The Life of Lyman Trumbull

9

Reynolds wrote a Pioneer History of Illinois from 1637 to 1818, and also a larger volume entitled My Own Times. The latter is the more important of the two. Although crabbed in style, it is an admirable compendium of the social, political, and personal affairs of Illinois from 1800 to 1850. Taking events at random, in short chapters, without connection, circumlocution, or ornament, he says the first thing that comes into his mind in the fewest possible words, makes mistakes of syntax, but never goes back to correct anything, puts down small things and great, tells about murders and lynchings, about footraces in which he took part, and a hundred other things that are usually omitted in histories, but which throw light on man in the social state, all interspersed with sound and shrewd judgments on public men and events.

10

The following correspondence passed between them:

Springfield, March 4, 1843.

Lyman Trumbull, Esq.,

Dear Sir: It is my desire, in pursuance of the expressed wish of the Democracy, to make a nomination of Secretary of State, and I hope you will enable me to do so without embarrassing myself. I am most respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

Thomas Ford.

Springfield, March 4, 1843.

To His Excellency, Thomas Ford:

Sir,—In reply to your note of this date this moment handed me, I have only to state that I recognize fully your right, at any time, to make a nomination of Secretary of State.

11

American Notes, chap. xiii. The reason why horses were more precious than human life was that when the frontier farmer lost his work-team, he faced starvation. Both murder and horse-stealing were then capital offenses, the latter by the court of Judge Lynch.

12

Mr. Morris St. P. Thomas, a close friend of Trumbull in his latter years, a member of his law office, and administrator of his estate, made the following statement in an interview given at 107 Dearborn Street, Chicago, June 13, 1910: "Judge Trumbull once told me that he had never in his life given a promissory note. 'But you do not mean,' said I, 'that in every purchase of real estate you ever made you paid cash down!' 'I do mean just that,' the Judge replied. 'I never in my life gave a promissory note.'"

13

These facts are detailed in a paper contributed to the Illinois State Historical Society in 1908 by Joseph B. Lemen, of O'Fallon, Illinois.

14

Negro Servitude in Illinois, by N. Dwight Harris, p. 108.

15

The Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society for October, 1912, contains an autobiography of Stephen A. Douglas, of fifteen pages, dated September, 1838, which was recently found in his own handwriting by his son, Hon. Robert M. Douglas, of North Carolina. It terminates just before his first campaign for Congress.

16

Cong. Globe, July, 1856, Appendix, p. 712.

17

Letter to the Missouri Democrat, dated March 1, 1856, quoted in P. Ormon Ray's Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, p. 232.

18

Some testimony as to the effect produced upon Douglas himself by this speech was supplied to me long afterwards from a trustworthy quarter in the following letter:—

New York, Dec. 7, 1908.

My dear Mr. White:

In 1891, at his office in Chicago, Mr. W. C. Gowdy told me that Judge Douglas spent the night with him at his house preceding his debate with Mr. Lincoln; that after the evening meal Judge Douglas exhibited considerable restlessness, pacing back and forth upon the floor of the room, evidently with mental preoccupation. The attitude of Judge Douglas was so unusual that Mr. Gowdy felt impelled to address him, and said: "Judge Douglas, you appear to be ill at ease and under some mental agitation; it cannot be that you have any anxiety with reference to the outcome of the debate you are to have with Mr. Lincoln; you cannot have any doubt of your ability to dispose of him."

Whereupon Judge Douglas, stopping abruptly, turned to Mr. Gowdy and said, with great emphasis: "Yes, Gowdy, I am troubled over the progress and outcome of this debate. I have known Lincoln for many years, and I have continually met him in debate. I regard him as the most difficult and dangerous opponent that I have ever met and I have serious misgivings as to what may be the result of this joint debate."

These in substance, and almost in exact phraseology, are the words repeated to me by Mr. Gowdy. Faithfully yours,

Mr. Gowdy was a state senator in 1854 and his home was at or near Peoria. There was no joint debate between Lincoln and Douglas at or near Gowdy's residence, except that of 1854.

19

The following manuscript, written by one of Lincoln's supporters who was himself a member of the legislature, was found among the papers of William H. Herndon:

"In the contest for the United States Senate in the winter of 1854-55 in the Illinois Legislature, nearly all the Whigs and some of the 'anti-Nebraska Democrats' preferred Mr. Lincoln to any other man. Some of them (and myself among the number) had been candidates and had been elected by the people for the express purpose of doing all in their power for his election, and a great deal of their time during the session was taken up, both in caucus and out of it, in laboring to unite the anti-Nebraska party on their favorite, but there was from the first, as the result proved, an insuperable obstacle to their success. Four of the anti-Nebraska Democrats had been elected in part by Democrats, and they not only personally preferred Mr. Trumbull, but considered his election necessary to consolidate the union between all those who were opposed to repeal of the Missouri Compromise and to the new policy upon the subject of slavery which Mr. Douglas and his friends were laboring so hard to inaugurate. They insisted that the election of Mr. Trumbull to the Senate would secure thousands of Democratic votes to the anti-Nebraska party who would be driven off by the election of Mr. Lincoln—that the Whig party were nearly a unit in opposition to Mr. Douglas, so that the election of the favorite candidate of the majority would give no particular strength in that quarter, and they manifested a fixed purpose to vote steadily for Mr. Trumbull and not at all for Mr. Lincoln, and thus compel the friends of Mr. Lincoln to vote for their man to prevent the election of Governor Matteson, who, as was ascertained, could, after the first few ballots, carry enough anti-Nebraska men to elect him. These four men were Judd, of Cook, Palmer, of Macoupin, Cook, of LaSalle, and Baker, of Madison. Allen, of Madison, went with them, but was not inflexible, and would have voted for Lincoln cheerfully, but did not want to separate from his Democratic friends. These men kept aloof from the caucus of both parties during the winter. They would not act with the Democrats from principle, and would not act with the Whigs from policy.

"When the election came off, it was evident, after the first two or three ballots, that Mr. Lincoln could not be elected, and it was feared that if the balloting continued long, Governor Matteson would be elected. Mr. Lincoln then advised his friends to vote for Mr. Trumbull; they did so, and elected him.

"Mr. Lincoln was very much disappointed, for I think that at that time it was the height of his ambition to get into the United States Senate. He manifested, however, no bitterness towards Mr. Judd or the other anti-Nebraska Democrats, by whom practically he was beaten, but evidently thought that their motives were right. He told me several times afterwards that the election of Trumbull was the best thing that could have happened.

"There was a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the state at the result of the election. The Whigs constituted a vast majority of the anti-Nebraska party. They thought they were entitled to the Senator and that Mr. Lincoln by his contest with Mr. Douglas had caused the victory. Mr. Lincoln, however, generously exonerated Mr. Trumbull and his friends from all blame in the matter. Trumbull's first encounter with Douglas in the Senate filled the people of Illinois with admiration for his abilities, and the ill-feeling caused by his election gradually faded away.

"Sam C. Parks."

20

Edited by B. F. Stringfellow, author of African Slavery no Evil, St. Louis, 1854.

21

Cited in Villard's John Brown, p. 94.

22

Cong. Globe, Appendix, 1856. p. 118.

23

The writer of this book was intimately acquainted with the doings of the Emigrant Aid Societies of the country, having been connected with the National Kansas Committee at Chicago. The emigrants usually went up the Missouri River by rail from St. Louis to Jefferson City and thence by steamboat to Kansas City, Wyandotte, or Leavenworth. They were cautioned to conceal as much as possible their identity and destination, in order to avoid trouble. Such caution was not necessary, however, since the emigrants knew that their own success depended largely upon keeping that avenue of approach to Kansas open. Later, in the summer of 1856, it was closed, not in consequence of any threatening language or action on the part of the emigrants, but because the Border Ruffians were determined to cut off reinforcements to the Free State men in Kansas. The tide of travel then took the road through Iowa and Nebraska, a longer, more circuitous, and more expensive route.

24

Appendix, p. 200.

25

Cong. Globe, 34th Congress, Appendix, p. 281.

26

In this debate Clayton, of Delaware, contended that the word "forever" was meant to apply to any future political body, whether territory or state, occupying the ground embraced in the defined limits. Hence he considered the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, but he had opposed the Nebraska Bill because he was not willing to reopen the slavery agitation. Cong. Globe, 34th Congress, Appendix, p. 777.

27

Cong. Globe, 1856, p. 1371.

28

John H. Bryant, a man of large influence in central Illinois, brother of William Cullen Bryant.

29

Green B. Raum, Lawyer, Democrat, brigadier-general in the Union army in the Civil War.

30

Cong. Globe, vol. 42, p. 16.

31

Cong. Globe, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 571.

32

Lincoln and Herndon, by Joseph Fort Newton, p. 148.

33

Frederick Trevor Hill in Harper's Magazine, July, 1907.

34

Herndon-Weik. Life of Lincoln, 2d edition, vol. ii, chap. iv.

35

When Lincoln, at the Freeport debate, asked Douglas whether the people of a territory could in any lawful way exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state constitution, Douglas replied that Lincoln had heard him answer that question "a hundred times from every stump in Illinois." He certainly had answered it more than once, and his answer had been published without attracting attention or comment either North or South. On the 16th of July, 1858, six weeks before the Freeport joint debate, he spoke at Bloomington, and there announced and affirmed the doctrine of "unfriendly legislation" as a means of excluding slavery from the territories. Lincoln was one of the persons present when this speech was delivered. On the next day, Douglas spoke at Springfield and repeated what he had said at Bloomington. Both of these speeches were published in the Illinois State Register of July 19, yet the fact was not perceived, either by Lincoln himself, or by any of the lynx-eyed editors and astute political friends who labored to prevent him from asking Douglas the momentous question. Nor did the Southern leaders seem to be aware of Douglas's views on this question until they learned it from the Freeport debate.

36

Cong. Globe, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2241.

37

The manuscript of the foregoing letter is in the Lambert collection of Lincolniana. The two following which relate also to Delahay's senatorial aspirations, are in the collection of Jesse W. Weik, of Greencastle, Ind.:

Springfield, October 17, 1859.

Dear Delahay: Your letter requesting me to drop a line in your favor to Gen. Lane was duly received. I have thought it over, and concluded it is not the best way. Any open attempt on my part would injure you; and if the object merely be to assure Gen. Lane of my friendship for you, show him the letter herewith enclosed. I never saw him, or corresponded with him; so that a letter directly from me to him, would run a great hazard of doing harm to both you and me.

As to the pecuniary matter, about which you formerly wrote me, I again appealed to our friend Turner by letter, but he never answered. I can but repeat to you that I am so pressed myself, as to be unable to assist you, unless I could get it from him.

Springfield, October 17, 1859.

M. W. Delahay, Esq.,

My dear Sir: I hear your name mentioned for one of the seats in the U.S. Senate from your new state. I certainly would be gratified with your success; and if there was any proper way for me to give you a lift, I would certainly do it. But, as it is, I can only wish you well. It would be improper for me to interfere; and if I were to attempt it, it would do you harm.

Your friend, as ever,

A. Lincoln.

P.S. Is not the election news glorious?

We shall hear of Delahay again.

38

Presumably Judge Read, of Pennsylvania.

39

MS. in the collection of the late Major W. H. Lambert, Philadelphia.

40

Cong. Globe, 1860-61, p. 30.

41

Trumbull's speech on the Crittenden Compromise, which was impromptu and was delivered about midnight, is printed as an appendix to this chapter.

42

Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church.

43

"Old Public Functionary"—a name that Buchanan in one of his messages had given to himself.

44

Jefferson Davis says, in his Rise and Fall of the Confederate States, that Buchanan told him that "he thought it not impossible that his homeward route would be lighted by burning effigies of himself and that on reaching his home he would find it a heap of ashes."

45

Life of Lincoln, by Herndon-Weik, 2d edition, iii, 172, 181.

46

David Davis's habit of coercing Lincoln was once complained of by Lincoln himself, as related in a letter (now in the possession of Jesse W. Weik) of Henry C. Whitney to Wm. H. Herndon. Whitney says:

"On March 5, 1861, I saw Lincoln and requested him to appoint Jim Somers of Champaign to a small clerkship. Lincoln was very impatient and said abruptly: 'There is Davis, with that way of making a man do a thing whether he wants to or not, who has forced me to appoint Archy Williams judge in Kansas right off and John Jones to a place in the State Department; and I have got a bushel of despatches from Kansas wanting to know if I'm going to fill up all the offices from Illinois.'"

47

Diary of Gideon Welles, ii, 390.

48

Vol. ii, p. 114.

49

Fogg of New Hampshire says: "Mrs. Lincoln has the credit of excluding Judd, of Chicago, from the Cabinet,"—which is not unlikely. Diary of Gideon Welles.

50

Diary of Gideon Welles, i, 126.

51

Diary of Gideon Welles, i, 32.

52

Letters and Diaries of John Hay, 1, 47.

53

Nicolay and Hay, iii, 428. Probably the entry in Hay's Diary had been forgotten when the History was written, twenty-five years later.

54

Gideon Welles quotes Montgomery Blair as saying in conversation (September 12, 1862): "Bedeviled with the belief that he might be a candidate for the Presidency, Cameron was beguiled and led to mount the nigger hobby, alarmed the President with his notions, and at the right moment (B. says) he plainly and promptly told the President he ought to get rid of C. at once, that he was not fit to remain in the Cabinet, and was incompetent to manage the War Department, which he had undertaken to run by the aid of Tom A. Scott, a corrupt lobby jobber from Philadelphia." (Diary, i, 127.)

55

Article on "Some Legal Aspects of the Confiscation Acts of the Civil War," by J. G. Randall. Am. Hist. Review, October, 1912.

56

E. Corning & Co., of Albany, were dealers in stoves and hardware.

57

House Report no. 2, 37th Congress, 2d Session, p. 390. Cummings reappears in Welles's Diary, near the close of Andrew Johnson's Administration, as a favored candidate for the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The report of the Committee on Government Contracts had been forgotten or only vaguely remembered. Welles had a dim recollection that Cummings had a spotted record, and he warned Johnson against him. Seward indorsed him, however; said he was "a capital man for the place—no better could be found." (Diary of Gideon Wells, iii, 414.)

58

Cong. Globe, February, 1862, p. 710.

59

Cong. Globe, January. 1862, p. 208.

60

Cong. Globe, April, 1862, p. 1841.

61

Cong. Globe, February, 1862, p. 712.

62

Lincoln and Men of War Time, p. 165.

63

Dawes, Cong. Globe, April, 1862, p. 1841.

64

Congressional Record, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3434.

65

Letters and Diaries, i, 47.

66

The New York Tribune, June 6, said: "We trust the great majority of considerate and loyal citizens share the relief and satisfaction we feel in view of the President's course in revoking the order of General Burnside which directs the suppression of the Chicago Times. And we further trust that the zealous and impulsive minority, who would have had General Burnside's order sustained, will, on calm reflection, realize and admit that the President has taken the wiser and safer course. We cannot reconcile the decision of the Executive in this case with his action in regard to Vallandigham. Journalists have no special license to commit treason, and Vallandigham's sympathy with the rebels was neither more audacious nor more mischievous than that of the Times. Yet it is better to be inconsistently right than consistently wrong—better to be right to-day, though wrong yesterday, than to be wrong both days alike."

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 Frémont 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."

70

Memories of Men who Saved the Union, by Donn Piatt, p. 150.

71

Cong. Globe, 1863-64, part 2, p. 1314.

72

Vol. i, p. 187.

73

Scribner's Magazine, July, 1909.

74

In a letter to the writer.

75

The particulars referred to by Julian were subsequently made public by Mr. A. G. Riddle in his Recollections of War-Time, p. 325. Two Democrats were induced to vote in the affirmative and one other to be absent when the vote was taken. One of them was induced to vote right by the promise of an office for his brother; another was facing an election contest in the coming Congress where his own seat was claimed by a Republican opponent. The Democrat was promised favorable consideration by the Republicans before the testimony in the case was examined. The third was counsel for a railroad against whose interests a bill was about to be reported in the Senate, which bill was in the control of Charles Sumner. The bill would not be reported, or not reported soon, if the Congressman should be absent when the vote was taken. These arrangements, Riddle says, were negotiated by James M. Ashley, of Ohio, in whose hands the Republicans of the House had deposited their honor for the time being. If the three Democrats had voted in the negative, the result would have been 117 to 59, one less than the necessary two thirds. But that would only have delayed the adoption of the amendment till the next Congress.

76

Life of Garrison, by his sons, iv, 123.

77

Grant's testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, July 18, 1867. McPherson, p. 303.

78

Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, vol. iv, no. 4.

79

"For a man who had 'come from the people,' as he was fond of saying, and whose heart was always with the poor and distressed, Andrew Johnson was one of the neatest men in his dress and person I have ever known. During his three years in Nashville, in particular, he dressed in black broadcloth frock-coat and waistcoat and black doeskin trousers, and wore a silk hat. This had been his attire for thirty years, and for most of that time, whether as governor of Tennessee, member of Congress, or United States Senator, he had made all of his own clothes." (Benjamin C. Truman, Secretary to Andrew Johnson, in Century Magazine, January, 1913.)

80

Cong. Globe, 1865-66, I, 42, 43.

81

Vol. iii, p. 202.

82

"It gives me some satisfaction now to say that none of those statements of fact have ever been effectually controverted. I cannot speak with the same assurance of my conclusions and recommendations, for they were matters not of knowledge but of judgment. And we stood at that time face to face with a situation bristling with problems so complicated and puzzling that every proposed solution based upon assumptions ever so just, and supported by reasoning apparently ever so logical, was liable to turn out in practice apparently more mischievous than any other. In a great measure this has actually come to pass.... I am far from saying that somebody else might not have performed the task much better than I did. But I do think that this report is the best paper I have ever written on a public matter. The weakest part of it is that referring to negro suffrage—not as if the argument, as far as it goes, were wrong, but as it leaves out of consideration several aspects of the matter, the great importance of which has since become apparent." (Reminiscences, iii, 204, 209.)