The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-07-10
Another Chapter in the Controversy Over
Lincoln's Attitude Toward Hamlin.
The Private Secretary Reiterstes His Previous
Statement and Accuses the Philadelphia
Editor Of Willful Misrepresentation.
Hon. B. C. Cook Also Says Andrew John
son Was Not the Presidents Choice.
Both the Illinois and Pennsylvania Delega.
tiOns We're a Unit for Hamlin-General
Sickles's Alleged Mission to the South.
NICOLAY TO MCCLURE.
Lincoln's Private Secretary Strikes Back N
the Philadelphia Editor.

NICOLAY TO MCCLURE.
Lincoln's Private Secretary Strikes Back at
the Philadeiphia Editor.
WASHINGTON, July mir. John G. Nico-
lay. President Lincoln's private secretary.
has to-day addressed the following open
letter to Col. A. X. Mcclure, editor of the
philadelphia Times:
Il will not reply to your personal abuse.
1t proves nothing but your rage and wound
ed vanity at being exposed in a gross his
torical misstatement. You asserted that
President Lincoln opposed the renomina-
ton of Hannibal Hamlin for Nice-presi-
dent. L refuted that assertion by calling
attention to the written record. wherein
Lincoln. in his own handwriting. explicitly
states the contrary. You now reassert your
statements; or, to put 1t IN other words, you
accuse President Lincoln of acting a low
political deceit. and with his own hand
writing a deliberate lie. The cOuntry Will
not believe the monstrOus implication.
ALLOW me to restate the fact. l was at
the Baltimore convention as U spectator.
The chairman of the Illinois delegation,
Hon. h. G.. Cook. had @ conversation with
me about the course of certain disatfected
leaders in Illinois. That conversation i
repeated to the President in q letter to
Major Hay. my assistant private secretary.
in part as follows:
What ansplred Ia at homes and whatheh has heard
from several sources, have made Cook suspicious
that SWEET may be untrue TO Lincoln. One OF the
straws which leads him to this belief is that
s s% has has tei so rap ned, mere urging G the ii Mdoas
to know confidentially whether SWEET is all right
whether in urging. Holt for Vice. president he
reflects the Presidents wishes, whether the Pres
ident has any preference. either personally or on
the score of policy, or whether he wishes not
even TO interfere by a confidential indication.
Upon this letter President Lincoln made
the fOllOwingIndorsement in his own hand
writing:
''Swett is unquestionably all right. Mr.. Holt is
a good man, but L had not heard or thought OF
him tor Vice-president. Wish to not interfere
about Nice-preSident. Cannot interfere about
platform; convention must judge for itself.
M'CLURE's WORK IN CONVENTION.
This written evidence is quoted In our
history. and no amount of denial or asser-
tiOn to the contrary can ever turn ii. In
trying to evade its force, you assert that
Lincoln called you to Washington and
urged the nomination of Johnson, and that
you returned to Baltimore to work and
vote, in obedience to that request,
against your personal predictions.
Let us examine this claim. The Official
proceedings of the conve ntion show
thai you were one of the four delegates at
large from Pennsylvania. the others being
Simon Cameron, w. W. ketchum, III. b.
Lowery, while the list of district delegates
contains the names of many other eminent
Pennsylvanians. The proceedings also
show that you acted al entirely minor part.
You were a member of the committee on
organization and presented its report, rec
omEending the permanent officers which
Were elected. With that presentation your
service and influence ended so far as can
be gathered from the proceedings. OF
other Pennsylvania delegates, William
w. Ketchum was one OF the
vice presidents of the convention; T..
Mcpherson was on the committee on Gre
on organization: ~. B. Lowery. on the COM
mittee on resolutions; 5. +. Wilson, on the
committee on rules and order or business;
). A. PurvlaDce. on the national commit
tee. while Gen. Simon Cameron held the
leading and important post of chairman of
the PenDsyivaDia delegation. So again,
among those who n motions and
speeches, were Cameron, Thaddeus Ste
vens A. III. Reeder. &. A. Waldorf. Galu-
sha A. Grow and II. b. Lowery. Beyond
mentioned, your name did not give forth
the squeak of the smallest mouse. Iii 8 not
probable that Lincoln, among all these
men. would have called you alone to re-
ceive his secret Instructions.
1T Is a matter OF public history that
Simon Cameron was more prominent
and efficient than any other Pennsyl-
vaniau in the movement IN that State
10 klSo IIucOlu u 6oCOuu toTUl, anu
that on the 14th of January. 1864. he
transmitted to the President the written
request of every Union member of the
Pennsylvania Legislature to accept a re-
nomination. This and his subsequent open
and unvarying support left no donbt of
CamerOn's attitude.
SUSPICION OF DIsLOYALTY.
How was ~ with you7 l find among
Lincoln's papers the following letter from
you:
"FRANKLIN REPOSITORY OFFICE,
JOHANNESBURG, Pa, May 2, 1864.
"Sir-I have been amazed to see il intimated
in one or two journals that L am not cordially in
favor OF your denomination. | shall notice the
intimatiOns no further than to assure you that
you will have no more cordial, earnest or faith
full supporter in the Baltimore convention than
your Obedisnt servant, A. K. MCCLURE.
ITO the President.
Thus, only a month before'the Baltimore
convention You felt called upon to person.
ally protest against accusations of party
dislOyalty: but this is not all. When tho
time came TO make the nominations for
Vice-president. Simon Cameron, chairman
of the Pennsylvania delegation, and one of
the earliest and most persistent friends of
Lincoln, himself nominated Hannibal
Hamlin for Nice-president. while the
whole vote of Pennsylvania was on the
first ballot cast for Hamlin's denomination.
So, also. the Illinois delegation cast it's en-
tire vote for Hamlin on the first ballot.
Does it stand to reason that Lincoln called
upon You to desert Hamlin and nominate
Johnson. and gave no intimation of this
desire to the chatham OF the Pennsylvania
delegation and of the Illinois delegation?
And once more, IS IL probable that il
Lincoln had desired the nomination of
Johnson he would have allowed SWEET, 'one
of the Presidents most intimate friends. to
urge the nomination of iioltp Dare you
venture the assertion that Lincoln WAS de-
ceiving Cameron. deceiving Cook. carrying
on a secret intrigue against Hamlin and
another secret intrigue against Holt, and
that on top of the whole he was writing n
deliberate lie to rs? That may be your con-
ceptIon of Abraham Lincoln. but it is not
mine. That may he yOnr sy stem of politics.
but lie was not his. JOHN q. NICOLAY."