A WEEK AFTER THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION, FIVE BOSTONIANS CONTRIBUTE TO AN ABRAHAM LINCOLN MEMORIAL

(ABRAHAM LINCOLN).  DS. 1pg. April 21, 1865. Boston. A document pledging one dollar apiece to a Massachusetts memorial to President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had been assassinated one week prior. “Enclosed please find the pledge of myself and family to the cause […] for our late Presidents memory….” Five signatures follow by T. Clement, Mary A. Clement, Clement O Jordan, Elisa M. Huston and one more. The document is in very good condition with some smudges.  I am uncertain if the funds went to the controversial Boston statue of Lincoln that was removed in 2020.

GENERAL HENRY S. COMMAGER, CIVIL WAR ERA POLITICIAN AND SOLDIER, CHARACTERIZES PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON AND PREDICTS HIS IMPEACHMENT: “THE PRESIDENT AND CABINET, AND ESPECIALLY THE CABINET, WERE TERRIBLY FRIGHTENED BY THE THREATENING TONE OF THE RADICALS AND BESIDES THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE WHOLE CABINET ARE AGAINST THE DEMOCRACY”

(ANDREW JOHNSON IMEACHMENT).  ALS. 4 pg. 5” x 7”. January 10, 1867. Washington D.C. An autograph letter signed “H.S. Commager” to “Hon W. Carter”: “The day after I reached Washington about Nov 2^nd last, I place on file in the Post Office Department an application asking for the appointment of Mr. William Higgins to be Post Master at Defiance. Supposing that there would be no question as to his appointment and having a great many other matters to attend t, I did not trouble the Post Master General about it, for some little time, but finding that appointments were not being made, promptly, I called on the Post Master Genl, specially  in regard to the matter, and he then informed me that the President and Cabinet had decided, not to make any more removals, on political grounds alone, until after Congress should meet, and its temper and tone ascertained…The fact is, that, although it took me some time to find it out after coming here, the President and Cabinet, and especially the Cabinet, were terribly frightened by the threatening tone of the Radicals and besides these considerations, the whole Cabinet are against the Democracy. Almost all of them are disposed to get back in some way to the Republican Party. If the President long ago had made a clean and thorough change in his Cabinet, resulting in Democrats he would to-day be master of the situation. Now all depend {sic} on chance...Those who know him best say that he is indeed a strange man; that he can neither be driven nor coaxed to advance one step till he is fully ready; but XX having taken that step forward it is an advance forever…The impeachment idea is dead for this session. But Congress may attempt to reduce the Southern States to Territories. If they pass such an act, the President will not execute it and if the question comes before this Supreme Court, the President will be sustained. Yet the refusal will induce next the Congress to impeach”. This letter by General Henry S. Commager, former Brigadier General of Volunteers and a Democratic Party politician, perfectly sets up the state of political affairs between President Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republican-controlled U.S. Congress. Though both sides had been feuding over Reconstruction since Johnson’s ascension to the presidency, appointment power was also a key divide. The letter describes how Johnson and his Postmaster General Alexander Randall were unwilling to make an appointment for fear of rejection by the U.S. Senate. This fear was codified into law just a month after this letter with the Tenure of Office Act, which would have denied the President the power to remove any executive officer unless the Senate approved the removal during the next full session of Congress, which was unlikely given the existing political dynamics. Johnson’s removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton the following year despite the Senate’s rejection of such a removal was the impetus of Johnson’s impeachment, predicted in this letter, and unsuccessful Senate removal trial. Commager died later in 1867, so he did not live to see his prediction come true. The letter is in fine condition with some folds. Included is a separate typed document with additional biographical information and historical context.

A PHOTO OF PRESIDENTS REAGAN, FORD, CARTER, AND NIXON – SIGNED BY ALL FOUR

JIMMY CARTER (b. 1924). Carter was the Thirty-Ninth President.

GERALD R. FORD (1913-2006). Ford was the Thirty-Eighth President.

RICHARD NIXON (1913-1994). Nixon was the Thirty-Seventh President.

RONALD REAGAN (1911-2004). Reagan was the Fortieth President.

PS. 8” x 10”. N.d. N.p. A photograph signed “Ronald Reagan”, “Gerald R. Ford”, “Jimmy Carter”, and “Richard Nixon”. The color image depicts these four Presidents standing together in the White House on October 8, 1981, in the first year of Reagan’s Presidency. This well-known image was taken as the three former Presidents were about to fly to Egypt for Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat’s funeral.  All four signed on the wide lower margin, likely on different dates. In fine condition.

AN APPEAL TO NEW YORK GOVERNOR GROVER CLEVELAND TO USE ALTERNATE RESERVOIRS FOR THE NEW YORK CITY FIRE SERVICE

GROVER CLEVELAND (1837-1908). Cleveland, the 22nd and 24th Presidents, was the only one not elected to consecutive terms. He served an New York Governor before his election as President.

D. 2pp. 8” x 11”. New York. May 18th 1883. A document sent to New York Governor Grover Cleveland; it is signed by the ”Committee of Fifteen appointed by the Merchants of New York”. They ask ”to obtain a supply of water for a special fire service, from the water sheds of Orange and Rockland counties; if, upon examination, it shall be deemed practicable to do so…should they deem it for the best interest of the City to do so…That bill (Senate Bill No 441) is now awaiting your signature to become a law. For the reasons given in the Memorial referred to, we ask that it may receive your favorable consideration…”. The document is in fine condition with dark ink and white paper; the original envelope is included. A fine and early New York fire piece.

A DOCUMENT CONCERNING JAMES GARFIELD’S ESTATE

JAMES A. GARFIELD (1831-1881). Garfield was the Twentieth President.  He served that role for a little over six months before being assassinated. 

DS. 1pg. 5” x 8”. April 20, 1882. Cleveland, Ohio. A handwritten document pertaining to President James A. Garfield’s estate.  It was written several months after Garfield’s death and signed “Joseph Rudolph” as administrator. Rudolph was the brother of Garfield’s wife Lucretia.  It states: “Riggs and Co. Washington D.C. Pay to Bateman & Co. or order sixteen thousand seven hundred and thirty nine dollars fifty two cts. Joseph Rudolph Administrator”.  Warner Bateman was a long-time, prominent Cincinnati attorney.  $16,000 was a tremendous sum of money in the 1880s.  The document has folds, a minor punch hole and pencil writing on it; it is in good condition.

AS SECRETARY OF STATE, JAMES MADISON PROTESTS GREAT BRITAIN’S 1807 ORDERS IN COUNCIL, ON BEHALF OF “A NATION WHICH CANNOT FOR A MOMENT BE UNCONSCIOUS OF ITS RIGHTS”

JAMES MADISON (1751-1836). Madison was the Fourth President after being Thomas Jefferson’s Secretary of State. He was also the Father of the Constitution.

DAVID ERSKINE, 2^nd BARON ERSKINE (1776-1855). Erskine was a British diplomat who served as Minister to the United States during the second half of Jefferson’s Presidency.

Document. 29pgs. March 28, 1808. Department of State, Washington. A contemporary copy of a very long letter sent by James Madison as Secretary of State to David Erskine as Great Britain’s Minister to the United States. Madison’s topic was the 1807 Orders in Council, a series of trade restrictions enacted by the Privy Council of the United Kingdom in response to the Napoleonic Wars. Their detrimental effect on American commerce led to the War 1812. Despite playing no role in the Napoleonic Wars, the young nation’s trade was essentially caught in the crossfire as Great Britain and Napoleonic France attempted to curtail each other’s ocean-going commerce, and the United States was having none of it. Madison’s letter conveys America’s anger over was it perceived as undeserved retaliation by England: “Having laid before the President your letter of the 23d of Febry explaining the character of certain British orders of Council issued in Novr. last, I proceed to communicate the observations and representations which will manifest to your government the sentiments of the President on so deep a violation of the commerce and rights of the United States. These orders interdict to neutral nations, or rather to the United States, now the only Commercial nation in a state of neutrality, all commerce with the enemies of Great Britain, now nearly the whole commercial word; with certain exceptions only, and under certain regulations, but too evidently fashioned to the commercial, the manufacturing, and the fiscal policy of Great Britain; and on that account, the more derogatory from the honor and independence of neutral nations…The last orders like that of Jany, proceed on the most unsubstantial foundation. They assume for fact an acquiescence of the United States, in an unlawful application to them of the French Decree: and they assume for a principle, that the right of retaliation accruing to one belligerent against a neutral, thro’ whom an injury is done by another belligerent, is not to have for its measure, that of the injury received, but may be exercised in any extent, and under any modifications which may suit the pleasure or the policy of a complaining party. The fact, Sir, is unequivocally disowned…I state with equal confidence, that at no time have the United States acquiesced in violation of their neutral rights injurious to Great Britain, or any other belligerent nation…Retaliations are measures of rigor in all cases. Where they are to operate thro’ a third and involuntary party, they will never be hastily resorted to by a magnanimous or a just power; which will always allow to the third party its right to discuss the merits of the case; and will never permit itself to enforce its measures, without affording a reasonable time for the use of reasonable means, for substituting another remedy. What would be the situation of neutral powers, if the first blow levelled thro’ them by one belligerent against another, was to leave them no choice but between the retaliating vengeance of the latter, and an [in]stand declaration of War against the former. Reason revolts against this, and the sole alternative. The United States could no more be bound to evade the British orders by an immediate war with France than they were bound to atone for the burning of the French ship of War on the shore of North Carolina by an immediate resort to arms against Great Britain…The French Decree of Novr 1806, undertook to declare the British Isles in a state of Blockade, to be enforced, if you please, against the neutral commerce of the United States, on the high seas, according to the faculty possessed for the purpose. As far as it was actually enforced or an effect resulted from an apprehension that it could and would be enforced, it was an injury to Great Britain, for which, let it be supposed, the United States were answerable. On the other hand, as far as it was not enforced, and evidently either would not or could not be enforced, no injury was experienced by Great Britain and no remedy could like against the United States…Such are the pretexts, and such the principles, on which one great Branch of the lawful commerce of this Country became a victim to the first British order; and on which the last orders are now sweeping from the ocean, all its most valuable remains. Against such an unprecedented system of warfare on neutral rights, and national independence, the common judgement and common feelings of mankind must forever protest. I touch, Sir, with reluctance the question on which of the belligerent sides, the invasion of neutral rights had its origin. As the United States do not acquiesce in these invasions by either, there could be no plea for involving them in the controversy…If the commerce of the United States could therefore in any case, be reasonably made the victim and the sport of mutual charges and reproaches between belligerent parties, with respect to the priority of their aggressions on neutral commerce, Great Britain must look beyond the epoch she has chosen for illegal acts of her adversary, in support of the allegation on which she found her retaliating Edicts against our commerce…I forbear Sir, to express all the emotions with which such a language, on such an occasion, is calculated to inspire a nation which cannot for a moment be unconscious of its rights, nor mistake for an alleviation of wrongs, regulations, to admit the validity of which would be to assume badges of humiliation, never worn by an independent power…In fini, Sir, the President sees in the Edicts communicated by you, facts assumed which did not exist, principles asserted which never can be admitted; and, under the name of retaliation, measures transcending the limits reconcilable with the facts and the principles, if both were as correct as they are unfounded. He sees, moreover, in the modifications of the system, regulations violating equally our neutral rights, and our national sovereignty. He persuaded himself therefore that your Government will see, in the justice of the observations now made, in addition to those I had the honor verbally to state to you in the first instance, that the United States are well warranted in looking for a speedy revocation of a system, which is every day augmenting the mass of injury for which the United States have the best of claims to redress.” The American Minister to Great Britain William Pickney docketed the verso. The British did not revoke the Orders in Council until 1812, by which time the United States had already declared war against Great Britain. Madison was President at this point. Filled with Madison’s prose and masterful argument, this letter is a fascinating insight into America’s international relations in its early years as a nation. In particular, it shows how the United States refused to be bullied by the country from which it had so recently won its independence. The letter is in fine condition, though the ink often shows through from page to page. Its contents appear in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. 3, p.209-13. A complete, typed transcript accompanies this manuscript copy.