Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-07-09
MR.. NICOLAY REPLIES.
He Addresses . Letter Today 10 Editor
Mcclure.


He Addresses . Letter Today TO Editor
Mcclure.
The following has been handed to The EvRx-
ING STAR for publication by Mr.. John @.
Nicolay:
Editor Philadelphia Times: will not reply
70 your personal abuse. IL proves nothing but
your rage and wounded vanity at being ex-
posed in gross historical misstatement.
You asserted that President Lincoln opposed
the denomination Of Hannibal Hamlin for Vice
PRESIDENT refuted that assertion by calling
attention to the written record wherein Lincoln
IN his own handwriting explicitly states
tine contrary. You now reassert your state
ment, or to put il in other words You accuse
President Lincoln Of acting low political de-
ceit, and with his own hand writing deliberate
lie. The country will not believe the mon
strous implication.
Allow me to restate the facts. was at the
Baltimore convention as a spectator. The
chairman OF the Illinois delegation, Hon. D. C.
Cook, had q conversation with me about the
course OF certain disaffeeted leaders in Illinois.
That conversation reported to the President
In letter to Mnj. Hay, my assistant private
secretary. in part as follows:
what trauspired at home and what he has
heard from several sources have made Cook
suspicious that SWEET may be untrue to Lin
coin. One of the straws which lead him to this
belief is that SWEET has telegraphed here urging
the Illinois delegation to 60 for Holt.
Cook wants to know confdentally whether
SWEET is all right-whether in urging Holt for
Vice President he reflects the Presidents
wishes whether the President has any prefer
ence. either personally or on the score of
policy-or whether he wishes not even to in.
terfere by a confidential indication
Upon this letter President Lincoln made the
following Endorsement in his own handwriting:
SWEET is unquestionably all right. Mr..
Holt is a good man, but l had not heard or
or thought OF him for v. P. Wish not to inter-
fere about V. 2. Cannot interfere about plat
form-convention must judge for ITSELF
This written evidence is quoted in our his
tory and no amount of denial or assertion to
contrary can overturn 1t.
In trying to evade its force you assert that
Lincoln called you to Washington and urged
the nomination Of johnson and that you re-
turned to Baltimore to work and vote in
obedience to that request against your per-
sonal predictions. Let us examine this claim.
The official proceedings of the convention show
that you were one Of the four delegates at large
from Pennsylvania, the others being Simon
Cameron, W. w. ketchum, NJ. b. Lowry.
while the list of District delegates contains the
The proceedings also show that you acted an
entirely minor part. You were member of
| the committee on organization and presented
its report recommending the permanent Off
GERS which were elected. With that presentation
your service and influence ended SO far rs can
be gathered from the proceedings. Of other
Pennsylvania delegates VIM. W. ketchum was
one OF the vice presidents of the convention.
E. Mcpherson was on the committee on Gre
dentials, A. H. Reeder on the committee on
nr mt no vv,tfs
on resolutions. S. F. Wilson on the committee
on rules and order of business, s. A. Puryi-
ance on the national committee, while Gen.
Simon Cameron held the leading and important
post of chairman of thePennsylvana delegation.
So again. among those who made motions and
speeches were Cameron, Thaddeus Stevens. A.
H. Reeder. c. A. Waldorf. Galusha A. Grow and
VI. B. Lowry, but beyond the presentation of
the routine report have mentioned, your name
did not give forth the squeak of the smallest
mouse. Is it probable that Lincoln among all
these men would have called you alone to re-
ceive his secret instructions?
1t is matter of public history that Simon
Cameron was more prominent and efficient
ment in that state to give Lincoln
second term and that on the 14th OF January,
1854, he transmitted to the President the writ
ten request of every Union member Of the Penn
sylvania legislature to accept a denomination.
This and his subsequent open and unvarying
support left no doubt of CGmeron's attitude.
How was it with you? l find among Lincolns
papers the following letter from you:
FRANKLIN REPOSITORY OFFICE,
Chsmbersburg, Pa, May 2, 1864.
''Sir: have been amazed to see il intimated
in one or two journals that l am not COR
daily in favor of your denomination.
l shall notice the limitations no further
than to assure you that you will have no more
cordial, earnest or faithful supporter in the
Baltimore convention than
Your obedient servant, A. K. MCCLURE"
ITO the President
That is, only month before the Baltimore
convention, you felt called upon to personal
protest against accusations of party disloyalty.
But this is not all. When the time came to
make the nominations for Vice President,
Simon Cameron, chairman Of the Pennsyl-
vania delegation, and one Of the earliest and
most persistent friends Of Lincoln. himself
nominated Hannibal Hamlir for Vice President,
while the whole vote of Pennsylvania was
on the first ballot cast for Hamlins
nomination. So also the Illinois delega-
ton cast its entire vote for TAM
lin on the first ballot. Does it
stand to reason that Lincoln called upon you
to defeat Hamlin and nominate johnson, and
gave no intimation Of this desire to the chair
man Of the Pennsylvania delegation and of the
Illinois delegation?
And once more, is it probable that if Lincoln
had desired the nomination of johnson he
would have allowed SWEET. lone of the
Presidents most intimate friends" to urge the
nomination of Holt? Dare you venture the
assertion that Lincoln was deceiving 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 deliberate lie to US!
That may be your conception of Abraham
Lincoln. but it Is not mine. That may be your
system of politics, but it was not his.
JNo. G. NIooLAY.