The Late General Walker, The Filibuster

We publish herewith, as matter of history, the portrait of the famous filibuster Walker, who was executed in Honduras on 12th ult. His life had been eventful and romantic.

He was only thirty-six years old when he died. Born at Nashville, Tennessee, in 1824, he was bred a lawyer: his father, a Scotch banker, occupied a prominent position in society, and enjoyed the respect of the community in which he lived. The son was a scape-grace. He failed as a lawyer; tried medicine, and achieved no particular success in that profession; finally fell back on the press, and so, in 1851, at the dawn of civilization on the Pacific slopes, he looms up as the editor of a paper at San Francisco.

It seems likely that the unsettled and turbulent temper of the people with whom he lived shaped the uncertain aspirations of William Walker. He had not been very long in California, and was doing a good business, when he suddenly crossed the frontier, and, squatting on some unoccupied land in Northern Mexico, proclaimed “an independent Republic of Lower California.” This farce did not last long. There was a stir among the Mexican authorities, and an appearance of vigilance among the United States troops; but the point of the struggle was that the “independent Republic” and her newly-constituted rulers had nothing to eat. Walker surrendered himself and his party to a revenue officer of the United States, went through the form of a trial, and was promptly acquitted. At that day filibusterism was all the rage.

Not cured by experience, but rather encouraged by the sympathy his not very glorious exploits had won, Walker two years afterward undertook his second filibustering affray. The Democrats of Nicaragua offered him twenty thousand acres of land to fight on their side against the aristocratic party. A similar offer led Sir De Lacy Evans to fight against the Carliats in Spain, General Guyon to take a command in the Hungarian army of independence, Lord Cochrane to take a leading command in South America; Lafayette and Steuben fought for less in the United States, General Church was- satisfied with less in Greece, Colonel Upton in Russia. General Walker made some further stipulations on behalf of his men, then chartered his vessel.

Five years ago last May that vessel, the Vesta, lay in the harbor of San Francisco, with General Walker and fifty-six men on board. She was under seizure. A deputy-sheriff”s officer had possession. At midnight on Monday, the 4th May, Walker requested the sheriff’s officer to step below to examine some documents in the cabin. The unsuspecting official complied. The door shut, he was informed that he was a prisoner.

“There, Sir,” said Walker, in a slow, drawling voice, “are cigars and Champagne; and there are handcuffs and irons. Pray take your choice.”

The deputy, a sensible man, took the former, and was in a very happy frame of mind when he was put on board the steam-tug to be taken back to the scene of his official duties. In the month of June General Walker arrived in Nicaragua. The Serviles were prepared in force to resist him; he fought a battle every three weeks. The capture of Granada was quickly followed by the massacre at Virgin Bay, and the necessary inauguration of General Walker’s power in Nicaragua.

In the course of a short while a treaty of peace was signed between the contending forces; a native named Patricio Rivas was appointed President, and Walker General-in-chief of the army. This was the culminating moment of Walker’s career. He held the real power in the Government of Nicaragua, Rivas being simply his tool. He had a fine transit route in full operation, which brought him hundreds of immigrants every month. Great Britain and the United States, sick of the unsuccessful endeavors of the Spanish Americans to establish stable governments, were both ready to recognize and support him. In this country especially everyone was in his favor; he could have obtained money and men to any extent on a mere requisition. Finally, there is reason to believe that the best people in Nicaragua were fascinated by his brilliant success, and really believed that he was destined to be the regenerator of their country.

All this fair edifice of present power and future prospects Walker now proceeded deliberately to destroy. He shot Corral, his old foe, the head of the Serviles—a Central American gentleman of high standing—charging him with having plotted against the government they had combined together to establish. He revoked, without cause, the transit grant to the Nicaragua Company, and seized steamers belonging to American citizens, thus shutting himself and his new country out from the world, and closing the door to immigration. He made war upon Costa Rica, and managed matters so badly that his troops were beaten at the first encounter. Ho lost patience with Rivas, dismissed him, and usurped the Presidency. From that moment to the close of the Nicaraguan campaign his history was one of defeat, disaster, disappointment, and distress. The Nicaraguans and Costa Ricans combined against him; drove him from place to place, and at last so beleaguered him that, had it not been for the presence of an American sloop of war, which received him and his followers on board, he must have perished then and there. So ended the second filibustering expedition of Walker.

The third and fourth expeditions, both directed against Nicaragua, may be briefly disposed of. They were both ill-advised, and ill-planned; they both failed miserably; both would have terminated fatally for Walker and his followers but for the kindly interference of American and British vessels of war.

Walker’s fifth and last filibustering raid was originally intended to be prosecuted against the famous Bay Islands which Great Britain is just ceding to Honduras. Several Anglo-Saxon residents of the islands had expressed unwillingness to be handed back to Honduras; Walker saw the opportunity of erecting a new independent empire. Unfortunately for him; Honduras foresaw his game, and requested Great Britain to delay the cession of the islands. Thus disappointed, Walker cruised about in the Bay of Honduras for some weeks, literally seeking what he might devour, and finally, to his ruin, fell upon Truxillo. Forced to evacuate this place by the British war vessel Icarus, he was chased to bay by the Hondurenos; and refusing to claim either British or American protection, lie died the death of a soldier at the hands of the Honduras authorities. The details of his execution will be found in the news columns.

Walker was undoubtedly a mischievous man, better out of the world than in it. He never displayed any constructive ability; his energies were wholly destructive. He was brave, persevering, and energetic; but he had little or no foresight, no compunctions of honor or conscience, and not a spark of human pity in his breast. His works, from first to last, have been injurious rather than beneficial to the world.


There’s No Secession in That.

The New Orleans Picayune for the 8th says:

If Lincoln is successful in the electoral college—which can scarcely be possible*—will he not be elected President by the voice of the people constitutionally expressed—elected too according to the ordinary modes of party action and popular voting—peacefully  and regularly honored with the office which Washington, Jefferson and their long line of successors have honored. Is it for this reason that any man at the South proposes to resist? Are we prepared to disown allegiance to a Government whose administrations hitherto have been followed by a series of uninterrupted blessings, because at some future time an act may be committed hostile to the spirit of the constitution? Will such an issue be one that can secure for any movement t we may commence not the favorable moral influence of the world, but what is far more important, the union of the South itself?

There is  a public sentiment at the South that will forbid success to any movement of this character for this cause, no matter by whom it be originated and favored. The more violent such a movement may be, the less favor would it receive. It would have no foundation in law, it would appeal to no public sense of necessity. It would have no stimulus in the public feeling of positive wrong done, or in the sense by individuals, of actual distress inflicted.

It is time that the men of the South began to speak plainly on this subject. The Southern masses are not yet ready to imitate Mexico, nor will they, like that distracted people;  be put in hostility to the legal government by the pronouncements of any popular leader.

(*Pennsylvania; Indiana and Ohio have said that it is not only possible, not only probable, but absolutely certain.—Eds. HERALD.]


What Are The Southern States Going To Do?

Recent events at the elections in some of the Central States, and all the eventualities and chances which they foreshadow with regard to the Presidential contest, pointing is the direction of Mr. Lincoln’s election by the Northern States, people are beginning naturally to look towards the South and ask what the people there are going to do. The South has for a few years past been threatening disunion and secession, and all kinds of movements, in the event of the triumph of a Northern faction, and in the present aspect of affairs we think it is about time now that the Southern people should be making arrangements for their future course. If the politicians and orators of the South rightly represent the feelings of the people, there is a strong inclination towards secession in South Carolina, in parts of Virginia, in Alabama and other States. Mr. Yancey has just delivered avery eloquent speech in this city, in which he touched upon many points concerning the interests of his section of the country, but he did not solve the problem, what they are going to do down there.

The South has a great many important relations, social as well as commercial, with the North, and consequently its future proceedings in the event of Lincoln’s election are matters  of considerable inferest. We presume that the Legislatures of the different Southern States will come together at once and consult about the plan of action to be adopted. They have time enough to decide upon what they intend to do between this and the inauguration day, March the 4th, 1861.


A Trap for Douglas

W. W. Lamb, a Breckinridge elector at Norfolk, who put the question to Senator Douglas as to the course to be pursued in case of resistance  by the South to Lincoln’s  election, and who received the prompt and emphatic reply that the laws must be enforced, even to the hanging of rebels, promised that the same question should to put to Mr. Breckinridge. This has not been done, and the Secessionists boast that Douglas  has lot friends by his reply. They make a great clamor about the use of force, although Polk and Dallas both voted for Gen. Jackson’s “force bill,” and were afterward supported by the whole Democracy.

TheNorfolk Argos (edited by the Breckinridge elector) boasts that Douglas is losing friends in Virginia since he “be fell into the trap” set for him. It seems to be forgotten that it is a two-edged sword. A few men may fly off, and allege this as an excuse, but Breckinridge is losing friends by not answering. He loses character for frankness, and thereby leaves it to be inferred that he is afraid to speak out on that point.

Tho writer of this has recently had an opportunity to know the sentiments of the people of the ‘Tenth Legion’ on this subject, and the Douglas men are not only firm in his support, as a friend of the Union, but are more than ever determined to beat the Disunionists. Yancey’s speeches inflame the leaders of the Douglas party, and disgust the rank and file. They find that this “champion of Southern rights,” as he is called, has one speech for the South and another for the North. In the Valley of Virginia he talks much about a “Constitutional Union,” but is as gentle as a dove in regard to secession. He does not say a word about his project to “precipitate the Cotton Stares into a revolution.” He knows such talk does not suit this meridian, and therefore he does nothing more than appeal to the pride of Virginia, as ‘the Mother of States and of Statesmen,’ a very original idea —found in every school-boy’s vocabulary. He tells us most pathetically how much we are oppressed by our government.


Information Wanted.

It is announced that Mr. Wm. L. YANCEY is to address the public on the political issues of the day, this evening, at the Cooper Institute. We do not know that the announcement is authentic, but we have been assured that it is.

What Mr. YANCY’S special object may be in so doing, we have no means of knowing. Whether he intends to fortify the faith or speculators for a fall in stocks, and to encourage the hopes of political alarmists,—or to clear himself from the suspicion of being a Disunionist, we ave not aware. We cannot, however, forget the part he has played hitherto in political affairs. We cannot forget his organization of the Southern League, nor his advice to a colleague, that he should remain in the Democratic ranks for the purpose of so shaking its action that, “when the proper opportunity should arise, they might precipitate the Cotton States into revolution.” Nor can we forget the part he has recently taken in the disruption of the Democratic Party, and the advocacy of the Breckinridge ticket in the Southern States. And all these recollections lead us to watch his proceedings with a good deal of interest.

We are a little curious to know whether he will advocate fusion here. or urge his friends to vote the regular Breckinridge ticket. If he does the latter, we shall be warranted in inferring that he regards the election of LINCOLN by the people as affording a favorable opportunity for his “revolution.” If he urges fusion, for the purpose of defeating Lincoln, we shall infer that he considers a Presidential canvass in the House of Representatives as affording much the best chance.

There is one point on which his friends here will insist on having from him an explicit answer. Does he believe that the election of Lincoln, in advance of any act of injustice or aggression, would constitute a sufficient cause for secession? As a frank man he cannot well refuse to declare himself on this point,— nor can he fail to recognize its importance. He will speak here to a  large commercial community, which has everything at stake on the preservation of the Union. Many of them are seeking to save it by defeating Lincoln;— others aim at the same result by preventing the election from going to the House of Representatives. But all are far the Union. And all will insist, after the election is over, and whatever may be the result, upon upholding the Constitution and maintaining the Confederacy inviolate. And they will all want to  know whether Mr. Yancy is for or against them on this point of transcendent importance. We hope he will find it convenient to be perfectly explicit in regard to it.


The Execution of Walker.

Havana, Wednesday, Sept. 26, 1860.

I yesterday sent to Charleston, via Cedar Key, the “news” of the execution of William Walter at Truxillo on the 12th inst., and suppose you are, or will be before this reaches your hand, in possession of the intelligence by the aid of the telegraph. The “news” reached this city on the evening of the 24th inst., from Batubano, at which port the propeller Osceola had arrived that day.

Walker, it appears, was not permitted to have any communication with any of his followers previous to his execution. He marched from his cell to the place of execution with a steady step and unshaken mien. A chair had been placed for him with its back towards the Castle. Having taken his seat, he was blindfolded. Three soldiers stepped forward to within twenty feet of him and discharged their muskets, the balls entered his body, and he leaned a little forward; but, it being observed he was not dead, a fourth soldier mercifully advanced so close to the suffering man that the muzzle of the musket almost touched his forehead, and being there discharged scattered hie brains and skull to the winds. Thus ends the life of the “gray eyed man of destiny,” and though we may differ in our several estimates of the character of the man, and of the correctness of the cause he has of late years pursued, yet I believe none will be found who will assert that he was not a man of true courage.


See Wikipedia article on William Walker — “Before the end of the American Civil War, Walker’s memory enjoyed great popularity in the southern and western United States, where he was known as “General Walker” and as the “grey-eyed man of destiny.””


Won’t Submit to Lincoln.—The Atlanta (Ga.) Southern Confederacy says:—

The South will never permit Abraham Lincoln to be President of the United States.  This is the determination of all parties at the South! And let the consequences be what they may — whether the Potomac be crimsoned in human gore, and Pennsylvania avenue is paved ten fathoms in depth with mangled bodies, or whether the last vestige of liberty is swept from the face of the American continent — the South, the loyal South, the constitutional South, will never submit to such humiliation and degradation as the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.

This fellow is scared before he is hurt.  Lincoln is not yet elected; and if he should be elected, these very fire-eaters of the Georgia school, who are always blowing and threatening, and never doing anything but mischief to their own friends, will be responsible for the result.  Had they stood their ground, instead of running from the Charleston convention, there would have been no occasion for any alarm concerning Lincoln’s election.  Being assured, however, from the late Southern elections, that the Southern people will take care of their pro-slavery disunionists in November, the conservative people of the North have only to look after our no-slavery disunionists and all will be well.


RICHMOND, VA., October 7, 1860.

DEAR COLONEL COLT: — I am sorry to say it will not be possible for the Prince of Wales to accept your kind invitation. After leaving New York we propose to proceed to Albany before going to Boston, so that we shall not be able to visit Hartford.

Had arrangements permitted it, the Prince would have been much pleased to inspect your celebrated establishment.

I am yours very truly,

From “Armsmear: The Home, The Arm, and The Armory of Samuel Colt,” A Memorial, 1866


Oct 6th 1860


Dr Sam G Lane!
Dear Cousin!

I have been intending to write to you ever since I left Pennsylvania, but have been prevented by sickness and [unclear: close ] confinement to the store — I recd. your letter last week & thank you truly for the courtesy and kindness of feeling it manifested you are not mistaken in regard to my feelings toward my friends [unclear: of] the good old Keystone” and a letter from home is indeed green spot in the cheerless [illeg.] deserts of North Carolina.

Immediately on receipt of yours I wrote – at considerable length – to Fitz Hugh stating every instance of my conclusion with

[page 2]
McPherson and asking as a personal favor his reconsideration of the matter. I have not since heard from Fitz. H. but from previous knowledge of the man I fear he will not be likely to change his position if he has taken it against McP—– Feeling as I do under great obligation to McP. I should be very sorry to be made innocently the cause of anything sending to injure him — please explain this to him that he may not think me ungrateful for his many acts of kindness towards me. had I any influence in Franklin Co. I should certainly give it in his favor.

Political excitement is running high and all our banks have refused to discount till after the election. Great financial troubles [illeg.] [illeg.]

[page 3]
of Lincoln’s election. Breckenridge will most likely carry this state though Bell will run him very close. Douglas will not poll a large vote as his supporters are very few & weak– I have been frequently questioned about my political views, and have expressed myself far more strongly in favor of the northern institutions than when in Penna. There is far more freedom of sentiment here than I supposed and I know several persons who take the N. Y. Tribune and read Helper, though a violent republican would not be tolerated and voting for Lincoln would be considered a capital offence. Should S. Carolina, Alabama, & Mississippi secede and an attempt be made to enforce Lincoln’s administration, N. Carolina will certainly join the ‘southern [illeg.] [illeg.] [unclear: under] no other

[page 4]

I am not very much pleased with Raleigh. it is a remarkably slow & [unclear: aristocratic] place, been confined to the store from 6 A.M. to 11 P.M. I have seen very little of society – and – though noticed by several persons of position I shall mingle very little in it as I am still so much of a Yankee to submit to patronage. I do not think under present circumstances it would do to trouble McPherson though I should like very much to have a letter from him to Branch. I feel I may not be able to [unclear: retain] [illeg.] situation long, as I have been very sick nearly ever since my arrival and am too weak to attend to business as it should be done. Please do not mention that Miss [unclear: Wirginan] promised to express

(Source: Valley of the Shadow, University of Virginia)


CINCINNATI, September 30, 1860.

DEAR UNCLE:—. . . . I have made a few little speeches in the country townships, and shall make a few more. I cannot get up much interest in the contest. A wholesome contempt for Douglas, on account of his recent demagoguery, is the chief feeling I have. I am not so confident that Lincoln will get votes enough as many of our friends. I think his chances are fair, but what may be the effect of fusions in such anti-Republican States as New Jersey and Pennsylvania, is more than I can tell or confidently guess until after the state elections. In this county, the fight is doubtful, but probably against us.

We saw the Prince yesterday as he passed our house. A modest, decently behaved youngster. His visit has been without unpleasant incidents. — Love to all.





Letter to Professor Gardner

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., September 28, 1860.

Dear Sir: Some specimens of your Soap have been used at our house and Mrs. L. declares it is a superior article. She at the same time protests that I have never given sufficient attention to the “soap question” to be a competent judge.                                     Yours very truly,



SPRINGFIELD, ILLS. Sep 22, 1860.


My dear Madam: Your kind congratulatory letter, of August, was received in due course, and should have been answered sooner. The truth is I have never corresponded much with ladies; and hence I postpone writing letters to them, as a business which I do not understand. I can only say now I thank you for the good opinion you express of me, fearing, at the same time, I may not be able to maintain it through life.

Yours very truly,



SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, September 22, 1860.

Dear Doctor: Yours of July 18th was received some time ago. When you wrote you had not learned the result of the Democratic conventions at Charleston and Baltimore. With the two tickets in the field I should think it possible for our friends to carry Oregon. But the general result, I think, does not depend upon Oregon. No one this side of the mountains pretends that any ticket can be elected by the people, unless it be ours. Hence great efforts to combine against us are being made, which, however, as yet have not had much success. Besides what we see in the newspapers, I have a good deal of private correspondence; and without giving details, I will only say it all looks very favorable to our success.

Make my best respects to Mrs. Henry and the rest of your family.

Your friend, as ever,



SEPTEMBER 12, 1860.

Fellow Democrats,—I thank you most cordially for the honor which you confer upon me by permitting me to preside over your deliberations on this occasion. It is an occasion the importance of which cannot be impressed too much upon our minds. We have come together in order to pledge our support to the nominations of our National and State Conventions, determined to withhold the thirty-five electoral votes of the great Empire State from Abraham Lincoln, and thus to save the glorious Republic from the horrors of disunion and anarchy. We have come together to listen to the heart-stirring eloquence of our noble and gallant standard-bearers, Stephen A. Douglas, the bold and fearless champion of the Constitution and the rights of the people, and Herschel V. Johnson, the patriot and the statesman. In order to share this rare privilege with you, I have sacrificed the pleasing duty of attending the celebration by which the city of Cleveland honored this week the memory of an illustrious kinsman of my family. It is forty-seven years since the gallant Perry fought and conquered, after a most bloody struggle against fearful odds, the enemies of his country on Lake Erie. Let us this day pledge our united and unwavering energies to fight and conquer the enemies of the Constitution and the Union, arrayed against us by sectional fanaticism North and South. We are fighting for the maintenance of our beloved and blessed Union, and the sacredness of our cause should give us the victory. Let us, then, advance to the charge, and the lion-hearted Democracy of this vast Republic, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, will in November next inscribe on its banners the memorable words of Perry, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.”



Dear Sir: Your second note, inclosing the supposed speech of Mr. Dallas to Lord Brougham, is received. I have read the speech quite through, together with the real author’s introductory and closing remarks. I have also looked through the long preface of the book to-day. Both seem to be well written, and contain many things with which I could agree, and some with which I could not. A specimen of the latter is the declaration, in the closing remarks upon the “speech,” that the institution is a “necessity” imposed on us by the negro race. That the going many thousand miles, seizing a set of savages, bringing them here, and making slaves of them is a necessity imposed on us by them involves a species of logic to which my mind will scarcely assent.

(Apparently unfinished.)



My dear Sir: Yours of the 9th, inclosing the letter of Hon. John Minor Botts, was duly received. The latter is herewith returned according to your request. It contains one of the many assurances I receive from the South, that in no probable event will there be any very formidable effort to break up the Union. The people of the South have too much of good sense and good temper to attempt the ruin of the government rather than see it administered as it was administered by the men who made it. At least so I hope and believe. I thank you both for your own letter and a sight of that of Mr. Botts.

Yours very truly,



August 14, 1860.

My Fellow-citizens: I appear among you upon this occasion with no intention of making a speech.

It has been my purpose since I have been placed in my present position to make no speeches. This assemblage having been drawn together at the place of my residence, it appeared to be the wish of those constituting this vast assembly to see me; and it is certainly my wish to see all of you. I appear upon the ground here at this time only for the purpose of affording myself the best opportunity of seeing you, and enabling you to see me.

I confess with gratitude, be it understood, that I did not suppose my appearance among you would create the tumult which I now witness. I am profoundly grateful for this manifestation of your feelings. I am grateful, because it is a tribute such as can be paid to no man as a man; it is the evidence that four years from this time you will give a like manifestation to the next man who is the representative of the truth on the questions that now agitate the public; and it is because you will then fight for this cause as you do now, or with even greater ardor than now, though I be dead and gone, that I most profoundly and sincerely thank you.

Having said this much, allow me now to say that it is my wish that you will hear this public discussion by others of our friends who are present for the purpose of addressing you, and that you will kindly let me be silent.


SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, August 14., 1860.

Dear Sir: Yours of the 10th is received, and for which I thank you. I would cheerfully answer your questions in regard to the fugitive-slave law were it not that I consider it would be both imprudent and contrary to the reasonable expectation of my friends for me to write or speak anything upon doctrinal points now. Besides this, my published speeches contain nearly all I could willingly say. Justice and fairness to all, is the utmost I have said, or will say.                                     Yours truly,



1860. July 24.—Judge Longstreet has issued a letter addressed to the International Statistical Congress about their gross conduct in applauding Lord Brougham. It is printed in the Morning Chronicle, and evinces considerable ability and tact. I shall not be surprised if, on this sensitive topic, my countrymen, who never can be rational about it, should consider me as having too tranquilly submitted to the remark of Brougham. One of them here wishes I had “jumped to my feet and knocked the old blackguard down!” This is not “ma manure d’agir.” First, it would have been great folly to imply, by word or act, that the question of slavery in the United States could legitimately be discussed before the American Minister at a European Congress of any sort. Second, the Congress was unanimously and vociferously hostile; the words of Brougham were cheered loudly; it was palpable that the act was the result of a contrivance between Brougham and his associate to get up an altercation between the latter and myself, which was defeated by my treating the movement with silence. Third, quitting the room was impossible, because my doing so was physically impeded, and would instantly have been followed by loud and prolonged indignities. Fourth, to attempt, at a moment of sudden astonishment and indignation, to vindicate the United States from the slur thrown out, would have been extremely imprudent and AT hazardous; no man is authorized to commit his country in a manner so unprepared. Fifth, my individual opinion as to the races being unequal in intellect is strong, but the point has never been studied, and could not be handled in the slightest manner without exhibiting weakness. Sixth, a foreign Minister cannot be justified or excused in taking the attitude of a public declaimer in a Congress where he was only an invited guest, and where such a topic was not only not to be anticipated, but wholly out of order. Indeed, such are my convictions that I have thanked Heaven frequently and profoundly that I had presence of mind enough to take the course I did. Brougham has attempted in the very Congress itself, and only two days after his extravagance, a feeble and unsatisfactory apology; he has sought me that he might apologize in person, and has been turned from the door. He is now perpetually inculcating that what he did was not intended to be disrespectful to me or the United States, and that it should be regarded as insignificant.


1860. July 20.—Lord Brougham called at ten A.M. I had just time to tell my servant to refuse me. He is so old, and has been so remarkable a man in his day and generation, that I have to remind myself of his offence, and of his aggravating it by the form and manner of his pretended explanation, or I could scarcely screw my mind up to the point of turning him from the door. He came a second time, between twelve and one. I was then at the Kensington Museum, and my secretary, receiving him with the utmost deference, was, nevertheless, silent. He said once or twice, “You know who I am? Lord Brougham, Lord Brougham!” He went to the front door, and then returned in the front office, and remarked, “You know you don’t treat your negroes as well as they are treated in the Brazils!”

The treat I enjoyed at the Kensington Museum was one of the richest I have had in England. The Turners, the Hogarths, the Leslies, etc., are all delightful.

What an admirable reply to Lord Grey is that Fourth of July speech of Everett’s. He has literally overwhelmed Grey in the spirit of truth and moderation.

Received a note from Lord Shaftesbury, hoping that I won’t report to my government the “very foolish and very unwarrantable conduct of Lord Brougham”! This advice is about as silly as Lord Harry’s act, and perhaps much less excusable.


1860. July 18.—Judge Longstreet, the United States Delegate to the International Congress, sent yesterday his written withdrawal, in consequence of Lord Brougham’s conduct.

There is no telling to what this outrage may lead. Brougham is already feeling the weight of a unanimous public opinion. He attempted to-day to make an explanation or apology; said he meant no disrespect to me or my government, and then, with a fatuity scarcely comprehensible, went on to make the matter worse. Is he, on this question of slavery, deranged?

Dr. J—, the delegate sent by the Statistical Association of Massachusetts, called upon me. He said he came from Lord Brougham, and was by him authorized to remove any impression that I might have imbibed that he intended to wound my feelings. I interrupted Dr. J—, and said that I could receive nothing from Lord Brougham at second-hand; if he wished to do what was right and restore the state of things his folly had disturbed, he must make an ample and distinct apology for the insult upon the United States; he must do this in the very body where he had made the attack, and what he said should be sanctioned and approved by that body; if this was satisfactorily done, the personal indignity to myself would melt into nothing before the infirmities of his great age. Alas! that an American citizen should have witnessed, as Dr. J— did, this outrage upon his country, and yet be so bent upon his wretched statistical essay or report as to prefer reading this last to resenting the former. Dr. J— distinguishes: says Lord Brougham’s act don’t touch him, because he is from a free State! “Out upon such half-faced fellowship!”



My dear Sir: It appears to me that you and I ought to be acquainted, and accordingly I write this as a sort of introduction of myself to you. You first entered the Senate during the single term I was a member of the House of Representatives, but I have no recollection that we were introduced. I shall be pleased to receive a line from you.

The prospect of Republican success now appears very flattering, so far as I can perceive. Do you see anything to the contrary?

Yours truly,

A. Lincoln


186o. July 16.—The International Statistical Congress opened its fourth session to-day in this city. I had declined being a member, when invited a month ago by the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Milner Gibson. On Saturday last the Committee of Organization sent special cards to the members of the Corps diplomatique, and, in order to manifest my respect for the Prince Consort, I went to hear his opening address. Lord Brougham took the opportunity, after the delivery of the address, which was really very good, abruptly to call out to me by name, and hoped I would observe that there was “a negro in the assemblage!” I perceived instantly the grossness of the act, and, seeing the black in the very centre of the philosophers, hadn’t a doubt that it was a premeditated contrivance to provoke me into some unseemly altercation with the coloured personage. I balked that by remaining silent and composed. The gentleman of colour, however, rose, and requested permission of the Prince Consort, as chairman, to thank Lord Brougham for his notice, with an emphatic conclusion, “I am a man.” Query: Is not the government answerable for this insult? Or must it be regarded as purely the personal indecency of Lord Brougham? Curia advisare vult.