Personal reminiscences, 1840-1890 : including some not hitherto published of Lincoln and the war

Front matter

d

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

Chapter I

The Earliest Free Soil Organization— The Origin of the Republican Party.

It is April, 1848. The Mexican War is ended. Shall the territory which we made the war to acquire — vast enough in itself for a republic — remain free, or shall it be surrendered to the domination of the slave power? This had been the burning question. We had hoped it was settled by the Wilmot Proviso, which declared that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, should ever exist there. We were now to learn that, touching the peculiar institution, nothing was to be regarded as settled, unless it was settled in the Southern way. The slave power had secured control of the Democratic party. In the name of that party it had hinted at a programme which involved the abrogation of the Wilmot Proviso, and between its lines could be read faint indications of measures which did not mature until six years later. Of these, "Squatter Sovereignty" was the most obvious. This doctrine declared that the people ought to settle the status of a State as between freedom and slavery, after it was admitted into the Federal Union. But "Squatter 1

Sovereignty" involved the repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which declared that slavery should not exist north of latitude 36° 30' ; for how could the people decide in favor of slavery if it were already excluded by an irrepealable law? There were also occasional suggestions from the South of a stringent law for the capture and return of fugitives from slavery, and of the principles established afterward in the Dred Scott case, as additional planks in the Democratic platform.

It was not a favorable time for the slave power to assert new claims, especially in Vermont. While the Liberty party had never attained great numerical strength there, and its leaders were generally regarded as dangerous extremists, there were many good Democrats as well as Whigs who could not but respect such men as William Lloyd Garrison, James G. Birney, and Gerritt Smith, however much they might differ from them as to the means by which their purposes were to be accomplished. Their differences were of degree rather than principle. The New Englanders generally would have said: "Let slavery be content with its present possessions — we will not concern ourselves with it where it has been established by law. But freedom is the natural right and normal condition of the human race. Not one square inch of territory, now free, shall ever be darkened by the pall of slavery with our consent, nor without overcoming all the lawful resistance we can interpose. " The Abolitionists, however, insisted that slavery had no rights and that it ought to be everywhere abolished.

In fact, slavery itself was cordially detested by the people of the Green Mountains , They inherited their

THE FIRST FREE SOIL PARTY. 3

love of freedom from their ancestors. Like Abraham Lincohi in his younger days, the thought of slavery made them uncomfortable. There had been a very warm spot in their hearts for the hunted fugitive ever since Revolutionary days, when Capt. Ebenezer 'Allen, "conscientious that it is not right in the sight of God to keep slaves," gave to Dinah Mattis and her infant, slaves captured from the enemy, their deed of emancipation; and Judge Harrington decided against the title of the slave-master, because he could not show a deed from the original proprietor — Almighty God ! From the day when the name of the State was first adopted, no slave had been taken away from Vermont against his will. The fugitive who set foot upon her soil was from that moment safe if he was not free. Her North and South roads were underground railroads, and there were few houses upon them where the escaped slave was not provided with rest, food, and clothing, and assisted on his way. There were Democrats who would send their teams to carry the fugitives northward, while they themselves walked to a convention to shout for Douglas, and resolve that slavery must not be interfered with in the States where it existed ty law.

Just about this time the Democratic party of the North gave way, and intimated its willingness to make the concessions which the Southern wing of the party began openly to demand. Chief among these was the rejection of the Wilmot Proviso, and ac^ ceptance of the doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty." The proximity of Missouri and Arkansas would enable their temporary emigrants to decide that slavery should be lawful in Kansas and Nebraska ; and the obstructions being removed from California and ITew Mexico, any one with half an eye could see that the Missouri Compromise would be swept away, and the whole region west of the " Father of the Waters " would become slave territory.

To such concessions there were many Northern Democrats who objected, and some who answered " 'So ! Never ! " Just then the Democratic State Convention was called to meet at Montpelier, and the leading Democratic newspaper, published at the State capital, announced that the convention would incorporate the new doctrines into the Democratic platform. The paper spoke as one having authority, declaring that the Wilmot Proviso was a violation of the Federal Constitution.

I was one of the recalcitrant Democrats and a delegate from Burlington to that convention. On the day it met I should complete my twenty-fourth year. I had been practising at the bar somewhat over three years and was (in my own opinion) a much greater constitutional lawyer than I have at any time since been considered by myself or other competent judges. I felt perfectly qualified to discuss the constitutional question involved in the Proviso. The more I examined the authorities the clearer the question seemed, until I arrived at the condition of mind where I regarded this new demand as a piece of cool impudence on the part of the pro-slavery Democracy.

I found that other delegates to the convention were of the same temper. One of them was Charles D. Kasson, a lawyer of Burlington and an elder brother of John A. Kasson, afterward of Iowa. The elder Kasson was as solid, reliable, and generous a citizen and friend as ever existed. He was removed

THE FIRST FEEE SOIL PARTY. 5

by death only a few years later, and his loss was felt not only by the circle of his personal friends, but by the community.

With Kasson I promptly decided that if the convention committed itself in favor of Squatter Sovereignty and against the Wilmot Proviso, we would leave it and raise the standard of Free Soil. We corresponded with other delegates and invited them to join us in the revolt. Many of the younger Democrats were, like ourselves, indignant at the new dictation. But when it came to the question of leaving the party they (nearly) " all with one consent began to make excuse." We found only four who where willing to unite in heroic measures. These were Edward D. Barber, of Middlebury, Charles I. Walker and Charles K. Field, of Windham, and A. J. Rowell, of Orleans County. Barber was a greathearted man, full of fun and frolic, but with a soul stirred to its depths by any story of cruelty or oppression. He was a born anti-slavery man. Walker was an able lawyer, who shortly after removed to Detroit, where he soon became the leader of the bar. Field was a lawyer of great natural ability, full of a grim humor and with a tongue as sharp and caustic as that of John Randolph. Rowell was like Zaccheus, little of stature, but great in push and energy. The qualities of the sixth party to the agreement were as may hereafter appear.

The six members referred to had a conference in Montpelier the evening before the convention. We agreed to go into the convention after we had notified the State Committee of our purpose to withdraw if the design of adding the new planks to the platform were persisted in. Possibly because I was the youngest, to me was assigned the duty of delivering our valedictory and leading the revolt.

We called upon the State Committee in the morning and were treated with contempt. At ten o'clock the convention was called to order. From the temporary and permanent organization and the Committee on Resolutions we were, as we had anticipated, excluded. The last-named committee met in a corner of the hall ; the resolutions which had been prepared by authority were immediately reported to the convention. They were anti-Proviso and pro-Squatter Sovereignty in their most objectionable form.

I arose to make my first, my last, and my only speech in a Democratic convention. I began with the statement that the resolutions made the Democratic party of Vermont say that our free republic had not the power to maintain its own freedom ; that if it was a violation of the Constitution to preserve the freedom of the territory acquired from Mexico, it was an equal violation of that instrument to exclude slavery from the northwest territory. That I would not venture to question the conclusions of the great constitutional lawyers of the Committee on Resolutions, but I would read a section or two from a law book of some authority which was diametrically opposed to the conclusions of the committee. The book was called Kent's Commentaries, was written by a lawyer of some authority in his day, and I read from it, not to resist the resolutions, but to show in what wholesale and ignorant blunders the committee had detected John Marshall, Story, and James Kent. I then read an extract from a letter of Mr. Madison to another member of the convention that framed the Constitution, thereby showing that the makers of

THE FIRST FREE SOIL PARTY. 7

that instrument did not know what they were about, for they supposed that the absolute control of the territories had been vested in Congress. This satire produced an uneasy feeling in the convention. Throwing it aside, I now, with all the earnestness of which I was master, exclaimed, " You who assert the power of leadership are making it impossible for a Vermonter who respects himself to remain in the Democratic party. Your resolutions prostitute that party to the service of the slave power. Our ancestors fought two states and a kingdom, through cold and poverty and hunger, for almost twenty years, to secure a place where Vermont was the equal of any State in the Federal Union. Your resolutions are unworthy of their descendants. Pass them, and with my associates I leave this hall for the time being and the Democratic party forever, unless it is redeemed from its present vassalage and restored to its former principles and dignity."

When I took my seat there was for some moments an oppressive silence, followed at last by what appeared to be a burst of genuine applause.

But an ancient Democrat, whose mind was impervious to argument, then arose and observed that as " the boy had spoke his piece, we might as well proceed to the business of the Convention." No one else spoke. Thiere was a subdued affirmative vote and a sharp "No" from the six to the resolutions. We did not challenge the vote, the chairman declared the resolutions carried, and the opposition party of six walked out of the convention. There was an effort to raise a hiss. It failed, and we took our departure in a profound and unbroken silence.

We crossed the street to the Pavilion Hotel, entered the room we had occupied, and closed the door. Barber was requested to take the chair and Eowell to act as secretary. Field arose, saying that he had a motion to make which he had committed to writing. It was brief but comprehensive. "I move, "he read, " that we organize a new party to be called the ' Free Soil Paett ; ' that its platform shall be uncompromising resistance to the extension of slavery or the slave power ; that we select a State Committee of five persons ; that we establish a weekly newspaper to be published in Burlington and called the Free Soil Courier; that we assess ourselves for money enough to pay for publishing four numbers ; that we name its editors; that the first number be issued as early as it can be prepared, and that it contain our address to the people of Vermont."

There was no discussion, for the motion was drawn after our consultation of the previous evening. It was passed at once nem. con. , and the first Free Soil party formed in this republic, and out of the loins of which came the most effective political organization witnessed by the nineteenth century — the grand old Republican party — was organized.

Field was then appointed to write the address. Edward A. Stansbury, an active, young anti-slavery Whig, was in the hotel. He was sent for, came, and, after our action was explained, agreed to join us and to become the temporary editor of the Courier. AVe then subscribed fifty dollars each to the publication fund, and adjourned in time for an early dinner. Before the arrival of the daily stage for Burlington (for Vermont had no railroads then) Field had completed his address to the people. It was read, amended, and adopted. I was named as

THE FIRST FREE SOIL PARTY. 9

chairman and Stansbury as a member of the State Committee, and we were authorized to name the three remaining members — two from the old Whig and one from the Democratic party.

As I write after the lapse of forty-five years, the scenes of that day come back to me with vivid distinctness. Except myself all the actors have gone over to the great majoritj'. For a few moments I call back Barber, his round, moon-like face beaming with delight as he croons the death-song of the Democratic party which he is composing. Stansbury, his sharp eyes sparkling through his gold-rimmed spectacles, is hunting for some one whom he may " pitch into, " always preferring a " Hunker. " Eowell, expert with the pen, is making a list of our probable recruits to whom the Courier, is to be sent. Field, saturnine and solemn, declares that, as he contemplates the wreck of the Democrac}", he for the first time understands the sensations of Marius surrounded by the ruins of Carthage. He would prefer a nice, fresh ruin with an agreeable odor, he declares, for those of the Democracy have a stale and graveyard kind of smell ; while Walker recommends to Henry Stevens, of Bamet, that as those ruins are already desiccated, he should gather them up and deposit them in his receptacle for things lost upon earth. Even now there is a sensation of fun about the whole affair, for we were all then enjoying life in the freshness and vigor of that youth which, alas ! never returns.

We never paid our subscriptions to the Free Soil Courier. On the first day of August Stansbury brought out the first number. It was so racy that the old hand-press upon which it was printed was kept running until it was wanted for the second number. Subscriptions for the twelve numbers to be issued before the November elections came in so rapidly that the enterprise was a paying one from the start.

I am aware that it is the prevailing opinion that there were no organizations of the Free Soil party in the New England States until after the Buffalo convention, held in August, 1848. Even Henry Wilson, who is usually accurate, fell into that error. Our organization had been in active operation for six weeks before the Buffalo convention was called.

CHAPTER II. The Van Burens — The New York Barn-burners

In June, 1848, the feud between the Barn-Burners and the Hunkers of New York was at fever heat. The Evening Post was the organ, "Prince" John Van Buren the recognized leader of the Barn-Burners. One of the first and most encouraging evidences that our movement begun at Montpelier was attracting attention was a letter from William C. Bryant, then chief editor of the Evening Post, urging us to persevere and either nominate a State ticket or adopt the candidates of the Liberty party. We had already determined to adopt those candidates, for they were men of worth and ability.

During the last week in June I received a letter from John Van Buren urging me to come to Albany on the 1st of July. On reaching that city, I was, on the morning of July 3d, introduced to a party of gentlemen, some of whom I think have been members of about every political party which has since been formed. I cannot now recall the names of all of them. " Prince " John Van Buren was by common consent the leader. I remember also N. S. Benton, at one time Secretary of State, Judge James, of Ogdensburgh, and Cassidy, afterward editor of the Albany Atlas, at first a Free Soil sheet, but afterward transferred with its editor to the Argus, an ultra-Hunker journal. There too I first met William Curtis Noyes, and formed a friendship interrupted only by his death. He appeared to be a genuine lover of freedom, a sharp fighter, and a determined, but fair and honorable opponent of the slave power. Among the party there was also another young lawyer from New York City. He was said to be an immense card — a man of extraordinary brilliancy and adroitness. He had just written some excoriation of the Hunkers which had given him great 4clat. His name was Samuel J. Tilden. He was understood to breathe no atmosphere that was not saturated with hatred of the Hunker Democracy.

It was very apparent at the first meeting that the object of these gentlemen was to defeat General Cass rather than to restrict slavery. Cass had received the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and was supported by the Hunker wing of the New York Democracy. The Barn-Burners had bolted his nomination, and had decided to hold another convention and nominate ex-President Van Buren on a Free Soil platform. The purpose of the meeting at Albany was to frame the call and fix the time for that convention, and the grave question for decision was whether the call should be made broad enough to invite such men as Charles Sumner and Charles Francis Adams, who had never been either Democrats or Abolitionists.

The question seemed to be one of policy. If these men were excluded, the convention would be held by the Barn- Burners only. This party had little strength outside the State of New York — not enough, it was feared, to defeat General Cass if it was exerted for a third candidate. On the other hand, the Barn- Burners

THE VAN BURENS. 13

were loyal to the Constitution and would not affiliate with men who believed in disregarding its provisions as the Abolitionists were quite prepared to do. Tilden seemed to be the leader of those who favored a restricted call, Mr. Noyes of the Liberals, while John Van Buren had not yet declared himself either way.

For two days the debate went on. Toward evening it became acrimonious, but the inimitable humor of Prince John and the excellent dinners he gave us at a private residence on Capitol Hill restored harmony. We had reached cigars at the dinner on the 3d of July, when, as if the idea had just struck him, the Prince exclaimed : " Let us adjourn this debate and go to the theatre ! To-morrow morning we will drive down to Lindenwald and spend the Fourth with father. He shall give us a good dinner and help us to a settlement of this question . "

The proposal met with universal favor. I had all the curiosity of youth for a near view of the ex- President, which I may here say was the more interesting since it was the only one I ever had. I did not feel much interest in the question, for its decision either way would not modify our action. But there were others who thought that it was prudent, in a matter of so much importance, to avail themselves of the wisdom and experience of the sage of Kinderhook.

Early the next morning Prince John called at my hotel, himself driving a pair of horses and a light Concord wagon. He insisted that I should carry my portmanteau, as we might pass the night elsewhere than in Albany.

That drive was as delightful as the subsequent

14 PEBSONAL REMINISCENCES.

visit, and both were memorable. The road, along , which we bowled at a speed of nearly ten miles an hour, was shaded almost the entire distance from the rays of the summer sun, and so lively and amusing was my companion that I was unconscious of the lapse of time, nor can I now tell the length of the drive. His mind seemed preoccupied by General Cass. I learned how sharp hits were made in public speeches, for he was to make an address somewhere about General Cass, and for a part of the .drive he was employed in casting and recasting the figures of speech to be used in the delineation of his person and character. Brilliant as he was, I discovered that the best of his apparently impromptu expressions were the fruit of very careful preparation.

I was disappointed in the linden trees that gave their name to the country home of the venerable ex- President. We would have called them in Vermont rather inferior bass-woods. But with the hearty welcome which shone from the sunny face of the active, sprightly man who met us at his gate and threw his arms around the neck of his stalwart son, I was charmed and delighted. How plain of speech are the eye and the arm ! There was all the fervor of boyhood in the meeting of this distinguished son with an honored father. It told of a mutual love, warm, cheering, and unbroken, from the cradle of the one to the waiting tomb of the other. Some might have deemed them careless of each other's sensibilities. All that day they hurled their shafts of wit at each other, but the closest observer could discover no instant in which the Attorney-General of New York forgot the respect due to his honored father and the ex-President of the United States,

THE VAN BURENS. 15

In addition to his guests from Albany, several of his neighbors called upon Mr. Van Buren, and the day passed in political and general conversation in his pleasant grounds. I had an experience of that marvellous influence which our host was reported to exercise over those with whom he came in contact. His first inquiry of me was concerning a Vermonter for whom I had a high esteem.

" William C. Bradley and I entered Congress together," he said, "and Mr. Bradley but for his deafness would have been the more successful man. He had no superior intellectually, and was the peer of any member of either House."

He spoke of Judges Phelps and CoUamer and also of Judge Chipman in terms so complimentary that I was proud of Vermont and charmed with Mr. Van Buren. Although our host was probably informed • of the occasion of our visit, the day passed without any reference to it. After a delightful dinner the cloth was removed, and then Prince John made a brief but entirely fair statement of the point of difference. William Curtis Noyes, who was a master of the art of concise statement, gave the reasons on one side, and Mr. Tilden on the other. There was a very mischievous twinkle in the eyes of the ex-President as he said :

" I am delighted with your success, Mr. Tilden. I was not aware before that the Barn-Burners were so strong. "

" I have said nothing about our strength, Mr. Van Buren ! " replied Mr. Tilden.

"True; you have only implied it," answered our host. " You must be very strong if you are already picking and choosing from the recruits who offer themselves for enlistment. I had supposed that we wanted every man who was opposed to the extension of slavery. Would it not be well first of all to defeat General Cass, and show the pro-slavery party that they shall not invade free soil? To that end, is not the vote of Gerritt Smith just as weighty as that of Judge Martin Grover? "

A brief silence followed, broken at length by Mr. Tilden.

" I had half converted myself, " he said. " Mr. "Van Buren is to be our candidate. His opinion is obvious. Unless some gentleman wishes to discuss the subject farther, I move the adoption of the call for a national Free Soil Convention presented by Mr. Noyes, and that the convention be held at Buffalo on the 9th day of August."

There were several seconds, and the motion was unanimously adopted. Our mission was ended. Subsequent events are now historical. The convention was held, 'Mr. Van Buren was nominated and after a sharp campaign General Cass was defeated and General Taylor elected.

I recall one of the incidents of our dinner at Lindenwald which serves to illustrate the unconventional relations which existed between the ex-President and his son. The plate set before me for one of the courses was most exquisitely decorated, and with the gaucherie of an inexperienced curiosity I could not resist the temptation to turn it over and look for the maker's mark.

" Is not that a beautiful piece of china?" inquired the Prince. " It has a history. It belongs to a dinner set made at Sevres for the King of Italy before the fall of Napoleon. I discovered it in Paris, and

THE VAN BURENS. 17

although it was expensive, I purchased it and presented it to my father.^ , Ought he not to be grateful for such a magnificent present? "

"Indeed I am grateful," said the ex- President, " perhaps more grateful for this than for another present you made me about the same time. "

" Another present ! What was it? I do not remember it," said his son.

" It was a bill of exchange for acceptance for more than the cost of the china ! " replied the elder.

" Yes ! yes ! " said the Prince. " I intended that the entire transaction should represent a beautiful case of filial and paternal affection. I presented you with the china — that was filial. You paid for it — that was paternal. Could anything be more complete? "

"We slept at Linden wald. The next morning I breakfasted with the ex-President and his son. Our wagon was at the gate. Holding my hand in his, the venerable host said kindly : " Young man, you have chosen a good part. Persevere to the end, which you may see, but I shall not. The recent aggressions of the slave power may destroy the old parties, but they will perpetuate the republic. You have enlisted under the banner of Free Soil. Carry it forward to victory. The contest may be long. I foresee that it will not be ended by the present campaign. Slavery cannot long exist under restrictions. It must expand or perish. The great Northwest, by the consent of the South, has been consecrated to Freedom. Her rights must be maintained at any cost. To your generation is committed the high duty of maintaining them and of making our beloved country, permanently and truly, 'The land of the free and the home of the brave. ' "

CHAPTER III. The Early Bench and Bar op Vermont

It is one of the prerogatives of age to believe that the world is progressing backward. Without asserting this privilege I will set down, from old note-books and from memory, some incidents of the earlybench and bar of Vermont, and leave my readers to make their application.

My early professional life was passed before such judges as Samuel Prentiss, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Vermont, a court ocasionally dignified by the presence on the bench of Samuel Nelson, of the Supreme Court of the United States. Some of the judges who then served the State for salaries of seven hundred and fifty dollars per year were Stephen Royce, Charles K. Williams, Samuel S. Phelps, Jacob Collamer, Milo L. Bennett, and Isaac F. Redfield. Later came the two Pierponts, Robert and John. There was not one of these who would not have honored a seat on the bench of the highest court in the land. And they had other than judicial qualifications. In the opinion of Mr. Webster, Samuel S. Phelps was the best lawyer in the Senate of the United States of his time. " Jack" Pierpont, as we affectionately called him, was not only a lawyer and a judge, but he knew and loved every game-bird and was the best wing shot in a close cover the State ever produced. I can-

EAELY BENCH AND BAR OF VERMONT. 19

not help thinking sometimes that this old race of lawyers no longer exists.

Lawyers of the present day will put on a look of wise incredulity when they read the statement which I here record. When I left the State and its bar in 1861 1 had never heard so much as a whisper against the impartiality or integrity of a Vermont judge. At that time we should have looked upon a lawyer as an unworthy brother if he had not implicit confidence in the bench. We used to find fault with their decisions ; we availed ourselves of our privileges as defined by Judge Grover, of the New York Supreme Court. We could and did appeal from the decisions," or go down to the hotel and complain about the court, and sometimes we did both. But no lawyer suspected or intimated that the decisions were influenced by fear, favor, or affection, or that they did not comprise the impartial judgment of the court upon the facts and law. I might here refer to some of the reflex influences of such judges upon the bar, but I wiU merely say that they made the first twenty years of my practice a time to look back upon as the most delightful of a long professional life.