Chapter XXII: 1861—January, February, and March (2)

“The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is complete and
incontestable. Were its interest in this property purely
proprietary, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, it might
probably be subjected to the exercise of the right of eminent
domain; but it has also political relations to it of a much higher
and more imposing character than those of mere proprietorship. It
has absolute jurisdiction over the fort and the soil on which it
stands. This jurisdiction consists in the authority to ‘exercise
exclusive legislation’ over the property referred to, and is
therefore clearly incompatible with the claim of eminent domain
now insisted upon by South Carolina. This authority was not
derived from any questionable revolutionary source, but from the
peaceful cession of South Carolina herself, acting through her
legislature, under a provision of the Constitution of the United
States. South Carolina can no more assert the right of eminent
domain over Fort Sumter than Maryland can assert it over the
District of Columbia. The political and proprietary rights of the
United States in either case rest upon precisely the same ground.

“The President, however, is relieved from the necessity of further
pursuing this inquiry by the fact that, whatever may be the claim
of South Carolina to this fort, he has no constitutional power to
cede or surrender it. The property of the United States has been
acquired by force of public law, and can only be disposed of under
the same solemn sanctions. The President, as the head of the
executive branch of the Government only, can no more sell and
transfer Fort Sumter to South Carolina than he can sell and convey
the Capitol of the United States to Maryland or to any other State
or individual seeking to possess it. His Excellency the Governor
is too familiar with the Constitution of the United States, and
with the limitations upon the powers of the Chief Magistrate of
the Government it has established, not to appreciate at once the
soundness of this legal proposition. The question of reinforcing
Fort Sumter is so fully disposed of in my letter to Senator
Slidell and others, under date of the 22d of January, a copy of
which accompanies this, that its discussion will not now be
renewed. I then said: ‘At the present moment it is not deemed
necessary to reinforce Major Anderson, because he makes no such
request. Should his safety, however, require reinforcements, every
effort will be made to supply them.‘ I can add nothing to the
explicitness of this language, which still applies to the existing
status.

“The right to send forward reinforcements when, in the judgment of
the President, the safety of the garrison requires them, rests on
the same unquestionable foundation as the right to occupy the
fortress itself. In the letter of Senator Davis and others to
yourself, under date of the 15th ultimo, they say: ‘We therefore
think it especially due from South Carolina to our States—to say
nothing of other slaveholding States—that she should, as far as
she can consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities
between her and the United States or any other power;‘ and you now
yourself give to the President the gratifying assurance that
‘South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public
peace;’ and since he is himself sincerely animated by the same
desire, it would seem that this common and patriotic object must
be of certain attainment. It is difficult, however, to reconcile
with this assurance the declaration on your part that ‘it is a
consideration of her [South Carolina’s] own dignity as a
sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to
demand that this property should not longer be used as a military
post by a government she no longer acknowledges,’ and the thought
you so constantly present, that this occupation must lead to a
collision of arms and the prevalence of civil war. Fort Sumter is
in itself a military post, and nothing else; and it would seem
that not so much the fact as the purpose of its use should give to
it a hostile or friendly character. This fortress is now held by
the Government of the United States for the same objects for which
it has been held from the completion of its construction. These
are national and defensive; and were a public enemy now to attempt
the capture of Charleston or the destruction of the commerce of
its harbor, the whole force of the batteries of this fortress
would be at once exerted for their protection. How the presence of
a small garrison, actuated by such a spirit as this, can
compromise the dignity or honor of South Carolina, or become a
source of irritation to her people, the President is at a loss to
understand. The attitude of that garrison, as has been often
declared, is neither menacing, nor defiant, nor unfriendly. It is
acting under orders to stand strictly on the defensive; and the
government and people of South Carolina must well know that they
can never receive aught but shelter from its guns, unless, in the
absence of all provocation, they should assault it and seek its
destruction. The intent with which this fortress is held by the
President is truthfully stated by Senator Davis and others in
their letter to yourself of the 15th January, in which they say:
‘It is not held with any hostile or unfriendly purpose toward your
State, but merely as property of the United States, which the
President deems it his duty to protect and preserve.’

“If the announcement so repeatedly made of the President’s pacific
purposes in continuing the occupation of Fort Sumter until the
question shall have been settled by competent authority, has
failed to impress the government of South Carolina, the forbearing
conduct of his administration for the last few months should be
received as conclusive evidence of his sincerity, And if this
forbearance, in view of the circumstances which have so severely
tried it, be not accepted as a satisfactory pledge of the peaceful
policy of this administration toward South Carolina, then it may
be safely affirmed that neither language nor conduct can possibly
furnish one. If, with all the multiplied proofs which exist of the
President’s anxiety for peace, and of the earnestness with which
he has pursued it, the authorities of that State shall assault
Fort Sumter, and peril the lives of the handful of brave and loyal
men shut up within its walls, and thus plunge our common country
into the horrors of civil war, then upon them and those they
represent must rest the responsibility.

“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“J. HOLT,
“Secretary of War.

“HON. I. W. HAYNE,
“Attorney General of the State of South Carolina.

“P.S.—The President has not, as you have been informed, received a
copy of the letter to yourself from the Senators, communicating
that of Mr. Holt of the 22d January.”

Footnote 133:

H. R. Ex. Doc., 1860-’61, vol. ix, Doc. No. 61.

This letter of Mr. Holt, though firm and decided in character, is
courteous and respectful, both in tone and in terms. It reviews
the subject in an able and comprehensive manner, explaining and
justifying the conduct of the President. Unlike the letters to
which it is a response, it contains no menace. In conclusion, it
does no more than fix the responsibility of commencing a civil war
on the authorities of South Carolina, should they assault Fort
Sumter and imperil the lives of the brave and loyal men shut up
within its walls. It does not contain a word or an expression
calculated to afford just cause of offence; yet its statements and
its arguments must have cut Colonel Hayne to the quick. To reply
to them successfully was impossible. He, therefore, had no resort
but to get angry. Following in the footsteps of his predecessors,
on the 8th February he addressed an insulting answer, not to
Secretary Holt, as usage and common civility required, but
directly to the President. He then suddenly left Washington,
leaving his missile behind him to be delivered after his
departure. From his conduct he evidently anticipated its fate. His
letter was returned to him on the same day, directed to
Charleston, with the following indorsement: “The character of this
letter is such that it cannot be received. Colonel Hayne having
left the city before it was sent to the President, it is returned
to him by the first mail.” What has become of it we do not know.
No copy of it was retained, nor have we ever heard of it since.

What effect this letter of Mr. Holt may have produced upon the
truculent Governor of South Carolina we shall not attempt to
decide. Certain it is, from whatever cause, no attack was made
upon Fort Sumter until six weeks after the close of Mr. Buchanan’s
administration. The fort remained unmolested until South Carolina
had been for some time a member of the Confederate States. It was
reserved for Mr. Jefferson Davis, their President, to issue the
order for its bombardment, and thus formally to commence the civil
war. This he did with a full consciousness that such would be the
fatal effect; because in the letter from him and other Southern
Senators to Colonel Hayne, of the 15th January, both he and they
had warned Governor Pickens that an attack upon the fort would be
“the instituting hostilities between her [South Carolina] and the
United States.”

Thus ended the second mission from South Carolina to the
President, and thus was he relieved from the truce concluded by
Major Anderson. But in the mean time, before the termination of
this truce, the action of the General Assembly of Virginia,
instituting the Peace Convention, had interposed an insurmountable
obstacle to the reinforcement of Fort Sumter, unless attacked or
in immediate danger of attack, without entirely defeating this
beneficent measure.

The attention of the reader must now be directed to the harbor of Pensacola. To unravel and correct the misrepresentations which have been accepted as part of the history of Mr. Buchanan’s administration, is no agreeable, but it is a very necessary duty. If General Scott, at this period of his life, had not been a man very far advanced in years and burthened with increasing infirmities, he ought to be held to a severer responsibility than I am disposed to apply to him, on account of the entirely unwarrantable imputations which, with great personal inconsistency, he allowed himself to cast upon Mr. Buchanan, after the latter had retired to private life, and after new men had come into power who made it their policy to blame the preceding President.

Pensacola, a town in the western end of the State of Florida, is on a broad bay of the same name, which opens into the Gulf of Mexico. The narrow entrance is commanded by Fort Pickens, built on the extreme western point of Santa Rosa Island, and standing boldly upon the Gulf. This fortress, unlike Fort Sumter, could be relieved at any time by a naval force, which nothing could assail before the fort was reached. Florida “seceded” on the 10th of January. The command of the State troops was assumed by Colonel William H. Chase, previously an officer of the United States corps of engineers. These State forces suddenly expelled a small body of United States troops from the town of Pensacola and the adjacent navy yard. This body of regular troops was under the command of Lieutenant Slemmer, an officer of the artillery, and it consisted of between seventy and eighty men. They took refuge in Fort Pickens. Unless relieved, they were in great danger of being captured by a much superior force, and they were in pressing need of provisions. General Scott’s charge against Mr. Buchanan, made in a paper which he presented to President Lincoln in 1861, and which he called a report, was couched in the following language:

“The Brooklyn, with Captain Vogdes’ company alone, left the Chesapeake for Fort Pickens about January 22d, and on the 29th, President Buchanan having entered into a _quasi_ armistice with certain leading seceders at Pensacola and elsewhere, caused Secretaries Holt and Toucey to instruct, in a joint note, the commanders of the war vessels off Pensacola, and Lieutenant Slemmer, commanding Fort Pickens, to commit no act of hostility, and not to land Captain Vogdes’ company unless the fort should be attacked. That joint note I never saw, but suppose the armistice was consequent upon the Peace Convention at Washington, and was understood to terminate with it.”

The facts are as follows:

1. General Scott not only saw the joint order issued by Secretaries Holt and Toucey, but he approved of it entirely. This is made certain by a note written by Mr. Holt to the President, on the day the order was issued, the 29th of January, informing him of the fact. The original of this note was sealed up by the President and put away. It reads as follows:

[SECRETARY HOLT TO THE PRESIDENT.]

“MY DEAR SIR:—

“The words [of the joint order] are ‘the provisions _necessary_
for the supply of the fort you will land.’ I think the language
could not be more carefully guarded. If, on communication with the
fort, it is found that no provisions are needed, then none will be
landed.

“I have the satisfaction of saying that on submitting the paper to
General Scott, he expressed himself satisfied with it, saying that
there could be no objection to the arrangement in a military point
of view or otherwise.

“Sincerely yours,
“J. HOLT.”

2. The Brooklyn, which, after her return from her cruise in search of the Star of the West, had lain in Hampton Roads ready for any emergency, sailed on the 24th of January for Fort Pickens, with Captain Vogdes’ company of artillery, from Fortress Monroe, and with provisions and military stores. Previous to this, the Secretary of the Navy, as a measure of precaution, had withdrawn from foreign stations all the war vessels that could be spared, and the home squadron was thus made unusually large in the Gulf of Mexico.[134]

Footnote 134:

Writing on the 25th of June, 1861, to Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Toucey
says: “The naval force assembled at Pensacola under your
administration consisted of the steamship Brooklyn, the frigate
Sabine, the sloop of war Macedonian, the steamer Wyandotte, and
for a time the sloop of war St. Louis. Without including the
troops on board the Brooklyn, this squadron could have thrown a
reinforcement of six or seven hundred men into Fort Pickens at any
time.”

3. The circumstances which led to the joint order of January 29th were the following: On the 28th, four days after the Brooklyn sailed, Senators Slidell, of Louisiana, Hunter, of Virginia, and Bigler, of Pennsylvania, received a telegraphic despatch from Senator Mallory, then at Pensacola, with a request that it be laid before the President. It gave the most positive assurances of both Mallory and Chase that no attack would be made on the fort, if its present status should be allowed to remain, and it expressed an anxious desire to preserve peace. Notwithstanding these assurances, the President was careful not to tie his own hands, in regard to Pensacola, as they had been tied for a time by Major Anderson, in regard to Charleston. The Brooklyn might not arrive in time to preserve Fort Pickens, or to supply it with provisions, which must, if needed, be thrown in at every hazard: and while it was of the utmost importance that no collision should occur at that point, and at a moment when the Peace Convention was about to assemble, it was equally important that Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase should be made to understand that the fleet in the Gulf of Mexico would act, at a moment’s warning, not only in the event of any attack upon the fort, but whenever the officer in command should observe that preparations were making for an attack. A cabinet council was accordingly held on the day on which the President saw Mr. Mallory’s despatch to the three Senators, and with the approbation of every member of the cabinet, the President directed the Secretaries of War and of the Navy to issue the following joint order, and to transmit it immediately by telegraph to the naval officers in the Gulf, including the commander of the Brooklyn, and to Lieutenant Slemmer:

WASHINGTON, January 29, 1861.

To JAMES GLYNN, Comdg. the “Macedonian,” Captain W. S. WALKER,
Comdg. the “Brooklyn,” and other Naval Officers in command, and
1st Lieut. A. J. SLEMMER, First Artillery, commanding Fort
Pickens, Pensacola, Florida:—

In consequence of the assurances received from Mr. Mallory in a
telegram of yesterday to Messrs. Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler, with
a request it should be laid before the President, that Fort
Pickens would not be assaulted, and an offer of an assurance to
the same effect from Col. Chase, for the purpose of avoiding a
hostile collision, upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Mr.
Mallory and Col. Chase that Fort Pickens will not be attacked, you
are instructed not to land the company on board the Brooklyn,
unless said fort shall be attacked, or preparations shall be made
for its attack. The provisions necessary for the supply of the
fort you will land. The Brooklyn and the other vessels of war on
the station will remain, and you will exercise the utmost
vigilance, and be prepared at a moment’s warning to land the
company at Fort Pickens, and you and they will instantly repel any
attack on the fort. The President yesterday sent a special message
to Congress, commending the Virginia Resolutions of Compromise.
The commissioners of different States are to meet here on Monday,
the 4th of February, and it is important that during their session
a collision of arms should be avoided, unless an attack should be
made, or there should be preparations for such an attack. In
either event the Brooklyn and the other vessels will act promptly.

Your right and that of the other officers in command at Pensacola
freely to communicate with the Government by special messenger,
and its right in the same manner to communicate with yourself and
them, will remain intact as the basis on which the present
instruction is given.[135]

J. HOLT, Secretary of War,
ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy.

Footnote 135:

This order, which was given by the Secretary of War to Captain
Vogdes, was founded on and embodied a memorandum of instructions
drawn up by the President himself, which now lies before me in his
handwriting:

“You are instructed, for the purpose of avoiding a hostile
collision, not to land your company and stores at Fort Pickens,
upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Major Chase and Mr.
Mallory that the fort will not be attacked. The Brooklyn and the
other vessels of war in the vicinity will remain, and she will
land the company and provisions and defend Fort Pickens, should it
be attacked, exercising the utmost vigilance. The President
yesterday sent a special message to Congress commending the
Virginia Resolutions of Compromise. The commissioners of different
States are to meet here on Monday next, 4th February. During their
session, a collision of arms ought to be avoided, unless an attack
should be made on Fort Pickens, and then it must be repelled.”

4. On the morning of the same day on which this joint order was issued, Senator Bigler called at the White House, but being unable to wait for an interview with the President, he dictated to the private secretary the following message to the President:

“I have seen Mr. Slidell and Mr. Hunter. They both think it very
important that collisions should be avoided, and have no doubt of
the truth of all that Mr. Mallory has said. They think also that
the Brooklyn might be very properly kept there to succor the fort
in case of attack. Of course no despatch will be sent to Mr.
Mallory, unless authorized by you. You might send such a despatch
to the Senate Chamber, as you may desire to have sent.”

(Taken down from Mr. Bigler’s dictation, he being unable to remain
on account of meeting of tariff committee.

A. J. G.[136]

Tuesday morning, January 29, 1861.)

Footnote 136:

A. J. Glosbrenner, private secretary to the President. The
original memorandum in Mr. Glosbrenner’s handwriting is before me.

5. On the arrival of the joint order at Pensacola, Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase gave to the naval and military commanders of the United States the assurances which the order required. The Brooklyn did not reach Pensacola until the 5th of February. But under the order the fort was supplied with provisions, and made perfectly secure from any attack. No attack was made, and the fort remained in the possession of the Government from that time forward.

It is thus apparent that, with reference to Fort Pickens, the whole arrangement, although it amounted to a qualified armistice, differed absolutely from that made by Major Anderson with Governor Pickens, in regard to Fort Sumter. Anderson agreed to a temporary suspension of arms on both sides. The President, in respect to Fort Pickens, instructed the naval and military officers to defend the fort against any attack, and not to wait for an actual attack, but to succor Lieut. Slemmer on the instant that they perceived any preparations for attacking him. It is impossible to suggest in what way the President could have more effectually protected the rights of the Government, on the eve of the assembling of the Peace Convention. Fort Pickens, with the Brooklyn, the Macedonian, and other war vessels in its immediate neighborhood, and in the hands of Lieut. Slemmer, was just as safe as if ten thousand men had been thrown into it, while the precautions taken prevented any outbreak that would, if any had occurred, have prostrated the hope with which the country was looking to the labors of the Peace Convention.

How great were the anxieties felt by the Virginians whose State had proposed that assembly, may be seen from an account which may now be given of the informal intercourse between ex-President Tyler and President Buchanan. Mr. Tyler was alarmed when he arrived in Washington and heard that the Brooklyn had sailed with troops for some Southern fort. As all eyes and thoughts were then directed to the harbor of Charleston, Mr. Tyler took the readiest means to ascertain what he could respecting the Brooklyn’s destination. On the evening of January 25th, he addressed to the President the following note:

[MR. TYLER TO THE PRESIDENT.]

Friday evening, January 25, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

The enclosed telegraphic despatch is this moment received. May I
be permitted to hope that it is based on an unfounded report. If
not, will you do me the favor to inform me on what day the
Brooklyn sailed, and whether she has recruits for any Southern
fort, and if so, which?

With high regard, yours most truly,
JOHN TYLER.

The President’s answer was as follows:

[PRESIDENT BUCHANAN TO MR. TYLER.]

January 25, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I have just received your note. The orders were given to the
Brooklyn, I believe, on Monday or Tuesday last—certainly before
your arrival in this city. She goes on an errand of mercy and
relief. If she had not been sent, it would have been an
abandonment of our highest duty. Her movements are in no way
connected with South Carolina.

Your friend, very respectfully,
JAMES BUCHANAN.

Mr. Tyler returned to Richmond on the 29th, and before he left the following notes were exchanged between him and the President:

[MR. TYLER TO THE PRESIDENT.]

BROWN’S HOTEL, January 28, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I leave the city to-morrow morning for the brief interval that
elapses between this and the meeting of the [Peace] commissioners
on the 4th February. In making my adieus, which I would do in
person but for engagements which prevent, I desire to express my
pleasure at hearing your message read to-day in the Senate, and to
tender to you my acknowledgments for the facilities you have
afforded me of acquitting myself of the mission with which my
State entrusted me. I feel but one regret in all that has
occurred, and that is in the sailing of the Brooklyn, under orders
issued before my arrival in this city. I hope, however, that she
sailed with such instructions as, if followed, will prevent any
collision. There is nothing that I more sincerely desire than that
your administration may close amid the rejoicings of a great
people at the consummation of the work of a renewed and more
harmonious confederacy.

Will you pardon me for calling your attention to the rumor
contained in the newspapers of the morning, which state that
active proceedings are in course of execution at Fortress Monroe,
in planting cannon upon the land side of the fort, with their
muzzles turned landward and overlooking the country? If this be
so, Mr. President, is such proceeding either appropriate or
well-timed? I shall do no more than call your attention to the
circumstance, and leave it without comment, with this single
remark: that when Virginia is making every possible effort to
redeem and save the Union, it is seemingly ungracious to have
cannon levelled at her bosom.

With my most cordial wish for your success in steering the ship of
State amid the critical relations of the country,

I am, dear Sir, truly and faithfully yours,
JOHN TYLER.

[PRESIDENT BUCHANAN TO MR. TYLER.]

WASHINGTON, January 28, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I have received your note of this evening, and am happy to learn
that you were pleased at hearing my message read to-day in the
Senate. It expresses my sincere and cordial sentiments. My best
wishes attend you on your journey home and for your safe return to
this city on the 4th February. I shall then hope to see more of
you.

I shall make it a point to inquire to-morrow morning into the
rumors in the newspapers, to which you refer, in relation to
Fortress Monroe.

Yours very respectfully,
JAMES BUCHANAN.

Mr. Tyler was again in Washington on the 4th of February, to attend the sessions of the Peace Convention, of which he was made the presiding officer. On the 7th the members of that body were received by the President. On the 8th Mr. Tyler, still anxious in regard to the situation of things in Charleston, called upon the President, and I find in the handwriting of the latter the following account of their interview:

Friday, February 8th, 1861.

President Tyler and his lady called to see me at about three
o’clock in the afternoon. They informed me that Colonel Hayne
became much excited on the perusal of Mr. Holt’s last letter, and
considered it highly insulting in its character. I told him that
this must be a mere pretext,—there was nothing in that letter
unkind or disrespectful, and certainly there was no intention to
write anything but what was respectful, as its whole tenor would
prove.

In answer to it I had received one of the most outrageous and
insulting letters from Colonel Hayne which had ever been addressed
to the head of any government. He told me he would send for
Colonel Hayne, and get him to withdraw the letter. I told him
Colonel Hayne had left that morning at six o’clock, and his letter
was not delivered to me until between eleven and twelve.

He asked me if he might telegraph to Governor Pickens what I had
said relative to the character of Mr. Holt’s letter. I told him
certainly he might, he was at perfect liberty to do so. The letter
would speak for itself, and I asked him if he had read it, and he
said he had not.

He then asked me and urged upon me to permit him to telegraph to
Colonel Hayne that I would not send reinforcements to the garrison
if Governor Pickens would pledge himself that he would not attack
it. I told him this was impossible. I could not agree to bind
myself not to reinforce the garrison in case I deemed it
necessary. That Mr. Holt’s letter showed that these reinforcements
had not yet been ordered, but that the character of Colonel
Hayne’s letter was such that these might be immediately necessary.

Mr. Tyler strongly urged that I should withdraw the garrison, and
urged reasons to that effect. I told him this was quite
impossible—that I could never voluntarily surrender the property
of the United States which it was my solemn and imperative duty to
protect and defend. (He afterwards addressed me a note, urging the
same policy, which I did not answer.)

In order to prevent all mistakes, I told him explicitly, as he was
about departing, that he was not authorized to telegraph anything
to Governor Pickens except as to the character of Mr. Holt’s
letter; that it was not insulting or disrespectful, but, on the
contrary, it was kind and respectful in its tone, and was so
intended both by the writer and myself. I then informed him that I
had sent Colonel Hayne’s letter back to him. He said such a letter
was highly improper, addressed to the head of a government.

[MR. TYLER TO THE PRESIDENT.]

Saturday evening, February 9, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I communicated to Governor Pickens what passed between us as to
Mr. Holt’s letter, and I am happy to say that the reply, received
a moment ago, leaves me no ground to fear any early disturbance.
The whole subject is referred to the convention at Montgomery, as
I plainly infer. The conclusion is in these words: “Everything
which can be done consistently with the honor and safety of this
State to avoid collision and bloodshed, has been and will be the
purpose of the authorities here.”

Thus, my dear sir, the inquietude you expressed may be dismissed.

Very truly and faithfully yours,
JOHN TYLER.

It will be remembered, that on the 19th of February, the President received information from Philadelphia, by a copy of a telegram said to have been forwarded from Governor Pickens through Augusta to Montgomery, that the Governor was urging an immediate attack on Fort Sumter. This information the President at once communicated to Mr. Tyler. The following notes disclose what Mr. Tyler learned:

[MR. TYLER TO THE PRESIDENT.]

Tuesday, February 19, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I do not believe a word of it. My last despatch from Judge
Robertson is wholly different. I am at the moment so engaged that
I cannot hasten to you. I will as soon as I can.

Respectfully, your friend,
JOHN TYLER.

Wednesday, February 20, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I despatched the telegram at about 5 o’clock. No answer yet.
Perhaps it was referred to Montgomery, or time may not have been
given to respond before the close of the office. A consultation of
cabinet may have been required. In short, many things of a similar
nature may have occurred. General Davis will be written to to-day.
No attack can be made without orders from Montgomery.

Truly yours,
JOHN TYLER.

Two o’clock P.M., February 20, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I have this moment received a telegram from Charleston. The
Governor says: “Received your message; know nothing about the
report you speak of; no one is authorized to speak for me; things
must stand without any movement in force.” I would send the
despatch, but the latter part of it relates to another matter.

Truly and sincerely your friend,
JOHN TYLER.

BROWN’S HOTEL, February 24, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I think you may rely upon tranquillity at the South. Since you
left me I have made particular inquiries. General Davis has been
written to and will be written to. He is advised to send a
commissioner, and to go to Charleston himself to represent and
quiet all things. In fact, from information from one directly from
Richmond, and who travelled with merchants from the South going
North, the probability is that he is now in Charleston. The fact
may probably be announced in the papers to-morrow. Every one that
I have seen, secessionists and others, concur with myself in the
improbability of any movement until a commissioner shall come on
here and a failure in the mission.

Truly and faithfully yours,
JOHN TYLER.

The explanation of the last of these notes is that Mr. Jefferson Davis had assumed at this time, at Montgomery, the office of President of the Confederate States. His inaugural address was delivered on the 18th of February, and his cabinet was organized immediately thereafter. In compliance with the intimation sent by Mr. Tyler, steps were at once taken by Mr. Davis to send commissioners to Washington. It was, therefore, not the “cue” of the Confederate government to have an immediate attack made on Fort Sumter. Mr. Davis did not go to Charleston, but he doubtless exerted there, for a time, the influence which Mr. Tyler desired.