[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 recd; 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 compd 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 Confedy 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 & Southn 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 Northn. 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 Southn papers have virtually no circulation at the North. I have heard men, reputable for their knowledge & conservatism even, denounce such Publins.[[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 popln.[[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 Abolin 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 constitul & moral obligation; and those laws designed to prevent such restoration are unconstl & criminal—and worthy of all condemn—and unbecoming the dignity of any Sovn 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 protecn of a Constn & 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 Constl right to emigrate thither with their property & demand for it the protection afforded by the Constn. 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 Govt. But some parties and people are never satisfied. Full in the face of this high official the Repubn 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 Republn gov.,) to revolt—a right inherent in & beyond the control of all earthly governts. 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 Repubn. 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 acqutd, is now in Philad 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 apperns 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 shn that it is not in accordance with sound reason & the "inexorable logic" of the Constitution, since that noble edifice was attacked in two points simultaneously by the Repubcn party: 1°. by abrogating the Fugitive Slave Law; 2°. by depriving the South of eql rights in the Territories. These are 2 points in which the North has transgressed the limits of immutable Justice, and nothing which is unjust can be reasonable, for, they (Just. & Reas.) are twin sisters. Moreover, the Bible justifies no war but that of self-defence. Then are the North invaded? No, nor never will be, by the South, for all they ask is peace within their borders. While they hold in one hand the sword of self-defence, they present the "Olive Branch" with the other; and so God grant it may be ever.

You lament the inconceivable disasters "inaugurated by the attack on Sumter." True enough they may have been inaugurated by that act, but their unconcealed cause lies far back of that, as we have shown. That was only a raising of the curtain, or rather a forcing of it to be raised by the Abolitionists—a beginning of the bloody drama. Who caused the attack? What meant those human cargoes that approached so close to its walls the day before the battle? Why did the worthy (?) Lincoln so long deceive the Southrn Commissioners by promise after promise not to make war, but to evacuate the fort, & meet them, as a sensible Pres. would have done, in friendly negotiation for peace? S.C. was right, and acted nobly in the affair, and was as justifiable therein, as was Anderson in occupying the Fort before he had a reason for doing so, declaring by his overt act that the U.S. forces under him were at enmity with S.C. But then you say S.C. should have first tried Lincoln before determining to secede. I think she saw with prophetic vision the end from the beginning. She took Lincoln at his word—that itself was oppression & tyranny sufficient to burst asunder the closest ties of Union that could exist in any Country. You say we shd give everything a fair trial. I disagree. If I saw a serpent in my path & it shd attempt to make battle, or declare its hostility by displaying its horrid fangs, do you think I would coolly stand by & give it a fair trial, & test its friendship? I would be impelled, even had I never seen or heard of such a creature before, to crush it immediately, & so S.C. has sensibly said to the Administration "Serpent, bite a file!" As to your Eulogium on Lincoln I have not much to say. If he pleases you, well enough, you're easily satisfied. I take it that he is a disgrace to the Chair he occupies; and to judge from his conversations, he is devoid of all sense of refinement & etiquette; to look at his executive powers as displayed thus far, he had better be a Bey than helmsman of the "Old Ship"; and what of his efforts at speeches? In the language of Logan, "I appeal to any white man" to say if they would not be a disgrace to many a "Country 'Squire"! And yet such a man elevated to the highest position in the gift of the American people! There was a time when the soundest and most learned men of the land were made Presidents, now a man's capacity for the office seems to depend on the meanness of his intellect & the number of rails he can split in a day. And so great were his "maul & wedge" propensities that he withheld not his hand from splitting the Tree of Liberty. But let us inquire upon which side "humanity" stands in this contest. You complain much of several (local) depredations comtd by South on private boats &c. I ask, in candor, if it was not in retaliation for like outrages comtd by the North. I am certain as to its being so in several cases. The very 1st boat thus ill-treated was one belonging to the South on its way down the Miss. & attacked at Cairo. To retaliate they determined to attack Northen boats coming up the river. And what have your noble Ohioans done lately & repeatedly with our Ka. boats at Gallipolis? Thrice have they overhauled the same boat and twice kept every pound of freight on her timbers. But this is not all; your humane Lincoln has closed the Southern ports, & is daily robbing vessels on their way in & out of the same. During the last week he stole $150,000 worth of Southern Tobacco, & thus the programme continues. Very humane indeed! Again, he is no invader! No indeed! by no means! yet hundreds of Citizens are now fleeing from Wheeling, & other towns invaded, for personal safety. Scarce a day passes but some one stops here who has thus escaped. If they remain on their own soil and round their proper hearthstone the (very) humane doom of a murderer awaits them! The North don't intend to make invasion at all, yet 4000 Fl troops are now in Parkersburg, breaking up printing presses, putting innocent people in jail, and doing other humane acts, "too numerous to mention." According to my letter from Father I understand they don't have the first principles of Civilized warfare—they intend to hang all their prisoners. Oh! humanity! HUMANITY!

And now that we have seen that neither Reason, Justice, nor Humanity is on the side of the North, let us look at the subject in the light of Expediency, admitting, for the sake of argument the while, that it were right or just to wage the war. And viewing it from this standpoint, we ask, what does the North expect to gain by it? Does there live a man so lost to reason & common sense as to imagine that the Union of the seceded States with the N.S. can ever be effected again? And if it could be done by force, how long could a Repubn Gov. exist as a military despotism? And who would not prefer banishment or death to such a life? What Satisfacn could the North themselves have in such an event? They would live a life of misery; provoke the sneers of the civilized world; and draw down upon their heads the terrible wrath of an offended God.

But this war will not be permitted thus to terminate, the South can never be conquered. You yourself know their "spirit" too well to believe otherwise. Rather than be subjugated they will die a triple death. Like their mighty Henry they cry, "Give us liberty or give us death!" And still more I don't think they can be exterminated. 8,000,000 of people, armed in the holy cause of self-defence; struggling for their liberties, honor, interests, & lives, with a laudable ambition, & an unyielding perseverance, are invincible by any force the North can raise to send against them. Besides (to continue the sentiments of Henry), the battle is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Especially so when, as I said before, the forces of Lincoln are not composed generally of men of the first rank of Society (except a few Officers desirous of Fame), but the "offscouring" & rabble of the land—men who have nothing at stake, not even their own lives we might say, since they care so little for anything. So that notwithstanding the immense number (and here let me remind you of the disparity of forces, of which you said so much, at Sumter)—"stubborn facts"—of which you speak, the South has nothing to fear. And, moreover, as certainly as I believe there exists a God of Justice & Mercy, so certainly & conscientiously do I believe He will defend the South from the Vandals of the North. Yes, dark as they seem, the clouds of gloom do not shut out the star of hope, and they are beginning to be spanned by a radiant bow of promise; the fall of Ellsworth & the shattered walls of the once presumed impregble Sumter, abundantly testify that God is on their side, and "if the Lord be for them, who can be against them?" So I heartily say "God speed" them—they shall have my prayers.—But let us take one more glance at the expediency of this matter. Are not the North fighting for a Patroclus' grave in this struggle? What matters an abstract banner? especially to the "matter of fact" Yankee? And then behold the inconsistency of the North in another point; they have through their Representatives, for many years, cried "no more slave territory"; and indeed many of them, such as Seward &c., have declared that slavery must be abolished, as both can't exist under the same gov.; yet, now they are fighting to the death to keep or get back slave territory!!! "Oh! consistency!" And, finally, at this point, will it not cost myriads of lives & millions of money to accomplish their infernal designs, even could they do it? And can the North afford this? Even now it is costing Lincoln's Anarchy (for I can't call it gov.) $1,000,000 per day—a matter of record! Suppose then the war shd last a year, what then? Union or dis-union? Alas, farther separation. Continue it then two years more. What then? Ditto & ditto it will be should it last as long as the "War of the Roses," for we have no houses of York & Lancaster to unite, sign and settle the dispute by marriage—one or both annihilated!—And now I ask how, in the name of Reason, Justice, or Humanity, can you lift up your voice in defence of the North when they are the cause of all this accumulating misery?—when they have deprived the South of her Constitn rights, driven her to the necessity of a separation, and now raise their arm against her as an enemy, declaring either to subjugate her, to overrun her with their vandal hordes, or exterminate from her soil every living creature?—& when, "Oh bloodiest picture in the book of time!" they are ready to repeat with a triple vengeance the untold horrors of the Spanish Inquisition? They are madly, blindly rushing, they know not where. The blame of dissolution rests upon her. And the still more awful responsibility of a civil war will hang as an everlasting incubus upon her shoulders. Then let her beware ere she " cross the Rubicon"—let her "pause long upon its brink." And shall we all perish by her fratricidal hand? Shall the blood, shed by brother in deadly war with brother, flow ignominiously through our rivers to the ocean & be carried by its waves to stain the shores of Nations that for long years have been centring their fond hopes on America as the grand ideal of the gov. they too would some day enjoy? Shall such hopes be blasted as soon as fondly cherished? and now that Italy has trampled upon the tyrannical "Mitre"—torn from her long subdued neck the yoke of Papal bondage—passed from the darkness of superstitious bondage into the light of religious freedom, shall we sink back to what she was, by casting ourselves into the whirlpool of civil war? Shall we not only put out, but shatter, the lamp of liberty, a lamp whose effulgence was beginning to scatter the shades of despotism from off the earth? Shall we extinguish the brightest star in the constellation of human freedom? The united voices of Humanity, Justice, & Reason answer, No! The cries of myriad free men living, & of millions yet unborn, rend the air with a universal negative! and from the vaulted canopy of heaven there swells back the solemn echo, "God forbid!" As if augmented by the mournful strain of 10,000 angels hovering in amazement over the conflicting scene! Oh! then let the North beware!