MR. BOTTS'S LINCOLN LETTER.

About this time I received a letter from a friend in Washington, who expressed an anxious desire to learn what impressions I had formed of Mr. Lincoln and his administration. I answered him at some length. In the discussion of various questions connected with the war, embracing the Emancipation Proclamation, the status of the states, etc., etc., with Federal officers, reverend divines, professors of law in collegiate institutions, and others who called to pay their respects, I had not unfrequent occasion to read this letter. There was a general wish expressed that Mr. Lincoln could see it. I said, while it was a private letter, intended for no eye than that of the friend to whom it was addressed, and while I had no right to obtrude my opinions upon Mr. Lincoln, yet if Mr. Lincoln should express a desire to see it, I could have no objection to his doing so. This, I suppose, was communicated to Mr. Lincoln, for he shortly after did express a wish to see the letter, and the gentleman to whom it was addressed was authorized to place it in his hands, which he did. Some three months after the friend called upon Mr. Lincoln for the letter, and Mr. Lincoln replied, "The letter is your private property, of course, and, if you require it, I must return it to you, but you would greatly oblige me by permitting me to retain it;" to which my friend assented, and Mr. Lincoln died with it in his possession.

There is one incident connected with this letter of which I feel considerable satisfaction, and at the risk of the charge of vanity, I will here mention.

On one occasion, twelve gentlemen, chiefly ministers of the Gospel, headed by Charles Stewart, Esq., of Philadelphia, President of the Christian Association, and the Rev. Dr. Kirk, of Boston, called to see me; we got into a discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation, and I read this letter to them, as expressive of my views on the subject. When I finished the letter, Mr. Stewart rose from his scat, and with some very flattering remarks, said, substantially, "that no such emotions had been created in his bosom since the commencement of the war as had been excited by the reading of that letter, and that he thought it was eminently proper that they should return thanks to God that one such man had been preserved in the South, and that the Divine blessing should be asked upon the head of the 'venerable statesman' who had been capable of entertaining and expressing sentiments of so much patriotism and devotion to his country;" whereupon the Rev. Dr. Kirk offered up a most impressive

prayer, which awakened feelings in my bosom which I shall not soon forget.

The following is extracted from the letter dated 22d of January, 1864: "Next you want to know what I think of Mr. Lincoln and his administration, and you express the hope that it has met with my approval." Well, I will be frank with you, and tell you freely but confidentially what I think of both.

I think, then, that Mr. Lincoln is by nature a vigorous, strong-minded, and conscientious man, honest in his purposes, and indefatigable in the exercise of what he conceives to be the duties of his office. In natural endowments, I doubt if he is not quite equal, if not superior to any of those by whom he is surrounded. He is not so cultivated as many, because he had not the same advantages in early life, but he is what I always honor, an original and self-made man, and is what I have generally called one of God Almighty's educated men; that is, he gets what he knows chiefly from his Creator. Dogberry says, "Reading and writing comes by nature, but to be a well-favored man is the gift of God;" and in this latter particular I do not think Mr. Lincoln is as munificiently endowed as he has been in the more essential qualities of head and heart; but believing him to be a true and sound patriot, and an honest man, I can make proper allowances for many things of which I might otherwise complain; for you must not infer from what I have said that I approve of all that Mr. Lincoln has done; but then I do not expect any man to do exactly as I would have him to do, for I am not very certain if I were in his place, I would not do many things that my own judgment might not entirely approve. We are all creatures of circumstances to a greater or less extent, and are more or less controlled by the circumstances that surround us.

Take his Emancipation Proclamation, for example. It would be impossible for me to say that I think he had a right to issue such a document; he certainly had not, according to his own oft-repeated declarations before the war. And if he had no such power then, I do not see from what source he has derived the power since the war, especially in regard to the property of those citizens who have forfeited none of their rights under the Constitution; the argument is, that it is a military right growing out of the rebellion. If that be so, I must think it a very dangerous right, as I do not perceive any limit to its exercise, which depends solely on the will of the person who may happen to control the military power at the moment; and it is, to say the least of it, a vagrant, rambling,

unsettled, and unfixed power, that would be very differently exercised by different persons that might be in a position to execute the power. One might limit it to personal property only; another to slaves that are of a mixed character, being both persons and property; another might extend it to real estate for life; another to real estate in fee; another to imprisonment, or imprisonment and fine; and another, still, to life itself. I confess I do not like these unwritten, unknown, and undefined laws, dependent alone on the arbitrary will of whomsoever might happen to fill the presidential chair for the moment, and who might be either a Washington or a Nero. And it is quite clear to my mind, that this power of confiscation was not intended by the framers of our government to be lodged in the hands of Congress and of the President at the same time, or that the power was to be divided. Now if Congress can confiscate the real estate of one in rebellion against his government, of which there can be no doubt, I think it clear they could also confiscate the slave property of the same party; and it seems to me to follow that, if the President can confiscate the slave property, he could, with equal propriety, confiscate the real estate. Yet we see the one power exercised by Congress, which is a denial of the power on the part of the President; while the other power is exercised by the President, which is a denial of the power of Congress; unless we can believe that it was designed to give the same powers and functions to each, which would be an anomaly in government that would reflect very little credit on the authors of our system. In other words, I think if it required an act of Congress to confiscate one species of property, to wit, real estate, it necessarily required the same authority to confiscate any other species of property.

But conceding that there was a military right, and a moral propriety in seizing upon and emancipating by proclamation the slave property of those in rebellion against the government, who had forfeited all claims to the protection of the Constitution, for I am not one of those who think a man may take a sword in his right hand and the Constitution in his left, and, after a vain effort to strike down the Constitution, thrust his left hand forward and claim the protection of the instrument he has renounced and endeavored to destroy; but, I say, conceding that there is a military right on the part of the President by proclamation to emancipate or confiscate (for, practically, it means the same thing) the slave property of one in rebellion against the government, and who has thus forfeited all right to the protection of the Constitution, it by no means follows that the right exists to take the slave or other property of the loyal citizen, who had forfeited none

of his rights, and who stands exactly where and as he stood before the war. Congress, for example, does not claim the right to confiscate the real estate of loyal citizens, for confiscation only applies to traitors; how, then, could Congress, or rather the law-making power, which includes the President, confiscate the personal property of the loyal citizen? and if this could not be done by the President and Congress combined, how could it be done by the President alone? In one word, if the President had a right to take my slaves from me because Jeff. Davis and Co. had rebelled against the authorities of the United States, while to the full extent of my power and capacity I had resisted such rebellion, I do not see why he might not also take my lands and other property because General Lee and Co. had forfeited theirs. To my mind, therefore, it is clear that the confiscation of slaves should have been confined to those who were in actual rebellion against the government, and to those who, in the language of the Constitution, had given them aid and comfort, and that this confiscation of slave property should have been embraced in the act of confiscation, and not have been effected by a simple proclamation of the President. Nor do I perceive how that clause of the Constitution which forbids the seizure of private property for public uses without just compensation is to be gotten over, as far as loyal persons are concerned.

But waiving the question of right on the part of the President to confiscate by proclamation, I must think that a very badly constructed instrument which, by its terms, protected the property of Henry A. Wise, who has been for the last twelve years stirring up rebellion, and for the last three in open arms against the authorities of the United States, because he happened to live in the county of Princess Anne, which at that time was within Federal jurisdiction, and at the same time in terms confiscated the property of John M. Botts, a loyal citizen, because he happened to live in the county of Henrico (or Culpepper, to which I have since removed), which at that time was within the Confederate lines, but which is now within the jurisdiction of the Federal government. I think, therefore, it is quite clear that the question of property should have rested upon the loyalty of the citizen rather than upon his local habitation at the time.

Now I do not want to be misunderstood. Under this proclamation I have lost a good many of my most valuable servants, it is true, but I have never been one of those who estimated the value of the Union and institutions of our fathers (upon the preservation of which I religiously believe the happiness, welfare, and liberties of the people South as well as

North depend) by dollars and cents, nor yet by the bondage of the African race. And if the question between the life of the nation and the destruction of slavery has arisen, without one moment's hesitation I say, Let the Nation live, and let slavery perish; and if the balance of any slaves, landed property, and all should be necessary for the preservation of the institutions of the country in all their integrity, all I have to say is, In the name of God, let it go; though I confess I should have preferred a voluntary relinquishment of it myself to its forcible seizure by the government. Nor am I one of those who confound cause with effect. If Mr. Lincoln had issued this proclamation, and it had been enforced before the war, then I have no hesitation in saying I would probably have been found in the midst of this revolution, because it would have constituted good ground for resistance, but instead of its having been the cause, it is simply the effect of the war. It is the consequence growing out of the most accursed, the most flagitious, the most stupendous, and the most atrocious crime that in my opinion has been committed since the day that Jesus Christ was crucified; and, being the consequence of secession, I charge the loss of my property to the secessionists, who are wholly and solely responsible for the war, and who created the necessity, if such necessity existed; and although I can not see the subject in that light, yet at such a crisis as this I will not quarrel about property until my own liberties and the liberties of the people are restored to that condition of security which we enjoyed before the rebellion.

By Divine law we are all, the good and the bad alike, made responsible for the original sin of that venerable old lady known as Madame Eve; and I do not know that it is any harder upon me that I should lose my property on account of the original sin of those with whom it has been my fortune to be mixed up geographically, than it is that I should be damned unless I make atonement for the original sin of that good woman for eating an apple six thousand years ago that I never saw, and do not know certainly if it ever grew, and, therefore, I shall make no factious opposition or quarrel with Mr. Lincoln about it-at all events, not just now. The best vindication for Mr. Lincoln's individual law at last may be, that it rests upon precisely the same principle as does the most important of all Divine laws.

As to Garrison, Parker, Beecher, Wendell Philips (who, by the way, is not only a mischievous but dangerous fanatic, as his ravings about dividing the lands of the South among the army and the negroes has no other effect than to furnish the Southern demagogues with material for keep