Glass. 
 Book- 
 
 J--L 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI 
 
 By 
 
 WALTER B. STEVENS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MISSOURI 
 
 COLUMBIA, MISSOURI 
 1916 
 
E Sij 
 
 C> 
 
 D. of D. 
 i^AR 8 I9I6 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURL' 
 
 Walter B. Stevens. 
 
 This is the narrative of "Lincoln and Missouri.^' The relation- 
 ship was intimate and continuous for eight years. It meant much to 
 Mr. Lincoln. On Missouri the President depended for the effectiveness 
 of his border states policy. That policy he believed was vital to the sal- 
 vation of the Union. 
 
 1857—1860. 
 
 On the 7th of April, 1857, Abraham Lincoln and Francis 
 P. Blair were conferring at Springfield. With that date 
 begins this narrative of "Lincoln and Missouri." The time 
 was four years before the Civil War. Buchanan had been 
 inaugurated the preceding month. Lincoln had come back 
 to political activity. He had shaped the formation of the 
 Republican party of Illinois. He had suggested the can- 
 didate for governor and that candidate had been elected, — 
 Bissell of Belleville. Frank Blair had advanced from local 
 politics to the national field. He was entering upon his' 
 first term in Congress. 
 
 There were other circumstances which made the con- 
 ference of these two men significant. In March Chief 
 
 1. Read by the author at the Annual Dinner of the State Historical 
 Society of Missouri, December 10, 1915. 
 Copyrighted January, 1916. 
 
 (63) 
 
64 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 Justice Taney had handed down the Dred Scott decision of 
 125 pages. The gist was that the Missouri Compromise was 
 naught. The poHtical shibboleth of more than a third of a 
 century had vanished. It was unconstitutional. Congress 
 had not prohibited slavery in the territories, as it supposed 
 it had. The leading lawyer in the case for Dred Scott, the 
 St. Louis slave who looked like an African king, had been 
 Montgomery Blair the older brother of Frank Blair. 
 
 Therefore the slavery issue suddenly loomed more por- 
 tentous than ever. Lincoln had made the platform of the 
 new party in Illinois opposition to extension of slavery and 
 had won a state victory. Blair had come forward to cham- 
 pion free soil. Several years he had been held in check on 
 the slavery question by his relative and political leader, 
 Benton. But in the campaign of 1856, Benton's sun had 
 set. The old Roman had made his last appeal at the polls 
 and had been beaten for governor. He had gone back to 
 Washington, stricken with a mortal disease. Blair's cousin, 
 B. Gratz Brown, after being for some years a contributor, 
 had become editor of the Missouri Democrat. In the winter 
 of 1857, that paper was giving more and more attention to 
 the slavery question. Benton sensed the change. He wrote 
 to a wealthy and influential friend: 
 
 "I wish you to get the St. Louis Democrat — change its 
 name and character — for no useful paper can now ever be 
 made of it. I will be in St. Louis in April and assist you. 
 The paper is given up to the slavery subject, agitating state 
 emancipation against my established and known policy." 
 
 That is not all of the letter. Benton prefaced his de- 
 mand for a change in ownership and policy of the newspaper. 
 He wrote this indignant reference to Blair, B. Gratz Brown 
 and the other emancipationists: 
 
 "My friends told me that these persons would turn out 
 for abolition in the State as soon as the election was over 
 but I would not believe them. For persons calling themselves 
 my friends to attack the whole policy of my life, which was 
 to keep slavery agitation out of the State, and get my support 
 in the canvass by keeping me ignorant of what they intended 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 65 
 
 to do, is the greatest outrage I have ever experienced. Those 
 who have done it have never communicated one word to 
 me in justification or explanation of their conduct; for it is 
 something they can neither explain nor justify." 
 
 The protest of Benton was of no avail. The Missouri 
 Democrat ceased to be a Benton paper. The files of 1857 
 show adroit editorial steering. B. Gratz Brown continued to 
 combat vigorously the charges of other papers that the 
 Democrat stood for abolition. But at the same time the 
 editorials committed the paper against slavery in the ter- 
 ritories, especially Kansas. And no occasion was missed to 
 proclaim, "The Union must be preserved." 
 
 Lincoln had a law partner, — William H. Herndon. He 
 called him "Billy," divided his fees with him, but did not 
 share his partner's radical views on slavery. Herndon 
 heard enough of the conference between Lincoln and Blair 
 to write the next day to Theodore Parker, the Boston abol- 
 itionist: 
 
 "I had a most entertaining conversation on yesterday 
 with one of the leading emancipationists of Missouri, and one 
 of the leading Republicans of this State. Do not ask who 
 they are — will tell you about it ere long. This is the sub- 
 stance of it: the Missouri Democrat is to open and bloom 
 for Republicanism in 1860. The Louisville Journal is to 
 follow, and some paper in Virginia is to fall into the trail, 
 all of which is, as it were, to happen accidentally. The 
 Democrat is simply to suggest; the Journal is to suggest 
 still stronger, and at last all are to open wide for Repub- 
 licanism. As these two men said, 'We are to see the devil 
 in these border States in I860.' These two men are more 
 than ordinary men; the conversation was in my office, and 
 was confidential; therefore I keep dark and request you to 
 do so on the Missouri man's account, — don't care for the 
 Illinois man. You know the Illinois man." 
 
 The time was most opportune for Lincoln and Blair to 
 get together. They were in close agreement on the slavery 
 question. Each in his State had taken pronounced stand 
 against extension of slavery. Both believed that a house 
 
66 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 divided against itself can not stand. Neither was an aboli- 
 tionist. Neither was anti-slavery in the moral sense that 
 inspired the northerners. But viewing the issue as the great 
 political and economic question which must be settled 
 peaceably, both of them looked for the solution in the border 
 States with Missouri as the key to the solution. 
 
 About the time of the conference, Mrs. Lincoln wrote to 
 her sister in Kentucky: 
 
 "Although Mr. Lincoln is, or was, a Fremont man, you 
 must not include him with so many of those who belong to 
 that party, an abolitionist. In principle he is far from it. 
 All he desires is that slavery shall not be extended. Let it 
 remain where it is." 
 
 Also, about the time of the conference there appeared 
 in Missouri an authorized biographical sketch of Blair which 
 defined his position: 
 
 "He is no believer in the unholy and disgusting tenets 
 advocated by abolition fanaticism but advocates the gradual 
 abolition of slavery in the Union and the colonization of the 
 slaves emancipated in Central America, which climate ap- 
 pears to be happily adapted to their constitutional idiosyn- 
 cracies." 
 
 Gradual emancipation became a growing issue. Mis- 
 souri was an encouraging field to start the propaganda which 
 Lincoln and Blair thought might hold the border. In the 
 first place the slave population of Missouri was comparatively 
 small, — 114,935 slaves of a total census of 1,182,912, about 
 one in ten. In the second place most of the Missouri slaves 
 were in contiguous counties along the Missouri river. Blair 
 and the other emancipationists made much of the economic 
 argument They urged that slave labor was holding back 
 the development of the State. Peter L. Foy, who had been 
 the correspondent of the Missouri Democrat at Jefferson 
 City and in Washington, wrote a series of articles on the 
 unfair competition of black labor with white labor. These 
 articles aroused the white labor. Mr. Lincoln made Mr. Foy 
 postmaster at St. Louis soon after his inauguration. B. Gratz 
 Brown was elected to the Legislature about the same time that 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 67 
 
 Frank Blair became a Member of Congress. Brown made an 
 emancipation speech in the Legislature which caused agita- 
 tion throughout the State. Henry A. Clover and S. H. Gard- 
 ner supported Brown's emancipation argument. 
 
 The gradual emancipationists were strong enough in St. 
 Louis to elect their candidates for mayor, — John M. Wimer in 
 1857, and O. D. Filley in 1858. William Hyde was a reporter 
 on the Missouri Republican at this time. He was sent to 
 Springfield to report the Illinois Legislature. In his reminis- 
 cences, given the Globe-Democrat after he retired from the 
 editorship of the Republican, Mr. Hyde wrote: 
 
 "Mr. Francis Preston Blair, who became the universally 
 recognized leader of the emancipation party, and Messrs. 
 Edward Bates, B. Gratz Brown, Dr. Linton, John D. 
 Stevenson, John How, O. D. Filley and other conspicuous 
 members were not believers in immediate emancipation. 
 They proposed and advocated a gradual system — a fixed 
 time after which children born of slave parents would be 
 free, and a further fixed time in the life of each slave when all 
 should be free. Deportation and colonization was a dream 
 of this Utopia, involving compensation to slave owners who 
 might demand the same for the term of service cut off by 
 the act of emancipation as nearly as it could be calculated." 
 "It was a sufficient indorsement of Frank Blair in a par- 
 tisan sense," continued Mr. Hyde," that the political career 
 of Abraham Lincoln, from the time of the repeal of the Mis- 
 souri Compromise, was patterned on his model. In all their 
 public discussions both were anxious that the agitation of 
 the slavery question should not imperil the Union." 
 
 When he took his outspoken position, Mr. Blair began 
 freeing his own slaves. In 1859 he went into the St. Louis 
 circuit court and "in consideration of faithful services 
 and for divers other good and sufficient reasons moving me 
 thereto," set free Sarah Dupe and her three daughters. He 
 had previously freed the husband and father, Henry Dupe. 
 In the Illinois senatorial campaign of 1858 the relation- 
 ship of Lincoln and the Missouri emancipationists had its 
 part. The Missouri Democrat supported Lincoln stren- 
 
68 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 uously. The paper's correspondent at Springfield was John 
 Hay, who was then reading law in Mr. Lincoln's office. John 
 G. Nicolay, a country editor and one of Mr. Lincoln's polit- 
 ical lieutenants, was at the same time traveling correspond- 
 ent for the Democrat. Hay attended the Lincoln-Douglas 
 joint debates and sent graphic and extended reports to the 
 Democrat. Nicolay also attended the meetings and took 
 subscriptions to the Democrat. He sent in lists of hundreds 
 of names. 
 
 Frank Blair went to Illinois and participated in the 
 campaign. At Springfield and at Jacksonville, Lincoln and 
 Blair rode together in the procession and according to the 
 Missouri Democrat were given a reception "cordial and 
 magnificent." The Democrat contained impressions made 
 upon Blair as he rode through Central Illinois with Lincoln: 
 
 "No resident of a slave State could pass through the 
 splendid farms of Sangamon and Morgan, without per- 
 mitting an envious sigh to escape him at the evident superior- 
 ity of free labor. In the slave States, it would seem that 
 man and the soil which he cultivates are enemies. It would 
 seem that he must extort its produce as the tax-gatherer 
 extorts tribute from a conquered but hostile people. In the 
 free States, on the contrary, the soil seems to shower its 
 wealth upon the cultivator with a most generous and royal 
 bounty. It brings forth kindly all abundance, and smiles 
 upon him in all the four seasons. The dumb earth itself 
 seems to wear a cheerless aspect, and to yield its wealth 
 charily and reluctantly to slave labor." 
 
 After the senatorial campaign Lincoln's relations with 
 the Missouri emancipationists became still closer. Hay con- 
 tinued his connection with the Democrat. His correspond- 
 ence went from Lincoln's office. It was frequently inspired 
 directly by Mr. Lincoln. Tradition has it t'nat Mr. Lincoln 
 wrote some of the articles to appear in the Democrat. Mr. 
 Lincoln had the same strong appreciation for close press 
 connection that Benton had. At different periods he had 
 written much for the Springfield Journal. Now he cultivated 
 this relationship with the Missouri Democrat for a double 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURL 69 
 
 reason. St. Louis was a city much larger and more important 
 than Chicago. But more than that, the St. Louis newspaper 
 connection was a strong factor in the border states campaign 
 of 1860 for which Lincoln and Blair had laid the basis in 
 1857. 
 
 Lincoln's nomination. 
 
 Into this intimate relationship of Lincoln and Missouri 
 entered a personality not publicly conspicuous at the time 
 but of great influence. Blair and Brown and other young 
 men were in the foreground carrying the banners of free soil, 
 free democracy, gradual emancipation, white labor, coloniza- 
 tion and the like. In the background was Edward Bates 
 counseling and encouraging. He had seen the great Whig 
 party go to pieces. He was in sympathy with the work of 
 new party construction which Lincoln was doing in Illinois. 
 He was not openly active in the Lincoln movement. He 
 was the wise adviser. When the time came to send a dele- 
 gation from Missouri to the Republican nominating con- 
 vention at Chicago in 1860, Mr. Bates permitted his name 
 to be used as the ostensible candidate of his State. The 
 delegation went instructed for him, but, as Mr. Bates after- 
 wards explained, this was not with the expectation on his 
 or the delegation's part that he would be nominated. The 
 well understood purpose was to hold the delegation intact 
 against an eastern candidate, — William H. Seward or any 
 other who might develop strength. Lincoln was the choice 
 of the Missourians and the vote was to be given to him when 
 it would do the most good. The border states plan, which 
 Blair and the other gradual emancipationists had been 
 organizing, was not to be revealed by publicly committing 
 Missouri to Lincoln. 
 
 When the delegates came together in Chicago it ap- 
 peared that the organization, — the machine as it would be 
 called now, — was for Seward. The New Yorkers came with 
 much beating of drums. The delegates were accompanied 
 by a small army of shouters, and as the latter marched and 
 countermarched they were headed by John C. Heenan, the 
 
70 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 Benicia boy, the champion American pugilist, as their stand- 
 ard bearer. Seemingly the support of the other candidates 
 was local and not impressive upon the uninstructed delegates. 
 Then came the surprise which Blair and the other border 
 states men had prepared. 
 
 The youngest delegate in that convention was A. G. 
 Proctor. He was a member of the Kansas delegation. The 
 Illinois Historical Society preserves in its collection at Spring- 
 field Mr. Proctor's personal recollections of the influences 
 and arguments which turned Kansas and other uninstructed 
 States to Lincoln and made his nomination certain. The 
 delegates according to Mr. Proctor were about equally 
 divided into two elements: 
 
 "The element represented largely by the eastern people who 
 were of that great moral upheaval against slavery as an institution, 
 who hated it for its hateful self. 
 
 "The element willing to tolerate slavery within limits where 
 it existed and seemed to belong, but determined to prevent its 
 extension into the free northwest at every hazard, even to the in- 
 voking of civil war." 
 
 "The first element," said Mr. Proctor, "wanted Seward. The 
 second element was looking for a leader. At this juncture there 
 came to the front, from sources not before taken into consideration, 
 a movement led by the men of the border States. This body of 
 resolute men from Maryland, from the mountains of Virginia, from 
 Eastern Tennessee, from Kentucky and from all over Missouri had 
 organized and selected Cassius M. Clay as leader and spokesman. 
 They were a group of men as earnest as I have ever met. They 
 asked for a conference with us, which we arranged without delay. 
 The Kansas delegation was the first to receive them. It may have 
 occurred to them that Kansas was awake to what was coming, and 
 would more likely appreciate the full force of their logic. The com- 
 pany completely filled our room. There was something about the 
 atmosphere of that meeting that seemed to mean business. Mr. 
 Clay was a man of strong personality. He had all of the manner- 
 isms of a real Kentucky 'colonel' — very courtly, very earnest, very 
 eloquent in address. 
 
 " 'Gentlemen,' he said in beginning, 'we are on the verge of a 
 great civil war.' 
 
 "One of our Kansas delegates said, 'Mr. Clay, we have heard 
 that before.' 
 
 "Clay straightened himself and, with a real oratorical pose, 
 exclaimed 'Sir, you undoubtedly have heard that before. But, 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURL 71 
 
 sir, you will soon have it flashed to you in a tone that will carry cer- 
 tain conviction.' He went on: 'We are from the South. We 
 know our people well. I say to you the South is getting ready for 
 war. In that great strip of border land, reaching from the eastern 
 shore of Maryland to the western border of Missouri, stands a body 
 of resolute men, determined that this Union shall not be destroyed 
 without resistance. We are not pro-slavery men. We are not 
 anti-slavery men, but Union Republicans, ready and willing to take 
 up arms for the defense of the border. We are intensely in earnest. 
 It means very much — what you do here — to you and to us. Our 
 homes and all we possess are in peril. We want to hold this Union 
 strength for a Union army. We want to work with you for a nomi- 
 nation which will give us courage and confidence. We want you 
 to nominate Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln was born among us, 
 and we believe in him. Give us Lincoln for a leader and I promise 
 you we will push back the disloyal hordes of secession and transfer 
 the line of border warfare from the Ohio to the regions beyond the 
 Tennessee, where it belongs. We will make war upon the enemies 
 of our country at home and join you in driving secession to its lair. 
 Do this for us, and let us go home and prepare for the conflict.' 
 
 "No one could give a satisfactory report of that appeal. It 
 was the most impressive talk that I had ever listened to. That 
 delegation of border men, headed by Mr. Clay, made this appeal 
 to most of the delegations of the different States. The effect was 
 instantly felt. There was getting together of those who felt the 
 Lincoln sentiment all along the line. This movement formed the 
 group around which the earnest Lincoln men rallied and organized 
 their forces. I honestly believe that this was the movement that 
 gave Mr. Lincoln his nomination. It was the turning point. It 
 awoke aU to a realization of what was before us and compelled 
 recognition of a new element on which might rest great results for 
 good or evil. In short, this action of the bordermen set us thinking." 
 
 Lincoln was nominated. One of the earliest and strong- 
 est and most effective indorsements of the nomination came 
 from Edward Bates. In a letter to O. H. Browning, Mr. 
 Bates not only declared for Lincoln but he pointed out in 
 his convincing way the peculiar fitness of Mr. Lincoln for 
 the conditions confronting the country. He considered Mr. 
 Lincoln stronger than the platform. 
 
 "As to the platform," Mr. Bates wrote, "I have little to say, 
 because whether good or bad, that will not constitute the ground 
 of my support of Mr. Lincoln." 
 
 "I consider Mr. Lincoln a sound, safe, national man. He 
 could not be sectional if he tried. His birth, the habits of his life 
 
72 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 and his geographical position compel him to be national. All his 
 feelings and interests are identified with the great valley of the Mis- 
 sissippi, near whose center he has spent his whole life. That valley 
 is not a section, but conspicuously the body of the nation, and, 
 large as it is, it is not capable of being divided into sections, for the 
 great river cannot be divided. It is one and indivisible and the north 
 and the south are alike necessary to its comfort and prosperity. 
 Its people, too, in all their interests and afifections, are as broad and 
 generous as the regions they inhabit. They are emigrants, a mixed 
 multitude, coming from every State in the Union, and from most 
 countries in Europe. They are unmlling, therefore, to submit to 
 any one petty local standard. They love the nation as a whole, 
 and they love all its parts, for they are bound to them all, not only 
 by a feeling of common interest and mutual dependence, but also 
 by the recollections of childhood and youth, by blood and friend- 
 ship, and by all those social and domestic charities which sweeten 
 life, and make this world worth living in. The valley is beginning 
 to feel its power, and will soon be strong enough to dictate the law 
 of the land. Whenever that state of things shall come to pass, it 
 will be most fortunate for the nation to find the powers of the 
 government lodged in the hands of men whose habits of thought, 
 whose position and surrounding circumstances constrain them to 
 use those powers for general and not sectional ends." 
 
 With such broad and statesmanlike views of the situa- 
 tion, Mr. Bates led up to his personal and intimate estimate 
 of Mr. Lincoln: 
 
 "I have known Mr. Lincoln for more than twenty years, and 
 therefore have a right to speak of him with some confidence. As 
 an individual he has earned a high reputation for truth, courage, 
 candor, morals and amiability, so that as a man he is most trust- 
 worthy. And in this particular he is more entitled to our esteem 
 than some other men, his equals, who had far better opportunities 
 and aids in early life. His talents and the will to use them to the 
 best advantage are unquestionable; and the proof is found in the 
 fact that, in every position in life, from his humble beginning to his 
 present well earned elevation, he has more than fulfilled the best 
 hopes of his friends. And now in the full vigor of his manhood 
 and in the honest pride of having made himself what he is, he is the 
 peer of the first men of the nation, well able to sustain himself and 
 advance his cause against any adversary, and in any field where 
 mind and knowledge are the weapons used. In polities he has acted 
 out the principles of his own moral and intellectual character. He 
 has not concealed his thoughts or hidden his light under a bushel. 
 With the boldness of conscious rectitude and the frankness of 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 73 
 
 downright honesty, he has not failed to avow his opinions of public 
 oflSeers upon all fitting occasions. I give my opinion freely in favor 
 of Mr. Lincoln and I hope that for the good of the whole country 
 he may be elected." 
 
 LINCOLN AND THE BLAIRS. 
 
 Lincoln was elected. Missouri gave him only 17,028 
 votes out of more than 165,000. But Missouri divided hope- 
 lessly the great bulk of the vote in large sections among three 
 other Presidential tickets. The effect of the campaign, 
 which the gradual emancipationists had carried on in Mis- 
 souri after the Lincoln-Blair conference at Springfield in 
 1857, was not to be judged by the Lincoln vote of 17,028. It 
 was to be traced in the disintegration of the great majority 
 into helpless factions. Missouri polled that year one vote 
 for every six white persons in the population. Nearly the 
 entire voting strength was brought to the polls by the in- 
 tense interest felt. Douglas carried the State, but by only 
 one-third of the vote cast. He led the Constitutional Union 
 party by fewer than 600 votes. The disturbing influence 
 of the slavery issue raised by Lincoln and the Missouri 
 emancipationists had done its worst for Missouri. It had 
 broken party lines. It had shattered the Democratic or- 
 ganization. 
 
 Lincoln was elected. Edward Bates had declined a 
 place in the Fillmore cabinet a few years previously. So 
 much concerned about the national situation was he now that 
 he accepted the appointment of Attorney General in the 
 Lincoln cabinet. Montgomery Blair, brother of Frank 
 Blair, was appointed Postmaster General. This was equiv- 
 alent to giving Missouri two of the seven places in the cabinet 
 for Montgomery Blair had lived fifteen years in Missouri and 
 had moved to Washington only a short time before. Here 
 is more evidence of what his relationship with Missouri 
 meant in the mind of President Lincoln. Other proofs came 
 in quick succession. Frank Blair made trips to Springfield 
 between the election in November and the departure of 
 Lincoln for Washington in February. He kept the President- 
 elect informed of every step in that game that was going on 
 
74 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 for the possession of the St. Louis arsenal with its 60,000 
 muskets and munitions of war, more than there was in all 
 of the other slave States. He told Mr. Lincoln that if the 
 southern rights administration of Missouri gained control of 
 the arsenal and its contents the State would be carried into 
 the Confederacy and with Missouri the other border States 
 would be lost. Blair was in Springfield the latter part of 
 February and from there he hurried to Washington to report 
 the rumor that the secessionists would attempt to seize the 
 arsenal on the day of Lincoln's inauguration and to urge 
 President Buchanan to put Lyon in charge. The Minute 
 Men allowed the 4th of March to pass without the threatened 
 attack. Nine days later President Lincoln gave Lyon com- 
 mand of the arsenal and the opportunity of the state govern- 
 ment was lost. 
 
 Fort Sumpter fell on the 13th of April. The President 
 called for 75,000 men, of which Missouri's quota was four 
 regiments of infantry. Governor Claiborne F. Jackson re- 
 plied to the President's call: 
 
 "Not one man will Missouri furnish to carry on such an 
 unholy crusade." 
 
 Frank Blair arrived in St. Louis from Washington the 
 day Governor Jackson sent the foregoing message. He had 
 in his pocket an order on the arsenal for 5,000 muskets "to 
 arm loyal citizens," another indication of what "Lincoln and 
 Missouri" meant. Blair telegraphed to Washington: 
 
 "Send order at once for mustering men into service to 
 Captain N. Lyon. It will then be surely executed, and we 
 will fill your requisition in two days." 
 
 The order came, "muster into service four regiments." 
 This was done. A week later, on the 30th of April, Mr. 
 Lincoln gave expression to his extraordinary relationship 
 with Missouri in the following, addressed to Captain Lyon: 
 
 "The President of the United States directs that you 
 enroll in the military service of the United States the loyal 
 citizens of St. Louis and vicinity, not exceeding with those 
 heretofore enlisted, ten thousand in number, for the purpose 
 of maintaining the authority of the United States and for the 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURL 75 
 
 protection of the peaceable inhabitants of Missouri; and you 
 will, if deemed necessary for that purpose by yourself and by 
 Messrs. Oliver D. Filley, John How, James O. Broadhead, 
 Samuel T. Glover, J. J. Witzig and Francis P. Blair, Jr., 
 proclaim martial law in the city of St. Louis." 
 
 There is no parallel to this act in that early period of 
 the war. Old General Winfield Scott commanding the army 
 wrote his indorsement on the order: 
 
 "It is revolutionary times, and therefore I do not object 
 to the irregularity of this." 
 
 It was revolution. But President Lincoln realized what 
 it meant to hold Missouri in the Union and he did not stop 
 at revolution which put State and city in the control of a com- 
 mittee of public safety composed of Missourians he trusted. 
 
 In those four or five early months of 1861, which settled 
 Missouri's status, Frank Blair was going and coming between 
 Washington and St. Louis. He came home from one of these 
 trips with another proof in his pocket of what Lincoln and 
 Missouri meant. This was no less than an order for the 
 removal of General W. S. Harney at such time as Blair in 
 his judgment should deem best. After Blair had departed 
 with this order the President wrote to him a personal letter, 
 dated May 18. This was eight days after the Camp Jackson 
 affair : 
 
 "We have a good deal of anxiety here about St. Louis. 
 I understand an order has gone from the War Department 
 to you, to be delivered or withheld in your discretion, re- 
 lieving General Harney from his command. I was not quite 
 satisfied with the order v/hen it was made, though on the 
 whole I thought it best to make it; but since then I have 
 become more doubtful of its propriety. I do not write to 
 countermand it, but to say I wish you would withhold it, 
 unless in your judgment the necessity to the contrary is very 
 urgent. There are several reasons for this. We had better 
 have him as a friend than an enemy. It will dissatisfy a 
 good many who otherwise would be quiet. More than all, 
 we first relieve him, then restore him, and now if we relieve 
 
76 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 him again the public ask, why this vacillation? "Still, if 
 in your judgment it is indispensable, let it be so." 
 
 The influence of the Blairs with Mr. Lincoln was strong. 
 Not only was the younger Montgomery Blair an official 
 adviser, not only was the judgment of Francis P. Blair in 
 Missouri matters of great weight, but the President listened 
 in regard to his cherished border States policy to the counsel 
 of the elder Montgomery Blair. The relationship was pe- 
 culiar. The President was not under the influence of the 
 Blairs in the sense that he leaned weakly upon them. But 
 he believed that the maintenance of the Union depended 
 upon the course of Missouri and the other border States. 
 In that belief, he recognized the value of the advice and sup- 
 port of the Blairs. Just how he regarded the Blairs is shown 
 in one of the President's informal talks which John Hay 
 wrote into his diary: 
 
 "The Blairs have to an unusual degree the spirit of clan. 
 Their family is a close corporation. Frank is their hope and 
 pride. They have a way of going with a rush for anything 
 they undertake; especially have Montgomery and the old 
 gentleman." 
 
 When he talked in this way, the President had in mind 
 the Fremont fiasco in Missouri. 
 
 FREMONT AND MISSOURI. 
 
 On the first day of July, 1861, John C. Fremont came 
 home from France. On the third of July he was appointed 
 a major general and the Western Department with head- 
 quarters at St. Louis was created for him. Fremont reached 
 St. Louis on the 25th of July. Then followed in quick suc- 
 cession the disastrous battle of Wilson's Creek and Lyon's 
 death and Fremont's proclamation. Fremont declared martial 
 law throughout Missouri. He ordered that "all persons who 
 shall be taken with arms in their hands within these lines 
 shall be tried by court-martial and if found guilty shall be 
 shot." He declared the property of all persons in the State of 
 Missouri who shall take up arms against the United States 
 or who shall be directly proven to have taken an active 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 77 
 
 part with their enemies in the field, "to be confiscated." 
 And "their slaves, if any they have, are hereby declared 
 freemen." 
 
 This brief reference to Fremont's three months in Mis- 
 souri is necessary to the understanding of Mr. Lincoln's 
 intimate relations with this State. Fremont was appointed 
 a major general and given the command in Missouri on the 
 "earnest solicitation" of the Blairs. This President Lincoln 
 stated afterwards in conversation which John Hay, his 
 secretary, wrote in his diary. Mr. Lincoln said that he 
 "thought well of Fremont" at the time but afterwards con- 
 cluded that the general had "absolutely no military capacity." 
 The Blairs reached this conclusion before Mr. Lincoln did. 
 Frank Blair went to St. Louis to help Fremont get well 
 started. "At last," said Mr. Lincoln, "the tone of Frank's 
 letters changed. It was a change from confidence to doubt 
 and uncertainty. They were pervaded with a tone of sin- 
 cere sorrow and of fear that Fremont would fail. Mont- 
 gomery showed them to me, and we were both grieved at 
 the prospect. Soon came the news that Fremont had issued 
 his emancipation order, and had set up a bureau of abolition, 
 giving free papers, and occupying his time apparently with 
 little else." 
 
 Immediately after seeing Fremont's emancipation order 
 Mr. Lincoln wrote him: 
 
 "Two points in your proclamation of August 20 give me 
 some anxiety: 
 
 "First. Should you shoot a man, according to the proc- 
 lamation, the Confederates would very certainly shoot our 
 best men in their hands in retaliation; and so, man for man, 
 indefinitely. It is, therefore, my order that you allow no 
 man to be shot under the proclamation, without first having 
 my approbation and consent. 
 
 "Second. I think there is great danger that the closing 
 paragraph, in relation to the confiscation of property and 
 the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our 
 southern Union friends and turn them against us; perhaps 
 ruin our rather fair prospect for Kentucky. Allow me, there- 
 
78 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 fore, to ask that you will, as of your own motion, modify 
 that paragraph so as to conform to the first and fourth sec- 
 tions of the act of Congress entitled, 'An act to confiscate 
 property used for insurrectionary purposes,' approved August 
 6, 1861, and a copy of which act I herewith send you. 
 
 "This letter Is written in a spirit of caution, and not of 
 censure. I send it by special messenger, in order that it 
 may certainly and speedily reach you." 
 
 Frank Blair had become so convinced that Fremont was 
 doing the Unioif cause great injury in Missouri that he crit- 
 icised him in a newspaper article. Fremont placed Blair 
 under arrest. Blair then sent to Washington charges against 
 Fremont. Montgomery Blair, the younger, on the suggestion 
 of Mr. Lincoln, came on to St. Louis to make a personal 
 investigation. On the way he passed Mrs. Fremont, the 
 daughter of Thomas H. Benton, taking to Washington the 
 answer of her husband to the President's letter asking that 
 the proclamation be modified. Mrs. Fremont arrived at a 
 late hour, went to the White House about midnight and in- 
 sisted upon a personal interview with the President. The 
 President, describing to friends the experience, said she 
 "taxed me so violently with many things that I had to exer- 
 cise all the awkward tact I have to avoid quarreling with her. 
 She surprised me by asking why their enemy, Montgomery 
 Blair, had been sent to Missouri. She more than once inti- 
 mated that if General Fremont should decide to try con- 
 clusions with me, he could set up for himself." 
 
 Fremont declined to be guided by the President's friendly 
 suggestion. He defended his action in regard to slaves. He 
 insisted that an official order be issued directing him to change 
 his proclamation if it must be done. The order was sent. 
 It drew upon Mr. Lincoln harsh criticism from anti-slavery 
 people in the North. It intensified the factional differences 
 in Missouri. In a few weeks Fremont was relieved. 
 
 The President regarded Fremont's proclamation more 
 seriously than his friendly letter might indicate. He wrote 
 another letter, much longer, to O. H. Browning of Illinois 
 showing that Fremont's action was a dangerous menace to 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURL 79 
 
 the border States policy. This letter he marked "Private 
 and Confidential." Mr. Browning made the letter public 
 before the Illinois Bar Association in 1882. 
 
 Executive Mansion, Washington, Sept. 22, 1861. 
 Hon. O. H. Browning. 
 
 My Dear Sir: Yours of the 17th is just received, and coming 
 from you, I confess it astonishes me. That you should object to 
 my adhering to a law, which you had assisted in making, and pre- 
 senting to me, less than a month before, is odd enough. But this 
 is a very small part. General Fremont's proclamation, as to con- 
 fiscation of property, and the liberation of slaves, is purely political 
 and not within the range of military law or necessity. If a com- 
 manding general finds a necessity to seize a farm of a private owner, 
 for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right 
 to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is 
 within military law, because within military necessity. But to 
 say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever, 
 and this, as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes 
 as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law 
 about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the general needs 
 them he can seize them and use them, but when the need is past, 
 it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That 
 must be settled according to laws made by lawmakers, and not by 
 military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question 
 is simply "dictatorship." It assumes that the general may do 
 anything he pleases — confiscate the lands and free the slaves of 
 loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole 
 figure, I have no doubt, would be more popular, with some thought- 
 less people, than that which has been done! But I cannot assume 
 this reckless position, nor allow others to assume it on my re- 
 sponsibility. 
 
 You speak of it as being the only means of saving the Govern- 
 ment. On the contrary, it is itself the surrender of the Government. 
 Can it be pretended that it is any longer the Government of the 
 United States — any government of constitution and laws — wherein 
 a general or a president may make permanent rules of property by 
 proclamation? I do not say Congress might not with propriety 
 pass a law on the point, just as General Fremont proclaimed. I do 
 not say I might not, as a Member of Congress, vote for it. What 
 I object to is, that I, as President, shall expressly or impliedly seize 
 and exercise the permanent legislative functions of the Government. 
 
 So much as to principle. Now as to policy. No doubt the 
 thing was popular in some quarters, and would have been more so 
 
 2 
 
80 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 if it had been a general declaration of emancipation. The Ken- 
 tucky Legislature would not budge till that proclamation was modi- 
 fied; and General Anderson telegraphed me that on the news of 
 General Fremont having actually issued deeds of manumission, a 
 whole company of our volunteers threw down their arms and dis- 
 banded. I was so assured as to think it probable that the very arms 
 we had furnished Kentucky would be turned against us. I think 
 to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. 
 Kentucky gone, we cannot hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Marjdand. 
 These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. 
 We would as well consent to separation at once, including the 
 surrender of the capital. On the contrary, if you will give up your 
 restlessness for new positions, and back me manfully on the grounds 
 upon which you and other kind friends gave me the election, and 
 have approved in my public documents, we shall go through tri- 
 umphantly. You must not understand I took my course on the 
 proclamation because of Kentucky. I took the same ground in a 
 private letter to General Fremont before I heard from Kentucky. 
 
 You think I am inconsistent because I did not also forbid 
 General Fremont to shoot men under the proclamation. I under- 
 stand that to be within military law, but I also think, and so pri- 
 vately wrote General Fremont, that it is impolitic in this, that 
 our adversaries have the power, and will certainly exercise it, to 
 shoot as many of our men as we shoot of theirs. I did not say this 
 in the public letter, because it is a subject I prefer not to discuss in 
 the hearing of our enemies. 
 
 There has been no thought of removing General Fremont on 
 any ground connected with this proclamation, and if there has been 
 any wish for his removal on any ground, our mutual friend Sam 
 Glover can probably tell you what it was. I hope no real necessity 
 for it exists on any ground. 
 
 Your friend, as ever, 
 
 A. Lincoln. 
 
 "compensated abolishment." 
 
 "Compensated abolishment" was a phrase which became 
 widely current in the winter of 1861-2. It was coined in 
 the border States' policy of the Administration. Lincoln 
 and the Missourians who had been for gradual emancipation 
 before the war were now for compensated abolishment. 
 They proposed that the loyal slaveholders of the border 
 accept pay for their human property before emancipation by 
 force was applied to the Confederate States. They looked 
 to Missouri to pioneer the way. 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 81 
 
 As early as his message to Congress on December 3, 
 1861, the President said the government must use all in- 
 dispensable means to maintain the Union. He hinted at 
 colonization as a possible remedy for slavery. 
 
 On the 6th of March he sent to Congress a message 
 recommending pay for slaves of the loyal. He wrote private 
 letters urging the initiation of emancipation legislation. 
 "I say 'initiation,' " he wrote, "because in my judgment 
 gradual and not sudden emancipation is better for all." 
 
 On the 10th of March, he invited the Missourians and 
 the other Members of Congress from border States to the 
 White House for a conference and presented his plan for 
 gradual compensated abolishment. Only two of the Mis- 
 sourians favored the plan. They were Senator John B. 
 Henderson and Representative John W. Noell. Frank 
 Blair, who was for the plan, was not there. Subsequently 
 he wTOte a letter on the policy to Rudolph Doehn of Mis- 
 souri in which he declared himself for a "gradual, peaceful 
 and just measure of emancipation." 
 
 After the March conference the President urged his 
 views upon the Members of Congress individually. He 
 chose Senator Henderson to champion the pay-for-slaves 
 policy. Blair was in the field with his command. Hender- 
 son had entered the Senate by appointment from Governor 
 Gamble, taking the place of Trusten Polk who had gone 
 into the Confederate army. Henderson was then but little 
 beyond the age which made him eligible for the Senate. 
 The President took him into his confidence. Some years 
 ago, in Washington, Senator Henderson gave the writer his 
 recollections. There was great pressure being brought to 
 bear upon the President to declare general emancipation. 
 Delegations of ministers were coming to Washington and 
 demanding the freedom of the slaves. The leaders of the 
 Republican party were insistent. Senator Zach. Chandler 
 of Michigan, Senator Ben Wade of Ohio and Senator Charles 
 Sumner of Massachusetts called almost daily at the White 
 House to tell the President what he ought to do. Senator 
 
82 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW, 
 
 Henderson was sent for frequently to report how the border 
 States policy was progressing. 
 
 "As I went in one day," Senator Henderson said, "I noticed 
 that the President looked troubled. He was sitting in one of his 
 favorite attitudes — in a rocking chair with one leg thrown over the 
 arm. I knew that he suffered terribly from headaches, and I said: 
 
 " 'Mr. President, you must have one of your headaches; you 
 look so gloomy.' 
 
 " 'No,' said he, 'it isn't headache this time. Chandler has 
 been here to talk again about emancipation, and he came on the 
 heels of Wade and Sumner, who were here on the same errand. 
 I like these three men, but they bother me nearly to death. They 
 put me in the situation of a boy I remember when I was going to 
 school.' " 
 
 Senator Henderson noted the brightening of Mr. Lincoln's 
 face. He recognized the signs that a storj?^ was coming. Mr. 
 Lincoln leaned forward, began to smile, and clasped his hands 
 around the knee of the leg resting on the arm of the chair. 
 
 "The text-book was the Bible," Mr. Lincoln went on. "There 
 was a rather dull little fellow in the class who didn't know very 
 much. We were reading the account of the three Hebrews cast 
 into the fiery furnace. The little fellow was called on to read and 
 he stumbled along until he came to the names of the three Hebrews 
 — Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. He couldn't do anything 
 with them. The teacher pronounced them over very slowly and 
 told the boy to try. The boy tried and missed. This provoked 
 the teacher and he slapped the little fellow, who cried vigorously. 
 Then the boy tried again but he couldn't get the names. 'Well,' 
 said the teacher impatiently, 'never mind the names. Skip them 
 and go on.' The poor boy drew his shirt sleeve across his eyes two 
 or three times, snuffed his nose and started on to read. He went 
 along bravely a little way, and then he suddenly stopped, dropped 
 the book down in front of him, looked despairingly at the teacher 
 and burst out crying. 'What's the matter now?' shouted the teacher, 
 all out of patience. *H-h-here's them same darn three fellers agin,' 
 sobbed the boy. 
 
 "That," said the President, "is just my fix today, Henderson. 
 Those same darn tkree fellers have been here again with their ever- 
 lasting emancipation talk." 
 
 The President stopped a few moments to enjoy the story, and 
 becoming serious, continued: 
 
 "But Sumner and Wade and Chandler are right about it. I 
 know it and you know it, too. I've got to do something and it 
 can't be put off much longer. We can't get through this terrible 
 war with slavery existing. You've got sense enough to know that. 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 83 
 
 Why can't you make the border States members see it? Why 
 don't you turn in and take pay for your slaves from the govern- 
 ment? Then all your people can give their hearty support to the 
 Union. We can go ahead with emancipation of slaves by proc- 
 lamation in the other States and end the trouble." 
 
 As early as May, 1862, the President told Senator Hender- 
 son of his intention to issue the emancipation proclamation. 
 Action was not taken until six months later and then it was 
 not to take effect until January 1, 1863. The President 
 held out as long as he could, hoping to carry out the border 
 States policy upon which his heart was set. On the 12th 
 of July he again invited the delegation from Missouri and 
 the Members from other States to come to the White House. 
 He read a carefully written appeal to them to adopt his 
 policy of compensated abolishment. He said: 
 
 "I intend no reproach or complaint when I assure you 
 that, in my opinion, if you all had voted for the resolution 
 in the gradual emancipation message of last March, the war 
 would now be substantially ended." 
 
 Twenty of these Members sent their reply two days later. 
 They pledged their loyalty but declared their judgment to 
 be against the pay-for-slaves policy. The Missourians 
 signing the paper were Senator Robert Wilson and Repre- 
 sentatives James S. Rollins, William A. Hall, Thomas L. 
 Price and John S. Phelps. 
 
 Senator Henderson and Representative Noell wrote to 
 the President that they would endeavor to secure from the 
 people of Missouri consideration of his plan. They did so. 
 The policy became the issue in the campaign which followed. 
 Of the nine Members of Congress elected by Missouri in 
 November six were avowed emancipationists. The lower 
 branch of the Legislature was emancipation and chose the 
 emancipation candidate for speaker by a vote of sixty-seven 
 to forty-two. Governor Gamble in his message advised the 
 Legislature to take up the subject. 
 
 When Congress met in December for the short session 
 the House appointed a select committee on gradual eman- 
 cipation in the loyal slave-holding States. Frank P. Blair 
 
84 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 was made the Missouri member of it. On the 10th of De- 
 cember Senator Henderson introduced in the Senate his bill 
 to give Missouri $20,000,000 to pay for the slaves of loyal 
 owners. The next day Noell put in his bill in the House, 
 appropriating $10,000,000 to reimburse loyal owners of slaves 
 in Missouri. Both bills passed by large majorities but the 
 difference in the amounts made it necessary to compromise. 
 The President did all he could to expedite the legislation. 
 On the 10th of January he sent this telegram to General 
 Curtis in command at St. Louis: 
 
 "I understand there is considerable trouble with the 
 slaves in Missouri. Please do your best to keep peace on the 
 question for two or three weeks, by which time we hope to 
 do something here towards settling the question in Missouri." 
 
 "I do not remember," said Senator Henderson, "whether Mr. 
 Lincoln drafted the bill or I got it up, but the inspiration came from 
 him. I did all in my power to press it. The proposition went 
 through the House and Senate, but it was passed in somewhat 
 different forms. The Senate increased the amount, and this dif- 
 ference had to be adjusted in conference. There was a good ma- 
 jority for the Missouri bill in both branches of Congress and there 
 was not much trouble about compromising the difference of opinions 
 on the amount to be appropriated, but the session was almost at 
 an end and a small minority in the House was able by filibustering 
 and obstructing to prevent the final action there. If the bill could 
 have been brought before the House in its finished form it would 
 have passed finally as easy as it did in the Senate." 
 
 "President Lincoln watched the progress of the legislation 
 with a great deal of interest, continued Senator Henderson. "He 
 could not understand why the border States Members should not 
 be for it. And I could not, either. It was perfectly plain to me 
 that slavery had to go. Here was a voluntary offer on the part of 
 the government to compensate the loyal men in the border States 
 for the loss of their property. I talked with the members from 
 Missouri and from Kentucky and with the others who were most 
 interested, but I couldn't make them see it as I did. They had 
 exaggerated ideas of the results which would ensue from a free 
 negro population. They took the position that slavery must not 
 be touched. It was their determined opposition to the end that 
 deferred the bill to give the Missouri slave holders $20,000,000 for 
 their slaves. If the Missouri bill had gone through the others 
 would have followed undoubtedly and the loyal slaveholders in all 
 of the border States would have received pay for their slaves." 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 85 
 
 President Lincoln and Senator Henderson were so con- 
 fident the bill to disburse $20,000,000 for Missouri slaves 
 would become law that some figuring was done on the amount 
 which would be paid per capita. 
 
 "I recollect quite distinctly the calculations I made at the time," 
 Senator Henderson said. "I found that the amount which the 
 government would have distributed to Missourians under the terms 
 of the bill finally agreed upon in conference would have given the 
 loyal owners in my State $300 for each slave — man, woman and 
 child. That I considered a pretty good price, for while we were 
 legislating the emancipated proclamation had become assured, and 
 it was very evident to my mind that slavery was doomed, even 
 among those slaveholders who had remained loyal." 
 
 The record bears out Senator Henderson's recollections. 
 The House passed Noell's bill by seventy- three to forty-six. 
 The Senate accepted the compromise on the amount, which 
 was $15,000,000 by a vote of twenty-three to fifteen. But 
 the compromise was not reported until six days before the 
 end of the session and a small minority in the House was 
 able to prevent a vote on it. In this minority were three 
 Missourians, William A. Hall, Elijah H. Norton and Thomas 
 L. Price. 
 
 To have the courage of their convictions has ever been 
 characteristic of Missourians sent to Congress. The three 
 Missourians who fought the compensated abolishment bill 
 to its death were honest. No one who reads the debate can 
 doubt that. Elijah H. Norton, who represented the Platte 
 district, was one of the leaders of the small opposition 
 minority. He fought the measure from its introduction to 
 the end of the session. 
 
 One point which Judge Norton made was that Missouri 
 could not free her slaves without paying the owners the full 
 equivalent for them. He said: 
 
 "According to the census of 1860, there were of slaves in Mis- 
 souri, about 120,000. According to the report of the auditor of 
 the State, founded upon returns made for the year 1862 by the 
 assessors of forty-odd counties, there can not now be less than 
 100,000 slaves in the State. In my judgment not over 5,000 of 
 them are subject to confiscation under the confiscation law, leaving 
 
86 • MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 95,000 to be bought and paid for. Before the Legislature can eman- 
 cipate them, they must first pay a full equivalent for them. Not 
 an equivalent which Congress by an arbitrary legislative act fixes; 
 not an equivalent which legislative enactment declares, but the 
 worth, the value of the slave as ascertained from the market rate 
 by a proceeding, not legislative but judicial in its character. I 
 notice sales recently made in Howard County in the district of my 
 colleague at $900; in other counties at from $600 to $700, for negro 
 men. These figures and the former value of slaves lead me to con- 
 clude that the average value of slaves in the State would not fall 
 below $4.50. Thus, sir, we have the price, being $450, and the 
 number 95,000 to be bought. The value of these slaves would be 
 $42,750,000. By this bill you place at the disposal of the Governor 
 $20,000,000 of bonds; and if the Legislature, out of the state treasury, 
 could also appropriate $22,750,000, then the Legislature could, in 
 twelve months, pass a valid and constitutional law for the emancipa- 
 tion of slaves according to the terms of the bill. But, sir, this is 
 impossible." 
 
 Judge Norton took the position that the general govern- 
 ment had no authority to carry out the proposed plan of 
 emancipation. He said: 
 
 "The citizens of Missouri are willing to acknowledge their 
 proper and just allegiance to the government of the United States, 
 but they have always held and hold to-day that under the obliga- 
 tions of that allegiance, fixed and defined by the Constitution of 
 the LTnited States, they are not required to give up their state 
 rights and bow down in the dust like serfs and slaves to federal 
 dictation, or the dictation of any one or more States of the Union. 
 Missouri has rights as a State of the Union. Missouri has rights 
 as a State of this Union which you dare not invade without dis- 
 regarding your oaths and trampling in the dust the Constitution 
 watered with the blood of your Revolutionary sires. You can not 
 abolish our state courts, nor our Legislature; nor can you deprive 
 us of two Senators or our proper number of Representatives upon 
 this floor. You cannot make local laws for our local internal police 
 government conflicting with the reserved rights of the State and the 
 people. While you can not do any of these things, either directly 
 or indirectly, neither can you by direction or indirection, as you 
 propose by this bill, abolish slavery. That is as much their con- 
 cern as is the election of their Legislature. The people of that State 
 are a brave, magnanimous, patriotic and just-minded people; and 
 whenever in the exercise of their virtues they determine that it is 
 for their interest and to the interest of the State and country gen- 
 erally that the institution of slavery should be abolished in a legal 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 87 
 
 and constitutional mode, all citizens of the State will agree to their 
 verdict and sanction their action. You do not propose to have it 
 accomplished in this way, but are for stepping in and settling the 
 matter at once." 
 
 In conclusion Judge Norton pictured the horrors as he 
 foresaw them of a free negro population in Missouri : 
 
 "Under this bill you propose to turn adrift upon the people of 
 the State 100,000 persons without a dollar, without homes or pro- 
 vision made for them to get homes, persons of all ages, sexes and 
 conditions, the old and infirm, the halt, lame and blind, the young 
 and defenseless, in one promiscuous mass. Is this humanity? 
 Humanitarians on the other side of the House may answer. The 
 original bill pledged the faith of this Government to take the eman- 
 cipated slaves out of the State; the substitute adopted by the Senate, 
 and now here for action, strikes this provision out, thus converting 
 Missouri into a free negro State. You can not inflict a greater 
 injury on Missouri than thus to fill up her communities with this 
 kind of worthless population. A free negro population is the 
 greatest curse to any country." 
 
 SCHOFIELD AND MISSOURI. 
 
 The first day of January, 1863, was one of the most 
 momentous in the administration of President Lincoln. 
 That day, after receiving the suggestions of his cabinet and 
 after much consideration as to form and effect of what he 
 was about to do, the President signed the Emancipation 
 Proclamation. The next day he took up and, as he evidsntly 
 supposed, solved a Missouri problem. This was the Pine 
 Street Presbyterian church controversy. The Rev. Dr. Mc- 
 Pheeters had baptized a little Missouri baby with the name 
 of Sterling Price. This was one of the charges made against 
 Dr. McPheeters by some members of his congregation who 
 admitted his piety but questioned his loyalty. The charges 
 were laid before the provost marshal. That functionary 
 ordered the arrest of the divine and took charge of the church, 
 relieving the trustees. The issue was carried to the White 
 House, as was the custom, and the President, turning from 
 weighty matters, wrote to General Curtis, commanding at 
 St. Louis: 
 
88 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 "The United States must not, as by this order, undertake 
 to run the churches. When an individual in a church, or 
 out of it, becomes dangerous to the pubHc interest he must 
 be checked; but let the churches, as such, take care of them- 
 selves." 
 
 Doubtless Mr. Lincoln thought he had laid down a 
 broad principle that would relieve him of further appeals 
 from either party to the Pine Street Presbyterian church 
 differences. Dr. McPheeters was discharged from arrest. 
 The President was immediately asked to restore to Dr. 
 McPheeters his ecclesiastical rights. His reply was addressed 
 to O. D. Filley, the head of the St. Louis Committee of Public 
 Safety. 
 
 "I have never interfered," Mr. Lincoln wrote, "nor 
 thought of interfering, as to who shall, or shall not, preach 
 in any church; nor have I knowingly or believingly tolerated 
 any one to so interfere by my authority. If, after all, what 
 is now sought is to have me put Dr. McPheeters back over 
 the heads of a majority of his own congregation, that, too, 
 will be declined. I will not have control of any church, on 
 any side." 
 
 Individual, as well as church and state problems in 
 Missouri, were put up to Mr. Lincoln. On the 7th of January, 
 the same week that the President had, as he thought, dis- 
 posed of the Pine Street Presbyterian trouble, he received 
 a message from B. Gratz Brown. The telegram was sent 
 from Jefferson City. The Legislature had assembled. Mr. 
 Brown was a candidate for the United States Senate. He 
 was elected but not until after he had encountered some 
 difficulties. He wired: 
 
 "Does the administration desire my defeat; if not, why 
 are its appointees working to that end?" 
 
 President Lincoln replied promptly but in language that 
 was diplomatic and perhaps somewhat cryptic: 
 
 "Yours of today just received. The administration 
 takes no part between its friends in Missouri, of whom I, 
 at least, consider you one, and I have never before had an 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 89 
 
 intimation that appointees there were interfering, or were 
 incUned to interfere." 
 
 Charcoals and Claybanks the two factions of loyal 
 Missourians were called. Mr. Lincoln tried to be neutral 
 between them. In spirit, if not in so many words, his attitude 
 was, "You all look alike to me." He would not take sides 
 but occasionally he expressed himself vigorously on the un- 
 happy family situation. In the spring of 1863 a Charcoal 
 appeal was made to the President. Mr. Lincoln replied: 
 
 "In answer to the within question 'Shall we be sustained 
 by you?' I have to answer that at the beginning of the Ad- 
 ministration I appointed one whom I understood to be an 
 editor of the 'Democrat' to be postmaster at St. Louis — 
 the best office in my gift within Missouri. Soon after this, 
 our friends at St. Louis must needs break into factions, the 
 Democrat being, in my opinion, justly chargeable with a full 
 share of the blame for it. I have stoutly tried to keep out 
 of the quarrel, and so mean to do." 
 
 President Lincoln continued to preserve strict neutrality 
 between the Missouri factions. Judge S. P. McCurdy, of 
 this State, was a candidate for an appointment. The Presi- 
 dent, with his own hand, indorsed Judge McCurdy 's appli- 
 cation : 
 
 "This is a good recommendation for a territorial judge- 
 ship, embracing both sides in Missouri and many other 
 respectable gentlemen. 
 
 A. Lincoln." 
 
 The President didn't believe in holding Missourians to 
 strict account for what they might have said in the heat of 
 oratory. Prince L. Hudgins, a lawyer quite well known in 
 the war period, was charged with conspiring against the gov- 
 ernment. He wrote to President Lincoln explaining that 
 the charge was based on a speech he had made in St. Joseph 
 several months before the law under which he was being 
 prosecuted was enacted. Congressman King went to the 
 White House and recommended a pardon for Hudgins. The 
 President wrote on the papers: 
 
90 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 "Attorney General: Please see Mr. King and make out 
 the pardon he asks. Give this man a fair deal if possible." 
 
 And then, perhaps after a little more conversation with 
 the Missouri Congressman, Mr. Lincoln added this to his 
 indorsement: 
 
 "Gov. King leaves Saturday evening and would want to 
 have it with him to take along, if possible. Would wish it 
 made out as soon as conveniently can be." 
 
 Grant, Sherman and Sheridan served in Missouri. 
 These three generals, who afterwards were advanced to the 
 highest military positions, saw their earliest war service in 
 this State. President Lincoln came to have the greatest 
 confidence in them. He placed his dependence upon them 
 for ultimate success of the Union armies in the closing year. 
 Who can tell in what measure the recognition of these three 
 generals was in the end due to the intimate and anxious 
 interest with which Mr. Lincoln followed those early develop- 
 ments in Missouri! The Secretary of War was of Pennsyl- 
 vania. War department influences were eastern. "On to 
 Richmond!" was the cry of the Atlantic seaboard. But 
 President Lincoln, with his mind on the situation in Missouri, 
 took a different view. He hardly waited until Price's army 
 had left the State before setting in motion the Mississippi 
 river campaign, starting from Missouri. He wanted to cut 
 the Confederacy in two by way of the river and prevent food 
 supplies from the southwest reaching the cotton States. 
 Montgomery Blair, after the death of Mr. Lincoln, gave this 
 among other reminiscences: 
 
 "One day in cabinet meeting, Lincoln turned to the Secretary 
 of War and asked, 'Did we not receive a communication sometime 
 last spring from a man named Grant out at Springfield, forwarded 
 by Governor Yates, laying out a plan of campaign down the Mis- 
 sissippi?' The Secretary replied that he believed such a paper 
 had been received. The President requested him to have it looked 
 up, which was done, and it was read in cabinet meeting. It made 
 a strong impression on all its members, Lincoln remarking that at 
 the time it was received it had impressed him favorably, but in the 
 multiplicity of cares it had been forgotten until now, when he had 
 received a communication from Representative Washburne calling 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 91 
 
 attention to General Grant and suggesting that he be sent to Cairo. 
 Lincoln then said, 'Mr. Secretary, send an order to General Fremont 
 to put Grant in command of the district of Southeast Missouri.' " 
 
 Grant went to this new command, he moved to Cairo, 
 took Paducah, fought the battle of Belmont, captured Fort 
 Donelson. The movement down the Mississippi did not 
 progress as loyal Missourians thought it should. Judge 
 Samuel Treat of the federal court at St. Louis wrote to Judge 
 Davis, presenting the importance of the Mississippi river 
 campaign as it appeared to him. He received in reply a 
 letter from President Lincoln, the original of which is pre- 
 served by the Missouri Historical Society: 
 
 Private. Executive Mansion, 
 
 Washington, Nov. 19, 1862. 
 Judge S. Treat, 
 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 My dear sir: 
 
 Your very patriotic and judicious letter, addressed to Judge 
 Davis, in relation to the Mississippi, has been left with me for 
 perusal. You do not estimate the value of the object you press 
 more highly than it is estimated here. It is now the object of par- 
 ticular attention. It has not been neglected, as you seem to think, 
 because the West was divided into different military districts. 
 The cause is much deeper. The country will not allow us to send 
 our whole western force down the Mississippi, while the enemy 
 sacks Louisville and Cincinnati. Probably it would be better if the 
 country would allow this, but it will not. I confidently believed 
 last September that we could end the war by allowing the enemy 
 to go to Harrisburg and Philadelphia, only that we could not keep 
 down mutiny, and utter demoralization among the Pennsylvanians. 
 And this, though unhandy sometimes, is not at all strange. I 
 presume if an army was starting to-day for New Orleans, and you 
 confidently believed that St. Louis would be sacked in consequence, 
 you would be in favor of stopping such army. 
 
 We are compelled to watch all these things. 
 With great respect 
 
 Your obt. servant, 
 
 A. Lincoln. 
 
92 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 THE MISSOURI COMMITTEE OF SEVENTY. 
 
 After Fremont came in succession Hunter, Halleck, 
 Curtis and Schofield as military commanders to deal with 
 the confusing situation in Missouri. In 1862 there was issued 
 by the general then commanding an order "to assess and 
 collect without unnecessary delay the sum of $500,000 from 
 the secessionists and southern sympathizers" of the city and 
 county of St. Louis. The order stated that the money was 
 to be "used in subsisting, clothing and arming the enrolled 
 militia while in active service, and in providing for the sup- 
 port of the families of such militiamen and United States 
 volunteers as may be destitute." The assessment was begun. 
 Collections were enforced by the military. Rev. Dr. William 
 G. Eliot, founder of Washington University, wrote a memorial 
 that the assessment was "working evil in this community 
 and doing great harm to the Union cause. Among our 
 citizens are all shades of opinion, from that kind of neutrality 
 which is hatred in disguise, through all the grades of luke- 
 warmness, 'sympathy' and hesitating zeal up to the full 
 loyalty which your memorialists claim to possess. To assort 
 and classify them, so as to indicate the dividing line of loyalty 
 and disloyalty, and to establish the rates of payment by those 
 falling below it is a task of great difficulty." 
 
 Reviewing the assessment as far as it had progressed, 
 Dr. Eliot continued: "The natural consequence has been 
 that many feel themselves aggrieved, not having supposed 
 themselves liable to a suspicion of disloyalty; many escape 
 assessment who, if any, deserve it; and a general feeling of 
 inequality in the rule and ratio of assessments prevails. 
 This was unavoidable for no two tribunals could agree upon 
 the details of such an assessment either as to the persons or 
 amounts to be assessed without more complete knowledge 
 of facts than are to be attained from ex-parte testimony and 
 current reports." 
 
 The memorial was sent to President Lincoln. Very 
 promptly came the order from Washington: 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 93 
 
 "As there seems to be no present military necessity for 
 the enforcement of this assessment, all proceedings under 
 the order will be suspended." 
 
 But the assessment policy was continued in the interior 
 of the State. One of the orders called for an assessment of 
 $5,000 for every Union soldier or Union citizen killed and 
 $1,000 for every Union soldier or Union citizen wounded by 
 the bushwhackers or guerilla bands. The President wrote 
 to General Curtis one of his friendly letters on the Missouri 
 situation and suggested that he stop these assessments. 
 General Curtis wrote at considerable length in reply. He 
 told how the assessment policy had begun under the provost 
 marshal system started by Fremont and continued by Hal- 
 leck and by himself. He argued in favor of its continuance. 
 Then by general order the President suspended these assess- 
 ments in Missouri. 
 
 In March the quarrel between the factions had reached 
 such a stage that the President relieved General Curtis. 
 Missourians calling at the White House found in the Presi- 
 dent's welcome a note of weariness as he referred to his 
 efforts to keep peace between the discordant elements. One 
 of these visitors returning to St. Louis quoted the President 
 as saying: 
 
 "The dissensions between Union men in Missouri are due 
 solely to a factious spirit, which is exceedingly reprehensible. 
 The two parties ought to have their heads knocked together." 
 
 The President appointed General Schofield to the com- 
 mand in Missouri and on the 27th of May wrote him this 
 letter for guidance: 
 
 "Having relieved General Curtis and assigned you to the com- 
 mand of the Department of Missouri, I think it may be some ad- 
 vantage for me to state to you why I did it. I did not relieve 
 General Curtis because of any full conviction that he had done 
 wrong by commission or omission. I did it because of a conviction 
 in my mind that the Union men of Missouri, constituting when 
 united, a vast majority of the whole people, have entered into a 
 pestilent factional quarrel among themselves — General Curtis, 
 perhaps not from choice, being the head of one faction, and Governor 
 Gamble that of the other. After months of labor to reconcile the 
 
94 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 difficulty, it seemed to grow worse and worse, until I felt it my duty 
 to break it up somehow; and as I could not remove Governor Gam- 
 ble, I had to remove General Curtis. Now that you are in the posi- 
 tion, I wish you to undo nothing merely because General Curtis 
 or Governor Gamble did it, but to exercise your own judgment 
 and do right for the public interest. 
 
 "Let your military measures be strong enough to repel the 
 invader and to keep the peace, and not so strong as to unnecessarily 
 harass and persecute the people. It is a difficult role, and so much 
 greater will be the honor if you perform it well. If both factions, 
 or neither, shall abuse you, you will probably be about right. Be- 
 ware of being assailed by one and praised by the other. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 A Lincoln." 
 
 The Schofield letter became public, — "surreptitiously" 
 the President subsequently explained. It prompted Governor 
 Gamble to write, complaining of the reference to him as 
 heading one of the parties to a "pestilent factional quarrel." 
 Mr. Lincoln replied acknowledging the receipt of the letter 
 and saying he had not read it and did not intend to read it. 
 
 On the last day of September, 1863, came a crisis in the 
 relationship of Lincoln and Missouri. At nine o'clock in the 
 morning, the President came into the great east room of the 
 White House. Awaiting him were seventy "Radical Union 
 men of Missouri." They had accepted that designation. 
 They had been chosen at a mass convention, — "the largest 
 mass convention ever held in the State," their credentials 
 said. That convention had appointed these seventy Mis- 
 sourians to proceed to Washington and "to procure a change 
 in the governmental policy in reference to Missouri." 
 
 Lincoln's reply to the committee. 
 
 This meant more than a state movement. It had taken 
 on the voice of the radical anti-slavery elements of the whole 
 country, speaking through Missouri. It demanded that 
 President Lincoln now commit himself to universal abolition 
 of slavery and to the general use of negro troops against the 
 Confederate armies. It was the uprising of those who thought 
 Mr. Lincoln's administration too mild. The President under- 
 stood well what the coming of the delegation meant. One 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 95 
 
 who was there said that when Mr. Lincoln came into the 
 room "he bore the appearance of being much depressed, as 
 if the matters at issue in the conference which was impending 
 were of great anxiety and trouble to him." The Missourians 
 were realizing the national scope of their mission. On the 
 way to Washington they had stopped at several places and 
 had received enthusiastic encouragement from the abolition- 
 ists. They had been urged to stand firm on the platform that 
 slavery by the loyal owners in the border States must be 
 wiped out, and that without compensation. On their ar- 
 rival in Washington the seventy had drawn up an address 
 to the President and had put into it this declaration: 
 
 We rejoice that in your proclamation of January 1, 1863, you 
 laid the mighty hand of the nation upon that gigantic enemy of 
 American liberty, and we and our constituents honor you for that 
 wise and noble act. We and they hold that that proclamation did, 
 in law, by its own force, liberate every slave in the region it covered; 
 that it is irrevocable, and that from the moment of its issue the 
 American people stood in an impregnable position before the world 
 and the rebellion received its death blow. If you, Mr. President, 
 felt that duty to your country demanded that you should unshackle 
 the slaves of the rebel States in an hour, we see no earthly reason 
 why the people of Missouri should not, from the same sense of duty, 
 strike down with equal suddenness the traitorous and parricidal 
 institution in their midst. 
 
 This was the essence of the Missouri movement which 
 gave it national interest, which prompted the grand chorus 
 of approval from the anti-slavery people of the North. It 
 led to the series of indorsing ovations, concluding with the 
 chief demonstration in Cooper Institute, New York City, 
 where the seventy Missourians were welcomed by William 
 Cullen Bryant. 
 
 There were events and conditions, apart from what was 
 going on in Missouri, which added to the importance of this 
 conference between Mr. Lincoln and the seventy. The 
 week before the delegation started from St. Louis for Washing- 
 ton, that bloodiest battle, Chickamauga, was fought. The 
 whole North was depressed by the narrow escape of Rose- 
 crans' army. When the Missourians arrived in Washington, 
 
 3 
 
96 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 Hooker's army was marching all night over the Long Bridge 
 out of Virginia and into the capital to take trains for the 
 roundabout journey to Chattanooga, that these troops 
 might re-enforce those penned and save them from being 
 forced north of the Tennessee by Bragg. Meade's failure to 
 follow up the success at Gettysburg in July previous had 
 given dissatisfaction. There was division in the cabinet 
 over administration policies. The Presidential campaign 
 would come on in a few months. Perhaps, at no other time 
 since the beginning of the war had President Lincoln faced 
 more discouraging criticism and hostile opinion. And now 
 came these Missourians to add to the burden. 
 
 The address which the seventy had prepared was read 
 to the President. For half an hour, the chairman, Charles 
 D. Drake, read in a deep, sonorous voice, slowly and impres- 
 sively. The origin and development of antagonism between 
 the Gamble administration and the radical Union men was 
 reviewed at length. The address charged Governor Gamble 
 with the intention to preserve slavery in Missouri and as- 
 serted "the Radicals of Missouri desired and demanded the 
 election of a new convention for the purpose of ridding the 
 State of slavery immediately." It dwelt upon the "proslavery 
 character" of Governor Gamble's policy and acts. 
 
 "From the antagonisms of the Radicals to such a policy," 
 the address proceeded, "have arisen the conflicts which you, 
 Mr. President, have been pleased heretofore to term a 'fac- 
 tional quarrel. With all respect we deny that the Radicals 
 of Missouri have been, or are in any sense, a party to any 
 such quarrel. We are no factionists; but men earnestly 
 intent upon doing our part toward rescuing this great nation 
 from the assaults which slavery is aiming at its life." This 
 reference in the address was to the personal letter from the 
 President to General Schofield. 
 
 The climax was reached when these "seventy radical 
 Union men" submitted their request that Ben Butler, whose 
 drastic measures toward the South were causing much talk, 
 be sent to succeed Schofield: 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURL 97 
 
 We ask, further, Mr. President, that in the place of General 
 Sehofield a department commander be assigned to the Department 
 of Missouri whose sympathies will be with Missouri's loyal and 
 suffering people, and not with slavery and proslavery men. General 
 Sehofield has disappointed our just expectations by identifying 
 himself with our state administration, and his policy as department 
 commander has been, as we believe, shaped to conform to Governor 
 Gamble's proslavery and conservative views. He has subordinated 
 federal authority in Missouri to state rule. He has become a party 
 to the enforcement of conscription into the state service. He has 
 countenanced, if not sustained, the orders issued from the state 
 headquarters, prohibiting enlistments from the enrolled militia 
 into the volunteer service of the United States. Officers acting 
 under him have arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned loyal citizens, 
 without assigned cause, or for daring to censure Governor Gamble's 
 policy and acts. Other such officers have ordered loyal men to be 
 disarmed, and in some instances the order has been executed, while, 
 under the pretense of preventing an invasion of Missouri from Kansas, 
 notorious and avowed disloyalists have been armed. He has issued 
 a military order prohibiting the liberty of speech and of the press. 
 An officer in charge of negro recruits that had been enlisted under 
 lawful authority, as we are informed and believe, was on the 20th 
 inst. arrested in Missouri by Brigadier General Guitar, acting under 
 General Schofield's orders, his commission, sidearms and recruits 
 taken from him, and he imprisoned and sent out of the State. And, 
 finally, we declare to you, Mr. President, that from the day of 
 General Schofield's accession to the command of that department, 
 matters have grown worse and worse in Missouri, till now they are 
 in a more terrible condition than they have been at any time since 
 the outbreak of the rebellion. This could not be if General Seho- 
 field had administered the affairs of that department with proper 
 vigor and with a resolute purpose to sustain loyalty and suppress 
 disloyalty. We, therefore, respectfully pray you to send another 
 general to command that department; and, if we do not overstep 
 the bounds of propriety, we ask that the commander sent there be 
 Major General Benjamin F. Butler. We believe that his presence 
 there would restore order and peace to Missouri in less than sixty 
 days. 
 
 The closing paragraph of the address was calculated to 
 impress Mr. Lincoln with the intensity of feeling prompting 
 the delegation. Perhaps in the history of White House 
 conferences such strong language was never before used by 
 citizens to place personal responsibility upon a President: 
 
98 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 Whether the loyal hearts of Missouri shall be crushed is for you 
 to say. If you refuse our requests, we return to our homes only to 
 witness, in consequence of that refusal, a more active and relentless 
 persecution of Union men, and to feel that while Maryland can 
 rejoice in the protection of the government of the Union, Missouri 
 is still to be a victim of proslavery conservatism, which blasts 
 wherever it reigns. Does Missouri deserve such a fate? What 
 border slave State confronted the rebellion in its first spring as she 
 did? Remember, we pray you, who it was that in May, 1861, 
 captured Camp Jackson and saved the arsenal at St. Louis from the 
 hands of traitors, and the Union cause in the Valley of the Missis- 
 sippi from incalculable disaster. Remember the Honie Guards, 
 who sprung to arms in Missouri when the government was without 
 troops or means to defend itself there. Remember the more than 
 50,000 volunteers that Missouri has sent forth to battle for the 
 Union. Remember that, although always a slave State, her un- 
 conditional loyalty to the Union shines lustrously before the whole 
 nation. Recall to memory these things, Mr. President, and let 
 them exert their just influence upon your mind. We ask only 
 justice and protection to our suffering people. If they are to suffer 
 hereafter, as now, and in time past, the world will remember that 
 they are not responsible for the gloomy page in Missouri's history, 
 which may have to record the independent efforts of her harassed 
 but still loyal men to defend themselves, their families and their 
 homes against their disloyal and murderous assailants. 
 
 The names of the seventy were signed to this remarkable 
 document. Charles D. Drake signed first, as chairman. He 
 was afterwards a Senator from Missouri and still later was 
 chief justice of the court of claims at Washington. Two 
 Missouri Congressmen, Ben Loan and J. W. McClurg, the 
 latter afterwards Governor, signed as vice-chairmen of the 
 delegation. One of the secretaries was Emil Preetorius of 
 the St. Louis Westliche Post. One of the seventy was Enos 
 Clarke of Kirkwood. With some reluctance Mr. Clarke talked 
 recently of this historic occasion, prefacing that it is difficult 
 for those who did not live through those trying times in 
 Missouri to appreciate the conditions which prevailed. 
 
 "The feeling over our grievances had become intense," he said. 
 "We represented the extreme anti-slavery sentiment. We were 
 the Republicans who had been in accord with Fremont's position 
 on slavery. Both sides of the controversy had repeatedly pre- 
 sented their views to Mr. Lincoln, but this delegation of seventy 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURL 99 
 
 was the most imposing and most formal protest which had been 
 made against the Gamble state government and against the national 
 administration's policy in Missouri. The attention of the whole 
 country, it seemed, had been drawn to this Missouri issue." 
 "Who was the author of the address, Mr. Clarke?" 
 "The address was the result of several meetings we held after 
 we reached Washington. We were there nearly a week. Arriving 
 on Saturday, we did not have our conference at the White House 
 until Wednesday. Every day we met in Willard's Hall, on F street, 
 and considered the address. Mr. Drake would read over a few para- 
 graphs, and we would discuss them. At the close of the meeting Mr. 
 Drake would say, 'I will call you together tomorrow to further 
 consider this matter.' In that way the address progressed to the 
 finish." 
 
 "Did the President seem to be much affected by the reading?" 
 "No. And at the conclusion he began to discuss the address 
 in a manner that was very disappointing to us. He took up one 
 phrase after another and talked about them without showing much 
 interest. In fact, he seemed inclined to treat many of the matters 
 contained in the paper as of little importance. The things which 
 we had felt to be so serious Mr. Lincoln treated as really unworthy 
 of much consideration. That was the tone in which he talked at 
 first. He minimized what seemed to us most important." 
 "Did he indulge in any story or humorous comment?" 
 "No. There was nothing that seemed like levity at that stage 
 of the conference. On the contrary, the President was almost 
 impatient, as if he wished to get through with something disagreeable. 
 When he had expressed the opinion that things were not so serious 
 as we thought he began to ask questions, many of them. He 
 elicited answers from different members of the delegation. He 
 started argument, parrying some of the opinions expressed by us 
 and advancing opinions contrary to the conclusions of our Com- 
 mittee of Seventy. This treatment of our grievances was carried 
 so far that most of us felt a sense of deep chagrin. But after con- 
 tinuing in this line for some time the President's whole manner 
 underwent change. It seemed as if he had been intent upon drawing 
 us out. When satisfied that he fully understood us and had measured 
 the strength of our purpose, the depth of our feeling, he took up the 
 address as if new. He handled the various grievances in a most 
 serious manner. He gave us the impression that he was disposed 
 to regard them with as much concern as we did. After a while the 
 conversation became colloquial between the President and the mem- 
 bers of the delegation — more informal and more sympathetic. The 
 change of tone made us feel that we were going to get consideration." 
 "Did the President make any reference to that part of the 
 address about the 'factional quarrel?' " 
 
100 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 "Yes, he did. And it was about the only thing he said that had 
 a touch of humor in that long conversation. In the course of his 
 reply to us he took up that grievance. 'Why,' he said, 'you are a 
 long way behind the times in complaining of what I said upon that 
 point. Governor Gamble was ahead of you. There came to me 
 some time ago a letter complaining because I had said that he was 
 a party to a factional quarrel, and I answered that letter without 
 reading it.' The features of the president took on a whimsical look 
 as he continued: 'Maybe you would like to know how I could 
 answer it without reading it. Well, I'll tell you. My private 
 secretary told me such a letter had been received and I sat down 
 and wrote to Governor Gamble in about these words: 'I under- 
 stand that a letter has been received from you complaining that I 
 said you were a party to a factional quarrel in Missouri. I have 
 not read that letter, and, what is more, I never will.' With that 
 Mr. Lincoln dismissed our grievance about having been called 
 parties to a factional quarrel. He left us to draw our own inference 
 from what he said, as he had left Governor Gamble to construe 
 the letter without help." 
 
 "Did the conference progress to satisfactory conclusions after 
 the President's manner changed?" 
 
 "We did not receive specific promises, but I think we felt much 
 better toward the close than we had felt in the first hour. The 
 President spoke generally of his purposes rather than with reference 
 to conditions in Missouri. Toward the close of the conference he 
 went on to speak of his great office, of its burdens, of its responsibili- 
 ties and duties. Among other things he said that in the administra- 
 tion of the government he wanted to be the President of the whole 
 people and no section. He thought we, possibly, failed to com- 
 prehend the enormous stress that rested upon him. 'It is my 
 ambition and desire,' he said with considerable feeling, 'to so ad- 
 minister the affairs of the government while I remain President that 
 if at the end I shall have lost every other friend on earth I shall at 
 least have one friend remaining and that one shall be down inside 
 of me.' " 
 
 "How long did the conference continue?" 
 
 "Three hours. It was nearing noon when the President said 
 what I have just quoted. That seemed to be the Signal to end the 
 conference. Mr. Drake stepped forward and addressing the Presi- 
 dent, who was standing, said, with deliberation and emphasis: 'The 
 hour has come when we can no longer trespass upon your attention. 
 Having submitted to you in a formal way a statement of our griev- 
 ances, we will take leave of you, asking the privilege that each 
 member of the delegation may take you by the hand. But, in 
 taking leave of you, Mr. President, let me say to you many of these 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 101 
 
 gentlemen return to a border State filled with disloyal sentiment. 
 If upon their return there the military policies of your administration 
 shall subject them to risk of life in the defense of the government 
 and their blood shall be shed — let me tell you, Mr. President, that 
 their blood shall be upon your garments and not upon ours.' " 
 
 "How did the President receive that?" 
 
 "With great emotion. Tears trickled down his face, as we filed 
 by shaking his hand." 
 
 In an old scrapbook kept by Enos Clark in the war and 
 reconstruction period is preserved the reply of Mr. Lincoln 
 to the "seventy radical Union men of Missouri." On the 
 evening of the day that the seventy were at the White House 
 they were given a reception by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 Mr. Chase. This was considered significant. At that time 
 there was much talk of Chase for the Presidential nomination 
 by the radical opposition to Mr. Lincoln. The Secretary was 
 alleged to be intriguing for the nomination. 
 
 From Washington the seventy Missourians went to New 
 York City to be honored by the anti-slavery people at a great 
 mass meeting in Cooper Institute. Charles P. Johnson was 
 the orator chosen by the Missourians to reply to the welcome. 
 
 On the 5th of October, only five days after he received 
 the Missourians, the President sent his reply. There are 
 few letters by Mr. Lincoln as long as this one on the Missouri 
 situation. The analysis of causes and conditions in this 
 State, when the war was half over, has no equal in print. It 
 showed complete comprehension of the troubles and sug- 
 gested common sense remedies. It is a revelation of Mr. 
 Lincoln's clear vision in the midst of the most conflicting 
 and confusing reports. This letter, in its entirety, deserves 
 prominent place in the war period of the history of Missouri: 
 
 Executive Mansion, 
 Washington, October 5, 1863. 
 
 Hon. Charles D. Drake and others, Committee: 
 
 Gentlemen: Your original address, presented on the 30th 
 ultimo, and the four supplementary ones presented on the 3rd 
 instant, have been carefully considered. I hope you will regard 
 the other duties claiming my attention, together with the great 
 length and importance of these documents, as constituting a suffi- 
 
102 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 eient apology for my not having responded sooner. These papers, 
 framed for a common object, consist of things demanded, and the 
 reasons for demanding them. The things demanded are — 
 
 First. That General Sehofield shall be relieved, and General 
 Butler be appointed as commander of the Military Department 
 of Missouri; 
 
 Second. That the system of Enrolled MUitia in Missouri may 
 be broken up, and national forces substituted for it, and 
 
 Third. That at elections, persons may not be allowed to vote 
 who are not entitled by law to do so. 
 
 Among the reasons given, enough of suffering and wrong to 
 Union men is certainly, and I suppose, truly stated. Yet the 
 whole ease presented fails to convince me that General Sehofield, 
 or the Enrolled Militia, is responsible for that suffering and wrong. 
 The whole can be explained on a more charitable, and, I think, a 
 more rational hypothesis. 
 
 We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main 
 question, but in this case that question is a perplexing compound — 
 Union and slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides 
 merely, but of at least four sides, even among those who are for the 
 Union, saying nothing of those who are against it. Thus those who 
 are for the Union with but not without slavery; those for it without 
 but not with; those for it with or without but prefer it with; those for 
 it with or without but prefer it without. Among these, again, is a sub- 
 division of those who are for gradual but not for immediate, and 
 those who are for immediate, but not for gradual, extinction of 
 slavery. 
 
 It is easy to conceive that all these shades of opinion, and even 
 more, may be sincerely entertained by honest and truthful men. 
 Yet all being for the Union, by reason of these differences each will 
 prefer a different way of sustaining the Union. At once sincerity 
 is questioned and motives assailed. Actual war coming, blood 
 grows hot and blood is spilled. Thought is forced from old channels 
 into confusion. Deception breeds and thrives. Confidence dies, 
 and universal suspicion reigns. Each man feels an impulse to kill 
 his neighbor lest he be killed by him. Revenge and retaliation 
 follow. And all this, as before said, may be among honest men 
 only. But this is not all. Every foul bird comes abroad and every 
 dirty reptUe rises up. These add crime to confusion. Strong 
 measures, deemed indispensable but harsh at best, such men make 
 worse by maladministration. Miirders for old grudges and murders 
 for pelf proceed under any cloak that will best cover for the occasion. 
 These causes amply account for what has occurred in Missouri, 
 without ascribing it to the weakness or wickedness of any general. 
 
 The newspaper files, those chroniclers of current events, will 
 show the evils now complained of were as prevalent under Fremont, 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 103 
 
 Hunter, Halleck and Curtis, as under Sehofield. If the former had 
 greater force opposed to them, they also had greater force with which 
 to meet it. When the organized army left the State, the main 
 federal force had to go also, leaving the department commander 
 at home, relatively, no stronger than before. Without disparaging 
 any, I affirm with confidence, that no commander of that department 
 has, in proportion to his means, done better than General Sehofield. 
 
 The first specific charge against General Sehofield is, that the 
 Enrolled Militia was placed under his command, whereas it had 
 not been placed under the command of General Curtis. The fact 
 I believe is true; but you do not point out, nor can I conceive how that 
 did, or could injure loyal men, or the Union cause. 
 
 You charge that upon General Curtis being superseded by 
 General Sehofield, Franklin A. Dick was superseded by James O. 
 Broadhead as provost marshal general. No very specific showing 
 is made as to how this did or could injure the Union cause. It 
 recalls, however, the conditions of things, as presented to me, which 
 led to a change of commander for that department. 
 
 To restrain contraband intelligence and trade, a system of 
 searches, seizures, permits, and passes had been introduced, I think, 
 by General Fremont. When General Halleck came, he found and 
 continued this system, and added an order, applicable to some 
 parts of the State, to levy and collect contributions from noted 
 rebels to compensate losses, and relieve destitution, caused by the 
 rebellion. The action of General Fremont and General HaUeck, 
 as stated, constituted a sort of a system, which General Curtis 
 found in full operation when he took command of the department. 
 That there was a necessity for something of the sort was clear; 
 but that it could only be justified by stern necessity, and that it 
 was liable to great abuse in administration was equally clear. 
 Agents to execute it, contrary to the great Prayer, were led into 
 temptation. Some might, while others would not, resist that 
 temptation. It was not possible to hold any to a very strict ac- 
 countability; and those yielding to the temptation would sell per- 
 mits and passes to those who would pay most, and most readily 
 for them; and would seize property, and collect levies in the aptest 
 way to fill their own pockets. Money being the object, the man 
 having money, whether loyal or disloyal, would be a victim. This 
 practice doubtless existed to some extent, and it was a real additional 
 evil that it coxild be, and was plausibly, charged to exist in a greater 
 extent than it did. 
 
 When General Curtis took command of the department, Mr. 
 Dick, against whom I never knew anything to allege, had general 
 charge of this system. A controversy in regard to it rapidly grew 
 into almost unmanageable proportions. One side ignored the 
 necessity and magnified the evils of the system, while the other 
 
104 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 ignored the evils and magnified the necessity; and each bitterly 
 assailed the motives of the other. 
 
 I could not fail to see that the controversy enlarged in the same 
 proportion as the professed Union men there distinctly took sides 
 in two opposing political parties. I exhausted my wits, and very 
 nearly my patience also, in efforts to convince both that the evils 
 they charged on each other were inherent in the case, and could 
 not be cured by giving either party a victory over the other. 
 
 Plainly the irritating system was not to be perpetual, and it 
 was plausibly urged that it could be modified at once with advantage. 
 The case could scarcely be worse, and whether it could be made 
 better could only be determined by trial. In this view, and not 
 to ban or brand General Curtis, or to give a victory to any party, 
 I made the change of commander for the department. I now learn 
 that soon after this change Mr. Dick was removed and that Mr. 
 Broadhead, a gentleman of no less good character, was put in the 
 place. The mere fact of this change is more distinctly complained 
 of than is any conduct of the new officer, or other consequences 
 of the change. 
 
 I gave the new commander no instructions as to the adminis- 
 tration of the system mentioned, beyond what is contained in the 
 private letter, afterwards surreptiously published, in which I directed 
 him to act solely for the public good, and independently of both 
 parties. Neither anything you have presented me, nor anything 
 I have otherwise learned, has convinced me that he has been un- 
 faithful to this charge. 
 
 Imbecility is urged as one cause for removing General Schofield, 
 and the late massacre at Lawrence, Kansas, is passed as evidence 
 of that imbecility. To my mind, that fact scarcely tends to prove 
 the proposition. That massacre is only an example of what Grier- 
 son, John Morgan, and many others might have repeatedly done 
 on their respective raids had they chose to incur the personal hazard, 
 and possessed the fiendish heart to do it. 
 
 The charge is made that General Schofield, on purpose to pro- 
 tect the Lawrence murderers, would not allow them to be pursued 
 into Missouri. While no punishment could be too sudden, or too 
 severe for those murderers, I am well satisfied that the preventing 
 of the threatened remedial raid into Missouri was the only safe way 
 to avoid an indiscriminate massacre there, including probably more 
 innocent than guilty. Instead of condemning, I, therefore, approve 
 what I understand General Schofield did in that respect. 
 
 The charges that General Schofield has purposely withheld 
 protection from loyal people, and purposely facilitated the objects 
 of the disloyal are altogether beyond my power of belief. I do 
 not arraign the veracity of gentlemen as to the facts complained of; 
 but I do more than question the judgment which would infer that 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 105 
 
 those facts occurred in accordance with the purpose of General 
 Schofield. 
 
 With my present views, I must decline to remove General 
 Schofield. In this I decide nothing against General Butler. I 
 sincerely wish it were convenient to assign him to a suitable com- 
 mand. 
 
 In order to meet some existing evils, I have addressed a letter 
 of instruction to General Schofield, a copy of which I enclose to 
 you. As to the Enrolled Militia, I shall endeavor to ascertain 
 better than I now know, what is its exact value. Let me say now, 
 however, that your proposal to substitute national force for the 
 Enrolled Militia implies that in your judgment the latter is doing 
 something which needs to be done; and, if so, the proposition to 
 throw that force away, and to supply its place by bringing other 
 forces from the field where they are urgently needed, seems to me 
 very extraordinary. Whence shall they come? Shall they be drawn 
 from Banks, or Grant, or Steele, or Rosecrans? 
 
 Few things have been so grateful to my anxious feeling, as when, 
 in June last, the local force in Missouri aided General Schofield to 
 so promptly send a large general force to the relief of General Grant, 
 then investing Vicksburg, and menaced from without by General 
 Johnston. Was this all wrong? Should the Enrolled Militia then 
 have been broken up, and General Heron kept from Grant, to police 
 Missouri? So far from finding cause to object, I confess to a sym- 
 pathy for whatever relieves our general force in Missouri, and allows 
 it to serve elsewhere. 
 
 I, therefore, as at present advised, cannot attempt the destruc- 
 tion of the Enrolled Militia of Missouri. I may add, that the force 
 being under the national military control, it is also within the proc- 
 lamation with regard to the habeas corpus. 
 
 I concur in the propriety of your request in regard to elections, 
 and have, as you see, directed General Schofield accordingly. I do 
 not feel justified to enter the broad field you present in regard to 
 the political dififerences between Radicals and Conservatives. 
 Prom time to time I have done and said what appeared to me 
 proper to do and say. The public knows it well. It obliges nobody 
 to follow me, and I trust it obliges me to follow nobody. 
 
 The Radicals and Conservatives each agree with me in some 
 things and disagree in others. I could wish both to agree with me 
 in all things; for then they would agree with each other, and would 
 be too strong for any foe from any quarter. They, however, choose 
 to do otherwise, and I do not question their rights. I hold whoever 
 commands in Missouri, or elsewhere, responsible to me, and not to 
 either Radicals or Conservatives. It is my duty to hear all; but. 
 
106 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 at last, I must, within my sphere, judge what to do and what to for- 
 bear. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 A. Lincoln. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln enclosed in this long letter to the committee 
 a copy of the instructions to General Schofield as the result 
 of the address of the Missourians. 
 
 (Copy.) 
 
 Executive Mansion, 
 Washington, D. C, Oct. 1, 1863. 
 General John M. Schofield: 
 
 There is no organized military force in avowed opposition to 
 the general government now in Missouri; and if any such shall 
 reappear, your duty in regard to it will be too plain to require any 
 special instruction. Still, the condition of things, both there and 
 elsewhere, is such as to render it indispensable to maintain, for a 
 time, the United States military establishment in that State, as well 
 as to rely upon it for a fair contribution of support to that es- 
 tablishment generally. Your immediate duty in regard to Missouri 
 now is to advance the efficiency of that establishment, and to so 
 use it, as far as practicable, to compel the excited people there to 
 leave one another alone. 
 
 Under your recent order, which I have approved, you will 
 only arrest individuals, and suppress assemblies or newspapers, 
 when they may be working palpable injury (Mr. Lincoln underscored 
 the word palpable) to the military in your charge; and in no other 
 case will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, or 
 allow it to be interfered with violently by others. In this you have 
 a discretion to exercise with great caution, calmness and forbearance. 
 
 With the matters of removing the inhabitants of certain coun- 
 ties en masse, and of removing certain individuals from time to 
 time, who are supposed to be mischievous, I am not now interfering, 
 but am leaving to your discretion. 
 
 Nor am I interfering with what may still seem to you to be 
 necessary restrictions upon trade and intercourse. I think proper, 
 however, to enjoin upon you the following: Allow no part of the 
 military under your command to be engaged in either returning 
 fugitive slaves, or in forcing or enticing slaves from their homes; 
 and so far as practicable, enforce the same forbearance upon the 
 people. 
 
 Report to me your opinion upon the availability for good of 
 the Enrolled Militia of the State. Allow no one to enlist colored 
 troops, except upon orders from you, or from here through you. 
 Allow no one to assume the functions of confiscating property, 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 107 
 
 under the law of Congress, or otherwise, except upon orders from 
 here. 
 
 At elections, see that those, and only those, are allowed to vote, 
 who are entitled to do so by the laws of Missouri, including as of 
 those laws the restrictions laid by the Missouri Convention upon 
 those who may have participated in the rebellion. 
 
 So far as practicable, you will, by means of your military force, 
 expel guerrillas, marauders and murderers, and all who are known 
 to harbor or abet them. But in like manner you will repress as- 
 sumptions of unauthorized individuals to perform the same service, 
 because under pretence of doing this they become marauders and 
 murderers themselves. 
 
 To now restore peace, let the military obey orders; and those 
 not of the military leave each other alone, thus not breaking the 
 peace themselves. 
 
 In giving the above directions, it is not intended to restrain 
 you in other expedient and necessary matters not falling within 
 their range. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 A. Lincoln. 
 
 Lincoln's second nomination and his 
 reconstruction policy. 
 
 At this time Frank Blair was fighting Missouri Con- 
 federates in the field and Missouri "Jacobins," as he called 
 them, in Congress. In the House Mr. Blair, on the 24th 
 of February, 1864, arraigned Salmon P. Chase, Secretary 
 of the Treasury, demanding an investigation. He charged 
 Mr. Chase with intriguing to defeat Mr. Lincoln for a second 
 term. He charged that the Radicals of Missouri, the Jaco- 
 bins, were in the plot to prevent Mr. Lincoln's renomination. 
 He defended the President's border States policy: 
 
 "Things have occurred in Missouri and the other border States 
 not so easily understood by those who come from happier regions, 
 unvisited by the calamities of war. In Missouri, at the outbreak 
 of the war, and for a long time afterwards, the State was a prey to 
 the worst disorders, the country was ravaged and destroyed, and a 
 feeling of bitterness has been engendered which is almost without 
 parallel. Upon this spirit of exasperation, retaliation and revenge 
 the Radicals of my State have undertaken to build up a party. Is 
 this a fit foundation for any party to rest upon? Can peace, pros- 
 perity and tranquility be expected from those who act upon such 
 motives? Can any secure or enduring principles of government 
 
108 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 be based upon such sentiments? It may be and it is impossible 
 for men to free themselves from the passion of revenge, and the desire 
 for retaliation on those who may have inflicted injuries on them or 
 on their friends and neighbors. It may be utterly impossible to 
 expect that men can free themselves entirely from such influences. 
 But, on the other hand, is it natural, proper, or wise that the Presi- 
 dent and the great statesmen who are directing the affairs of the 
 government, and whose duty it is to educe peace and good will out 
 of these scenes of anarchy and disorder, should be actuated by the 
 feelings of bitterness which have grown up among the parties to 
 this strife. Such passions are in some degree excusable in those 
 who have suffered injury; but with what face does a man set himself up 
 as a statesman or party leader, who will fan such passions; who 
 will contribute to the public exasperation; who will rekindle these 
 smouldering fires; and who seeks even to drag into them and destroy 
 the Chief Magistrate of the country, when he declines to be the 
 instrument of such malignant passions. Yet this is the position 
 of the Jacobin leaders of Missouri and their confederate Jacobins 
 in Maryland. They appeal to the Union men of other States to 
 support them in their strife in States in which the rebellion has been 
 put down, instead of fighting to put down the rebellion where it 
 still exists. They appeal to the Union men of other States against 
 the President's policy of amnesty, by which the armies of the rebels 
 are being demoralized and depleted, because they desire to glut 
 their vengeance and their lust for spoils. They seek to make a 
 direct issue with the President, to defeat his re-election, in order 
 that they may enjoy the license of another French Revolution 
 under some chief as malignant as themselves." 
 
 As early as 1864 there was talk of the reconstruction 
 measures when the war was over. Some were advocating 
 that the freedmen be given the ballot and be armed in large 
 numbers that the franchise might be secured to them. Mr. 
 Blair referred to these propositions. "Can any American 
 citizen find in his heart to inaugurate such a contest?" Mr. 
 Blair asked. And then he outlined the position of the Presi- 
 dent: 
 
 "I prefer Mr. Lincoln's humane, wise, and benevolent policy 
 to secure the peace and happiness of both races; and until that can 
 be accomplished, and while both races are being prepared for this 
 great change, I shall repose in perfect confidence in the promise of 
 the President given in his last message, in which he proposes to 
 remit the control of the freedmen to the restored States, promising 
 to support any provisions which may be adopted by such state 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 109 
 
 government in relation to the freed people of such State which shall 
 recognize and declare their permanent freedom, provide for their 
 education, and which may yet be consistent as a temporary arrange- 
 ment with their present condition as a laboring, landless and home- 
 less class.' " 
 
 Mr. Blair was right in his forecast of the purpose of the 
 Jacobins to defeat the renomination of Mr. Lincoln. Very 
 shortly after he made the speech in Congress, a call was issued 
 for a national convention to meet in Cleveland in May. 
 Radical Union men of Missouri were active in the movement. 
 Blair's cousin, B. Gratz Brown, was one of the signers of the 
 call. That convention was attended by 350 delegates who 
 did not believe Mr. Lincoln was aggressive enough. Wendell 
 Phillips, the abolitionist, and Fred Douglass, the negro 
 orator, made speeches. Three planks in the very radical 
 platform were: 
 
 "That the one-term policy for the Presidency adopted 
 by the people is strengthened by the force of the existing 
 crisis and should be maintained by constitutional amendment. 
 
 "That the Constitution should be so amended that the 
 President and Vice-President shall be elected by a direct vote 
 of the people. 
 
 "That the confiscation of the lands of the rebels and 
 their distribution among the soldiers and actual settlers is 
 a measure of justice." 
 
 The convention nominated General John C. Fremont 
 for President and General John Cochrane for Vice-President. 
 The candidates withdrew in September. 
 
 Missourians did all they could to prevent the renomina- 
 tion of Mr. Lincoln. They not only sent a delegation to the 
 Cleveland convention which nominated Fremont but they 
 sent two delegations to the Baltimore convention which 
 renominated Lincoln. The call for the Baltimore conven- 
 tion omitted the name Republican. It designated the as- 
 semblage as the "Union National Convention." The two 
 sets of delegates from Missouri to this Baltimore convention 
 contested for the seats with as much vigor as if the nomina- 
 tion depended upon which set got in. It was a foregone 
 
110 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 conclusion that Mr. Lincoln would be renominated. He had 
 all of the delegates except those from Missouri. The com- 
 mittee on credentials urged the two delegations from Mis- 
 souri to patch up their differences and go into the convention 
 with half representation each. The Missourians wouldn't 
 have it so. One delegation was headed by John F. Hume, 
 and had credentials from a Republican state convention. 
 The other set was headed by Congressman Thomas L. Price 
 and had been selected at a meeting held in St. Louis. The 
 convention finally decided that the Hume delegates made 
 the best showing in credentials and seated them. 
 
 When Missouri was reached in the call of the roll of 
 States for the Presidential nomination, Mr. Hume got up 
 and said: 
 
 "It is a matter of regret that we now difTer from the con- 
 vention which has been so kind to the Radicals of Missouri; 
 but we came here instructed. We represent those who are 
 behind us at home, and we recognize the right of instruction, 
 and we intend to obey our instruction. But in doing so we 
 declare emphatically that we are with the Union party of 
 this nation, and we intend to fight the battle through with 
 it, and assist in carrying its banner to victory in the end, 
 and we will support your nominees, be they whom they may. 
 I will read the resolution adopted by the convention which 
 sent us here: 
 
 " 'That we extend our heartfelt thanks to the soldiers of 
 Missouri, who have been, and are now baring their breasts 
 to the storm of battle for the preservation of our free insti- 
 tutions. That we hail them as the practical radicals of the 
 nation whose arguments are invincible, and whose policy for 
 putting down the rebellion is first in importance and effect- 
 iveness.' 
 
 "Mr. President, in the spirit of that resolution, I cast 
 the twenty-two votes of Missouri for the man who stands 
 at the head of the fighting radicals of the nation, Ulysses S. 
 Grant." 
 
 McClurg and Widdicombe were members of the Hume 
 delegation. They represented the Jefferson City district. 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. Ill 
 
 Widdicombe was from Boonville. His connection with the 
 Republican party dated back to 1861 when there were only 
 nine Radicals, as they were called, in Boonville, and the nine 
 stumbled up stairs in the dark and met by the light of a 
 tallow candle in a third-story room. In 1887 Mr. Widdi- 
 combe gave the writer this account of the part the Missourians 
 took in the Baltimore convention: 
 
 "We had caucused and agreed upon our programme but not 
 a word was allowed to slip about it. Lincoln's name was the only 
 one formally presented to the convention, and as the roll was called 
 each State announced its vote for him amid much enthusiasm. At 
 length Missouri was reached. John F. Hume got up and with a 
 few words east the vote of Missouri for U. S. Grant. Such a storm 
 of disapproval was never started in any convention that I ever 
 attended. Delegates and lookers-on howled and howled. I can 
 remember how I felt. I think my hair stood right up on end. 
 After Hume announced the vote he sat down, and there we were, 
 as solemn and determined as men could look, with the mob all 
 around us demanding that the vote should be changed. I hadn't 
 any doubt for a few moments but what we would be picked up, 
 every man of us, and thrown out into the street. 
 
 "Finally, old Jim Lane, of Kansas, got the attention of the 
 convention," continued Mr. Widdicombe. "I suppose they quieted 
 down out of curiosity to know what sort of a fate he would propose 
 for us. Lane went on to say that we were neighbors of his. We 
 had come to the convention with proper credentials, and had been 
 admitted as delegates. That being the case, we had a right to vote 
 for whom we pleased, and it was not Republicanism to try to prevent 
 us. This coming from Jim Lane and Kansas had a good effect. 
 As soon as he sat down Gov. Stone, of Iowa, another good Repub- 
 lican State, jumped up. He was a man more like Sam Cox than 
 anybody I ever saw. He said we were neighbors of his, too, and he 
 didn't like to see us treated that way. He urged the convention 
 to show fair play. 
 
 "That partially quieted the storm," Mr. Widdicombe went on, 
 "and the roll call proceeded, but with some grumbling. The last 
 State was reached, and anjaouneed its vote as all the others had 
 done, except ours, for Lincoln. Then Mr. Hume got up, before 
 any declaration of the result could be made, and stated that Missouri 
 wished to change her vote from Grant to Lincoln and to move that 
 Mr. Lincoln's nomination be made unanimous. By that time the 
 convention saw what we were up to, and how everybody did shout! 
 After the convention adjourned our delegation came over to Wash- 
 ington and marched up to the White House headed by Gen. John 
 
 4 
 
112 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 B. Henderson, who was then in the Senate. Gen. Henderson 
 presented us and Mr. Lincoln got off some funny remarks about 
 our course in the convention. But after we went back home we 
 never had any further occasion to complain about the control of 
 the federal patronage in Missouri so long as Mr. Lincoln lived." 
 
 What were Mr. Lincoln's views respecting the future of 
 the freedmen? What was his plan of reconstruction? Was 
 Frank Blair as accurate in his statement of Mr. Lincoln's 
 policy in those directions as he was in his forecast of the pur- 
 poses of the Radicals? In the collection of Lincoln papers, 
 possessed by William K. Bixby of St. Louis, is the original 
 letter of the President upon the restoration of state govern- 
 ment in Arkansas. It was addressed to General Steele, 
 at Little Rock. It was written in the winter of 1864, not 
 far distant from the time Frank Blair outlined the President's 
 policy toward the States which had seceded. Residents of 
 Arkansas petitioned for authority to hold an election and to 
 set up a state government which would be recognized at 
 Washington. Mr. Lincoln, in his own hand, wrote to General 
 Steele, in charge of the military division which included 
 Arkansas. He gave explicit instructions. He stipulated 
 that the new state government must come into existence 
 with the full recognition of the principle embraced in what 
 afterwards became the thirteenth amendment to the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. That there might be no 
 misunderstanding Mr. Lincoln copied into his letter the lan- 
 guage of the condition upon which the new state government 
 was to be recognized. The letter illustrated the earnest 
 desire of Mr. Lincoln to rehabilitate state governments in 
 the Confederacy. Thus, more than twelve months before 
 the final surrender, the President laid the foundation for 
 restoration of civil authority in Arkansas. Restoration was 
 the word, not reconstruction. The letter concluded: 
 
 "You will please order an election immediately and per- 
 form the other parts assigned you with necessary incidentals, 
 all according to the foregoing." 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 113 
 
 In his own words, written by himself, the President 
 expressed his purpose to make the way for the Confederate 
 States to get back into the Union simple and expeditious. 
 
 The thirteenth amendment submission bill did not pass 
 the Senate until the 8th of April, 1864. It did not obtain 
 the necessary two-thirds in the House until the next session 
 of Congress. It was ratified by thirty-one States and pro- 
 claimed in force in December, 1865. And yet nearly two 
 years before, Mr. Lincoln incorporated the language with 
 his own hand as the principal condition of the creation of 
 a new state government for Arkansas. The language made 
 no stipulation as to negro suffrage. It only required that 
 Arkansas organize with a provision against slavery in these 
 words : 
 
 "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, 
 except in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall 
 have been duly convicted, but the General Assembly may 
 make such provision for the freed-people as shall recognize 
 and declare their permanent freedom, provide for their 
 education, and which may yet be consistent, as a temporary 
 arrangement, with their present condition as a laboring, 
 landless and homeless class." 
 
 This was Mr. Lincoln's policy of state restoration. The 
 other conditions imposed upon the Southern States, of which 
 negro suffrage was chief, came after the death of the President. 
 
 Executive Mansion, 
 Washington, D. C, Jan. 20, 1864. 
 Major General Steele: 
 
 Sundry citizens of the State of Arkansas petition me that an 
 election may be held in that State; that it be assumed at said elec- 
 tion, and thenceforward, that the constitution and laws of the State, 
 as before the rebellion, are in full force, excepting that the constitu- 
 tion is so modified as to declare that "There shall be neither slavery 
 nor involuntary servitude, except in the punishment of crime 
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; but the General 
 Assembly may make such provision for the freed-people as shall 
 recognize and declare their permanent freedom, provide for their 
 education, and which may yet be consistent, as a temporary ar- 
 rangement, with their present condition as a laboring, landless, and 
 homeless class;" ever also except that all now existing laws in re- 
 
114 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW, 
 
 lation to slaves are inoperative and void; that said election be held 
 on the twenty-eighth day of March next at aU the usual voting 
 places of the State, or all such as voters may attend for that purpose; 
 that the voters attending at each place, at eight o'clock in the 
 morning of said day, may choose judges and clerks of election for 
 that place; that all persons qualified by said constitution and laws, 
 and taking the oath prescribed in the President's proclamation 
 of December the 8th, 1863, either before or at the election, and 
 none others, may be voters provided that persons having the qualifi- 
 cations aforesaid, and being in the volunteer military service of the 
 United States, may vote once wherever they may be at voting 
 places; that each set of judges and clerks may make return directly 
 to you, on or before the eleventh day of April next; that in all other 
 respects said election may be conducted according to said modified 
 constitution, and laws; that, on receipt of said returns, you count 
 said votes, and that, if the number shall reach, or exceed, five 
 thousand four hundred and six, you canvass said votes and ascer- 
 tain who shall thereby appear to have been elected Governor; and 
 that on the eighteenth day of April next, the person so appearing 
 to have been elected, and appearing before you at Little Rock, 
 to have, by you, administered to him an oath to support the Con- 
 stitution of the United States and said modified constitution of 
 the State of Arkansas, and actually taking said oath, be by you 
 declared qualified, and be enjoined to immediately enter upon the 
 duties of the office of Governor of said State; and that you there- 
 upon declare the constitution of the State of Arkansas to have been 
 modified and assumed as aforesaid, by the action of the people as 
 aforesaid. 
 
 You will please order an election immediately, and perform 
 the other parts assigned you, with necessary incidentals, all accord- 
 ing to the foregoing. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 A. Lincoln. 
 
 The original of this letter is entirely in the handwriting 
 of Mr. Lincoln. Painstaking is not the word that applies 
 to Mr. Lincoln's writing. The pen or pencil moved over the 
 page easily, naturally, readily. That is apparent from the 
 style of writing. Even stronger evidence is found in the 
 volume of written matter which Mr. Lincoln turned out. 
 From the beginning of his career as a lawyer down through 
 the busiest days in the White House, Mr. Lincoln wrote and 
 wrote. There are in existence letters and papers of his pen- 
 manship in greater number, probably than any other President 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 115 
 
 wrote. The letters number thousands. Many of them bear 
 evidence that they were not answers and need not have 
 been written, and would not have been written by one to 
 whom writing was irksome, or in any sense a task. Mr. 
 Lincoln liked to write so well that he seldom dictated anything. 
 In the extensive and varied collection of Lincoln writings 
 owned by Mr. Bixby are many interesting revelations of this 
 strong penmanship habit of Mr. Lincoln. Whether in letter, 
 law paper or state document, the composition was simple 
 and closely condensed. But this did not mean that Mr. 
 Lincoln wished to get through as quickly as possible. It 
 indicated the habit of mind. There are few letters of Mr. 
 Lincoln which exceed a page. The longest writing in the 
 Bixby collection is the letter to General Steele setting forth 
 the complete plan of restoration of civil government for 
 Arkansas. It is of nearly four pages and written on one side 
 of the paper. The date is significant, taken in connection 
 with Blair's speech in Congress. The President dated his 
 letter on the 24th of January. Blair spoke on the 24th of 
 February. 
 
 LINCOLN, MISSOURI AND MEXICO. 
 
 When it was evident that the Confederacy was doomed, 
 President Lincoln gave thought to the future of the Mis- 
 sourians who had gone with the South. He realized that 
 there were numbers of these who had cut the ties of home 
 and kindred. With the surrender, many Confederates, es- 
 pecially from Missouri and other border States, would feel 
 that they were men without a country. Houses had been 
 burned. Farms had been laid waste. Property had been 
 confiscated. Emancipation had wrought chaos in labor re- 
 lations which might require years for adjustment. These 
 conditions, which would confront the soldiers returning to 
 the border States, were dangerous. They might lead to 
 feuds without number and much bloodshed. Mr. Lincoln 
 talked with his advisers about this situation. He consulted 
 with Frank Blair. 
 
116 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 Across the Rio Grande there was revolution. European 
 governments, taking advantage of the Civil War in the 
 United States, were attempting to set up an empire. The 
 United States had protested through diplomatic channels 
 against this violation of the Monroe doctrine. Under Juarez 
 the republican elements of Mexico were fighting against 
 Maximilian, but they were with difificulty holding the north- 
 ern part of their country. The closing act of Mr. Lincoln's 
 cherished border states policy was to turn the western Con- 
 federates toward Mexico as soon as their own cause was 
 lost. And, as on the former occasions noted, Mr. Lincoln 
 looked to Missouri to work out this policy. 
 
 Francis P. Blair and Joseph O. Shelby were cousins. 
 Early in 1861, when Blair knew that war was inevitable, 
 he sent for Shelby, who was living in Lafayette county, to 
 come to St. Louis. He exerted all of his powers of persuasion 
 to induce Shelby to remain with the Union. On the strength 
 of his close relations with Mr. Lincoln, Blair assured Shelby 
 of a good commission in the army. Shelby, however, had 
 made up his mind to go with the South. 
 
 With the war nearing the end. President Lincoln made 
 Blair the medium of his communication to the western Con- 
 federates and Blair communicated the plan to Shelby. Not 
 only was no obstacle to be thrown in the way of Confederates 
 marching to Mexico but tacit encouragement was to be 
 given. Moreover it was to be understood that federal 
 soldiers who had not had enough of the adventures of war 
 might join the Confederates, cross the Rio Grande, join 
 Juarez and help work out the salvation of Mexico. 
 
 Shelby led an expedition to Mexico and was not inter- 
 fered with. But the plan as President Lincoln conceived 
 it was not carried through. In 1877 there was much newspa- 
 per talk about an invasion of Mexico by Americans. Affairs 
 in that country had become unsettled. Reports were spread 
 that Americans were organizing under strong leadership to 
 go into Mexico with the view of settling there and insuring 
 stability of government and lasting peace. General Shelby's 
 name was much mentioned as a possible leader in the move- 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 117 
 
 ment. He was living on his farm in Missouri. Some ex- 
 pression from him was wanted by the northern and eastern 
 newspapers. Through the influence of Major John N. 
 Edwards, who had been on Shelby's staff in the war, the 
 much desired interview was obtained. General Shelby with 
 emphasis put an end of the use of his name in connection 
 with the proposed movement. And then he told of Mr. 
 Lincoln's plan for the western Confederates: He said: 
 
 "Through General Frank P. Blair I had received, long before 
 the killing of Lincoln, some important information. It was to the 
 effect that in the downfall of the Confederacy and the overthrow 
 of the Confederates of the east, the Confederates of the west would 
 be permitted to march into Mexico, drive out the French, fraternize 
 with the Mexicans, look around them to see what they could see, 
 occupy and possess land, keep their eyes fixed steadfastly upon 
 the future, and understand from the beginning that the future 
 would have to take care of itself. In addition, every disbanded 
 federal soldier in the trans-Mississippi department, who desired 
 service of the kind I have indicated, would have been permitted to 
 cross over to the Confederates with his arms and ammunition. 
 Fifty thousand of these were eager to enlist in such an expedition. 
 On my march south from San Antonio to Piedras Negras I received 
 no less than 200 messages and communications from representative 
 Federal officers begging me to wait for them beyond the Rio Grande." 
 
 "Do you mean to say. General, that President Lincoln was in 
 favor of the movement you have outlined?" 
 
 "I do mean to say so most emphatically. I could show nothing 
 ofSeial for my assertion, but I had such assurances as satisfied me, 
 and other officers of either army had such assurances as satisfied 
 them. There was empire in it, and a final and practical settlement 
 of this whole Mexican question." 
 
 "Why did the scheme fail?" 
 
 "I will tell you why. Before marching into the interior of 
 Mexico from Piedras Negras, a little town on the Rio Grande 
 opposite Eagle Pass, I called my officers and men about me and 
 stated to them briefly the case. Governor Blesca, the Juarez 
 governor of Coahuila, was in Piedras Negras. I had sold him 
 cannon, muskets, ammunition, revolvers, sabres, — munitions of 
 war which I had brought out of Texas in quantities, — and had 
 divided the proceeds per capita among my men. Governor Blesca 
 oifered me the military possession of New Leon and Coahuila, a 
 major generalship, and absolute authority to recruit a corps of 
 50,000 Americans. All these things I told my followers. Then I 
 
118 MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 laid a scheme before them and mapped out for the future a programme 
 which had for a granite basis, as it were, that one irrevocable idea 
 of empire. But to my surprise and almost despair nearly the 
 entire expeditionary force were resolute and aggressive imperialists. 
 I could not move them from the idea of fighting for Maximilian. 
 They hated Juarez, they said, and they hated his cause. Max- 
 imilian had been the friend of the South; so had the French; so had 
 Louis Napoleon. They would not lift a hand against the inperial 
 government. I did not argue with my soldiers. They had been 
 faithful to me beyond everything I had ever known of devotion, 
 and so I said to them, 'You have made your resolve, so be it!' " 
 
 There is strongly corroborative proof of General Shelby's 
 statement that the western Confederates were to be allowed 
 to march away to Mexico. When Lee surrendered, the 
 trans-Mississippi army numbered about 50,000 men. The 
 commander was Kirby Smith. The officers held a council 
 at Marshall, Texas, and decided to march to Mexico. Kirby 
 Smith was to resign and Buckner was to command. But 
 Smith declined to resign and Buckner didn't want to go. 
 Division after division was called to Shreveport and dis- 
 armed. Shelby called for volunteers and led 1,000 men to 
 Mexico. At the close of the Civil war, Sheridan was hurried 
 to the Mexican border. Juarez was given moral and material 
 support from the United States side. The French were 
 warned away; Maximilian was defeated, captured, condemned 
 to death and executed on the hill of Queretaro. 
 
 THE FAREWELL MESSAGE TO MISSOURI. 
 
 Not two months before his death, fifty-one days before 
 the surrender of Lee, President Lincoln sent to Missouri what 
 was to be his farewell message. The letter was dated the 
 latter part of February, 1865. The Missouri Constitutional 
 convention had abolished slavery. The delegates were pre- 
 paring that ill-advised, proscriptive, short-lived organic act, 
 with its test oaths which were to create turmoil for a genera- 
 tion in the State, which passed into history as the Drake con- 
 stitution. Mr. Lincoln wrote, entreating Governor Fletcher 
 to get together the contending factions and to harmonize the 
 people irrespective of what they had "thought, said, or done 
 
LINCOLN AND MISSOURI. 119 
 
 about the war or about anything else." He even suggested 
 a plan of detail by which he believed this might be accom- 
 plished. The Hon. Benjamin B. Cahoon, Sr., of Frederick- 
 town, lifelong student of Lincoln who stopped and sympa- 
 thized with him as he lay wounded after Gettysburg, has said 
 of this farewell message to Missouri : 
 
 "In no document of Lincoln's is his kindness and hu- 
 manity better exhibited. It can be classed with his first and 
 second Inaugural addresses and his Gettysburg oration." 
 
 A fitting conclusion to this narrative of Lincoln and Mis- 
 souri is this letter of the President to Governor Fletcher: 
 
 Executive Mansion, 
 Washington, February 20, 1865. 
 His Excellency, Governor Fletcher: 
 
 It seems that there is now no organized military force of the 
 enemy in Missouri, and yet that destruction of property and life is 
 rampant everywhere. Is not the cure for this within easy reach of 
 the people themselves? It cannot be but that every man, not naturally 
 a robber or cutthroat, would gladly put an end to this state of things. 
 A large majority in every locality must feel alike upon this subject; 
 and if so they only need to reach an understanding one with an- 
 other. Each leaving all others alone solves the problem; and surely 
 each would do this but for his apprehension that others will not 
 leave him alone. Cannot this mischievous distrust be removed? 
 Let neighborhood meetings be everywhere called and held of all 
 entertaining a sincere purpose for mutual security in the future, 
 whatever they may heretofore have thought, said, or done about 
 the war or about anything else. Let all such meet, and, waiving 
 all else, pledge each to cease harassing others, and to make common 
 cause against whoever persists in making, aiding, or encouraging 
 further disturbance. The practical means they will best know how 
 to adopt and apply. At such meetings old friendships will cross the 
 memory, and honor and Christian charity wiU come in to help. 
 Please consider whether it may not be well to suggest this to the 
 now afflicted people of Missouri. 
 
 Yours Truly, 
 
 A. Lincoln.