga. 30th, Aug., 1848.

Mr. Editor: In passing through this place, I have just seen your paper of yesterday's date which contains some enquiries addressed to me, to which I cannot hesitate to give a prompt reply “in such reasonable length and respectful terms” as to secure, I trust, a place in your columns.

And that I may be distinctly understood, I will give the entire communication and my answer to each enquiry in order:

To The Hon. A. H. Stephens:

It is known to you, that your motion to lay upon the table the “Compromise bill”¹ of the Senate, during the late session of Congress, has produced considerable excitement in this district. You have been nominated as the Whig candidate for re-election. If you should have opposition, it is scarcely to be doubted that this bill will be the main issue involved in the canvass. It is therefore eminently desirable that your sentiments should be clearly understood as to what are the rights of the South and how far they are affected by the bill. A careful perusal of your speech has left our mind in doubt as to your opinion upon several essential points. We therefore venture respectfully to propound to you a few interrogatories, to which we ask a reply.

I. Do you believe that Congress has the right under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the territories belonging to the United States?

To your first enquiry I answer, that I do not believe that Congress has the right, either in honor, justice or good faith, to prohibit slavery in the territories belonging to the United States and thus to appropriate the public Domain entirely to the benefit of the people of the non-slaveholding states — and hence I have uniformly voted against the Oregon bill which contained a section excluding slavery, notwithstanding most if not all my Democratic colleagues have repeatedly voted for a bill organizing a Government there with such exclusion — and notwithstanding Mr. Polk has lately signed a bill which contained such an exclusion.

So far as New Mexico and California are concerned, and towards which your enquiries are doubtless mainly directed, there is no express provision in the Constitution which applies either directly or indirectly to them. They are to be considered as acquired by conquest, and there is no article or clause in the Constitution that relates in the remotest degree to the government of conquests. I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that such a contingency would ever happen — and hence the silence of the Constitution upon that subject. But as the Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly held the doctrine that the power to make conquest does belong to the General Government, though not expressly granted, it is not my purpose to say anything upon that point now. The only point in your enquiry relates to the government of the conquest, and to that point I answer explicitly that I consider the conquest, according to the best authorities upon the laws of nations, as belonging to the people of the United States — to all the citizens of the United States, the South as well as the North. When the treaty is fully complied with these provinces will constitute a public domain acquired by the common valor, blood and treasure of all. And in the government of them the rights and interests of the South should be looked to, guarded and protected as well as the North by all proper and necessary laws. Until they are admitted into the United States the government of them must devolve upon Congress or such territorial legislatures as may be created and authorized by Congress. And any legislation by Congress or by the territorial legislatures which would exclude slavery would be in direct violation of the rights of the Southern people to an equal participation in them and in open derogation of that equality between the states of the South and North which should never [be] surrendered by the South. And I hold also that any legislation by Congress or by the territorial legislatures which does not secure and protect the rights of the South as fully and as completely in the enjoyment of their property in slaves as it does the rights of the people of the North in the enjoyment of their property in these territories is manifestly unjust, in violation of the rights of the South, and a surrender of that equality between the different members of this confederacy which shall never be made by my sanction.

Your second enquiry is in the following words:

II. From your replies to Mr. Stanton of Tennessee, on pages 10 and 11 of your speech, we clearly infer that it is your opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee to the slaveholder the right to remove with his property into any territory of the United States and to be protected in the undisturbed use and enjoyment of his slaves as property. Do we properly construe your meaning?

And in reply you will allow me to say that you seem greatly to misapprehend my answer to Mr. Stanton. The purport of my answer to him was (I have not the speech before me) that the Constitution did secure and guarantee the rights of the master to his slave in every state and territory of the Union where slavery was not prohibited by law. But that it did not establish it in any territory or State where it was so prohibited. And the same I reaffirm. It is too plain a question to admit of argument. It is one of those truths which under our system of government may be considered as a political axiom. Everybody knows that the Constitution secures and guarantees property in slaves in Georgia and in all the slave States, but that it does not secure the use and enjoyment of such property in New York or any of the States where slavery is prohibited.

Your third question is in the following words:

III. If the right spoken of in the 2d question does exist under the Constitution in reference to territory generally, does it exist in relation to New Mexico and California?

And in answer to it I say that I hold that the Constitution does secure and guarantee the rights of the master to property in his slave in all the territories belong to the United States where slavery is not prohibited. With regard to the territories, the same principle holds which is applicable to the states. I do not maintain the position that slavery cannot be maintained without positive law. But I say that according to all the decisions of all the courts I have ever seen in all civilized nations, it cannot be maintained and protected where it is prohibited by express law. In all the states of this Union where it is not prohibited, the Constitution secures and protects it; but in those states where it is prohibited it does not protect it further than to provide for the recapture of runaway slaves — and the same principle I have no doubt from the decisions of the Supreme Court would by that tribunal be held to be applicable to the territories. By the Missouri Compromise slavery was prohibited from all that portion of the Louisiana cession out of Missouri, North of 36:30 degrees of North latitude. Slavery by that Compromise was in effect abolished in all that territory. For by the laws in force in the territory at the time of the acquisition slavery was recognised and had existence. There is a large territory now unoccupied which is embraced in the provisions of that Compromise and from which by that Compromise slavery is prohibited. And can any man believe that if a slaveholder should carry his slave into that territory where slavery is prohibited, that the Supreme Court of the United States would recognise his right and protect him in holding his slave there?

It is not my purpose now to speak of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise — I am speaking of it as a practical question under the decisions of the Supreme Court; and according to principles settled by that Court, does any man believe that the rights of the master would be protected by that Court in that territory, or any other territory of the United States, where slavery is prohibited, until the prohibition is removed by competent authority, any more than in a State where slavery is prohibited? In New Mexico and California slavery was abolished and prohibited by express law at the time of the conquest. And according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which no man can gainsay or deny; (I mean the fact of the decisions; I do not now speak of their correctness), all the laws which were of force at the time of the conquest will continue in force until altered by competent authority, except such as were inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the stipulations of the treaty. Is the prohibition of slavery by the local law of any state or place inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States? If it is, those laws of New Mexico and California will become abrogated and necessarily cease to operate upon the final fulfilment of the treaty stipulations. But if the prohibition of slavery by the local law of any state or place is not inconsistent with the Constitution according to the decisions of the Supreme Court, they will of course remain of force until altered by competent authority. My own opinion is, that neither the existence of slavery or non-existence of it by the local law of any place is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. The Constitution extends over states where slavery exists as well as where it is prohibited. Slavery depends upon the law of the place, which may be either written or unwritten. And where it exists the Constitution protects it, but it does not establish it where it is prohibited.

I have heard some argue that the laws in New Mexico and California prohibiting slavery there were similar to the laws concerning the establishment of religion. I consider the cases totally different. for this plain reason: An established religion is inconsistent with an express provision of the Constitution.

But the non-existence or prohibition of slavery by the local law of any State or place is not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. It is in vain for any man to attempt to deceive himself or others upon this point. And it is worse than in vain to attempt to make the Southern people believe that any right was secured to them by the late proposed Compromise bill which without any legal protection referred the matter to the Supreme Court. The only right it pretended to secure was the right of a law suit — and that existed without the Compromise just as amply and as fully as it did under it. And under the circumstances if any man can suppose that the Court, at the end of the suit, would decide in favor of the rights of the Southern people, he cannot doubt but that the same decision would be made even if the Wilmot Proviso were passed.

But to proceed to your fourth question, which is as follows:

IV. We infer from the tenor of your speech that you do not believe the right exists in relation to New Mexico and California, because of the decrees of 1829 and 1837 abolishing slavery throughout the Republic of Mexico. If so, what right of the South is surrendered by the Compromise bill, and how is it surrendered?

To this I answer that your inference is entirely wrong. I do believe that we of the South have a right to an equal participation in this acquisition, notwithstanding the decrees and acts of Mexico abolishing and prohibiting slavery in New Mexico and California — and a right that I never intend to abandon or surrender by my vote. It is the right which belongs to us as a portion of the conquerors of the country. It is public property, belonging as I have said before to all the citizens of the country — to the people of the South as well as the North. It is common property, and the principles applicable to it are well expressed by Vattel, as follows:

All the members of a corporation have an equal right to the use of the common property. But respecting the manner of enjoying it, the body of the corporation may make such regulations as they think proper, provided that those regulations be not inconsistent with that equality of right which ought to be preserved in a communion of property. Thus a corporation may determine the use of a common forest or a common pasture, either allotting it to all the members, according to their wants, or allotting each an equal share, but they have no right to exclude any one of the members, or to make a distinction to his disadvantage, by assigning him a less share than that of the others. (Vattel's L[aw of] Nations], 113.)

These are the principles I hold: Congress has no right to exclude the South from an equal share, and it is the duty of Congress to see that the rights of the South are as amply protected as the rights of the North. And it was this right of legal protection for the property of the South that was surrendered in that bill. If Congress has the power to declare exactly how far the interests of the North shall be protected, if they have the power to extend the Missouri Compromise line, they certainly have the power to say in clear and distinct words that up to that line on the South the rights of the South shall be protected — and not after prohibiting us from going North of that line leave us to contest with the Courts our rights on the South of it. This is what the Compromise bill did. It excluded us from the whole of Oregon, and left us to the Courts to decide whether we should be allowed to carry and hold our property in New Mexico and California. For such a Compromise I shall never vote.

Your fifth question is as follows:

V. If by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, we have not the right to carry our slaves into these territories, we ask, upon what principle do you claim it, in behalf of your constituents? Do you claim it, upon the broad principle of justice arising from the fact that It is the fruit of common blood and common treasure? If so, do you expect Congress, constituted as it now is, or is hereafter likely to be, will ever recognise this principle of justice, and by positive legislation authorise the extension of slavery into those territories?

And in answer I say, that I do claim it “upon the broad principle of justice arising from the fact that it is the fruit of common blood and common treasure.” And I do expect that Congress constituted as it is will recognise this principle of justice when the South presents an unbroken front, as it ought to do, against paying one dollar for the territories unless this justice is awarded to them; and you will here permit me to bring to your mind a reminiscence not inapplicable on the present occasion. When the annexation of Texas was at first started by Mr. Tyler, by a treaty which left this question of vital importance to the South unsettled, I opposed it. I was then bitterly assailed by the paper which you now conduct for opposition to this great Southern measure upon all occasions when I addressed the people of Georgia. In 1844, I declared that I was in favor of the annexation of Texas upon proper principles — but I was utterly opposed to the Tyler treaty for several reasons, the main one of which was that the slave question was left open in it, the rights of the South were not secured by it, and that I should never vote for any plan of annexation that did not settle this question in the compact of union and secure these rights in terms clearly and distinctly defined. This position I maintained in your own city, and if you will turn to the files of the Federal Union and examine an editorial of the first week in July, 1844, I think you will see that this position of mine was alluded to and it was denounced as amounting to a total opposition to the whole measure and it was said (I quote from memory) that I was insisting upon what never could be obtained. But I had taken my position firmly, not to be deterred by any fears or alarms or denunciations. And from that position and its success a profitable lesson may now be learnt. I made a speech in Congress when a plan for annexation similar to the Tyler treaty was offered, in which I maintained the same position and stated the only grounds upon which I should vote for annexation. They were the same grounds which I had advocated throughout 1844. Seven Southern Whigs stood by me — we held the balance of power in the House. And when all other plans offered (and there were a number) failed (neither of which secured the rights of the South), then Mr. Brown (after conference with me and others) offered his with the Missouri Compromise in it; and that passed by my vote and the other seven Whigs, and it could not have passed in the Committee of the Whole House without our votes, as the proceedings of the House will show. The firm and inflexible course I and seven other Southern Whigs took upon that question secured the rights of the South and obtained the establishment of the Missouri Compromise, which it was said by the Federal Union could never be obtained. And if a similar course shall be taken and maintained by all parties at the South, the same Compromise or one as good can be obtained again. I have taken the same stand now and I intend to maintain it in defiance of all assaults and denunciations that may be made against me from any and every quarter.

The sixth and last of your enquiries, is as follows:

VI. If you should be of opinion that we have the constitutional right to carry our slaves into these territories, would you sooner risk the recognition and vindication of that right before Congress where there is a decided majority in both branches against us, or before the Supreme Court where it is well known that a majority of the Bench are from slaveholding States?

We are aware, that you deprecate in very strong terms any reference to the complexion of the Supreme Court upon this subject. Tour deprecation may be the result of a sentiment which we by no means condemn. Yet we do not agree with you in its application in this instance. The South are in a minority, we fear a doomed minority, on this subject, and we are therefore disposed to vindicate our rights by all honorable means. We certainly should not refuse to accept justice because the tribunal to whom we apply are supposed to be favorable to our cause. With all deference to your views on this point, we must be indulged in the belief that your indignation savors more of transcendentalism than of sound, practical statesmanship.

To this I answer that I consider the reference of this subject to the Supreme Court as a total abandonment of the question by the South. According to repeated decisions of that court upon the principles involved in it, I cannot see how any man can look upon it in any other light. But I will here say, that I am opposed to referring any political question to that court. And as a Representative in Congress, as long as I shall have the honor of remaining there, I shall never avoid responsibility by turning any question over to the Supreme Court or any other body. I shall, as I have heretofore done, maintain the equal and just rights of my constituents upon all questions; and I shall demand that they be clearly and distinctly recognised by Congress, that they may be amply protected by all others before whom they may come for action; and when these rights are left to the courts to determine, by my sanction they shall be so clearly set forth and defined that the courts shall be bound to protect them, in their decisions. And I say to you and the people of the 7th. Congressional District, that I shall never return as your and their Representative and tell them I have secured their rights by getting an act passed which will enable them to carry their slaves to California and New Mexico to encounter a law suit whenever they get there, which will cost more than their slaves are worth. If I can never get a better compromise for them than such an one as that, I shall never agree to any at all. They have that right independently of any thing I can do for them, and that is a right which no act of Congress can deprive them of.

_______________

* From the Federal Union, Milledgerllle, Ga., Sept. 12, 1848.

¹ The Clayton compromise hill.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 117-24

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: November 4, 1863

Mr. M——, Major Ruffin’s commissary agent, denies selling government beef to the butchers; of course it was his own. But he has been ordered not to sell any more, while buying for the government.

Mr. Rouss, of Winchester, merchant, has succeeded in getting some brown cotton from the manufacturer, in Georgia, at cost, which he sells for cost and carriage to refugees. My wife got 20 yards to-day for $20. It is brown seven-eighth cotton, and brings in other stores $3 per yard. This is a saving of $40. And I bought 24 pounds of bacon of Capt. Warner, Commissary, at $1 per pound. The retail price is $2.50 — and this is a saving of $36. Without such “short cuts” as these, occasionally, it would be impossible to maintain my family on the salaries my son Custis and myself get from the government, $3000.

How often have I and thousands in our youth expressed the wish to have lived during the first Revolution, or rather to have partaken of the excitements of war! Such is the romance or “enchantment” which “distance lends” “to the view.” Now we see and feel the horrors of war, and we are unanimous in the wish, if we survive to behold again the balmy sunshine of peace, that neither we nor our posterity may ever more be spectators of or participants in another war. And yet we know not how soon we might plunge into it, if an adequate necessity should arise. Henceforth, in all probability, we shall be a military people. But I shall seek the peaceful haunts of quiet seclusion, for which I sigh with great earnestness. O for a garden, a vine and fig-tree, and my library!

Among the strange events of this war, not the least is the position on slavery (approving it) maintained by the Bishop of Vermont.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 88

Diary of 1st Sergeant John L. Ransom: December 25, 1864

Christmas day and didn't hang up my stocking. No matter, it wouldn't have held anything. Last Christmas we spent on Belle Island, little thinking long imprisonment awaiting us. Us escaped men are to ride in a forage wagon. The army is getting ready to move. Are now twenty-four miles from Savannah and rebels falling back as we press ahead. Night.—At about nine o'clock this morning as we sat in the forage wagon top of some corn riding in state, I saw some cavalry coming from the front. Soon recognized Col. Acker at the head of the 9th Michigan Cavalry. Jumped out of the wagon and began dancing and yelling in the middle of the road and in front of the troop. Col. Acker said: “Get out of the road you lunatic!” Soon made myself known and was like one arisen from the dead. Major Brockway said: [“]Ransom, you want to start for home. We don't know you, you are dead. No such man as Ransom on the rolls for ten months.” All remember me and are rejoiced to see me back again. Lieut. Col. Way, Surgeon, Adjutant, Sergeant-Major, all shake hands with me. My company “A” was in the rear of the column, and I stood by the road as they moved along, hailing those I recognized. In every case had to tell them who I was and then would go up and shake hands with them at the risk of getting stepped on by the horses. Pretty soon Co. “A” appeared, and wasn't they surprised to see me. The whole company were raised in Jackson, Mich., my home, and I had been regarded as dead for nearly a year. Could hardly believe it was myself that appeared to them. Every one trying to tell me the news at home all at the same time — how I was reported, as having died in Richmond and funeral sermon preached. How so and so had, been shot and killed, &c., &c. And then I had to tell them of who of our regiment had died in Andersonville — Dr. Lewis, Tom McGill and others. Although Jimmy Devers did not belong to our regiment, many in our company knew him, and I told them of his death. Should have said that as soon as I got to the company, was given Capt. Johnson's lead horse to ride, without saddle or bridle and nothing but a halter to hang on with. Not being used to riding, in rebel dress — two or three pails hanging to me — I made a spectacle for them all to laugh at. It was a time of rejoicing. The Buck boys did not get out of the wagon with me and so we became separated without even a good bye. Before I had been with the company half an hour Gen. Kilpatrick and staff came riding by from the rear, and says to Capt. Johnson: “Captain, I hear one of your company has just joined you after escaping from the enemy.” Capt. Johnson said, “Yes, sir,” and pointed to me as a Sergeant in his company. General Kilpatrick told me to follow him and started ahead at a break neck pace. Inasmuch as the highway was filled with troops, Gen. Kilpatrick and staff rode at the side, through the fields, and any way they could get over the ground. The horse I was on is a pacer and a very hard riding animal and it was all I could do to hang on. Horse would jump over logs and come down an all fours ker-chug, and I kept hoping the general would stop pretty soon; but he didn't. Having no saddle or anything to guide the brute, it was a terrible hard ride for me, and time and again if I had thought I could fall off without breaking my neck should have done so. The soldiers all along the line laughed and hooted at the spectacle and the staff had great sport, which was anything but sport for me. After a while and after riding five or six miles, Kilpatrick drew up in a grove by the side of the road and motioning me to him, asked me when I escaped, etc. Soon saw I was too tired and out of breath. After resting a few minutes I proceeded to tell him what I knew of Savannah, the line of forts around the city, and of other fortifications between us and the city, the location of the rivers, force of rebels, etc. Asked a great many questions and took down notes, or rather the chief of staff, Estes by name, did. After an extended conversation a dispatch was made up and sent to Gen. Sherman who was a few miles away, with the endorsement that an escaped prisoner had given the information and it was reliable. General Kilpatrick told me I would probably not be called upon to do any more duty as I had done good service as a prisoner of war. Said he would sign a furlough and recommend that I go home as soon as communication was opened. Thanked me for information and dismissed me with congratulations on my escape. Then I waited until our company, “A,” came up and joined them, and here I am encamped with the boys, who are engaged in getting supper. We are only twelve or fourteen miles from Savannah and the report in camp is to the effect that the city has been evacuated with no fight at all. Fort McAllister was taken to-day, which being the key to Savannah, leaves that city unprotected, hence the evacuation. Communication will now be opened with the gunboats on the coast and I will be sent home to Michigan. I mess with Capt. Johnson and there is peace and plenty among us. I go around from mess to mess this pleasant night talking with the boys, learning and telling the news. O. B. Driscoll, Al. Williams, Sergt. Smith, Mell Strickland, Sergt. Fletcher, Teddy Fox, Lieut. Ingraham and all the rest think of something new every few minutes, and I am full. Poor Robt. Strickland, a boy whom I enlisted, was shot since starting out on this march to the sea. Others too, whom I left well are now no more. The boys have had a long and tedious march, yet are all in good health and have enjoyed the trip. They never tire of telling about their fights and skirmishes, and anecdotes concerning Kilpatrick, who is well liked by all the soldiers. Am invited to eat with every mess in the company, also at regimental headquarters, in fact, anywhere I am a mind to, can fill. And now this Diary is finished and is full. Shall not write any more, though I hardly know how I shall get along, without a self-imposed task of some kind.

SOURCE: John L. Ransom, Andersonville Diary, p. 157-9

_______________

SEE ALSO:

• The Finis