Our One Common Country (55 page)

169.
the fastest ship on Chesapeake Bay:
New York Herald
, February 5, 1865; Toews, p. 45 n. 31.

169.
resplendent with flags and pennants: New York Daily Tribune,
February 6, 1865.

169.
hours ahead of Lincoln: Daily Constitutional Union,
February 3, 1865.

169.
“the
M. Martin
is just coming alongside”: New York Herald,
February 4, 1865.

169.
The tugboats: New York Herald
, February 5, 1865.

170.
Denied the freedom of movement: Richmond Examiner,
February 7, 1865, reprinted in
New York Times,
February 10, 1865.

170.
handed Major Eckert the letter: OR,
ser. 1, vol. 46, pt. 2, p. 512; Lincoln Papers, document 40621, Library of Congress.

170.
its closing line: Id.

170.
Seward stayed put:
Welles Diary, vol. 2, p. 236.

170.
“I do not recognize them until he comes”: OR,
ser. 1, v. 46, pt. 2, p. 352.

170.
three bottles of good whiskey:
Pierce, vol. 4, p. 205; Van Deusen, p. 383.

170.
and Seward had not yet seen them: OR,
ser. 1, v. 46, pt. 2, 352;
CW,
vol. 8, p. 283; Welles Diary, vol. 2, p. 236.

170.
“I ascertained that Major Eckert”: CW,
vol. 8, p. 283.

170.
another equivocation that Lincoln had not seen: CW,
vol. 8, pp. 283–84.

171.
Word was sent to the
Martin: Kean, p. 195.

171.
Eckert's wire to Stanton:
OR,
ser. 1, v. 46, pt. 2, p. 352.

171.
“Peacefully and fraternally”: New York Herald,
February 5, 1865.

 

CHAPTER 18

The Peace Conference: Lincoln described the conference briefly and clinically in a report to the House of Representatives (
CW,
vol. 8, pp. 274–85). He recounted some anecdotes to friends, preserved at Carpenter, pp. 209–11 and Rice, p. 97. His impression that Seward implied that the meeting would be secret is in document 40622, Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress. Seward added some color in a February 7, 1865, dispatch to Charles Francis Adams, the ambassador to the Court of St. James's (
OR,
ser. 1, vol. 46, pt. 2, p. 471–73). Lincoln or Seward must have passed on to Charles Sumner the references to the conference in Pierce, vol. 4, p. 205. The Southerners left far more detailed
accounts. Stephens's are in
CV,
vol. 2, pp. 599–618; in Avary,
Recollections,
pp. 137, 141, 264–65, 271, 280–81, and 373–75; and in
Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel, in New York Times, June 26, 1865
. Friends and colleagues of Stephens preserved some of his recollections. See
New York Times,
July 22, 1895; Johnson, “Peace Conference”; Rowland, vol. 10, pp. 20–21; Cleveland, pp. 197–200; and Johnston and Browne, pp. 484–85. Hunter recalled the conference in Hunter, “Peace Commission” and Hunter, “Reply.” A letter from Hunter on the conference is in Lee, “Failure,” p. 478. Campbell described it in
Reminiscences,
pp. 6–8 and 10–17; “Papers of John A. Campbell,” 42
Southern Historical Society Papers
(October 1917) (“Campbell Papers”), pp. 45–52; Campbell, “Hampton Roads Conference,”
Southern Magazine,
p. 188; “The Hampton Roads Conference,” 4
Southern Historical Society Papers
(September 1917) (“Campbell, “Hampton Roads Conference,
Southern Historical Society
”), pp. 45–52; and Campbell, “Open Letters,” pp. 951–53. Campbell's fresh recollections are in Kean, pp. 194–98 and 201–02. See also Connor,
Campbell
, pp. 165–71. The commissioners' report on the conference is in Crist, vol. 11, pp. 378–79 and Davis,
Rise and Fall,
vol. 2, pp. 619–20. Soon after the conference, North Carolina's Senator William A. Graham wrote about the Southerners' accounts of it (Graham, pp. 228–30, 232–37, and 246). Presumably after interviewing one or more of the commissioners, the
Richmond Examiner
ran a brief account of the conference, consistent with theirs, on February 7, 1865, reprinted in the
New York Times
on February 10, 1865. Details drawn from unpublished sources are in Burlingame, vol. 2, pp. 751–61. Sandburg's biography of Lincoln cites few sources, but Sandburg is said to have interviewed living witnesses and consulted written sources that do not survive. He reviews the conference in vol. 6, pp. 39–46. The foregoing accounts are remarkably consistent and are woven together in this chapter with little need to weigh one against another. The sequence of the conversation is also recoverable with reasonable accuracy if not with precision.

172.
a warm sun:
See Willcox, p. 605.

172.
on the vessel's upper deck:
Porter,
Grant,
p. 423.

172.
The commissioners arrived first. See Stephens,
CV,
vol. 2, p. 599.

172.
the
River Queen
's saloon:
George P. A. Healy's carefully researched painting,
The Peacemakers,
on the cover of this book, portrays the
River Queen
's saloon when Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Admiral David Porter met there a few weeks after the peace conference (see chapter 24). See also Arnold, p. 423, and Harold Holzer and Mark E. Neely,
Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory
(New York: Orion Books, 1993), p. 156. Photographs and descriptions of the
River Queen
and her furnishings are in Temple,
Lincoln's Travels.
See Wilson, p. 581.

172.
Hawthorne's description:
Wilson, pp. 462–67.

173.
thirty pounds underweight: Winik, p. 204.

173.
“seamed with thought and trouble”:
Joel Benton, ed.,
Greeley on Lincoln, and Mr. Greeley's Letters
(New York: Baker & Taylor Co., 1893), p. 75.

173.
Campbell had met Lincoln:
Campbell,
Recollections of the Evacuation of Richmond
(Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1880) (“Campbell,
Recollections
”), p. 7; Saunders, p. 145.

173.
Lincoln's eye would brighten:
Hay,
At Lincoln's Side,
p. 135.

173.
The Southerners were gracious too:
Pierce, vol. 4, p. 205.

173.
“a rather tumbled up appearance”:
Chesnut, p. 54.

174.
“The naturalness was like that of a child”:
Peabody, “Elizabeth Peabody Visits Lincoln,” p. 122.

174.
Campbell saw it too:
Connor, p. 190, quoting a letter from Campbell to Horace Greeley.

174.
“No one expects any result”:
Gorgas, p. 167.

174.
“the perturbation in Washington”:
Brooks,
Lincoln Observed
, pp. 161–62; Brooks,
Washington in Lincoln's Time,
p. 204.

174.
the Jacobins outbid each other: Id.,
pp. 225–26;
New York Daily Tribune
, February 3, 1865.

174.
Some thought it quite deliberate:
Brooks,
Washington in Lincoln's Time,
pp. 228.

175.
“vaguely dreadful, and dreadfully vague”; Forney often spoke for Lincoln:
Brooks,
Lincoln Observed,
p. 203; Brooks,
Washington in Lincoln's Time,
pp. 225–26.

175.
“We again advise our readers”: New York Times,
February 4, 1865.

175.
The
Tribune
had “received some inklings”: New York Daily Tribune,
February 3, 1865.

175.
the “rising storm of indignation”: New York Herald,
February 3, 1865.

175.
so small an ear emerge from so much husk:
The accounts of Lincoln's remark vary slightly, but are all of the same ilk; e.g. Burlingame, vol. 2, pp. 755–56 and n. 137, citing Stephens himself, and Donald, p. 557.

176.
“a happy looking schoolboy”:
Cleveland, p. 232.

178.
“was always singularly firm”:
Stoddard, p. 150.

183.
one of Sherman's divisions was breaking through:
Grimsley and Simpson, p. 45.

184.
“as though he were engaged in conversation”:
Dana,
Recollections,
p. 169.

186.
he never referred to himself as president:
Neill, p. 331; Brooks,
Lincoln Observed,
pp. 201–02.

186.
that would not be “so obnoxious as slavery”:
Meade, p. 259.

186.
An unnamed Cabinet member would neither confirm nor deny it: New York Herald,
February 4, 1865.

187.
“a feverish anticipation”: Id
.

187.
“such utter incredulity”; “a strong upward bound”: Boston Daily Evening Transcript,
February 6, 1865, quoting
New York Commercial Advertiser.

187.
Reverdy Johnson observed:
Johnson's remarks and his colleagues' replies are in the
Congressional Globe
, February 3, 1865, p. 586.

187.
John Conness:
Biographical Directory
.

188.
“Not a great deal”:
Campbell's report that Seward said ten states could kill the 13th amendment in a reunited Union (Campbell,
Reminiscences,
pp. 7-8) is corroborated. The day after the commissioners returned to Richmond, North Carolina Senator William Graham, an ally of Hunter and Campbell, had not yet spoken with them but had it “on good authority” that Lincoln and Seward said the seceded states could return “with slavery as it is,” subject to ratification of the 13th amendment, which “
may
be made in future” (Graham, pp. 228-29; emphasis added). A week later, Graham said Lincoln told the commissioners “he could unsay nothing he had said” on slavery, the fate of which would stand on the amendment's ratification, which ten states could block. Graham also said leading Southerners were considering the prospect of blocking it (
Id.,
pp. 232 and 235).

191.
“Charles lost his head”:
There are minor variations in the reports of Lincoln's quip, which became well-known at the time. This is one of the pithiest, and may be the earliest to appear, in Stephens,
Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel,
reprinted
in New York Times, June 26, 1865.
It is modified here only to reflect the casual form of address noted in Stephens,
CV
, p. 613.

191.
“a wonderful power of expression”:
Stoddard, p. 149.

192.
“I'll tell you what I would do”:
Some historians question Stephens's claim that Lincoln suggested that Georgia ratify the Thirteenth Amendment conditioned on its gradual implementation (e.g., James M. McPherson, “Could the South Have Won?,”
New York Review of Books
(June 13, 2002); William C. Harris, “The Hampton Roads Peace Conference: A Final Test of Lincoln's Presidential Leadership,”
Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association,
vol. 21 [2000], p. 51), but Stephens prided himself on his integrity (see Escott, p. 209), a trait to which Judge Cone could attest (see p. 64
supra
), and there is no good reason to doubt his word. Lincoln's preference for a gradual emancipation was long-standing (e.g., Escott, pp. 34-36, 60, and 96-97; Donald, p. 362; Randall and Current, p. 301); he had good reason to be concerned about securing Southern votes for ratification (see Escott, pp. 138–39), through political bargaining, if necessary”; he had long put reunion ahead of emancipation as a priority (
id., passion
); and the advice Stephens attributes to him on the manner of Georgia rejoining the Union mirrors what he said two months later about Virginia (see chapters 25 through 27). See also Donald, pp. 559–60, postulating that Lincoln thought slavery was already dead, and tried to lead the commissioners to believe that a gradual abolition was possible, to encourage Southerners to abandon Davis.

193.
Seward tried to interrupt him:
See
Richmond Examiner,
February 7, 1865, reprinted in
New York Times,
February 10, 1865.

193.
“ ‘root hog, or die' ”:
Variations of this story too were published. Lincoln recounted this one only days after the conference, expressing some concern that it had leaked and created an impression of unseemly levity (Carpenter, pp. 209–11).

195.
A few days later, a friend saw it clearly:
Rice, p. 97.

197.
a habit in moments of intensity:
Welles Diary, vol. 2, p. 106; Hay Diary, p. 211.

197.
It was far from good enough:
Several friends of Stephens claimed that he told them that Lincoln said, “Let me write Union and abolition on the page and you may write what you please” (e.g., Johnson, “Peace Conference,” p. 376). Others say Stephens denied this (Henry Watterson,
The Compromises of Life
[New York: Duffield and Col, 1906], p. 366; Carr, p. 3). Two decades after the fact, Grant wrote that Lincoln told him he had made it clear that if the commissioners would concede reunion and abolition, he was ready to negotiate, and “was almost willing to hand them a blank sheet of paper with his signature attached, for them to fill in the terms . . .” (Grant, vol. 2, p. 422). But Grant did not say that Lincoln told the
commissioners
this, and no participant recorded it, memorable though it would have been. Julian Carr rightly thought there must have been a misunderstanding, with eight honest men saying Stephens told them it was said and eight insisting he denied it (
Id.,
pp. 25–26 and 33). Stephens probably told friends it was his
sense
that Lincoln would accept any terms that included reunion and abolition, and Grant's memoirs may have influenced their memories.