Chapter XIII: Incidents of the Years 1863 and 1864

James W. White, of New York City, writes, March 6, to ask Trumbull, as a member of the Seward Committee, whether it is a fact that President Lincoln had knowledge of the dispatches written by Secretary Seward to Minister Adams, dated April 10, 1861, and July 5, 1862, before they were sent, and whether he approved the same.

This refers to an event which very nearly upset President Lincoln's Cabinet in the beginning of 1863. Secretary Seward had entered the Cabinet under strong suspicions of lukewarmness toward the war policy of the President, which suspicions were shared by the Republican Senators generally. Consequently they were prepared to believe that the want of success which attended the Union arms was due to a lack of earnestness at headquarters, and that the man who paralyzed Lincoln was the Secretary of State. While this feeling was rankling in many bosoms, and especially among those who had considered the Executive remiss in dealing with the slavery question, the official correspondence of the State Department of the preceding year came from the press, containing, among other letters, one from Seward to Minister Adams dated July 5, 1862, with the following words:

It seems as if the extreme advocates of African slavery and its
most vehement opponents were acting in concert together to
precipitate a servile war--the former by making the most
desperate attempts to overthrow the Federal Union, the latter
by demanding an edict of universal emancipation as a lawful and
necessary, if not, as they say, the only legitimate way of
saving the Union.

Probably this was a private note, which got into the published volume by mistake, but it was oil on the flames in 1863, and it became public simultaneously with the news of General Burnside's defeat at Fredericksburg. These were among the darkest hours of the war. The Republican Senators thought that the rebellion would never be put down unless Seward were forced out of the Cabinet and that now was the time to act. A caucus was held and a committee appointed, of which Senator Collamer was chairman, to visit the President and express the opinion that Mr. Seward had lost the confidence of Congress and the country, and that his resignation was necessary to a successful prosecution of the war. Trumbull was one of the members of the committee.

Seward's unlucky letter, which formed the occasion of Judge White's communication to Trumbull, was written shortly before Lincoln's preliminary proclamation of emancipation as to slaves in the rebel states was published. Senator Sumner took the letter to the President and asked if he had ever given his sanction to it. He replied that he had never seen it before. The newspapers got hold of this fact and made it hot for Seward. The New York _Times_, however, denied, apparently by authority, that Seward had ever sent any dispatch to a foreign minister without first submitting it to the President and getting his approval of it. Such a denial would be technically correct if this letter were a private communication, not intended for the public archives. Judge White, in a public letter, maintained that Seward never had submitted this letter to his chief, thus raising a question of veracity with the _Times_. So he wrote the foregoing letter to Trumbull hoping to find a backer in him. Trumbull replied in the following terms:

Pressing engagements and an indisposition to become involved
in the controversy to which your letter of the 6th alludes must
be my apology for not sooner replying to your inquiries. The
want of harmony, not to say the antagonism, between some of the
dispatches referred to and the avowed policy of the President
would seem to afford sufficient evidence to a discerning public
that both could not have emanated from the same mind. In view,
therefore, of the manner in which the information in my
possession was obtained, and not perceiving at this time that
the public good would be subserved by any disclosure I could
make, I must be excused for not undertaking to furnish
extraneous evidence in the matter.

The accusations of the senatorial committee against Seward were summarized by Lincoln truthfully and with a touch of humor. "While they seemed to believe in my honesty," he said, "they also appeared to think that whenever I had in me any good purpose Seward contrived to suck it out unperceived." Seward was no more to blame for the ill success of the Union armies than any other member of the Cabinet. The inefficiency in our armies, according to Gideon Welles, resided in the President's chief military adviser, General Halleck. However that may have been, it is well that the errand of the Republican Senators to the White House proved fruitless, since, if successful, it might have created a precedent which would have upset our form of government.

G. Koerner, Minister to Spain, writes from Madrid, March 22, 1863, that he is very much discouraged about the prospects of the war. He trusts more to the exhaustion of the South than to the victories of the North.

My situation, under the circumstances, has been a very
unpleasant one. For days and weeks I have avoided meetings and
reunions where I would have had to answer questions, often
meant in a very friendly manner, but still embarrassing to me.
My family has also lived very retired, for the additional
reason that we are not able to return the many hospitalities to
which we are invited constantly. We have the greatest trouble
in the world to live here in the most modest manner within our
means. We forego many, very many, of the comforts we were
accustomed to at home.

From Columbus, Georgia, October 26, 1863, Alfred Iverson (former Senator), trusting that the difficulties in which the two sections are involved may not have extinguished the feelings of courtesy and humanity in the hearts of individual gentlemen, writes, at the instance of an anxious mother, to make inquiries in reference to Charles G. Flournoy, supposed to have been captured with other Confederate soldiers by General Grant's forces in the vicinity of Vicksburg, and to be confined in a military prison at Alton, Illinois.

Walter B. Scates (former judge of the supreme court of Illinois, Democrat, now serving as assistant adjutant-general in the Thirteenth Army Corps) writes from New Orleans, November 14, 1863, that he is thoroughly convinced of the propriety and necessity of destroying slavery as a means of ending this most wicked war and preventing a recurrence of a like misfortune; is ready to take an active part in the organization of colored regiments, that they may assist in maintaining the Government and winning their own freedom.

From Topeka, Kansas, November 16, John T. Morton remonstrates against the appointment of M. W. Delahay as judge of the United States District Court, because he is utterly incompetent. Says he gave up the practice of his profession in Illinois because he was so ignorant that nobody would employ him. O. M. Hatch confirms Morton; says the appointment is unfit to be made; has known Delahay personally for twenty years. Jesse K. Dubois and D. L. Phillips confirm Hatch.

Jackson Grimshaw writes from Quincy, December 3:

Will the Senate confirm that miserable man Delahay for Judge
in Kansas? The appointment is disgraceful to the President, who
knew Delahay and all his faults, but the disgrace to the
Administration will be greater if the Senate confirms him. He
is no lawyer, could not try a case properly even in a Justice's
court and has no character. Mr. Buchanan in his worst days
never made so disgraceful an appointment to the bench.

Herndon relates that Delahay's expenses to the Chicago nominating convention, as an expected delegate from Kansas, were promised by Lincoln. He was not a delegate and never had the remotest chance of being one, but he came as a "hustler" and Lincoln paid his expenses all the same. He was nevertheless appointed judge, was impeached by Congress in 1872 under charges of incompetency, corruption, and drunkenness on and off the bench, and resigned while the impeachment committee was taking testimony.

Major-General John M. Palmer writes from Chattanooga, December 18, 1863:

The Illinois troops (now voters) are beginning to talk about
the Presidency. Mr. Lincoln is by far the strongest man with
the army, and no combination could be made which would impair
his strength with this army unless, perhaps, Grant's candidacy
would. The people of Tennessee would now vote for Lincoln, it
is thought by many. Andy Johnson is understood to be a
Presidential aspirant by most people in this state. He is not
as popular as I once thought he was, though if he will exert
himself to do so he can be Governor, or Senator, when the state
is reorganized. He is understood to favor emancipation, and the
people are prepared for it, but I fear personal questions will
complicate the matter. The truth is all these Southern
politicians are behind the times sadly. There is nothing
practical about them. Now, when the whole social and political
fabric is broken up, new foundations might be laid for
institutions which would in their effects within twenty years
compensate the State for all its losses, heavy as they are. But
not much will be done, I fear, because the politicians don't
seem to know what is required. One fourth of the people are
destitute, and yet the leaders have not humanity and energy
enough to induce them to organize for mutual assistance. There
are farms enough in middle Tennessee deserted by their rebel
owners to give temporary homes to thousands, and yet no one
will take the responsibility of putting them in possession, but
the leaders quietly suffer the poor to wander homeless all over
the country.

Colonel Fred Hecker writes from Lookout Valley, Tennessee, December 21:

Again we are encamped in Lookout Valley after heavy fighting
and marching from November 22 to December 16, stopping a
victorious march at the gates of Knoxville, returning with
barefooted, ragged men, but cheerful hearts. This was more than
a fight. It was a wild chase after an enemy making no stand,
leaving everywhere in our hands, muskets, cannon, ammunition,
provisions, stores, etc., and large numbers of prisoners.
These, as well as the populations, were unanimous in declaring
that the people of the South are tired of the war and rebellion
and are in earnest in the desire for peace and order. I
conversed much with men of different positions in life,
education, and political parties, from the enraged secessionist
to the unwavering Union man just returning from his
hiding-place, and I am fully convinced that most of the work is
done. A great many had no idea what war was till both armies,
passing over the country, had taught them the lesson, and there
is such a prevailing union feeling in North Carolina, northern
Alabama, and Georgia, as I have ascertained in a hundred
conversations with men of that section of the country, that the
result of the next campaign is not the least doubtful. You
remember what I told you about General Grant at a time when
this excellent man was pursued by malice and slander. I feel
greatly satisfied that his enemies are now forced to do him
justice. The battle of Chattanooga, with all its great
consequences, was a masterpiece of planning and manoeuvring,
and every man of us is proud to have been an actor in this ever
memorable action. Revolution and war sift men and consume
reputations with the voracity of Kronos, and it is good that it
is so.

From Chattanooga, January 24, 1864, Major-General John M. Palmer writes:

I saw Grant yesterday and had a conversation with him.
Peace-at-any-price men would have a hard bargain in him as
their candidate. He is a soldier and, of course, regards
negroes at their value as military materials. He has just
enough sentiment and humanity about him to make him a careful
general, and he esteems men, black or white, as too valuable to
be wasted. He does not desire to be a candidate for the
Presidency; prefers his present theatre of service to any
other. Nor will the officers of the army willingly give him up.
He has no enemies, and it is very difficult to understand how
he can have any. He is honest, brave, frank, and modest. Is
perfectly willing that his subordinates shall win all the
reputation and glory possible; will help them when he can, with
the most unselfish earnestness. He demands no adulation, and
gives credit for every honest effort, and if efforts are
unsuccessful he has the sense, and the sense of justice, to
understand the reasons for failure and to attach to them their
proper importance. Nobody is jealous of Grant and he is jealous
of no one. He is not a great man. He is precisely equal to his
situation. His success has been wonderful and must be
attributed, I think, to his fine common sense and the faculty
he possesses in a wonderful degree of making himself
understood. I do not think he will be anybody's candidate for
the Presidency this time, but after that his stock will be at a
premium for anything he wants. Mr. Lincoln is popular with the
army, and will, as far as the soldiers can vote, beat anything
the Copperheads can start. No civilian or mere book-making
general can get votes in the army against him.

J. K. Dubois, Springfield, January 30, says:

We are receiving daily old regiments who are reenlisting and
are sent home on furlough for thirty days to see their friends
and recruit. This is very damaging to the Copperhead crew of
our state. They swear and groan over this fact, for they have
preached and affirmed that the soldiers were held in subjection
by their officers, and that as soon as their time was up they
would show their officers and the President that they would
have nothing more to do with this Abolition crusade. And so
when these same men's time will have expired, commencing next
June, they say to rebels both front and rear: "We were at the
beginning of this fight and we intend also to be at the end."
All honor to these brave and loyal men.

Israel B. Bigelow, Brownsville, Texas, May 5, 1864, says that before the war it was commonly said that soil and climate would regulate slavery.

In theory this was right if slavery was right, and whether
right or wrong, slavery is declining, and with my very hearty
concurrence--to my own astonishment. No man ever regarded a
Massachusetts Abolitionist with greater abhorrence than myself,
and yet I have subscribed to Mr. Lincoln's ironclad oath. Time
works wondrous changes in men's feelings, and there are
thousands of slaveholders in this state who, two years ago,
cursed Mr. Lincoln and his Government, who are now willing to
have their slaves freed if the war can be brought to an end.

We now come upon the first evidence of any difference, of a personal kind, existing between Senator Trumbull and President Lincoln. Opposing views on questions of public policy, such as the Confiscation Bill and arbitrary arrests, have already been noted. A difference of another kind is disclosed in a letter from N. B. Judd, Minister to Prussia. Judd had returned to his post after a visit to this country. He wrote to Trumbull under date, Berlin, January, 1864:

When I last saw you your conviction was that L. would be
reelected. I tell you combinations can't prevent it. Events
possibly may. But until some event occurs, is it wise or
prudent to give an impression of hostility for no earthly good?
Usually your judgment controls your feelings. Don't let the
case be reversed now. Although a severe thinker you are not
constitutionally a croaker. Excuse the freedom of my writing. I
have given you proofs that I am no holiday friend of yours.

The next piece of evidence found is a letter from Trumbull himself to H. G. McPike, of Alton, Illinois, one of the few letters of which he kept a copy in his own handwriting:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 1864.

The feeling for Mr. Lincoln's reelection _seems_ to be very
general, but much of it I discover is only on the surface. You
would be surprised, in talking with public men we meet here, to
find how few, when you come to get at their real sentiments,
are for Mr. Lincoln's reelection. There is a distrust and fear
that he is too undecided and inefficient to put down the
rebellion. You need not be surprised if a reaction sets in
before the nomination, in favor of some man supposed to possess
more energy and less inclination to trust our brave boys in the
hands and under the leadership of generals who have no heart in
the war. The opposition to Mr. L. may not show itself at all,
but if it ever breaks out there will be more of it than now
appears. Congress will do its duty, and it is not improbable we
may pass a resolution to amend the Constitution so as to
abolish slavery forever throughout the United States.

The third scrap is a letter from Governor Yates to Trumbull dated Springfield, February 26, to whom, perhaps, McPike showed Trumbull's letter quoted above. Yates writes:

As you are a Senator from _Illinois_, the state of Mr. Lincoln,
please be cautious as to your course till I see you. I have
such strong regard for you personally that I do not wish either
enemies or friends on our side, who would like to supplant you,
to get any undue advantage over you.

Trumbull believed there was a lack of efficiency in the use made, by the executive branch of the Government, of the means placed at its disposal for putting down the rebellion. That such was his opinion was made clear by his participation in the anti-Seward movements of the previous year. Whether the opinion was justified or not, it was so generally entertained in Washington that if the nomination had rested in the hands of the Senators and Representatives in Congress, Lincoln would have had very few votes in the Baltimore Convention. Albert G. Riddle describes a scene in the White House in February, 1864, illustrative of public sentiment in Washington at that time. The reception room of the Executive Mansion was filled with persons, most of whom were inveighing against Lincoln, who was not present. The one most loud and bitter against the President was Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts. His assaults were so amazing that Riddle cautioned him to choose some other place than the Executive Mansion for uttering them; advised him to make his speeches in the Senate, or get himself elected to the coming National Union Convention and then denounce Lincoln, where his words might have some effect. Wilson replied that he knew the people were for Lincoln and that nothing could prevent his renomination.[67]

The opposition was based wholly upon charges of inefficiency and lack of earnestness and vigor in the prosecution of the war. But the feeling, both among the people at home and the soldiers in the field, was so overwhelmingly for Lincoln, that when the delegates came together in convention the opposition in Congress was silenced. After the nominations of both parties had been made, however, the previous distrust reappeared on a larger scale and became so pronounced that Lincoln himself thought that he was about to be defeated and took steps to turn the Government over to McClellan practically before the constitutional period for his own retirement.[68] If Lincoln himself was in despair, other persons who shared his gloom might be excused.

The radicals who were opposed to Lincoln held a convention in the city of Cleveland on the 31st of May, 1864, and nominated General John C. Fremont for President and General John Cochrane for Vice-President. Among the leaders in this movement were B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Wendell Phillips, of Massachusetts, and Rev. George B. Cheever, of New York. They had the sympathy of Ben Wade, of Ohio, and Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, and they reckoned upon the support of many radical Germans of the fiery type, perhaps sufficiently numerous to turn the votes of some important Western States. On the 21st of September, Fremont withdrew as a candidate and on the 23d the President asked for the resignation of Montgomery Blair as Postmaster-General, which the latter immediately gave. The simultaneous retirement of Fremont and Blair, who were known to be enemies to each other, led to a suspicion that there was some connection between the two events. The account given by Nicolay and Hay conveys no hint of this, but is confused and self-contradictory. Evidence is available to indicate that Fremont made his retirement conditional upon the removal of Blair from the Cabinet, and that Lincoln, although reluctant to lose Blair from his official family, deemed it a necessity to get the third ticket out of the presidential contest, for public reasons.[69]

In the Senatorial contest of 1867 the false accusation was made that Trumbull had refused to make speeches in favor of Lincoln's reelection; whereas he was the leading speaker at the great Union Mass Meeting at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1864, which was addressed by Doolittle, Yates, and Logan also. His correspondence shows that he spoke at several other places during that month.

But speech-making did not gain the victory in the election of 1864. That fight was won by General Sherman at Atlanta, aided by General Sheridan in the Valley of Virginia, and by Admiral Farragut at Mobile.

FOOTNOTES:

[67] Riddle's _Recollections of War-Time_, p. 267.

[68] Nicolay & Hay, ix, 251.

[69] A letter dated August 9, 1910, in my possession, from Mr. Gist Blair, son of Montgomery Blair, says: "I have always understood that my father retired from Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet in order to secure the withdrawal of Fremont as a candidate against Mr. Lincoln. There are letters which I cannot now put my hand on, which indicate that Mr. Lincoln continued to consult my father practically the same as if he were a member of the Cabinet, up to the time of Mr. Lincoln's death."