Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, April 16, 1866

Senator Doolittle came yesterday. I told him I had seen the President on Saturday and learned from him that he (D.) had been at the Mansion on Friday evening. I made known to him the feelings of the President and that he was not prepared for an open rupture, but Doolittle said that would not do. The President must act promptly. We were losing by delay. Wanted to know how Dennison stood and asked me to go with him and call on Dennison.

But the Governor was not in, and we went on to the President's, whose carriage was standing at the door. I said we must not deter the President from his ride, he took so little exercise. Patterson, his son-in-law, we met at the top of the stairs, who told us the President had company through the day, that Smythe had been there and it was, he thought, definitely settled that S. should be Collector at New York. Smythe, from what I hear of him, is better than some of the candidates, perhaps better than any. It has occurred to me that certain New York gentlemen were selecting for themselves, rather than the Administration.

Passing Montgomery Blair's with a view of calling on his father, the former came to the door and asked me in, while he sent for his father. As usual, the Judge was strong in his opinions against Seward, Stanton, and others. He predicts another revolution or rebellion as the inevitable consequence of measures now being pursued. Says there will be two governments organized here in Washington.

Maynard of Tennessee made a similar suggestion at my house two or three evenings since. He believes that the Senators and Representatives of the next Congress will appear from all the States, that those from the Rebel States will, with the Democratic Members from the loyal States, constitute a majority, that they will organize and by resolution dispense with the test oath and have things their own way. The extreme and reprehensible course of the Radicals is undoubtedly hurrying on a crisis, which will overwhelm them, if it does not embroil, perhaps subvert, the government, but the South is too exhausted and the Northern Democrats too timid, narrow-minded, and tired for such a step.

The Fenians are reported to be gathering in some force at Eastport in Maine. The Winooski, gunboat, was sent thither last week with orders to wait instructions. Seward advised that no instructions should, for the present, be sent, but on Saturday I forwarded general orders to preserve neutrality. This evening Seward called at my house and wanted instructions sent by telegraph. Told him I had already sent by mail, but would send a telegram also.

Sperry, Postmaster at New Haven, was at my house last evening, and is very full of Connecticut parties and Connecticut politics, with a professed desire to sustain the Administration, and the usual wish to make the Party in Connecticut and the Administration identical, a work which more distinguished men than he are laboring in vain to effect, not only in that State but elsewhere. What is irreconcilable cannot be made to harmonize. The organization, or those who control the organization, of the Union Party, are studiously, designedly opposed to the Administration, and it is their purpose to break it down, provided they cannot control it and compel unconstitutional action. They have no thought for the country, but are all for party. Sperry is for himself.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 483-5

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, April 18, 1866

The President was to have sent me word when he would see Captain McKinstry, but, having failed to do so, I called on him to-day and he appointed this evening or any hour to-morrow.

Some conversation took place on the subject of New York appointments. I congratulated him that he had got the Collector and Attorney off his hands, and though I had personally but slight knowledge of either, it seemed to me they were as good as any of the candidates named. The President said he found New York broken up into cliques; that he could satisfy neither without dissatisfying all others. That all had selfish objects of their own to gratify and wished to use him for their own personal ends.

The conduct of Morgan had, he said, been very extraordinary. In all his conversations he had expressed himself in accord with the Administration on the question of the Civil Rights Bill and the veto. But he wanted the nomination of Collector should be sent in before the vote was taken, was particularly urgent on Monday morning, and from what had since transpired there was, he thinks, a sinister design. Results had shown that it was well he did not comply with Morgan's urgent request.

In nominating Stanbery to the Supreme Court, he had a desire to get a sound man on the bench, one who was right on fundamental constitutional questions. Stanbery, he says, is with us thoroughly, earnestly.

Alluding to certain persons in the Cabinet, he expressed himself with much feeling and said a proper sense of decency should prompt them to leave, provided they were not earnestly and sincerely with the Administration.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 487

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, April 19, 1866

The President last evening addressed a large concourse who assembled under a call of soldiers and sailors who desired to serenade and thank him for a proclamation in their favor for government employment. His speech is bold and well enough if it was advisable that the Chief Magistrate should address such gatherings.

Senator Trumbull called upon me this morning for the first time in several months. It was to ask a favor, and for Mrs. Trumbull more than himself. I regretted that I could not without violating regulations grant it, for both of them have been a little miffed because I opposed his two great measures which have been vetoed. The speech of the President last evening was alluded to, and Trumbull was very emphatic in condemning Presidential speechmaking. We did not greatly differ on this subject, for it has never been regarded favorably by me. Sometimes it may be excusable, but omission is better than compliance with calls from irresponsible gatherings. Frequent harangues to promiscuous crowds lessen the dignity of the President.

Passing from this subject to the condition of the country, he asked me if I was willing, or would consent, that Senators and Representatives should be admitted to take part in the Government, coming from Rebel States and districts. I told him I was most assuredly willing, provided they were loyal and duly and properly elected. "Then," inquired he, "how could you deny one a seat in Congress from South Carolina during the existence of the Rebellion?" "That," said I, "is a different question, but I am by no means prepared to say I would not have been glad to have seen a true and loyal man like Andrew Johnson, or yourself, here from that State during the War. I regretted that more did not, like Johnson, remain in 1861. Would you have expelled them?" Without answering me direct, Trumbull became a good deal excited and was very emphatic against the Rebels. I said we would have no controversy on that point. I was not their apologist, though I was not their persecutor, now that the Rebellion was suppressed. They had greatly erred and wronged us, had slain our kindred and friends, wasted our treasure, etc., but he and I should not bear resentment. We had a country to care for and should, I thought, exert ourselves to promote reconciliation and reëstablish the Union in all its integrity at the earliest attainable moment.

"Without conditions?” inquired he. "The Constitution," replied I, "provides for all that is necessary to be done. The condition of affairs is anomalous, but the path is plain. Each State is entitled to the Senators and Representatives according to population. Why are eleven unrepresented and denied their rights by an arbitrary and despotic majority of Congress?"

He imputed the difficulty chiefly to the President, who, he declared, had failed to act up to the principles of his message; and he quoted a passage. I told him the course of the President I thought perfectly consistent and I knew it was honest. But why was Tennessee, for instance, more loyal than Kentucky, excluded from representation in either branch of Congress? He said the President was to blame for that, for had he not put his veto on the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, Tennessee, and he thought Arkansas and Louisiana also, would long before this have had their Representatives in Congress. I told him this did not appear to me very enlightened and correct statesmanship. Why those States should be denied their undoubted constitutional rights, because the President and Congress disagreed, I could not understand. He complained that the President was not frank, that he had advised civil rights in his message to all, and yet vetoed the very bill which confirmed those rights.

I remarked that the subject of civil rights—personal rights—belonged to the States, not to the Federal Government. The amendment to the Constitution had abolished slavery, and the blacks had the same remedies that the whites had to preserve their freedom. That undoubtedly some of the States would, at least for a time, make discriminating laws. Illinois, I presume, did, and I thought Connecticut also. He denied that Illinois made any distinction affecting the civil rights of the negro, and asked when and in what respects the civil rights were affected in Connecticut.

"Both States," said I, "deny them suffrage, which is claimed as a right by the extreme Radicals in Congress. He said there were not ten men in Congress who took that view; there were just eight, he finally remarked in the Senate, and perhaps double that number in the House. "But," said he, "suffrage is a privilege, not a right." I remarked I so considered it, but Sumner and others took a different view. "Well, then," said he, "in what other respects are the civil rights of the negro affected?" "He is not," said I, "by our laws put on terms of equality. He is not permitted to get into the jury box; he is not allowed to act as an appraiser of property under any circumstances, and there are other matters wherein distinctions are made." "These," replied he, "are all matters of privilege.”

What, then," said I, "do you mean by civil rights? Please to define it." "The right," replied he, "to his liberty, to go and come as he pleases, have the avails of his own labor, not to be restricted in that respect. Virginia," continued he, "has passed a law that they shall not leave the estate on which they reside without a permit." I know not that Virginia denies or restricts the right to emigrate. The other rights mentioned the negro possesses.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 487-90

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, April 20, 1866

The subject of advertising came up. Dennison had made inquiry and ascertained that the Intelligencer had the largest circulation. Stanton said President Lincoln had ordered him to publish in the Chronicle. There was evidently a wish to get along without action. I advised that there should be uniformity in the Departments as to the papers employed. The President said certainly it was best there should be general accord.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 490

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, April 27, 1866

 . . . Senator Guthrie has thrown a mischievous resolution into the Senate in relation to an order forbidding officers from visiting Washington, and inquiring if any have been refused permission to come here and appeal to the President or to Congress. The object is to show that naval officers are denied the privileges of citizens, and to make out that the Navy Department is arbitrary. Senator G. seemed not aware that persons on entering the service, officers as well as privates, surrender certain privileges which private citizens enjoy who are not in the service and subsisting on the Treasury, and subject themselves to certain restraints. The inquiry is designed to get up sympathy for the officers; no interest is manifested for or given to the men, who are under greater restraint. . . . Senator Guthrie himself is guiltless of any mischievous intent and has been prompted by some one, and I cannot be mistaken as to who that some one is.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 494

Governor Rutherford B. Hayes to Guy M. Bryan, November 9, 1868

WASHINGTON, November 9, 1868.

DEAR GUY:—I came here last night chiefly to attend to your cause. The President has just given me an order for the pardon of yourself and brothers. I congratulate you all.

I concur fully with the sentiments of your letter. I hope you will all agree to one further amendment of the Constitution, viz., the basis of representation to be voters. This I deem very essential. Don't commit yourself against it until I can write you fully.

I return home tomorrow. All Cincinnati friends are well. Regards to your wife.

As ever,

R. B. HAYES.

GUY M. BRYAN,
        Texas.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 55-6

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, April 2, 1866

Called with General Bolles on the President in relation to the case of Raphael Semmes. The call was pursuant to appointment. Secretary Harlan was with the President when we called, about 1 P.M. The President inquired as soon as the subject was taken up whether any facts were yet public in relation to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Indiana cases. He said the Court was nearly tied, but that judgment would probably be rendered to-morrow, at all events within a day or two. That decision might have a bearing on Semmes's case. I remarked that it might be well to delay action until we heard from the Court. The President said he thought so and that was why he had made the inquiry, but added we might as well talk over the matter at this time and get the points designated. Bolles said he had, perhaps, no remarks to make in the present position of things, but if Semmes was not to be immediately tried, a parole would be advisable, unless the case was wholly abandoned. I remarked that it appeared to me best that he should be tried or the case abandoned, rather than have a parole. A trial would best satisfy the public and serve the ends of justice. It would place the Government in the best attitude. If tried at all it should be for violating the laws of war, — a case which the established legal tribunals could not reach. His conduct as a buccaneer or rebel in capturing and destroying the ships of peaceful merchants was not the question, but, escaping after striking his colors and sending his boat to the Kearsarge announcing his surrender, and without an exchange, he had subsequently entered first the Rebel naval service and then the military, and made war upon those who claimed him as their lawful prisoner. If in this he had not acted in bad faith and violated the usages of civilized warfare, we had no case against him. But if he had done these things, it was proper he should be tried, and it must be by a military commission, for it did not belong to the courts. It was in that view I favored a trial. The courts were proceeding against no parties for treason; partisans were blaming the President because there were no trials and convictions when it was not within his province to prosecute or try. But here was a case which belonged to him specially and no one else. Hence if he ordered Semmes to trial the country would be satisfied that he was sincere and discharging his duty towards the worst Rebels, and they would understand that the courts were not as prompt as the Executive. He would, however, await the decision of the Court.

When alone I brought up the subject of placing his son on a naval vessel. Told him of the Monocacy, Commander Carter, late brigadier-general in Tennessee. The President said at once he did not wish connection with Carter in this matter. I then mentioned the Chattanooga, Captain McKinstry. This vessel would have an interesting voyage. Stated to him the purpose of the Department in regard to her. He approved it. Said, however, it was desirble Robert should have something to do. We spoke of positions, and, perhaps the Secretary of State would find him some civil employment. This met his views. I inquired if he or I should see Seward. He desired me to do so, and, feeling that he should be relieved of the care and anxiety of a parent in this crisis, I took upon myself that object. I called immediately at the State Department. Seward, appreciating the whole case, at once entered into the subject and said he would employ Robert, whom he knew to be capable, to look into the slave-trade at Cape of Good Hope and on the African coast.

I stated to Seward that he had named too high a price for the Danish islands; that five millions was, I apprehended, more than our people would feel like giving; that I would not offer more than three. He thanked me; said he would inquire their lowest terms, that Raasloff was anxious to sell, etc., etc., but thought not less than five millions would be required.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 471-3

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, April 4, 1866

Consulted again with the President in regard to the case of Semmes. Peace having been declared in all the States and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Indiana cases—Milligan and others—being adverse to military commissions, I thought there should be prompt decision. The President inquired if it would not be best to parole him and require him to be in readiness when called. I replied it was for him to decide, but that it seemed to me best to dispose of Semmes, and if it was determined not to proceed to try him after this decision of the Court, I would advise his unconditional release rather than a parole. The President said he had some doubts, but wished to get rid of the subject, for Semmes's wife was annoying him, crying and taking on for her husband. The President has a gentle and kind heart, melted by woman's tears. I said I should be satisfied with whatever conclusion he came to; that it might go over to the next meeting of the Cabinet, or he could decide when it pleased him and send me word.

Commodore Stockton came to see me. Says things are in a satisfactory condition in the New Jersey Legislature. Is confident that his son John will be returned to the Senate with a good Johnson Republican. Is confident Scovel will hold out, and have, if necessary, others to help him; and assures me that enough Republicans will unite with the Democrats to return two such men. Wright, the present Senator, is ready for the arrangement. This may all be so, but I have grave doubts of its success. It is undoubtedly Stockton's arrangement, and he and his associates have heretofore been omnipotent in New Jersey, which is a strange State in some respects. Possibly he may succeed there. He could not in any other State. But the return of John Stockton, after what has taken place, would be honorable to New Jersey and one of the greatest triumphs that was ever achieved.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 474-5

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, April 5, 1866

The Senate did not get to a vote today on what is called the Civil Rights Bill. Much interest is felt in the result, increased by the uncertainty which exists in regard to the decision. Just about one third of the Senate is with the President, but two of the Senators are in bad health, and it is doubtful if they can be present, though it is believed they will be. Wright of New Jersey has been brought here at the peril of his life, and will, it is said, be present and vote. Dixon, long and seriously ill, rode out a short time to-day, and will attend if a time be fixed for the vote. Stewart of Nevada has persuaded himself that it is best for him to desert and go with the majority. Stockton was deprived of his seat by the Radical majority in order to carry this vote. There are some vague intimations that Morgan is equivocating and may go with Stewart, but I discredit it. He has, without direct assurance, given me to understand otherwise; took tea with me night before last, and spent an hour or more in conversation, chiefly on this subject. While I did not get or expect a pledge, I could form no other conclusion than that he approved and stands by the President's veto. He spoke, among other things, of a letter he wrote the editor of the Evening Post, indicating his difference with them on the Civil Rights Bill. In speaking of the fate of the bill in the House, in case it should pass the Senate, I alluded to the position and strong feeling of Bingham and told him what the President had that day said to me of the committals of Bingham. Morgan expressed himself highly gratified with this, for he had heard that Bingham was wavering. I, therefore, gave little heed to the insinuations that Morgan dissembles or will prove false; should not give it a second thought, did I not, since these rumors, recall a remark of Mr. George D. Morgan, that the Senator, E. D. M., would vote for the bill. But every look and thought, as well as expression, is watched and published. The sentiments, language, and course of Senator Wade and some others are in the highest degree reprehensible.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 475-6

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, April 6, 1866

The decision of the Supreme Court in the Indiana cases Milligan, Bolles, and others was discussed. Attorney-General Speed could not state exactly the points. The judges do not give their opinions until next winter. They seem to have decided against the legality of military commissions.

I inquired what should be done in Semmes's case, which had been long pending. Little was said, and the President remarked he would see me after the session, and I therefore remained. He remarked that there was a somewhat strange state of things. Grant thought the paroles he had given covered almost everything. The courts were taking up some of the cases for treason and were showing themselves against military commissions. He therefore thought it would be as well to release Semmes on his parole.

I suggested, in view of the present condition of affairs, and this late decision of the Court, that if Semmes could not have a prompt trial, it would be better to release him from his present arrest unconditionally. We already have two paroles from him, one on the surrender of the Alabama, and another at the time of Johnston's surrender. I would not take another. Nor would it be right, after holding him over three months in custody, to prolong his imprisonment.

The President assented to my suggestion and wished me to present it in some form for his action. My first thought was to place the grounds of his release, first on the proclamation, and second on the recent decision of the Supreme Court, making no allusion to Semmes's long imprisonment; but on second thought I omitted the President's own act, the proclamation, for it would be used against him by the captives.

The Senate by a vote of 33 to 15 this evening overrode the veto on the Civil Rights Bill. Wright of New Jersey was in his seat, but Dixon was not. Morgan, unexpectedly to me, and, I think, to most persons, voted with the majority. The vote of M. was one of calculation, not of conviction. I shall be disappointed if he does not lose rather than gain by the step he has taken. Such is usually the righteous termination of calculations made by scheming and ambitious men who consent to do wrong. In this instance M. may have had honest reasons. It is true he voted for the passage of the bill, but that was, as he has said to me, without much consideration given to the law, and, in repeated interviews and conversations since, he had left the impression on my mind that he should sustain the veto.

General and Mrs. Grant gave their last reception for the season this evening. Being somewhat indisposed, I did not propose to attend, but Edgar had not returned and there was no one to accompany Mrs. Welles and her friend, and I was, consequently, under the necessity of going, though afflicted with a severe headache. The party was in some respects unlike any of the season, and there was present not only a numerous but a miscellaneous company of contradictions. There had been some pre-understanding on the part of the Radicals, or a portion of them, to attend and to appropriate General Grant, or at least his name and influence, to themselves. But, most unexpectedly to them, as I confess it was to me, the President and his two daughters appeared early, and Montgomery Blair and some of his ladies were also on hand. There came also Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the late Confederacy, so called. When, therefore, Thad Stevens, Trumbull, and others, not exactly homogeneous though now acting together, came in, they were evidently astonished and amazed.

Stevens, though a brave old stager, was taken aback and showed himself discomfited. Trumbull betrayed surprise. I was not in a condition to circulate much in the crowd, but heard repeatedly, amid the exultation over the vote of the Senate, expressions of vexation that there was such a strange attendance here. Theodore Tilton, as full of fanatical, fantastical, and boyish enthusiasm as of genius and talent, but with no sensible ideas of the principles on which our government is founded or accurate knowledge of our republican federal system, or of the merits involved in pending questions, was boisterous over the result in the Senate. It was sufficient for him that a victory had been achieved for an ideal and fanciful theory, regardless of consequences, and indifferent whether we had a union or an empire, so that he could do a little more for the black man than for the white man. When a little older, if his erratic genius does not spoil him, he will be a little wiser. For a time he fastened himself on me, but I was too indisposed to do more than listen. He gloated over Morgan's vote; said he could have thrown his hat to the ceiling when he heard it, not that he cared for Morgan.

General and naval officers, as well as politicians, were present, with most of the foreign ministers. Of the Cabinet I saw none but Harlan.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 476-8

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, April 10, 1866

Though not well to-day nor for several days past, I went to Department and to Cabinet meeting. Quite a discussion on the Mexican question. Seward proposes to give Austria notice that she must not assist the Imperialists in Mexico. Some of us asked why notice to that effect had not already been served upon the French. He said the French had been notified, but there had not been sufficient time to receive an answer. I had little faith in French promises, as I have often said when this subject has been up. Dennison to-day expressed similar opinion and has always been ardent on this matter of French occupancy in Mexico. Seward showed some irritability, as I have seen him on one or two occasions when this subject has been discussed.

The President inquired privately in regard to the Chattanooga,—when she would probably be ready, what Mr. Seward thought of it, etc. I told him all was right, that the vessel would probably sail soon after the 1st prox.

The Civil Rights Bill passed the House yesterday by a vote of nearly three to one. The party drill was very effective. Only Raymond of the Radicals voted to sustain the veto. He has been general manager in the House, but could not carry a single member with him if he tried, nor could Seward help him, or he did not. All of Stanton's pets were active in opposing the veto. Bingham, who had been vehement in denouncing the bill as a bundle of unconstitutional outrages, had besought a veto, urged objections, was quieted, paired off; did not vote; listened to Stanton and could not shake off the fetters of party. Not a word escaped the President to-day on the subject, but it was evident he felt deeply. I, for one, would not introduce the topic, for I could not, unasked, state my opinions, which would be in opposition, and almost discourteous, to some of my associates. Oh, Bingham! Bingham!

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 479-80

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, April 13, 1866

I do not get well. But little of interest. British fund agents and brokers show great impudence in regard to Rebel debts and cotton loans. McHenry, Richardson, and others present plans and schemes which are deserving such a rebuke as should be felt by them and their countrymen.

Stanton made some crude suggestions for national quarantine, not very explicit, and beset with difficulties. I asked if anything of the kind had ever been attempted, if it was not a matter for State or municipal, rather than federal, regulation. He admitted it was, but the other members had not given the subject a thought and did not like to come athwart Stanton.

Doolittle called on me last night full of exceeding great trouble. Insists the President has not as yet taken so firm and decided a stand as duty requires. Wishes me to counsel and urge upon him the necessity of doing something positive. Says the impression is getting pretty universal that the President can do nothing for himself, etc., etc. There is some truth in all this; not that the President lacks courage, but he dislikes to break with those who elected him.

Doolittle wishes Speed to leave, and Stanton also. Says the first has no stamina, nor power, nor character as a lawyer. That he is the laughing-stock of the court and of the first lawyers. Does not and cannot strengthen the President. Suggests that Stanton should be turned out and that Grant should be assigned, temporarily, to the Department. Doolittle earnestly desires me to counsel the President. I told him it would be delicate for me to do so, even if invited by the President, but I would not obtrude upon him in such a matter concerning my colleagues.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 480

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, April 14, 1866

This being the anniversary of the assassination of President Lincoln, the several Departments were closed by order of the President.

Had an hour's talk with the President on several matters, but chiefly in relation to the policy of the Administration, which was brought about by my referring to the interview which I had had with Senator Doolittle on Thursday evening, and his urgent request that I would communicate with the President on the subject-matter of our consultation. I remarked that there were certain suggestions, which delicacy forbade me to mention, unsolicited, but that there was an apprehension that the Radicals were strengthening themselves by the non-action, or limited actions, of the Executive and by conceding to Members of Congress almost all opportunities [for placing] their Radical friends.

The President said it was exceedingly annoying and discouraging to witness so good a man as Doolittle desponding, and especially on the subject of removals and appointments, when Doolittle himself was not prepared to take or recommend action, even in his own State. It was true that his Cabinet was not in all respects what he wished; but he had taken it as he found it. Harlan, to be sure, came in later, but it was understood he sought and desired the position, although he had since obtained an election to the Senate. He supposed Harlan was not in accord with the policy of the Administration, and delicacy and propriety would seem to prompt him to resign. But he had, as yet, shown no disposition to give up his place. Speed, he said, certainly added no strength to the Administration, was manifestly in harmony with the Radicals, advising with and encouraging them. Delicacy should cause him, feeling as he did, to retire, but he had made no advance in that direction, nor would he, probably, uninvited. Stanton, he remarked, was claimed by the Radicals to be in their interst, and probably such was the fact, yet he had given him no intimation of that character, except in some general criticism on one or two measures in which he finally yielded and acquiesced. His Department had been an absorbing one during the War and still was formidable. To have an open rupture with him in the present condition of affairs would be embarrassing certainly, yet Stanton held on.

The delicacies and proprieties which should govern the relations that are supposed to exist between a President and his Cabinet associates—his political family, as it were—would indicate to men of proper sensibility the course which they should pursue, if they did not agree with the person whom they were expected to advise in the administration of affairs. If these three men did not approve his general policy, the President said they had not, as he was aware, disapproved of it. Statements were made in some of the Radical papers that the persons named were opposed to the Administration of which they were a part. Rumors to that effect had come to him in such a way and from such sources that he was not at liberty to doubt it. "Still they hold on here, and some of them likely report our proceedings. I do not, however, know the fact. What, then, can I do? Are these men to whom I give my confidence hypocrites, faithless, insincere, treacherous? The time has not arrived for a decisive stand. With mischievous Radical leaders, who appear to have little regard for the country, it is not a proper time to take upon ourselves other quarrels nearer home."

The President said he had borne, as well as he could, the malicious war which had been waged upon him for doing his duty, administering the Government for the whole country, not for a faction. If the schemes of the Radical managers to control the Executive had sometimes annoyed him, they had not caused him to deviate from what he was satisfied was right and for the best interest of the country. But it did grieve and wound him to witness such men as Doolittle desponding and giving way. Cowan, an intelligent, sensible, and good Senator, he said, was also complaining, and it was hard to be under the necessity of holding these men up, while compelled to encounter the whole opposition. Their discouragement afflicted him more than all that the Radicals had done or would do.

Only a day or two since Cowan had, with others, pressed earnestly for some changes in Pennsylvania which they said ought by all means to be made, and on their representations he had finally agreed to make some changes. But just as they were being ordered, Cowan began to show and have doubt, asked a suspension, and finally backed down and would consent to but two of the same changes he had urged. "These men take upon themselves no responsibility while goading me on to move, when I am breasting this storm." This he said he was ready to do. It was a duty and he could meet it, but it pained him to have good and true friends waver.

At the proper time he should be ready to act, but his friends must permit him to judge when to act. It would be pleasanter to him to have more cordiality, a more free interchange of opinions, more unity and earnestness on the part of all his Cabinet, for there was obvious distrust among them,—distrust of each other, and that on topics where the Administration was most interested.

I have given the substance and, so far as I can recall, the words. There was much desultory conversation intermixed.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 481-3

Congressman Albert G. Brown’s Speech on Homesteads, July 26, 1850

WHEN arrested in the progress of my remarks yesterday, I was about to say that I approved of the main object of the bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture, and which had been advocated with so much zeal and ability by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Johnson]. I was about to say that my judgment approved the policy of supplying, by some appropriate means, a home to every citizen.

Ours is essentially an agricultural community. The national prosperity of this country, more than any other, depends upon the production of its soil. Whatever tends to increase that production, enhances the national wealth, and, by consequence, increases the national prosperity. The first care of this nation should be to promote the happiness and prosperity of its citizens; and acting on this hypothesis, it has been my constant aim to promote the passage of all laws which tended to ameliorate the condition of the toiling millions.

I have always thought, and now think, that some salutary reform in our land system, by which a fixed and permanent home should be placed within the reach of every citizen, however humble his condition in life, would promote the national prosperity, add to the wealth of the states, and give fresh impetus to the industry and perseverance of our people.

I repeat, sir, that I am for giving to every man in the United States a home—a spot of earth—a place on the surface of God's broad earth which shall be his against the demands of all the world—a place where, in the full enjoyment of all his senses, and the full exercise of all his faculties, he may look upon the world, and, with the proud consciousness of an American citizen, say, This is my home, the castle of my defence; here I am free from the world's cold frowns, and exempt from the Shylock demands of inexorable creditors. These, sir, are my sentiments, long entertained, and now honestly expressed; nor am I to be deterred from their advocacy by any general outcry. Call these sentiments Socialism, Fourierism, Free-Soilism—call them what you please—say this is the doctrine of "vote yourself a farm"—say it is anti-rentism—say what you please—it is the true doctrine; it embraces great principles, which, if successfully carried out, will lead us on to higher renown as a nation, add to the wealth of the separate states, and do more for the substantial happiness of the great mass of our people than all your other legislation combined.

Congress has been in session nearly eight months, and what have you done?—what have you been trying to do? More than six months of that time has been expended in attacking and defending the institution of slavery—the North depreciating and trying to destroy the sixteen hundred millions of dollars invested in this species of property; and the South, forgetting for a season her party differences, banding together for the defence of this vast interest. Sometimes the monotony of this tedious drama has been relieved by a glance at other matters,—a member has appeared to advocate the manufacturing interests, or possibly to put on foot some grand scheme of internal improvement. But, whatever has been said in all our discussions, or by whomsoever it has been said, "the upper ten" have been constantly in view. No one has thought it worth his while to take account of the wants of the millions who toil for bread. The merchants and the manufacturers, the mariners and the speculators, the professions and the men of fortune everywhere, have their advocates on this floor. I speak to-day for the honest, hard-fisted, warm-hearted toiling millions—I speak here, in the councils of this nation, as I speak in the midst of my constituents; and whilst I do not object to the consideration which you give to other interests and other pursuits, I stand up here to demand even-handed justice for the honest but humble cultivator of the soil.

I cannot forget my allegiance—I know the men whose devotion sustains this government—I know the men whose friendship sustains me against the attacks of slander and the malignity of the interested few. For them I speak, and by no senseless cry of demagoguism, will I be turned from my purpose of vindicating their rights on this floor.

Talk, sir, of your lordly manufacturers, your princely merchants, your professional gentry, and your smooth-tongued politicians. The patriotism of one simple-hearted, honest old farmer would outweigh them all; and, for private friendship, I had rather have the hearty good will of one of those plain old men than the hypocritical smiles of as many of your smooth-tongued oily fellows as would fill this Capitol from its dome to its base.

It is my fortune to represent a constituency in which is mingled wealth and poverty;—whilst some are wealthy, and many possess more than a competency, there are many others on whom poverty has fixed his iron grasp. All, I hope, are patriotic. But, sir, if I were going to hunt for patriots who could be trusted in every emergency; patriots who would pour out their blood like water; and who would think it no privation to lay down their lives in defence of their country, I would go among the poor, the squatters, the preemptors, the hardy sons of toil. Though I should expect to find patriots everywhere, I know I should find them here.

Sir, in the great matter of legislation, shall men like these be neglected? I invoke gentlemen to forget for a moment the loom and the furnace, the storehouse, and the ships on the high seas, and go with me to the houses of these people; listen to the story of their wrongs, and let us together do them justice.

Men in affluent circumstances know but little of the wants of other men, and, unfortunately, care less for the miseries of the poor. Rocked in the cradle of fortune from infancy to manhood, they do not understand why it is that some men toil with poverty all their lives, and die at last in penury. Let gentlemen picture to themselves a man reared in humble life, without education, and with no fortune but his hands; see him going into the wild woods with a wife and a family of small children, there, by his unaided exertions, to rear his humble dwelling, to clear the forest and make way for his planting. See him after the toils of the day are over, returning to that humble dwelling to receive the smiles of his wife and hear the merry prattle of his little children. Watch him as he moves steadily and firmly on from day to day; fancy to yourself his heart buoyant with hope as he marks the progress of his growing crop, and pictures to himself the happiness of his wife and little children when he shall have gathered the reward of his summer's toil, sold it, and with the proceeds secured this his humble home.

Look, sir, at this scene; gaze on that sun-burnt patriot, for he is worthy of your admiration. Now go with me one step further, and behold the destruction of all these fairy visions; blighting seasons, low prices, disease, a bad trade, or some unforeseen disaster has overtaken him. His year of honest industry is gone-the time has come when government demands her pay for this poor man's home. He is without money—government, with a hard heart and inexorable will, turns coldly away, and the next week or the next month she sells her land, and this man's labor, his humble house and little fields, are gone. The speculator comes, and with an iron will, turns him and his family out of doors; and all this is the act of his own government—of a government which has untold millions of acres of land. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask you, can this man love a government that treats him thus? Never, sir, never. To do so, he should be more than man, and scarcely less than God. Treatment like this would have put out the fire of patriotism in Washington's breast, and almost justified the treachery of Arnold.

Instead of treating her citizens thus, I would have this government interpose its strong arm to protect them from the iron grasp of the heartless speculator. By doing so, you encourage industry, promote happiness, develope the resources of the soil, make better men and purer patriots. In a word, you perform a vast amount of good without the possibility of doing harm.

Not having seen the bill reported by the committee under circumstances which afforded an opportunity for a critical examination, I am not prepared to say that its details meet my approbation.

I am disinclined to give to the settler an absolute title to lands. I am so, sir, because I would secure him in the possession of his home against his misfortunes, and even against his own improvidence. If he is an honest and industrious man, he should have a home where that honest heart could repose in peace, and where the hand of industry could find employment. If he be dishonest, give him a home where, in the bosom of his family, he may hide his shame, and where they may find shelter from the frowns of a cruel world. If he is idle and worthless, give him a home where his wife and children may toil, and, by their example, bring him back to habits of honest industry. In any and in every event, give him a home, and secure him in the possession of that home, against all the contingencies of life and vicissitudes of fortune. When you have done this, rest satisfied that you have at least made a better man, and done something towards the general prosperity.

My own scheme has been reduced to the form of a bill, and before I take my seat I beg leave to send it to the Clerk's desk, that it may be read—promising that I am wedded to no special plan. The object is a good one; it meets my cordial approbation, and I shall most heartily unite in any scheme which gives reasonable promise of success.

I offer the paper which I hold in my hand as a substitute for the original proposition, and ask that it may be included in the motion to print.

Mr. Brown's proposition was read.

Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert as follows:

 

That the laws now in force granting preemption to actual settlers on the public lands, shall continue until otherwise ordered by Congress, and that the same be extended to all the territories of the United States.

 

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act, the rights of preemptors shall be perpetuated: that is to say, persons acquiring the right of preemption shall retain the same without disturbance, and without payment of any kind to the United States, but on these conditions: First, The preemptor shall not sell, alienate or dispose of his or her right for a consideration, and if he or she voluntarily abandons one preemption and claims another, no right shall be acquired by such claim, until the claimant shall first have testified, under oath, before the register of the land office when the claim is preferred, that he or she has voluntarily abandoned his or her original preemption, and that no consideration, reward or payment of any kind has been received, or is expected, directly or indirectly, as an inducement for such abandonment; and any person who shall testify falsely in such case, shall be deemed guilty of perjury. Second: Any person claiming and holding the right of preemption to lands under this act, may be required by the state within which the same lies, to pay taxes thereon in the same manner, and to the same extent, as if he or she owned the said land in fee simple; and in case such lands are sold for taxes, the purchaser shall acquire the right of preemption only. Third: Absence of the preemptor and his family for six consecutive months, shall be deemed an abandonment, and the land shall, in such case, revert to the United States, and be subject to the same disposition as other public lands.

 

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That lands preempted, and the improvements thereon, shall not be subject to execution sale, or other sale for debt; and all contracts made in reference thereto, intended in anywise to alienate the right, or to embarrass or disturb the preemptor in his or her occupancy, shall be absolutely null and void.

 

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the preemptor may, at any time, at his or her discretion, enter the lands preempted, by paying therefor to the proper officer of the United States one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre.

 

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That in case of the preemptor's death, if a married man, his right shall survive to his widow and infant children, but the rights of the older children shall cease as they respectively come of age, or when they reach the age of twenty-one years; in all cases the right of preemption shall remain in the youngest child. And in case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an infant child or children, the executor, administrator, or guardian, may at any time within twelve months after such death, enter said preempted lands in the name of said infant child or children, or the said preemption, together with the improvements on the lands, may be deemed property, and as such, sold for the benefit of said infants, but for no other purpose, and the purchaser may acquire the right of the deceased preemptor by such purchase.

 

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

In reply to Mr. Morse, of Louisiana, Mr. BROWN said: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Morse], in the progress of his remarks was understood by me to assume the ground that my proposition is unconstitutional. I did not, as you know, Mr. Speaker, undertake to explain, much less to vindicate that proposition. Its provisions are so few and so simple, that it may be well left to speak its own vindication, even against the furious assault of the honorable gentleman.

It proposes simply to perpetuate a law which has stood for years on your statute book, an honorable monument to the wisdom and justice of Congress. To-day, for the first time, it has been discovered to be unconstitutional. The preemption law struggled into existence against the combined opposition of many of the first minds in the country. It has received the repeated sanction of Congress, and to-day I know of no man from the new states who desires its repeal, or who has the boldness to avow such desire if he feels it. Instead of limiting the right of the preemptor to one year or two years, I simply propose to perpetuate that right, and this is the measure which the astute gentleman from Louisiana says is unconstitutional. I shall not stop to vindicate the measure from such a charge. The government has full power to dispose of the public lands, and in the exercise of this power, it has from time to time reduced the price, and in many hundred instances given them away.

I ask the honorable gentleman if the act by which five hundred thousand acres of the public lands were given to the state of Louisiana was unconstitutional? Were the various acts giving lands to the states, Louisiana among the rest, for educational purposes, unconstitutional? Did the honorable gentleman violate the Constitution last year, when he voted to give to his own state five millions of the public lands for works of internal improvement? Did we all violate the Constitution the other day, when we voted bounty lands to the soldiers of the last war with Great Britain and all our Indian wars?

No one knows better than the honorable gentleman, that this government has habitually given away the public lands—given them to the states for internal-improvement purposes; given them to establish colleges and primary schools; given them to railroad and canal companies given them to states and to soulless corporations, for almost every conceivable purpose; and all this has been done within the Constitution; but now, sir, when it is proposed to allow the humble citizen to reside on these lands, the gentleman starts up as though he had just descended from another world, and startles us with a declaration that we are violating the Constitution.

It has pleased the honorable member to denominate this as a villanous measure; and with great emphasis he declares, that its supporters are demagogues. It will not surprise you or others, Mr. Speaker, if I speak warmly in reply to language like this. The gentleman was pleased to extract the poison from his sting, by declaring that he used these words in no offensive sense. In reply, I shall speak plainly, but within the rules of decorum.

"Demagoguing,"—“demagoguing," says the honorable gentleman, "for the votes of the low, ill-bred vagrants and vagabonds." Sir, this is strange language, coming from that quarter. I know something of the gentleman's constituents. Many of the best of them are of this despised caste; many of them are the low, ill-bred vagabonds, of which the gentleman has been speaking. Many, very many, of them are squatters on the public lands. Sir, I should like to hear the honorable gentleman making the same speech in one of the upper parishes of Louisiana, which he has this day pronounced in the American Congress. I can well conceive how his honest constituents the squatters, would stare and wonder, to hear a gentleman, so bland and courteous last year, now so harsh and cruel. Yes, sir, the gentleman's squatter constituents would stand aghast to hear the representative denouncing them as a dirty, ill-bred set of vagabonds and scoundrels—when the candidate, with a face all wreathed in his blandest smile, had told them they were the cleverest fellows in the world!

It may do very well, Mr. Speaker, for gentlemen, when they come on to Washington, to get upon stilts and talk after this fashion. It may sound beautiful in the ears that are here to catch the sound, thus to denounce a measure intended to relieve the poor man's wants as villanous, and its advocates as demagogues. But, sir, I take it upon myself to say there is not a congressional district in the West or Southwest where a candidate for Congress would dare to use such language.

Sir, I know very well how popular electioneering canvasses are conducted, and bold and valiant as the gentleman is, he would scarcely commit the indiscretion of saying to any portion of the voters in his district that they were an ill-bred set of vagabonds, and if he did, they would hardly commission him to repeat the expression in Congress. Let me warn the gentleman, that if the speech made by him to-day shall ever reach his constituents, it will sound his political death-knell. If I owed the gentleman any ill-will, which I take this occasion to say I do not, it would be my highest hope that he would write out and print that speech just as he delivered it. I should at least have a comfortable assurance that the speech would be the last of its kind.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat that, notwithstanding the maledictions of the gentleman from Louisiana, I am still for this proposition; and though that gentleman may continue to denounce the squatters on the public lands as a worthless, ill-bred set of vagabonds, I am still their friend. They are honest men, pure patriots, and upright citizens. They are worthy of our care. If the candidate can afford to flatter them for their votes, the representative should not skulk the responsibility of voting to protect their interests. I hold but one language, and it shall be the language of honest sincerity. I would scorn to flatter a poor squatter for his vote in the swamps of Louisiana, and then stand up before the American Congress as his representative, and denounce him as a worthless vagabond.

Sir, if the men are worthless the women are not, and I could appeal to the well-known gallantry of the honorable member to interpose in their behalf. If you will do nothing for the ruder sex, interpose the strong arm of the law to shield the women and children, at least, from the rude grasp of the avaricious speculator. If a man be worthless, let the appeal go up for his wife and little children. Secure them a home, and that wife will make that home her castle. It will shelter her and her little children from the rude blasts of winter, and the rude blows of a wicked world. She will toil there for bread, and with her own hand. plant a shrub, perchance a flower. She will make it useful by her industry, and adorn it by her ingenuity. Give it to her, sir, and she will invoke such blessings on your head as a pious woman alone can ask.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, not for his speech, but for his courtesy in giving me a part of his time in which to reply.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 194-9

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, March 17, 1866

This being St. Patrick's Day, considerable apprehensions were entertained by the Englishmen here that there would be more active demonstration by the Fenians. Sir Frederick Bruce did not hesitate to say to me on Thursday evening at the Marquis Montholon's party when I met him, that he had great anxiety and should feel relieved after Saturday. But the day has passed off peaceably. We have had no telegraphs of riot or disorder on the frontier or in Canada. There is less disturbance in our own country than is usual on this anniversary.

By special invitation from Secretary Seward himself, I went this evening to meet a Belgian delegation at his house. Mrs. Welles and Edgar went with me. McCulloch, Dennison, and Speed were similarly invited, as were others. I found we were after-dinner guests, appendages to the special party, called in to set off the Secretary's party. The evening was cold, fires low or out, and though the persons assembled put on the best face, it was an uncomfortable affair, and I for one in no very good humor, believing I had been uselessly put to inconvenience without cause.

Am having sharp questions and importunities in regard to the Connecticut election, and do not choose to answer them or to be mixed up in the contest, which has been badly shaped. The fault is as much here in Washington as elsewhere. Foreseeing the issues which the Radicals in Congress were forming, I suggested near the commencement of the session to the President, that unless the lines were sharply drawn, they would have him at disadvantage. We now see it in the result in New Hampshire, and similar consequences may be expected in Connecticut. General Hawley's sympathies and feelings are with the Radicals in the differences between the President and Congress, or rather with Congress than the President. English, on the other hand, is wholly with the President, and totally, earnestly opposed to the Congressional policy. The election of English would secure a friend to the President, but English and those who support him opposed his (the President's) election and most of them opposed the War. Hawley, while not in full accord with the President on present questions, and I am afraid not on the rights of the States, supported his election, and was an earnest soldier from the beginning of the War until the whole Rebel force surrendered and dispersed. While I think well of both candidates, I have a particular personal regard for Hawley now, as well as intimate party relations in the past.

The President and very many of his friends would be pleased to have English succeed. But they do not comprehend the whole circumstances, personal and political, for they cannot know them. It is not a personal question. The organization is a revival of ante-War differences. It commenced and has gone on under the old party banners. A stand for the Administration should have been made last autumn, but the nominations from Governor down have been made by parties as organized years ago. It is too late to change front, or get up a new arrangement. Such an issue should have commenced last December, and the President himself should have led in the fight by announcing the policy of his Administration and rallying his friends to its support. He would have had the State, the country, and Congress with him, but he hesitated, was reluctant to encounter those who elected him, and then postponed too long for us to begin in Connecticut, for this election takes place in three weeks.

As things are, I cannot take an active part in this contest. Were Hawley more emphatic and unequivocally with the President, I should enter earnestly, heartily, into the struggle, although I did not advise his nomination, or wish it to be made. I think, when elected, he will give the Administration fair support, but he is an ardent partisan. A doubt on the subject of his course paralyzes my zeal and efforts. I am unwilling to believe that Hawley dissembles.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 454-6

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, March 19, 1866

Allen of the Intelligencer called upon me to-day in reference to the Connecticut election. Says it is stated in the papers that I have written letters urging Hawley's election, yet Hawley is making speeches against the President. Told him I had written no letters of the purport indicated, had purposely abstained and intended to. Asked what statements and what papers he referred to, and doubted if Hawley had made speeches in opposition to the Administration. It would not be politic for him to do so. That English is in favor of the President's policy as distinguished from that of Stevens or Congress, is true. The Republicans of Connecticut thought they did a shrewd thing in passing one resolution in favor of the President and another in favor of Congress. This inconsistency, equivocation, or contradiction is now troublesome.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 456-7

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, March 20, 1866

Little of interest at the Cabinet meeting. After the others had left had a free talk with the President. He thinks, in view of the feeling manifested by Congress and the favorable reception of Stewart's resolutions for general amnesty, it will be well to delay the case of Semmes.

I read to him a letter received from General Hawley in regard to the election in Connecticut, and a letter from myself to Crofut, stating my views on present questions, and, believing General H. concurred in them, I wished him success, but not if he was opposed to them and the Administration.

The President approved my letter. Said Mr. English appeared to be a gentleman of character and friendly. Asked what had been his previous party course and whether I had seen a series of questions which were put to Hawley and Hawley's answer. I informed him that English had always been a Democrat, but patriotic, gentlemanly, and not extreme or ultra. Had given support to some important questions of ours during the War. The questions and answers I had seen, but knew not how correct.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 457

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, March 21, 1866

Collectors Babcock of New Haven and Smith of Bridgeport called on me this morning. They had just arrived, having come on in relation to the Connecticut election. English appears to have created an excitement, almost a panic, in regard to the wishes of the Administration. There is alarm on the part of the gentlemen and doubtless much at home which has impelled them to come here. English has represented to them that he had had a long interview on one or two occasions with the President, and that United States officers were to be turned out if they voted for Hawley. Babcock said three or four in his office had their resignations ready and he should tender his if that was exacted. They informed me that Cleveland, Postmaster at Hartford, had called, or was to participate in, a meeting favorable to English, and under the excitement Starkweather of Norwich, Chairman of the State Committee of the Republicans, had sent in his resignation as Postmaster. There is excitement and a party panic in that State. Both Babcock and Smith admitted and asserted that these troubles had their origin in the equivocal, ambiguous, and inconsequential resolutions of the Republican Convention, which spoke two voices, and made the party support antagonistic positions.

General Hawley and Mr. E. H. Owen came and spent more than an hour with me after the interview with B. and S. They had come to Washington impelled by the same causes as those of the other two gentlemen, but without preconcert. Much the same ground was reviewed and the same arguments used, and I told them their difficulties were the results in a great measure of the inconsistent attitude of the convention in indorsing both the President and the Radical majority in Congress, who were in direct antagonism; that no man could support the two honestly.

Hawley two or three times expressed a wish that I would write a letter indorsing him. This, had the issue been direct and fair, I could have done cheerfully, but I asked him what I could say. I was a supporter of the measures of the policy of the Administration; these measures and that policy had my earnest approval; I was advising to them, was identified with them. Of course I desired their success. If I knew that he was in favor of the Administration policy and opposed to the schemes of the Radicals who would defeat it, I could say something definite and positive, but unless that were the case I could do him no good. As things were, I should be compelled, while expressing my personal regard and belief that he would, if elected, be in accord with the Administration, [to say] that my understanding of his position was that his views coincided with those of the President, and particularly that he favored the early reëstablishment of the Union and of the Government in all its departments, that he recognized the rights of each and all of the States, was for the admission of loyal Senators and Representatives promptly, was against sectional division and the exclusion of any of the States. Both Hawley and Owen gave a hesitating but full assent at first; but Hawley thought the word confidence or belief would be better than understanding. Owen concurred, yet all of us saw the embarrassment, and I expressed again my doubts whether I could give any letter or written statement as things were without accompanying it with qualifications which would destroy its effect.

They left me at 1 P.M. to meet Senator Foster, who was to accompany them to the President, and they were to see me after the interview, which lasted over two hours. They expressed themselves satisfied with the views of the President and his course in regard to the election, his object being to sustain his own measures and policy and his preference being for those candidates of his own party who occupy that position. He had given Mr. English no letter and did not intend to take part with any candidates in a merely local election.

Hawley wished to know if I had read the Civil Rights Bill and whether I thought the President would veto it. I told him I had been through the bill, but had exchanged no opinions regarding it; that I thought it very centralizing and objectionable, and my impressions were the President would disapprove of it, though very reluctant to have further difficulty with Congress.

They left, I thought, better satisfied with the President than I was with the course of the Republicans in Connecticut.

In yesterday's Intelligencer was a leading editorial article in relation to myself and my position. The editor had called on me the preceding evening, and we had a conversation in relation to public affairs, the substance of which he has incorporated in his article. What he says regarding my course or stand in the Connecticut election is a little stronger than the actual conversation will warrant. I declined giving any letter or authorization of the use of my name, and informed him I did not wish to become mixed up with the election, which was in many respects unpleasant to me, in consequence of the ambiguous and equivocal course of the Republican Convention. An honest, open, fair expression of views on their part would have left me free to approve or condemn.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 457-60

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, March 22, 1866

Messrs. Babcock and Smith called this morning with a written statement correcting the Chronicle, which they proposed to present that paper for publication. I concurred in the propriety of their course. Both gentlemen expressed themselves highly pleased with their interview with the President and with other friends in Washington.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 460

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, March 23, 1866

Special notice from the President that there would be no Cabinet-meeting. Called upon him this P.M. and gave him, generally, my views in regard to what is called the Civil Rights Bill, which, if approved by him, must lead to the overthrow of his Administration as well as that of this mischievous Congress which has passed it. The principles of that bill, if carried into effect, must subvert the government. It is consolidation solidified, breaks down all barriers to protect the rights of the States, concentrates power in the General Government, which assumes to itself the enactment of municipal regulations between the States and citizens and between citizens of the same State. No bill of so contradictory and consolidating a character has ever been enacted. The Alien and Sedition Laws were not so objectionable. I did not inquire of the President what would be his course in regard to the bill, but we did not disagree in opinion on its merits, and he cannot give it his sanction, although it is unpleasant to him to have these differences with Congress.

He tells me that Senator Pomeroy disavows having stated that he saw the President drunk at the White House, but says he (Pomeroy) wrote Lincoln, the Postmaster at Brooklyn, that he saw Robert, the President's son, in liquor, and he thought the same of his son-in-law, Senator Patterson.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 460-1