CHAPTER XXII.

1861—January, February, and March.

THE “PEACE CONVENTION”—FORT SUMTER—THE STAR OF THE WEST FIRED UPON IN CHARLESTON HARBOR—ANDERSON’S TEMPORARY TRUCE—THE HARBOR OF PENSACOLA AND FORT PICKENS—THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN EX-PRESIDENT TYLER AND PRESIDENT BUCHANAN.

The vote of the Senate on the 16th of January, by which Mr. Crittenden’s resolution was defeated by the tactics of the Republicans, aided by six of the Southern Senators, made it apparent that some extraordinary interposition could alone save the Union. For such interposition there was still time, if it could be promptly exerted, and Congress could be induced to listen to it. It came from the State of Virginia, and as Mr. Buchanan has given a succinct and accurate account of this movement, which resulted in the assembling at Washington of the body called “The Peace Convention,” I transcribe it into these pages:

These great and powerful commonwealths [the border States] still remained faithful to the Union. They had hitherto stood aloof from secession, and had manifested an earnest desire not only to remain in the Union themselves, but to exert their powerful influence to bring back the seceding sisters. Virginia had ever ranked as chief among the Southern States, and had exercised great influence over their counsels. She had now taken the lead in the grand design to save the Union, and it became the duty of the President to render her all the aid in his power in a cause so holy. Every reflecting man foresaw that if the present movement of Virginia should fail to impress upon Congress and the country the necessity for adopting a peaceful compromise, like that proposed by Mr. Crittenden, there was imminent danger that all the border slave States would follow the cotton States, which had already adopted ordinances of secession, and unite with them in an attempt to break up the Union. Indeed, as has been already seen, the Virginia legislature had declared that, in case of failure, such a dissolution was “inevitable.”

The Peace Convention met on the 4th February.[109] It was composed of one hundred and thirty-three commissioners, representing twenty-one States. A bare inspection of the list will convince all inquirers of the great respectability and just influence of its members. Among them there were many venerable and distinguished citizens from the border States, earnestly intent upon restoring and saving the Union. Their great object was to prevail upon their associates from the North to unite with them in such recommendations to Congress as would prevent their own States from seceding, and enable them to bring back the cotton States which had already seceded. It will be recollected that on the 4th February, when the Peace Convention assembled, six of the cotton States, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, had already adopted ordinances of secession; and that but four days thereafter (8th February) deputies from these States had adopted and published at Montgomery, Alabama, a Provisional Constitution for the so-called Confederate States. The Union was then crumbling to pieces. One month only of the session of Congress remained. Within this brief period it was necessary that the Convention should recommend amendments to the Constitution in sufficient time to enable both Houses to act upon them before their final adjournment. It was also essential to success that these amendments should be sustained by a decided majority of the commissioners both from the Northern and the border States. It was, however, soon discovered that the same malign influence which had caused every Republican member of Congress to oppose the Crittenden Compromise, would probably defeat the patriotic purpose for which the Convention had assembled.

Footnote 109:

_Cong. Globe_, 1860-61, p. 125.

On Wednesday, the 6th February, a resolution was adopted,[110] on motion of Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, to refer the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, and all other kindred subjects, to a committee to consist of one commissioner from each State, to be selected by the respective State delegations; and to prevent delay they were instructed to report on or before the Friday following (the 8th), “what they may deem right, necessary, and proper to restore harmony and preserve the Union.”

Footnote 110:

Official Journal of the Convention, pp. 9 and 10.

This committee, instead of reporting on the day appointed, did not report until Friday, the 15th February,[111] and thus a precious week was lost......

Footnote 111:

Ibid., p. 42.

The amendments reported by a majority of the committee, through Mr. Guthrie, their chairman, were substantially the same with the Crittenden Compromise; but on motion of Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, the general terms of the first and by far the most important section were restricted to the _present_ Territories of the United States.[112] On motion of Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, this section was further amended, but not materially changed, by the adoption of the substitute offered by him. Nearly in this form it was afterwards adopted by the Convention.[113] The following is a copy: “In all the present Territory of the United States north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present Territory south of that line, the status of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said Territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide.”

Footnote 112:

Ibid., p. 21.

Footnote 113:

Ibid., p. 70.

Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, and Mr. Seddon, of Virginia, on opposite extremes, made minority reports, which they proposed to substitute for that of the majority. Mr. Baldwin’s report was a recommendation “to the several States to unite with Kentucky in her application to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, or to conventions therein, for ratification, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress, in accordance with the provisions in the fifth article of the Constitution.”[114]

Footnote 114:

Official Journal, pp. 24 and 25.

Of the two modes prescribed by the Constitution for its own amendment, this was the least eligible at the existing crisis, because by far the most dilatory. Instead of calling upon Congress, then in session and which could act immediately, to propose specific amendments to the legislatures of the several States, it adopted the circuitous mode of requesting these legislatures, in the first instance, to apply to Congress to call a convention. Even should two-thirds of them respond in the affirmative to this request, the process would necessarily occasion a delay of years in attaining the object, when days were all-important. This would entirely defeat the patriotic purpose of the Peace Convention. It was called to obtain, if possible, a direct vote of two-thirds of both Houses before the end of the session in favor of such amendments as it might recommend. Could such a vote be obtained, it was confidently expected by the friends of the Union that its moral influence would, for the present, satisfy the border States; would arrest the tide beginning to rise among their people in favor of secession, and might enable them to exercise an effective influence in reclaiming the States which had already seceded. Affairs were then so urgent that long before the State legislatures could possibly ask Congress to call a convention as required by Mr. Baldwin’s proposition, the cause of the Union might be hopeless. It was, therefore, rejected.

This proposition of Mr. Baldwin, evasive and dilatory as it was, nevertheless received the votes of eight of the twenty-one States.[115] These consisted of the whole of the New England States, except Rhode Island, and of Illinois, Iowa and New York, all being free States. This was an evil omen.

Footnote 115:

Ibid., p. 63.

The first amendment reported by Mr. Seddon differed from that of the majority, inasmuch as it embraced not only the present but all future Territories.[116] This was rejected.[117] His second amendment, which, however, was never voted upon by the Convention, went so far as distinctly to recognize the right of secession.

Footnote 116:

Official Journal, pp. 26, 27 and 28.

Footnote 117:

Ibid., p. 28.

It cannot be denied that there was in the convention an extreme Southern rights element, headed by Mr. Seddon. This manifested itself throughout its proceedings. These show how naturally extremes meet. On more than one important occasion, we find the vote of Virginia and North Carolina, though given in each case by a bare majority of their commissioners, side by side with the vote of Massachusetts and Vermont. It would be too tedious to trace the proceedings of the Convention from the report of the committee made by Mr. Guthrie until its final adjournment. It is sufficient to say that more than ten days were consumed in discussion and in voting upon various propositions offered by individual commissioners. The final vote was not reached until Tuesday, the 26th February, when it was taken on the first and vitally important section, as amended.[118]

Footnote 118:

Ibid., p. 70.

This section, on which all the rest depended, was negatived by a vote of eight States to eleven. Those which voted in its favor were Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Tennessee. And those in the negative were Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont and Virginia. It is but justice to say that Messrs. Ruffin and Morehead, of North Carolina, and Messrs. Rives and Summers, of Virginia, two of the five commissioners from each of these States, declared their dissent from the vote of their respective States. So, also, did Messrs. Bronson, Corning, Dodge, Wool and Granger, five of the eleven New York commissioners, dissent from the vote of their State. On the other hand, Messrs. Meredith and Wilmot, two of the seven commissioners from Pennsylvania, dissented from the majority in voting in favor of the section. Thus would the Convention have terminated but for the interposition of Illinois. Immediately after the section had been negatived, the commissioners from that State made a motion to reconsider the vote, and this prevailed. The Convention afterwards adjourned until the next morning. When they reassembled (February 27), the first section was adopted, but only by a majority of nine to eight States, nine being less than a majority of the States represented. This change was effected by a change of the vote of Illinois from the negative to the affirmative, by Missouri withholding her vote, and by a tie in the New York commissioners, on account of the absence of one of their number, rendering it impossible for the State to vote. Still, Virginia and North Carolina, in the one extreme, and Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, in the other, persisted in voting in the negative. From the nature of this vote, it was manifestly impossible that two-thirds of both Houses of Congress should act favorably on the amendment, even if the delay had not already rendered such action impracticable before the close of the session.

It would be useless to refer to the voting on the remaining sections of the amendment, which were carried by small majorities.[119] The Convention, on the same day, through Mr. Tyler, their president, communicated to the Senate and House of Representatives the amendment they had adopted, embracing all the sections, with a request that it might be submitted by Congress, under the Constitution, to the several State legislatures. In the Senate this was immediately referred to a select committee, on motion of Mr. Crittenden. The committee, on the next day (28th Feb.),[120] reported a joint resolution (No. 70) proposing it as an amendment to the Constitution, but he was never able to bring the Senate to a direct vote upon it.[121] Failing in this, he made a motion to substitute the amendment of the Peace Convention for his own.[122] This he prefaced by declaring that he looked upon the result of the deliberations of that body “as affording the best opportunity for a general concurrence among the States, and among the people.” He, therefore, “had determined to take it in preference to his own proposition, and had so stated to many of the members of the Convention.” He further said that he had “examined the propositions offered by that Convention; they contain, in my judgment, every material provision that is contained in the resolution called the Crittenden Resolution.” He also had adopted this course “out of deference to that great body of men selected on the resolution of Virginia, and invited by Virginia herself. The body having met, and being composed of such men, and a majority of that Convention concurring in these resolutions, I think they come to us with a sanction entitling them to consideration.” Mr. Crittenden’s reasons failed to convince the Senate, and his motion was rejected by a large majority (28 to 7).[123] Then next in succession came the memorable vote on Mr. Crittenden’s own resolution, and it was in its turn defeated, as we have already stated, by a majority of 20 against 19.

Footnote 119:

Senate Journal, pp. 332, 333.

Footnote 120:

Ibid., p. 437.

Footnote 121:

Ibid., p. 384.

Footnote 122:

_Cong. Globe_, 1860-’61, p. 1404.

Footnote 123:

Senate Journal, p. 386.

We cannot take leave of this venerable patriot, who so wisely appreciated the existing danger, without paying a just tribute to the vigor and perseverance of his repeated efforts to ward off from his country the direful calamity of disunion and civil war. Well did he merit the almost unanimous vote of the Virginia Convention, on the 11th March, tendering him the thanks of the people of Virginia for “his recent able, zealous, and patriotic efforts in the Senate in the United States, to bring about a just and honorable adjustment of our national difficulties.”[124] This vote, we may remark, was far from being complimentary to the conduct of a majority of their own commissioners (Messrs. Tyler, Brockenbrough, and Seddon) in the Peace Convention.

Footnote 124:

_National Intelligencer_, March 14, 1861.

In the House of Representatives, the amendment proposed by the Convention was treated with still less respect than it had been by the Senate.[125] The Speaker was refused leave even to present it.[126] Every effort made for this purpose was successfully resisted by leading Republican members. The consequence is that a copy of it does not even appear in the Journal.

Footnote 125:

_Cong. Globe_, pp. 1331, 1332, 1333.

Footnote 126:

House Journal, pp. 446, 448, 449.

Although the amendment was somewhat less favorable to the South, and ought, therefore, to have been more acceptable to the North than the Crittenden amendment, yet, like this, it encountered the opposition of every Republican member in both Houses of Congress. Nevertheless, it presented a basis of compromise which, had it been conceded by the North, might and probably would, have been accepted by the people of the border States, in preference to the fearful alternative of their secession from the Union.

However urgent were the reasons for the adoption by Congress of the Crittenden Compromise, or the propositions submitted to it by the Peace Convention, the question now recurs whether the President in the meantime did his duty and his whole duty, in keeping a vigilant eye upon the proceedings in South Carolina and other Southern States. To answer this question, it is necessary to go back to the point of time at which the first commissioners from South Carolina left Washington without having obtained from the President a promise to withdraw Major Anderson’s force from the harbor of Charleston, or any stipulation not to send him reinforcements. This point of time is the 2d day of January, 1861, the day on which the commissioners dated their reply to the President’s letter of December 31st; a reply couched in terms so disrespectful and arrogant that by the unanimous advice of the cabinet it was returned to them as a paper unfit to be received. “From that time forward,” says Mr. Buchanan, “all friendly political and personal intercourse finally ceased between the revolutionary Senators and the President, and he was severely attacked by them in the Senate, and especially by Mr. Jefferson Davis. Indeed, their intercourse had been of the coldest character ever since the President’s anti-secession message at the commencement of the session of Congress.”[127]

Footnote 127:

Letter of October 28, 1862, in the controversy with General Scott, published in the _National Intelligencer_ of November 1, 1862. As a specimen of the intercourse between the President and the secession Senators, after the messages of December 3d and January 8th, take the following notes:—

[JOHN SLIDELL TO PRESIDENT BUCHANAN.]

WASHINGTON, January 27, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I have seen in the _Star_, and heard from other parties, that Major Beauregard, who had been ordered to West Point as Superintendent of the Military Academy, and had entered on the discharge of his duties there, had been relieved from his command. May I take the liberty of asking you if this has been done with your approbation? Very respectfully, yours,

JOHN SLIDELL.

[PRESIDENT BUCHANAN TO JOHN SLIDELL.]

WASHINGTON, January 29, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

With every sentiment of personal friendship and regard, I am obliged to say, in answer to your note of Sunday, that I have full confidence in the Secretary of War; and his acts, in the line of his duty, are my own acts, for which I am responsible.

Yours, very respectfully, JAMES BUCHANAN.

The first event occurring at this time in the Executive Department, which it is important to notice here, was an application made by General Scott to the President, on Sunday, the 30th of December, by the following note:

December 30, 1860.

Lieutenant General Scott begs the President of the United States to pardon the irregularity of this communication. It is Sunday, the weather is bad, and General Scott is not well enough to go to church. But matters of the highest national importance seem to forbid a moment’s delay, and, if misled by zeal, he hopes for the President’s forgiveness.

Will the President permit General Scott, without reference to the War Department, and otherwise as secretly as possible, to send two hundred and fifty recruits, from New York harbor, to reinforce Fort Sumter, together with some extra muskets or rifles, ammunition, and subsistence stores?

It is hoped that a sloop-of-war and cutter may be ordered for the same purpose as early as to-morrow.

General Scott will wait upon the President at any moment he may be called for.

The President’s most obedient servant, WINFIELD SCOTT.

General Scott was evidently not aware, when he wrote this note, that the late Secretary of War, Floyd, was out of office. The President, having substituted Mr. Holt in his place as Secretary _ad interim_, was under no necessity whatever to act without the knowledge of that Department. He proceeded therefore to act promptly and in the usual manner upon the General’s recommendation. He received the General’s note on the evening of Sunday, the 30th of December. On the morning of Monday, the 31st, he gave instructions to the War and Navy Departments; the orders were issued on that day; and in the evening General Scott called upon the President and informed him that the Secretaries had issued the orders and that they were in his (the General’s) possession. The orders were that the sloop-of-war Brooklyn, with troops, military stores, and provisions, was to sail forthwith from Fortress Monroe to Fort Sumter. It could not be true, therefore, as was afterwards asserted by General Scott, that “the South Carolina commissioners had already been many days in Washington and no movement of defence (on the part of the United States) was permitted.” The commissioners arrived in Washington on the 27th of December. On the 30th they received the President’s answer. General Scott’s request was made to the President on the 30th, and on the 31st the orders for the Brooklyn to sail were in his hands. The commissioners’ insolent reply to the President was not delivered to him until the 2d of January. The Brooklyn was already under orders, but the orders were not despatched from Washington on the 31st for a reason that will presently appear.

It is now to be stated how a mercantile steamer, The Star of the West, came to be substituted for the Brooklyn, and to sail on this expedition. And here General Scott’s memory was utterly at fault in 1862. He then publicly stated that the President refused to allow any attempt to be made to reinforce Fort Sumter, because he was holding negotiations with the South Carolina commissioners; and that “afterwards Secretary Holt and myself [General Scott] endeavored, in vain, to obtain a ship-of-war for the purpose, and were finally obliged to employ the passenger steamer Star of the West.” It is most extraordinary that the General should have made this misstatement. The Star of the West was substituted for the Brooklyn by his own advice. “At the interview already referred to,” says Mr. Buchanan, “between the General and myself, on the evening of Monday, the 31st of December, I suggested to him that, although I had not received the South Carolina commissioners in their official capacity, but merely as private gentlemen, yet it might be considered as an improper act to send the Brooklyn with reinforcements to Fort Sumter until I had received an answer from them to my letter of the preceding day; that the delay could not continue more than forty-eight hours. He promptly concurred in this suggestion as gentlemanly and proper, and the orders were not transmitted to the Brooklyn on that evening. My anticipations were correct, for on the morning [afternoon] of the 2d of January I received their insolent note, and sent it back to them. In the meantime, however, the General had become convinced, on the representations of a gentleman whom I forbear to name, that the better plan, as the Secretaries of War and the Navy informed me, to secure secrecy and success, and reach the fort, would be to send a fast side-wheel steamer from New York with the reinforcement. Accordingly, the Star of the West was selected for this duty. The substitution of this steamer for the Brooklyn, which would have been able to defend herself in case of attack, was reluctantly yielded by me to the high military judgment of General Scott.”[128]

Footnote 128:

Letter from Mr. Buchanan to the _National Intelligencer_, October 28, 1862.

In consequence of this change, a short time had to elapse before the Star of the West, then at New York, could take on board the reinforcements. She sailed from New York on the 5th of January. On that day General Scott sent a despatch to his son-in-law, Colonel Scott, to countermand her departure, but it was not received until after she had gone to sea. The countermand was given for two reasons: first, because a despatch received by Mr. Holt on that day from Major Anderson stated in effect that he felt secure in his position; and secondly, and more emphatically, because on the same evening information reached the War Department that a heavy battery had been erected among the sand hills, at the entrance of Charleston harbor, capable of destroying any unarmed vessel that might attempt to enter.[129] Satisfied that there was no present necessity for sending reinforcements, and that when sent they ought to go in a vessel of war, the Government, with General Scott’s full concurrence,[130] after learning that the countermand had not reached the Star of the West before she sailed, took steps to overtake her. The following memorandum now lies before me:

Footnote 129:

See a statement published by Mr. Holt in the _National Intelligencer_, dated March 5, 1861.

Footnote 130:

When General Scott wrote and published, in 1862, his criticisms on Mr. Buchanan’s course, he said that the Star of the West, “but for the hesitation of the master, might, as is generally believed, have delivered at the fort the men and subsistence on board.” He had forgotten that he had sent his own order to the commander of the troops on board that vessel, which would inform him that the Brooklyn was coming to aid and succor him, and that in case he could not land at Fort Sumter, he was to turn back and land his troops at Fort Monroe and discharge the ship! With what propriety then could the General blame the master of the ship for not making an attempt which the General knew he could not make without the support of the Brooklyn?

MEMORANDUM FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.

A despatch was forwarded, night of January 7, through the agency of the Navy Department, to the officer commanding recruits on board the steamship Star of the West, in almost exactly these words:

“This communication will be handed you by the Commander of the United States Steamer sloop-of-war Brooklyn.

“The object of his mission is twofold. _First_, to afford aid and succor in case your ship be shattered or injured; _second_, to convey this order of recall, in case you cannot land at Fort Sumter, to Fort Monroe, Hampton Roads, there to await further orders.

“In case of your return to Hampton Roads, send a telegraphic message here at once from Norfolk.

”WINFIELD SCOTT.

“P. S.—Land your troops at Fort Monroe and discharge the ship.

“W. S.”

The Star of the West arrived off the harbor of Charleston on the 9th of January, and being fired upon as she was attempting to enter the harbor, by order of Governor Pickens, she returned without entering. It is, therefore, now necessary to go forward, and covering everything that was done or omitted by the President thereafter, in regard to Fort Sumter, to inquire into another charge made by General Scott in 1862, that the President was under the embarrassment of a truce or armistice, which continued for the remainder of the administration. It seems that late in the month of January, there was a project considered, between the General, Secretaries Holt and Toucey, and certain naval officers, with the knowledge of the President, for sending three or four small steamers belonging to the coast survey to the relief of Fort Sumter. General Scott, in 1862, declared that he had but little doubt this expedition would have been successful, but that it was “kept back by something like a truce or armistice, made here, embracing Charleston and Pensacola harbors, agreed upon by the late President and certain principal seceders of South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, etc., and this truce lasted to the end of that administration.”

It is perhaps not remarkable that the history of this period of Mr. Buchanan’s administration should have been so widely misunderstood, when one considers the nature of the materials from which the history thus far written has been derived. General Scott, from his official position, knew that no truce or armistice whatever was entered into by the President with anybody, embracing the two harbors of Charleston and Pensacola; that in regard to Pensacola, there was a special arrangement, in no way connected with the state of things in Charleston; and that in regard to Charleston, there was only a temporary agreement between Major Anderson and Governor Pickens, that was terminable on a certain event, and that lasted but for a short time. To separate things entirely distinct in their nature, but which General Scott saw fit to blend together in making his imputations upon the President’s conduct, is now my imperative duty.

The only truce that was made in reference to Charleston was an actual truce of arms made between Governor Pickens and Major Anderson, on the 11th of January, 1861, without the President’s previous knowledge, and consequently it could not have been the result of any conference between the President and certain secessionists then in Washington or elsewhere. The Star of the West, sailing under the American flag, was fired upon and turned back on the 9th of January. This outrage required Major Anderson’s instant notice. If he had immediately opened fire from Fort Sumter upon the adjacent batteries which sent their shot across the bow of that vessel, he would have been justified by his position as an officer of the United States commanding a fort which existed for the protection of all vessels having a right to enter the harbor, and especially for the protection of all vessels bearing the flag of the United States. He was under no obligation whatever to recognize South Carolina as a power foreign to the United States; but if he had chosen, he might have considered the firing on this vessel as an act of war, which South Carolina had instituted against the United States. He took what he considered as the most prudent course that was open to him. He sent a flag of truce to the Governor, stating that he presumed the act was unauthorized, and therefore that he had not returned the fire, but demanding an official disavowal of the act within a reasonable time, otherwise he should consider it an act of war and should fire on any vessel within the reach of his guns which might attempt to enter or leave the harbor. It is quite evident that if he had adhered to this purpose, the civil war would then have commenced; for the attitude of South Carolina was that of a power claiming complete independence of the United States, and her preparations for driving the United States out of the harbor were prosecuting with great vigor. But the affair took an unexpected, although for the moment it may have been a fortunate turn. The Governor did not disavow, but justified, the act of firing on the Star of the West, and on the 11th of January he sent two members of his executive council to Major Anderson, with instructions to present to him “considerations of the gravest public character, and of the deepest interest to all who deprecate the improper waste of life, to induce the delivery of Fort Sumter to the constituted authorities of South Carolina, with a pledge on its part to account for such public property as may be in your charge.”

It is difficult now to look back upon those transactions, and to describe them with the coolness which history should preserve. Without the least consideration for the duty incumbent upon the President of the United States under his official oath, the “constituted authorities of South Carolina” assumed from the first a position which they calculated, not without reason, would be supported by the secession leaders of the other cotton States. Their attitude was that their secession ordinance had completely severed the State from all connection with the United States; that the latter power was an intruder in her dominions, holding fortifications which were a standing affront to the dignity and a peril to the safety of the State; that these fortifications must be surrendered to the paramount territorial sovereignty of the State; and that as to the property of the United States which they contained, the State would account for it. The alternative plainly presented was that war must ensue, if these demands were not complied with. It is almost impossible to understand how sane men could have imagined that the Executive Government of the United States could be made to yield to such a demand; but the explanation is to be found in the three facts, that the South Carolina leaders meant to make the issue on the whole doctrine of secession in such a shape as would secure the support of some other States and their representatives in Washington; that they had reason to count confidently upon the support of the latter; and that they believed that President Buchanan could be induced or driven into a compliance with their demands, if they presented the alternatives of a complete admission of their right to secede peaceably on the one hand, and civil war on the other.

Perhaps the only thing that Major Anderson could prudently do, after what he considered as a demand upon him for a surrender of the fort, was to do precisely what he did, namely, to refer the whole matter to Washington. His answer to the Governor, sent on the same day, was that he could not comply with the demand, but that “should your Excellency deem fit, prior to a resort to arms, to refer the matter to Washington, it would afford me the sincerest pleasure to depute one of my officers to accompany any messenger you may deem proper to be the bearer of your demand.” This proposition was accepted by the Governor, and he commissioned the Attorney General of the State, the Hon. J. W. Hayne, to proceed to Washington and make the same demand on the President that had been made on Major Anderson. Major Anderson, on his part, sent one of his officers, Lieutenant J. Norman Hall, as his deputy, to await the President’s decision. The two gentlemen arrived in Washington together, on the evening of January 13th, 1861.

There was thus established between Major Anderson and the Governor of South Carolina a temporary truce of arms, which related to no locality but the harbor of Charleston, and would terminate when Major Anderson should receive his instructions how to act. On the one side, South Carolina, in an armed attitude, demands of Major Anderson the surrender of a fort of the United States, with a plain intimation that if he does not surrender it he must be driven out of it. On the other hand, Major Anderson, who, as the commanding officer of the United States in that harbor, has a just cause for retaliation on account of the attack on the Star of the West, proposes a suspension of all hostilities until he can receive the instructions of his Government. The proposal being accepted and acted upon, the circumstances constituted what President Buchanan, with entire accuracy, and citing the language of Vattel, calls “a partial truce, under which hostilities are suspended only in certain places.”[131] But the President was greatly surprised by this state of things. The truce made it alike impossible for Major Anderson to ask for, or the Government to send him, reinforcements, while it lasted. All that could be done by the President was to learn what the South Carolina messenger or envoy had to say, and then to decide again that Fort Sumter could not and would not be surrendered. When this had been done, the truce would be ended.[132]

Footnote 131:

Buchanan’s Defence, p. 144.

Footnote 132:

See Ex. Doc., H. R., vol. ix., No. 61. The reader who consults the documents without prejudice cannot fail to be struck with the arrogance of tone and the extreme nature of the demands, that mark all the papers that emanated from the South Carolina authorities at this period. Nor can he fail, I think, to see that President Buchanan, while he exercised great patience, bore himself throughout with the dignity that belonged to his position. When a paper became too outrageous to be tolerated, it was promptly returned.

Colonel Hayne called upon the President on the morning of the 14th of January, stating that he bore a letter from Governor Pickens to the President, which he would deliver in person on the next day. Remembering his experience with the former commissioners from South Carolina, the President declined to hold any conversation with Colonel Hayne on the subject of his errand, and requested that all communications should be made in writing, to which Colonel Hayne assented. On the 15th the Governor’s letter was not delivered to the President; it was held back on the advice of certain Southern Senators. The following memorandum, drawn up by the President on the 16th, will explain what those Senators were then trying to accomplish:

Wednesday afternoon, at 4 P. M., January 16.

Senator Clay (of Alabama) called. He began by assigning reasons why I should withdraw Major Anderson and his troops from Fort Sumter. I told him that it was quite out of the question for me to hold verbal communication on this subject. Although I relied implicitly upon his honor, yet there would be mistakes with the best intentions. He concurred in this opinion, but said he would never repeat to any human being what had passed between him and me. I thought, however, I would leave no room for doubt on the important point, and I told him I would not, under any circumstances, withdraw the troops from Fort Sumter. He spoke of the inauguration of civil war in Charleston as a dreadful calamity. I answered that the troops were there in a small number, in the possession of a fort which I firmly believed belonged to the United States, to act purely on the defensive; and if assaulted by the authorities of South Carolina, on them would rest the exclusive responsibility of commencing civil war. I believed South Carolina still to be a part of the Confederacy.

He then (and I am not certain he did not mention it before) said he had come from the seceding Senators to suggest to me some plan by which the effusion of human blood might be spared at Charleston. I told him any proposition of this kind must be reduced to writing—that without this I could not consider it. Still, he went on and said there was a truce agreed upon, so long as Colonel Hayne was here. I told him I had understood that there had been. He said they wanted him to remain a few days, and submit a proposition to the government of South Carolina, to agree that Major Anderson should be placed in his former position; that the Government should have free access to him; that he should buy all the provisions he wanted in Charleston; and that he should not be disturbed if I would not send him additional reinforcements. I again said that I could not take any proposition into consideration unless it were reduced to writing. He said he understood this perfectly. But [he] went on to say that the truce might be extended until the meeting at Milledgeville, or even till the 4th March. I told him that the truce would continue until Colonel Hayne left here, which I supposed would be in a few days; that Lieutenant Hall had been informed by Colonel Hayne that he might go to see his sick sister in New York, provided he was back on Friday evening. I told him I could say nothing further on the subject of the truce, nor could I express any opinion on the subjects to which he had referred, unless the proposition were reduced to writing, and presented to me in a distinct form. He said I need be under no apprehensions as to the security of the fort. He had just come from Jefferson Davis, who said it could not be taken; and Lars Anderson had informed him that Major Anderson said he did not require reinforcements. He got up and said he would go to those who had sent him, and it would be for them to decide upon the proposition. I then said to him, emphatically, that Colonel Hayne could not possibly be authorized to send any propositions to Charleston until they had been first submitted to myself and cabinet and agreed to. He said certainly not, that this was a necessary preliminary. I repeated again that I could not even consider any verbal proposition. He said he understood that perfectly; that he would not have anything to do with it himself without this. He then asked me when the cabinet would meet. He believed it was to-morrow, and they would not have time to come to an understanding so soon. I said that the regular day was Friday. He said that would give them time, and so he went away.

In the course of conversation I told him that I felt as much anxiety to prevent a collision and spare the effusion of blood as any man living; but this must be done in consistency with the discharge of all my duties as laid down in my annual message and my late special message. That I could not, and would not, withdraw Major Anderson from Fort Sumter.

What ensued after this interview between the President and Senator Clay can be best related in the President’s own words. Every statement that he makes in the following narrative is founded on and supported by the written correspondence.

Colonel Hayne, the commissioner from South Carolina, as already stated, arrived in Washington on the 13th January. He bore with him a letter from Governor Pickens addressed to the President. On the next morning he called upon the President, and stated that he would deliver this letter in person on the day following. The President, however, admonished by his recent experience with the former commissioners, declined to hold any conversation with him on the subject of his mission, and requested that all communications between them might be in writing. To this he assented. Although the President had no actual knowledge of the contents of the Governor’s letter, he could not doubt it contained a demand for the surrender of the fort. Such a demand he was at all times prepared peremptorily to reject. This Colonel Hayne must have known, because the President had but a fortnight before informed his predecessors this was impossible, and had never been thought of by him in any possible contingency. The President confidently expected that the letter would be transmitted to him on the day after the interview, when his refusal to surrender the fort would at once terminate the truce, and leave both parties free to act upon their own responsibility. Colonel Hayne, however, did not transmit this letter to the President on the 15th January, according to his promise, but withheld it until the 31st of that month. The reason for this vexatious delay will constitute a curious portion of our narrative, and deserves to be mentioned in some detail. (_Vide_ the President’s message of 8th February, 1861, with the accompanying documents, Ex. Doc., H. R., vol. ix., No. 61.)

The Senators from the cotton States yet in Congress appeared, strangely enough, to suppose that through their influence the President might agree not to send reinforcements to Fort Sumter, provided Governor Pickens would stipulate not to attack it. By such an agreement they proposed to preserve the peace. But first of all it was necessary for them to prevail upon Colonel Hayne not to transmit the letter to the President on the day appointed, because they well knew that the demand which it contained would meet his prompt and decided refusal. This would render the conclusion of such an agreement impossible.

In furtherance of their plan, nine of these Senators, with Jefferson Davis at their head, addressed a note to Colonel Hayne on the 15th January, requesting him to defer the delivery of the letter. They proposed that he should withhold it until they could ascertain from the President whether he would agree not to send reinforcements, provided Governor Pickens would engage not to attack the fort. They informed the Colonel that should the President prove willing in the first place to enter into such an arrangement, they would then strongly recommend that he should not deliver the letter he had in charge for the present, but send to South Carolina for authority from Governor Pickens to become a party thereto. Colonel Hayne, in his answer to these Senators of the 17th January, informed them that he had not been clothed with power to make the arrangements suggested, but provided they could get assurances with which they were entirely satisfied that no reinforcements would be sent to Fort Sumter, he would withhold the letter with which he had been charged, refer their communication to the authorities of South Carolina, and await further instructions.

On the 19th January this correspondence between the Senators and Colonel Hayne was submitted to the President, accompanied by a note from three of their number, requesting him to take the subject into consideration. His answer to this note was delayed no longer than was necessary to prepare it in proper form. On the 22d January it was communicated to these Senators in a letter from the Secretary of War. This contained an express refusal to enter into the proposed agreement. Mr. Holt says: “I am happy to observe that, in your letter to Colonel Hayne, you express the opinion that it is ‘especially due from South Carolina to our States, to say nothing of other slaveholding States, that she should, so far as she can consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities between her and the United States or any other power.’ To initiate such hostilities against Fort Sumter would, beyond question, be an act of war against the United States. In regard to the proposition of Colonel Hayne, ‘that no reinforcements will be sent to Fort Sumter in the interval, and that public peace will not be disturbed by any act of hostility towards South Carolina,’ it is impossible for me to give you any such assurances. The President has no authority to enter into such an agreement or understanding. As an executive officer, he is simply bound to protect the public property so far as this maybe practicable; and it would be a manifest violation of his duty to place himself under engagements that he would not perform this duty, either for an indefinite, or limited, period. At the present moment it is not deemed necessary to reinforce Major Anderson, because he makes no such request and feels quite secure in his position. Should his safety, however, require reinforcements, every effort will be made to supply them.”

It was believed by the President that this peremptory refusal to enter into the proposed agreement, would have caused Colonel Hayne immediately to present the letter he had in charge and thus terminate his mission, thereby releasing both parties from the obligations of the truce. In this expectation the President was disappointed. The secession Senators again interposed, and advised Colonel Hayne still longer to withhold the letter from the President, and await further instructions from Charleston. In his answer of 24th January to their note containing this advice, he [Col. Hayne] informs them that although the letter from the Secretary of War “was far from being satisfactory,” yet in compliance with their request he “would withhold the communication with which he was at present charged, and refer the whole matter to the authorities of South Carolina, and would await their reply.” On the 30th this reply was received, and on the next day Colonel Hayne transmitted to the President the letter of Governor Pickens demanding the surrender of the fort, with a long communication from himself. This letter is dated “Headquarters, Charleston, January 12, 1861,” and is as follows:

“SIR:—

“At the time of the separation of the State of South Carolina from the United States, Fort Sumter was, and still is, in the possession of troops of the United States, under the command of Major Anderson. I regard that possession as not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina, and have this day [it was the day previous] addressed to Major Anderson a communication to obtain possession of that fort by the authorities of this State. The reply of Major Anderson informs me that he has no authority to do what I required, but he desires a reference of the demand to the President of the United States. Under the circumstances now existing, and which need no comment by me, I have determined to send to you Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the delivery of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major Anderson, and which I now make of you, is suggested by my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a persistence in your attempt to retain possession of that fort will cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that possession, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored. If consequences so unhappy shall ensue, I will secure for this State, in the demand which I now make, the satisfaction of having exhausted every attempt to avoid it.

“In relation to the public property of the United States within Fort Sumter, the Hon. I. W, Hayne, who will hand you this communication, is authorized to give you the pledge of the State that the valuation of such property will be accounted for by this State, upon the adjustment of its relations with the United States, of which it was a part.”

On the 6th February, the Secretary of War, on behalf of the President, replied to this demand, as well as to the letter of Colonel Hayne accompanying it. Our narrative would be incomplete without this admirable and conclusive reply. It is as follows:

“WAR DEPARTMENT, February 6, 1861.[133]

“SIR:—

“The President of the United States has received your letter of the 31st ultimo, and has charged me with the duty of replying thereto.

“In the communication addressed to the President by Governor Pickens, under date of the 12th January, and which accompanies yours now before me, his Excellency says: ‘I have determined to send to you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The demand I have made of Major Anderson, and which I now make of you, is suggested because of my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a persistence in your attempt to retain possession of that fort will cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to you that possession, but induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored.’ The character of the demand thus authorized to be made appears (under the influence, I presume, of the correspondence with the Senators to which you refer) to have been modified by subsequent instructions of his Excellency, dated the 26th, and received by yourself on the 30th January, in which he says: ‘If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then, as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina you are authorized to give.’ The full scope and precise purport of your instructions, as thus modified, you have expressed in the following words: ‘I do not come as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State—its Attorney General—to claim for the State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise from the exercise of the claim.’ And lest this explicit language should not sufficiently define your position, you add: ‘The proposition now is that her [South Carolina’s] law officer should, under authority of the Governor and his council, distinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such compensation, in regard to Fort Sumter and its appurtenances and contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property of the United States, delivered over to the authorities of South Carolina by your command.’ You then adopt his Excellency’s train of thought upon the subject, so far as to suggest that the possession of Fort Sumter by the United States, ‘if continued long enough, must lead to collision,’ and that ‘an attack upon it would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the result; and if captured, it would no longer be the subject of account.’

“The proposal, then, now presented to the President, is simply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy Fort Sumter and contents as property of the United States, sustained by a declaration in effect, that if she is not permitted to make the purchase, she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the initiation of a negotiation for the transfer of property between friendly governments, this proposal impresses the President as having assumed a most unusual form. He has, however, investigated the claim on which it professes to be based, apart from the declaration that accompanies it. And it may be here remarked, that much stress has been laid upon the employment of the words ‘property’ and ‘public property’ by the President in his several messages. These are the most comprehensive terms which can be used in such a connection, and surely, when referring to a fort or any other public establishment, they embrace the entire and undivided interest of the Government therein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 133:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The facts are as follows:

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

[SECRETARY HOLT TO THE PRESIDENT.]

“MY DEAR SIR:—

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

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

“Sincerely yours, “J. HOLT.”

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

Footnote 134:

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

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

WASHINGTON, January 29, 1861.

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

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

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

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

Footnote 135:

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

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

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

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

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

A. J. G.[136]

Tuesday morning, January 29, 1861.)

Footnote 136:

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

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

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

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

[MR. TYLER TO THE PRESIDENT.]

Friday evening, January 25, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

With high regard, yours most truly, JOHN TYLER.

The President’s answer was as follows:

[PRESIDENT BUCHANAN TO MR. TYLER.]

January 25, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

Your friend, very respectfully, JAMES BUCHANAN.

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

[MR. TYLER TO THE PRESIDENT.]

BROWN’S HOTEL, January 28, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

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

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

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

[PRESIDENT BUCHANAN TO MR. TYLER.]

WASHINGTON, January 28, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

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

Yours very respectfully, JAMES BUCHANAN.

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

Friday, February 8th, 1861.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MR. TYLER TO THE PRESIDENT.]

Saturday evening, February 9, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

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

Very truly and faithfully yours, JOHN TYLER.

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

[MR. TYLER TO THE PRESIDENT.]

Tuesday, February 19, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

Respectfully, your friend, JOHN TYLER.

Wednesday, February 20, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

Truly yours, JOHN TYLER.

Two o’clock P.M., February 20, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

Truly and sincerely your friend, JOHN TYLER.

BROWN’S HOTEL, February 24, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:—

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

Truly and faithfully yours, JOHN TYLER.

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