Lyman Trumbull to Abraham Lincoln, 29 January 18591
24
Washington, Jany 28, 1859.2Hon. A. Lincoln,My Dear Sir,I have been shown the copy of an article said to have been prepared for publication by John Wentworth by ^Col[Colonel]^ John Wentworth for publication in the Chicago Journal, the object which evidently is to stir up bad feeling between Republicans who were formerly whigs & those who were formerly Democrats, & more especially to create prejudice against myself & the democratic portion of
the party–3 The article is an insidious one & well calculated to do mischief
<Page 2>
with those who do not understand matters ^facts^ as well as you & I do– It contains a number of statements utterly false but mixed
up with others which are true & so colored as to give an entirely wrong impression
to the uninformed reader– The article professes to be an exan justification by Charles Wilson, Eqr.[Esquire] for having nominated you as a candidate for Senator in the Republican convention, but this is a mere pretence to get at something else–4 The It seems that Wilson refused to publish the article5 but, ^the substance of it will probably be published in some way by its author–^I hope you have seen it, if not I will furnish you a copy of it6 It is a despicably mean thing and just such an act as it would take a man of Wentworth
reputed
...?] our friends when we can prevent it, & to prevent it effectually it is only necessary that we have free intercourse & prevent see that they are not imposed upon by designing mischief making persons. It needs
no assurance from me, to satisfy you of the certain [...?] ^good faith with which^Messrs.[Messieurs] Judd Cook, & others I ^as well as^ myself who are assailed in this article, to ^worked for^ your success in the late canvass–8
<Page 3>
character to be guilty of–7 I never had much to do with Wentworth & never had really know personally but little about him, but it is right that friends like you
& I should not permit any person whatever his motive may be to stir up unfounded suspicions & bad feelings between [I am so constituted as to be incapable of I have no practicing disguise & deceit about
<Page 4>
if I would
[...?] and now write to ^& now write^ to you with that frankness & candor which is ^so^ characteristic of your course towards everybody.9
The Democracy here are very much demoralized & broken down.10 They will ^are^ attempting ^to^ get up a new issue on the Cuba question, in hopes of rewriting & campaigning the election of 1860 upon it. What think you of that matter? Of course we Republicans can never consent to putting
thirty millions in the hands of Buchanan in the present state of things, but can our opponents gain anything by the attempt
which they will make to put themselves for & us against the acquisition of Cuba– I
am inclined not to place myself against Cuba under any & all circumstances, but against
this foolish, & unjust attempt to acquire her at this time11. Douglas looks badly & is not the big man in the Senate he was two years ago– The Fitch matter has I think damaged him with the shoulder
hitters & rowdies his chief supporters–12
Truly YoursL. Trumbull3In the aftermath of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, abolitionists, Free Soil advocates, industrialists, Northern Whigs, Anti-Nebraska Democrats, and eventually former Know-Nothings coalesced to form the Republican Party.
Karl A. Lamb, “Republican Party,” Dictionary of American History, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1976), 6:92.
4At the Illinois Republican Convention held on June 16, 1858, Charles L. Wilson submitted a resolution nominating Lincoln
for U.S. Senate. Delegates unanimously adopted the resolution, slating Lincoln to challenge Stephen A. Douglas, the Democratic incumbent, for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Lincoln delivered his
famous “House Divided” speech later that evening in response to his nomination. Republicans
won the popular vote in the state elections held in November 1858 but pro-Douglas
Democrats retained control of the Illinois General Assembly, which elected U.S. senators in those days, allowing Douglas to retain his seat.
Douglas's victory was confirmed in the election held on January 5, 1859.
Dailly Illinois State Journal (Springfield, IL), 17 June 1858 2:5; 3 November 1858, 2:1; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Fragment of A House Divided: Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 1:458-60, 492-540, 556-57;
Allen C. Guelzo, “Houses Divided: Lincoln, Douglas, and the Political Landscape of
1858,” The Journal of American History 94 (September 2007), 392-94, 414-16; Illinois Senate Journal. 1859. 21st G. A., 30; Illinois House Journal. 1859. 21st G. A., 32.
6“The article mentioned by you, prepared for the Chicago Journal, I have not seen;”
Lincoln wrote in his response to Trumbull dated Febrary 3, 1859, “nor do I wish to see it, though I heard of it
a month, or more, ago.”
7Prominent Republicans felt Wentworth was an untrustworthy and conniving political
figure. Norman B. Judd wrote Trumbull on December 26, 1858, stating of Wentworth, “Lying and detraction
is the order of the day with him — attempting to create discord and enmity amongst
friends – He hates both yourself and Lincoln, although his policy is to conceal his
dislike of Lincoln.” Lincoln and Wentworth had a contentious relationship, with
Lincoln fighting off character attacks by Wentworth on his allies and Wentworth often
being accused of attempting to drive a wedge between prominent members of the Republican
Party.
Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, 1:578-79; Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Lincoln Studies Center Manuscript Version, 1:1535, n36; Don E. Fehrenbacher, Chicago Giant: A Biography of “Long John” Wentworth (Madison, WI: The American History Research Center, 1957), 153-57, 165-75.
8Surveying the damage after the state elections of November 1858, Wentworth joined
publically with others to blame Eastern Republicans for Lincoln’s defeat. In private
correspondence, however, he blamed the Illinois Republican State Central Committee and its chairman, Judd. He charged Judd with bungling the 1858 campaign, misusing
campaign funds collected in his capacity as chairman, and using his position to advance
his campaign for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 1860. Wentworth also
accused Judd of betraying Lincoln by supporting Trumbull for U.S. Senate in 1855 and for president in 1860. Judd fought back against these charges, prompting a feud that culminated in Judd
suing Wentworth for libel in December 1859. Judd wrote Lincoln on December 1, angered about Lincoln’s lack of defense for Judd against these
accusations, to which Lincoln responded on December 9, 1859, stating that the reason for his silence was that “...they made
no distinct charge against you, which I can contradict. You did vote for Trumbull
against me; and, although I think, and have said a thousand times, that was no injustice
to me, I cannot change the fact, nor compel people to cease speaking of it.” Lincoln
would serve as peacemaker between Wentworth and Judd to quell factionalism in the
Illinois Republican Party.
Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, 1:578-79; Don E. Fehrenbacher, Chicago Giant: A Biography of “Long John” Wentworth, 161, 169-71; David Davis to Abraham Lincoln.
9Lincoln reassured Trumbull in his response, writing that efforts “to put enmity” between them “is as idle as the wind.” Lincoln
also expressed confidence that Judd, Burton C. Cook, and other former Democrats in the Republican ranks worked just as hard as former
Whigs for his election.
10The other version included the clause: “, & I think it will so turn out, though I do not now see exactly
how, that we will beat them even in Ill. in 1860.” Trumbull’s reelection to the U.S. Senate depended on the Republicans winning the
Illinois General Assembly in 1860. Apportionment of seats in the Illinois General
Assembly cost Lincoln the election in 1858. Many Republican leaders in Illinois were fearful Democrats would gerrymander the House and Senate districts to keep control
of the General Assembly. As Lincoln noted a letter to Judd on November 15, this threatened
the reelection of Trumbull. In the state elections of 1860, Republicans won control
of both the Illinois House of Representatives and the Illinois Senate, gaining a one seat majority in the Senate and five seat majority in the House, allowing
Trumbull to win reelection.
Abraham Lincoln to Norman B. Judd; Abraham Lincoln to Norman B. Judd; Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, 1:546-47; Daily Illinois State Journal (Springfield), 9 November, 1858, 2:1; 6 January 1859, 2:2; Illinois Daily State Journal (Springfield), 11 December 1860, 2:3; The Ottawa Free Trader (IL), 15 December 1860, 1:6; Illinois Senate Journal. 1861. 22th G. A., 32;
Illinois House Journal. 1861. 22th G. A., 31.
11The other version reads: “but against this foolish attempt to acquire it now in the manner proposed
& with the knowledge we have that Spain will not sell.” President James Buchanan had long desired the United States’ acquisition of Cuba from
Spain. In his second annual message in December 1858, he laid out a case to the
U.S. Congress
for acquiring Cuba. A proposal in Congress to negotiate for the purchase of Cuba was
introduced early in 1859, but was defeated by Republicans opposed to the admission
of Cuba to the United States as a territory where slavery was legal. Buchanan continued
to propose purchasing Cuba in his subsequent annual messages but lacked sufficient
Congressional support for the issue. Douglas had also been a longtime proponent of
the annexation of Cuba.
In his response to Trumbull, Lincoln opined: “I do not perceive that there is any feeling here about
Cuba; and so I think, you can safely venture to act upon your own judgement upon any
phase of it which ^may^ be presented.”
Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 2nd Sess., Appendix, 4 (1858); John M. Belohlavek, “In Defense of Doughface
Diplomacy: A Reevaluation of the Foreign Policy of James Buchanan,”;
James Buchanan and the Coming of the Civil War, John W. Quist and Michael J. Birkner, eds. (Gainesville: University Press of Florida,
2013), 120-21; Robert W. Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 528-30.
12“ Shoulder Hitters” and "Rowdies” refer to bullies, roughs, and troublesome men,
perhaps young Democrats.
Douglas, who broke with President Buchanan and his administration in December 1857
over the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution for the Kansas Territory, faced open hostility from his Democratic colleagues when he returned to Washington, DC, for the second session of the Thirty-Fifth Congress, scheduled to open on December
6, 1858. Senators Jefferson Davis, James Slidell, Jesse Bright, and Graham Fitch, among others, were, as one senator wrote, “keen for his blood.” Rumors had it that
the Buchanan administration would introduce a congressional slave code as a test of
party loyalty. Administration supporters succeeded in getting Douglas removed as chairman
of the Committee on Territories, hoping to provoke him into an attack on the administration.
Davis and others were looking for Douglas to clarify his position on slavery in the
territories in light of the Freeport Doctrine elucidated during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Douglas and Fitch came into conflict over patronage. Douglas spoke in an executive
session of the Senate in January 1859, denouncing recent federal appointments in Northern
Illinois and stating that the appointees were incompetent and corrupt. One of these
appointees was Henry S. Fitch, Graham Fitch’s son. Henry S. Fitch held the position of U.S. attorney for the
U.S. Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois. Senator Fitch objected to Douglas’ statements and Douglas quickly backed off, stating
that his words did not apply to all appointees and that Fitch’s son was one of the
exceptions. Fitch did not accept this and verbally attacked Douglas to the point that
Fitch had to be called to order. Several angry letters were sent between the two in
the following days and eventually both backed off, although this incident would further
degrade Douglas’ standing within the Democrat party.
John Russell Bartlett, Dictionary of Americanisms: A Glossary of Words and Phrases Usually Regarded as Peculiar
to the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 1860), 279; John E. Farmer and W. E. Henley, comps. and
eds., Slang and its Analogues (n.p., 1903), 6:64; J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner, eds., The Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 15:346; Chicago Daily Tribune (IL), 8 March 1858, 1:4; Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, 1:445; George Fort Milton, "Lincoln-Douglas Debates," Dictionary of American History, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1976), 4:155-56; Robert W. Johannsen,
Stephen A. Douglas, 668, 670, 685-90; Second Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Freeport, Illinois; Second Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Freeport, Illinois; Second Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Freeport, Illinois.
Autograph Letter Signed, 4 page(s), Huntington Library (San Marino, CA).