Part 8

New York City, Sept. 27th, 1883.

MY DEAR CLARA:

On my return from the trip over the North Pacific Railroad to the Pacific Coast last Friday, I found your excellent and welcome letter, with enclosures. Your aunt was very much pleased with your letter and poetry as well as with your essay. They all do you great credit, and I think you can well sustain yourself as a writer with any young lady of your age in this or any other land.

My trip over the northern route to the Pacific about completes my personal observation of every part of our country. I was not prepared to see so rich a country or one so rapidly developing. Across the continent where but a few years ago the Indian held undisputed sway, there is now a continuous settlement, and every ten or fifteen miles a town or city, each with spires of the school house and the church. The soil for almost the entire distance is as fertile as that of Illinois. I saw your Aunt Jennie yesterday. She is quite well. All my family are well and join in love to you. I think neither your Aunt nor I will ever visit Europe again. We may, however, change our minds. But we are getting a little too old to enjoy travelling, and then we have such pleasant homes for both summer and winter.

Love to your father and mother.

Yours truly,

U.S. GRANT.

3 East 66th Street, June 10th, '84.

DEAR CLARA:

Your letter, with one from your Aunt Jennie, reached me a few days since. I regret that I have not more cheerful news to write you than I have. Financially the Grant family is ruined for the present, and by the most stupendous frauds ever perpetrated. But your Aunt Jennie must not fret over it. I still have a home and as long as I live she shall enjoy it as a matter of right; at least until she recovers what she has lost. Fred is young, active, honest, and intelligent, and will work with a vim to recuperate his losses. Of course his first effort will be to repay his aunts.--We go to Long Branch this week. We expected to live with Fred this summer in Morristown, N.J. But failing to rent our cottage we will occupy it and Fred will live with us and rent his if he can.

All send love to you, your father and mother and Aunt Jennie.

Yours affectionately,

U.S. GRANT.

[To Mrs. Cramer. General Grant was then writing his _Memoirs_. Dr. Cramer was United States Minister to Switzerland from 1881 to 1885. Simpson is U.S. Grant, son of Orvil Grant. Reference is made to the customary resignation of diplomatic officials of the party opposed to the incoming political party. Cleveland became President in 1885.]

New York City, Jan'y 13th, 1885.

DEAR SISTER:

I am just in receipt of Jennie's letter of the 2nd of January. I am busy on my book which Fred is copying for the press. I hope to have it ready for the press by May next. But I may fail in this on account of weakness. My mouth has been very sore, but not so bad I think as the papers have made out. But it has been bad enough. The rest of the family are all well.

My advice is that Mr. Cramer does not resign until he is asked to. Simpson I do not suppose will be disturbed in his position. He is very competent, and the soul of honor, both qualities wanted in the Sub-treasury.

All send love.

Yours affectionately,

U.S. GRANT.

PROCLAMATION TO THE CITIZENS OF PADUCAH!

I have come among you, not as an enemy, but as your friend and fellow-citizen, not to injure or annoy you, but to respect the rights, and to defend and enforce the rights of all loyal citizens. An enemy, in rebellion against our common Government, has taken possession of, and planted its guns upon the soil of Kentucky and fired upon our flag. Hickman and Columbus are in his hands. He is moving upon your city. I am here to defend you against this enemy and to assert and maintain the authority and sovereignty of your Government and mine. I have nothing to do with opinions. I shall deal only with armed rebellion and its aiders and abettors.

You can pursue your usual avocations without fear or hindrance. The strong arm of the Government is here to protect its friends, and to punish only its enemies. Whenever it is manifest that you are able to defend yourselves, to maintain the authority of your Government, and protect the rights of all its loyal citizens, I shall withdraw the forces under my command from your city.

U.S. GRANT, _Brig-Gen. U.S.A., Commanding._

PADUCAH, Sept. 6th, 1861.

[The following letter is from the secretary of General Grant's aunt, the Aunt Rachel referred to on page twenty-seven. It is included in this volume as a historical curiosity.]

Chestnut Hill, Va., June 5th, 1861.

MISS GRANT:

I have not often written to "incog." correspondents, nor should I have the presumption now to address you, unknown to me (unless by reputation), but that peculiar circumstances have so combined as to induce the experiment. Your Aunt, Mrs. Tompkins, has been prostrated by illness for many days, and, for a while, closely confined to her couch; thus rendering it at least inconvenient to respond to your elaborate epistle, and, having permitted me the pleasure (?) of its perusal, she requested me to act as her Amanuensis. In compliance, then, with her desire I shall proceed "ex abrupto" to discuss the various points you have presented; hoping you will pardon whatever of presumption there attaches to me in taking up a gauntlet thrown _not directly_ at my own feet.

First, then, you deplore the deep distress that pervades our land, in anticipation of a conflict such as the civilized world never witnessed, and even the annals of barbarous history scarce re^cd; together with the inevitable consequence, that, our once (though _many years ago_) happy Union must be _for ever dissolved_. Viewing it from our standpoint I unite my voice of lamentation with yours; for it seems truly a mournful sight to behold, spread out to the gaze of the world, the history of a nation's folly, written in letters of blood. But I look at the brighter side of this distorted photograph. With the eye of _faith_ at least I can discern the hand of _Providence_ shifting the scenes. This may seem strange, that a partition wall should be erected in the Temple of Liberty, once an asylum for an oppressed world. That the "Stars and Stripes"--the (once) badge of freedom, gracing the bosom of every sea--should be riddled from its staff and another substituted in its stead. Not less strange, however, did thousands of good Englishmen deem it, to behold the proud "British Lion" quail before his foe of "the wilderness," and the "Magna Charta" rent in twain. We must look upon it then as an exercise of God's retributive justice for our Sins as a people, or, that He designs that He shall ultimately be the more glorified by the separation. In the former case of course I take it that the _North_ will receive the awful visitation, for although offences must needs come, yet, woe be unto him through whom they come! In the latter condition the South is destined to become what (& indeed far more than) the whole America _once_ was to the world. This Government was far too large to prosper well for many years; or at least comp^d to England (prosper), France and Spain, & Russia itself; but especially should we be divided into 2 great gov's since we have _virtually been so_, as to our domestic institutions, and many of our social customs, for many, many years. It is true we did exist many years also in commercial and social prosperity, & might have continued to maintain such a happy condition had not the "green-eyed monster, jealousy, reared his horrid front." Yes, it was in great part _jealousy_. You yourself have admitted (& rightly) that our great Ancestors were wiser than we. Well when they formed the _Original Confed^y_ they were the Rep's[3] of _Slave States_, with _one exception_. They did not deem it _wrong_ in itself, or they would have abolished it--at least would not have made the "Fugitive S. Law" _for its protection_. After a while, however, it _did not pay_ to keep Slavery in Northern climates, & it was abolished _instanter_. Why then was it that it became such a monstrous crime in their eyes? Wherein was the consistency? Partisans became jealous of the wealth & power of Southern planters & South^n politicians, elevated to their power _through their wealth_--a thing _unavoidable_ in a Republican government. Thus, through demagogues at the North an animosity was aroused. It slumbered long in the germ, but being assiduously cherished from year to year it at last budded and bloomed in a clime congenial to its nature, & is now bringing forth its venomous fruit, even to a "hundred fold." It was the consuming of this pernicious fruit that brought death upon our "Body Politic" and produced all our woe. Would to God that woe should fall upon none but those who "planted & watered" it! I am perfectly conscious and cognizant of the manner in which this spirit of enmity has been fostered. I am a _Northern_ by _birth_ and _education_, & can testify to that which I know. I have also been in the _South_ sufficiently long to _know_ the sentiments of the people here, and how they coincide (or rather disagree) with the _Northern conceptions_ of them. I have spent almost 8 years here--certainly long enough to learn the _character_ of the "peculiar institution" as well as its _practical workings & effect_ on society. And as I came with somewhat of prejudice against it, you must be frank enough to acknowledge me a fair judge in the matter. Among the first books put into my youthful library, was a work called _Charles Ball_, or _The Trials of a Run-Away Slave_. This was a horrid thing, and formed an impression on my young mind that has only with the utmost _difficulty_ been eradicated. I am conscious that its contents are false. About the same time, & repeatedly, I was taken to witness a panorama of _Uncle Tom's Cabin_--another book whose leaves have furnished much fuel to infernal flames. At the same time, & ever since, I have had my ears grated with the harsh jargon of fanatical tirades against the institutions & people of the South. Of course then my mind was _poisoned & prejudiced_. And this has not been _my_ political training alone but that of a majority of your youth at the North--_no further_ North too than _Penna_. How then is it possible that the North can entertain amicable feelings toward the South? Add to this, what you rightly remark, that the popular mind is continually influenced by the issues of the _Press_--an instrument that has scattered the seeds of discord broadcast over the land. And here you either ignorantly or designedly intimate a slander against the South. You say "all papers have free issue at the _North & not_ so at the _South_." Now do you not know enough of Southern affairs to see that the South by their _very Constitution_ cannot admit _incendiary_ documents to be cast into their midst--it were suicidal. If the South should publish papers uttering sentiments detrimental to Northern manufactories (_in general_) & in favor of foreign manufac's, how long would the North permit such papers to pass into their territory? Again, just as you say you "wish that North^n. papers could circulate South," so also _do I wish_ that I need not _bar my doors of nights_. And both our desires could be accomplished if _all men were honest_. But, first, as I can't expect robbers to pass by my unbarred treasury, so I can't expect to receive Northern papers uncrammed with _incendiary items_. Again, however, the South^n papers have _virtually_ no circulation at the North. I have heard men, reputable for their knowledge & conservatism even, denounce such Publi^ns.[4] as "unworthy to be touched." In the Reading Room of Princeton Theo. Seminary there were taken, last winter, 12 weekly papers, and about 8 periodicals from the South & scarcely 3 of these were touched by _any but Southern Students_ during the Session, unless some exciting discussion were going on in their columns. Thus much as to newspapers. I confess they have been the cause of many erroneous impressions on both sides, but the North is no purer from crimination on this score than the South;--one stubborn evidence of this is the numerical dif. in pop^ln.[5]

You next remark that Abolitionism does not predominate at the North. I admit that for many years it _did not_, but lately it has acquired an ascendency & is now wielding its baneful influence on the minds of the masses. It is true there are many good people there whose minds are too pure to be tainted by such an almost infidel spirit as pervades the breasts of Abolitionists; yet the party in power has been elevated by such vast majorities of the people, _in that section_, that, to one investigating the matter, it seems the public sentiment at the North has greatly changed in the last few years. In such a country as ours--a democratic one--the masses are governed by a few great leaders; these leaders, whether in power or not, are still the almost despots who rule us. Their actions give fruit and coloring to the character of the sections over which they sway their autocratic sceptres. Who then can doubt the Aboli^n propensities of the N. when such men as _Beecher, Greeley, Webb, Phillips, Sumner_, & a host of kindred spirits, are the giant levers in the machinery of their society? It will not do to say that these are disregarded by sensible people there, for I know too well their power for evil. I know that _Dr. Hodge_--a man whom I love next to my Father--stated, in his article on "the state of the Country," that he did not know of 12 abolitionists "within the circle of his acquaintance." But the Dr. was either woefully mistaken or he didn't consider his _pupils as belonging to that circle_; for to my certain knowledge there were twice that number within the walls of "Princeton" at the time he made the assertion, and many of these avowedly such--men who, I was astonished to see, withheld their names when the same Dr. H. came round with a petition to Congress for "the restoration of the Mis. Comp." & the repeal of the "Personal Liberty Bills." These young men were embryo Ministers--men whose moral influence _must_ be _powerful_ for _good_ or for _evil_. How is it then you can assert that the North don't want the extinction of slavery when such men as I have mentioned exert every effort to prevent its extension & not that only, but the _operation_ of the _fugitive S. law?_ I am aware that you stated the _contrary_ in your letter--that the North are ever "rigorous" in its execution; nor am I so ungallant as to doubt your veracity; but I think you have not fully informed yourself on this point, else you would have learned that in scarcely an isolated case has the Master ever recovered his property without being put to more expense & trouble than the negro was worth; although I am free to admit, that at the same time it cost the U.S. gov. an equal if not greater Amount. Of course I refer to those negroes who have _not merely_ crossed the _limits_ of a Slave State, & thus been caught, but gone some distance North. Now the obligation to restore a fugitive Slave is a _constitu^l. & moral obligation;_ and those laws designed to prevent such restoration are unconst^l & criminal--and worthy of all condem^n.--and unbecoming the dignity of any Sov^n. State. If people of any State can't conscientiously submit to the Constitution there are only 2 courses: they should endeavor to have it peaceably altered, or should _move out of the Country_. This is the opinion of the most learned and liberal men. _They have no right_ to live under the protec^n. of a Const^n. & yet _refuse_ to submit to its _stipulations_. True enough, as you say, the North wish _not_ to have the Negroes set free _in their midst_, to overrun and disturb them--this they declare by their actions, for they take no care for or interest in the poor free (almost) brutes in their midst;--yet how soon will they be ready to _resist_ you most violently should you attempt to take even one of them back, from his then wretched abode, to his former happier place in the service of a kind Master? "Oh! consistency, thou art a jewel!" This then has been _one_ of the _two great causes_ of the present troubles. The other--the denial of equal rights in the Territories--is still a _greater_, because it involves a principle; the former was more a matter of personal interest. The territories being purchased in common, were the com. pos. of North and South. Each had a Const^l right to emigrate thither _with their property_ & demand for it the protection _afforded by_ the Const^n. It became, in course of time, a matter of dispute whether the South could take their slaves there as _property_. (As a matter of course this arose from _jealousy_--the N. having no such prop, to take.) This great quest. was decided, however, by the _Chief Justice_ in the highest Tribunal in the world, in favor of the South; viz. that _slaves were property_. I refer to the "Dred Scott" Case. This should have been sufficient, as it came from the highest authority in the Gov^t. But some parties and people are _never satisfied_. Full in the face of this high official the Repub^n Party declare by their _Platform orators, & Press_, that slavery shall never enter another foot of territory. Now if the South admit this principle they acknowledge their inferiority to the North--an act that, even in the eyes of the North, would not comport with their dignity & honor as an independent & free people. The South being thus _oppressed_ then I assert they have a right (not to secede, for no such right exists in my conception, as it would be an element _subversive_ of any, & especially of a Repub^ln gov.,) _to revolt_--a right inherent in & beyond the control of all earthly govern^ts. Yes I coincide with the great Lord Chatham when he says that "_Rebellion_ against _oppression_ is _obedience_ to _God_." Our Ancestors rebelled against the tyranny of British usurpation, & the Texans revolted against a like despotism exercised by a Mexican Autocrat. Why then are the _Sovereign_ States of _America_ not justifiable in throwing off the yoke or rather resisting _to have put upon them_, the yoke, of Northern Tyranny? To make the argument still clearer, however, as to the Territories, let us illustrate it: Suppose a Repub^n. Congress decides that slavery shan't be _protected_ in the _Ter._ as _prop_. I take my slave thither. An indictment is brought against me. I am tried and condemned by the territorial court. I appeal from its decision to the Sup. Court of the U.S. What then? From _analogy_ I conclude that I shall be acquitted, i.e., recover my property. For one Chief Justice has already decided thus; and is not his decision final? Here then is an end of the matter; since the Sup. Court is the Sole Arbiter in determining the _Constitutionality_ of any of Congress' acts.

As to the North not making use of _slanderous epithets_ against the South, I know nothing about _your particular section_ of the North, but I do know that when I have been in Penna. & N.J., I have heard all classes utter the vilest insinuations against the people of the South _indiscriminately_. Yes, it often seemed as if they could find no language too harsh, no comparison too base, no denunciation too bitter to apply to those whom in their ignorance they deemed their inferiors in wisdom and sense. Such have I heard from the lips of distinguished citizens in all departments & professions of life. Even hoary-headed ministers have entered the sacred desk with their MSS. reeking with filth from the cesspool of political slander. Dr. Brown, with whom you are doubtless acqu^td, is now in Phila^d. at the Gen. Assem. of the Pres. Ch. He wrote home lately that he never saw a mob that made use of viler language than did the best of citizens there in their denouncings of the South. I confess, however, that this is not a _one-sided_ affair; for I have heard equally abusive language applied to the North by the people South. As before, then, let us "strike hands" on this point also, for both sections are equally culpable. As to the _strength_ of _individuals_ in the two sections, it must be tested on the battle-field, and there alone. Our war of words can never decide anything on this point. I should be sorry to admit the men in the North could not fight, had they a real enemy to contend against--a war of "_justice, reason_, or _humanity_" to wage. But to arm themselves against their brethren, and in such an unholy cause as that in which they are engaged now, I must confess that their true metal can never be exhibited. _One_ man whose heart is in the war can always conquer _two_ who are fighting from some _impure motive_. And now let me candidly ask you to as candidly tell me whether or not you _think_ after _seeing_ the thing progress thus far, and having, as you say, been, & still continue to be, well-informed as to apper^ns on _both sides_, the North are engaged in the cause of "Justice." Admitting that some of them are actuated by pure and lofty motives, do you not acknowledge that the _vast majority_ are _blinded_ by _prejudice, led on_ by a desire for _military fame_, prompted by the _prospect_ of _plunder_, or actuated by the still more ----? but I refrain--my very pen shudders at the thought of expressing myself further. Yes, I think you must confess that is the case. I refer, of course, to the Armies of Lincoln _thus far_ made up. Are they not composed of a _Mercenary horde_, made up generally of the lowest rabble of the Country, & thousands of those thrown out of employment in the manufacturing cities--who have resorted to camp-life for self-sustenance--indeed _their only resource?_ Whether you admit this or not, it is emphatically true to a great extent, for the Northern papers themselves have made such statements as would lead me to believe so, & more, I have correspondents in the North, who confirm my suspicions on this score. My own Father who does not justify the attack on Sumter, yet denounces Lin's army as a set of _Murderers!_ He lives in Penna. & this is the opinion of many good citizens there. And now can such men be justified in their present purposes and

## activities? If so, upon what principles? We have sh^n. that it is not