Autobiography of Seventy Years Part 2

CHAPTER III SAMUEL h.o.a.r

I was born in Concord August 29, 1826. My grandfather, two great-grandfathers, and three of my father's uncles were at Concord Bridge in the Lincoln Company, of which my grandfather, Samuel h.o.a.r, whom I well remember, was lieutenant, on the 19th of April, 1775. The deposition of my great-grandfather, John h.o.a.r, with a few others, relating to the events of that day, was taken by the patriots and sent to England by a fast- sailing s.h.i.+p, which reached London before the official news of the battle at Concord came from the British commander.

John had previously been a soldier in the old French War and was a prisoner among the Indians for three months. His life was not a very conspicuous one. He had been a Selectman of Lexington, dwelling in the part of the town afterward incorporated with Lincoln. There is in existence a doc.u.ment manumitting his slave, which, I am happy to say, is the only existing evidence that any ancestor of mine ever owned one.

My father's grandfather, on the mother's side, was Colonel Abijah Peirce, of Lincoln. He was prominent in Middles.e.x County from a time preceding the Revolutionary War down to his death. He was one of the Committee of the Town who had charge of corresponding with other towns and with the Committee of Safety in Boston. The day before the battle at Concord Bridge, he had been chosen Colonel of a regiment of Minute Men. But he had not got his commission, taken the oath, or got his equipments. So he went into the battle as a private in the company in which his son-in-law was lieutenant, armed with nothing but a cane. After the first volley was exchanged he crossed the bridge and took the cartridge-box and musket of one of the two British soldiers who were killed, which he used during the day. The gun was preserved for a long time in his family, and came to my grandfather, after his death. It was the first trophy of the Revolutionary War taken in battle. Such things, however, were not prized in those days as they are now. One of my uncles lent the musket to one of his neighbors for the celebration of the taking of Cornwallis, and it never was brought back. We would give its weight in gold to get it back.

I will put on record two stories about Colonel Peirce, which have something of a superst.i.tious quality in them. I have no doubt of their truth, as they come from persons absolutely truthful and not superst.i.tious or credulous themselves.

When Colonel Peirce was seventy years old, he told his wife and my aunt, her granddaughter, from whom I heard the story, who was then a grown-up young woman, that he was going out to the barn and going up to the high beams. In those days the farmers' barns had the hay in bays on each side, and over the floor in the middle rails were laid across from one side to the other, on which corn-stalks, for bedding the cattle, and other light things were put. They urged him not to go, and said an old man like him should not take such risks; to which he replied by dancing a hornpipe in the room in their presence, showing something of that exhilaration of spirit which the Scotch called being "fey" and which they regard as a presage of approaching misfortune. He went out, and within a few minutes fell from the high beams down to the floor and was instantly killed.

The other story is that a little while before this happened he said that he thought he saw the dim and misty figure of a s.h.i.+p pa.s.s slowly from one side of the barn to the other, under the roof.

A like story is told of Abraham Lincoln; that he used to see a vision of a s.h.i.+p before any great event, and that it came to him the night before he died.

I asked Mr. Secretary Hay about the Lincoln anecdote and give his reply.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WAs.h.i.+NGTON, April 18, 1903.

_Dear Senator h.o.a.r:_

You will find on page 281 of Volume 10 of "The Life of Lincoln,"

by Nicolay and Hay, all I know about the story.

General Grant, in an interview with the President, on the 14th of April--the day he was shot--expressed some anxiety as to the news from Sherman. "The President answered him in that singular vein of poetic mysticism, which, though constantly held in check by his strong common sense, formed a remarkable element in his character. He a.s.sured Grant that the news would come soon and come favorable, for he had last night had his usual dream which preceded great events. He seemed to be, he said, in a singular and indescribable vessel, but always the same, moving with great rapidity towards a dark and indefinite sh.o.r.e. He had had this dream before Antietam, Murfreesboro, Gettysburg and Vicksburg."

The story is also found in George Eliot's Life (Vol. 3, 113), as related by Charles d.i.c.kens on the authority of Stanton, with characteristic amplifications.

Yours faithfully, JOHN HAY.

The Honorable George F. h.o.a.r United States Senate

My father, Samuel h.o.a.r of Concord, was born in 1778 and died in 1856. He was one of the most eminent lawyers at the Ma.s.sachusetts Bar. To this statement I can give better testimony than my own, in the following letter from the Honorable Eben F. Stone, late member of Congress from the Ess.e.x District.

WAs.h.i.+NGTON 9 March, '84.

_My dear Mr. h.o.a.r:_

When I was a law student, I dined at Ipswich in our county, with the Judges of the Supreme Court and the members of the Ess.e.x Bar, who then had a room and a table by themselves.

The conversation took a professional turn, and a good deal was said about Mr. Choate's great skill and success as an advocate. Judge Shaw then remarked that, sitting at nisi prius in different parts of the State, he had had an opportunity to compare the different lawyers who were distinguished for their success with juries, and that there was no man in the State, in his opinion, who had so much influence with a jury as Sam h.o.a.r of Concord. This he ascribed not simply to his legal ability, but largely to the confidence the people had in his integrity and moral character.

Yours truly, E. F. STONE.

Mr. h.o.a.r was a.s.sociated with Mr. Webster in the defence of Judge Prescott when he was impeached before the Senate of Ma.s.sachusetts. He encountered Webster, and Choate, and Jeremiah Mason, and John Davis, and the elder Marcus Morton, and other giants of the Bar, in many a hard battle. Mr. Webster makes affectionate reference to him in a letter to my brother, now in existence. He was a member of the Harrisburg Convention which nominated General Harrison for the Presidency in 1839.

He represented Concord in the Ma.s.sachusetts Convention to Revise the Const.i.tution, in 1820, in which convention his father, Samuel h.o.a.r, represented Lincoln. When he first rose to speak in that body, John Adams said, "That young man reminds me of my old friend, Roger Sherman." He was a Federalist, afterward a Whig, and in the last years of his life a Republican.

Mr. h.o.a.r succeeded Edward Everett as Representative in Congress from the Middles.e.x District in 1835. He served there but a single term. He made one speech, a Const.i.tutional argument in support of the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. He also took rather a prominent part in a discussion in which the Whig members complained of one of the rulings of the Democratic speaker.

His service was not long enough to gain for him any considerable national distinction. But that he made a good impression on the House appears from an extract of a letter I lately received from my cla.s.smate, Rev. Walter Mitch.e.l.l, the author of the spirited and famous poem, "Tacking s.h.i.+p off Fire Island."

He says: "I heard your uncle, Mr. Eliot, say that when your father went to Congress the Southern members said, 'Where has this man been all his life, and why have we never heard of him? With us a man of his ability would be known all over the South.'"

My father retired from active practice at the Bar shortly after his return from Congress in 1837. In 1844 an event occurred which contributed largely to the bitter feeling between the two sections of the country, which brought on the Civil War.

As is well known, under the laws of South Carolina, colored seamen on s.h.i.+ps that went into the port of Charleston were imprisoned during the stay of the s.h.i.+p, and sold to pay their jail fees if the s.h.i.+p went off and left them, or if the fees were not paid.

The Legislature of Ma.s.sachusetts directed the Governor to employ counsel to test the const.i.tutionality of these laws.

No Southern lawyer of sufficient ability and distinction could be found who would undertake the duty. The Governor found it difficult to procure counsel who were in active practice.

Mr. h.o.a.r was led by a strong sense of duty to leave his retirement in his old age and undertake the delicate and dangerous mission.

When he arrived in South Carolina and made known his errand, the people of the State, especially of the city of Charleston, were deeply excited. The Legislature pa.s.sed angry resolutions, directing the Governor to expel from the State, "the Northern emissary" whose presence was deemed an insult. The mob of Charleston threatened to destroy the hotel where Mr. h.o.a.r was staying. He was urged to leave the city, which he firmly and steadfastly refused to do. The mob were quieted by the a.s.surances of leading gentlemen that Mr. h.o.a.r would be removed.

A deputation of seventy princ.i.p.al citizens waited upon him at his hotel and requested him to consent to depart. He had already declined the urgent request of Dr. Whittredge, an eminent physician, to withdraw and take refuge at his plantation, saying he was too old to run and could not go back to Ma.s.sachusetts if he had returned without an attempt to discharge his duty. The committee told him that they had a.s.sured the people that he should be removed, and that he must choose between stepping voluntarily into a carriage and being taken to the boat, or being dragged by force. He then, and not until then, said he would go. He was taken by the committee to the boat, which sailed for Wilmington.

It has generally been said that Mr. h.o.a.r was driven from Charleston by a mob. This I suppose to be technically true.

But it is not true in the popular sense of the words. The committee of seventy, although they had no purpose of personal violence, other than to place one old gentleman in a carriage and take him to a boat, were, of course, in every legal sense a mob. But when that committee waited upon him the personal danger was over.

A solitary negative vote against the resolve of the Legislature directing Mr. h.o.a.r to be expelled was cast by C. S. Memmenger, afterward Secretary of the Treasury of the Southern Confederacy.

He is said to have been a Union man in 1832.

I was told by General Hurlburt of Illinois, a distinguished officer in the Civil War, and member of the national House of Representatives, that at the time of my father's mission to South Carolina, he was a law student in the office of James L. Petigru. Mr. Petigru, as is well known, was a Union man during the Civil War. Such, however, was the respect for his great ability and character that he was permitted to live in Charleston throughout the War. It is said that on one occasion while this strife was going on, a stranger in Charleston met Mr. Petigru in the street and asked him the way to the Insane Hospital. To this the old man answered by pointing north, south, east and west, and said, "You will find the Insane Hospital in every direction here."

According to General Hurlburt, Mr. Petigru had quietly organized a company of young men whom he could trust, who were ready, under his lead, to rescue Mr. h.o.a.r and insure his personal safety if he were attacked by the mob.

John Quincy Adams says in his diary, speaking of the transaction: "I approved the whole of his conduct." Governor Briggs, in communicating the facts to the Legislature, says in a special message: "The conduct of Mr. h.o.a.r under the circ.u.mstances seems to have been marked by that prudence, firmness and wisdom which have distinguished his character through his life."

Mr. Emerson says, in a letter dated December 17, 1844:

"Mr. h.o.a.r has just come home from Carolina, and gave me this morning a narrative of his visit. He had behaved admirably well, I judge, and there were fine heroic points in his story.

One expression struck me, which, he said, he regretted a little afterward, as it might sound a little vapouring. A gentleman who was very much his friend called him into a private room to say that the danger from the populace had increased to such a degree that he must now insist on Mr. h.o.a.r's leaving the city at once, and he showed him where he might procure a carriage and where he might safely stop on the way to his plantation, which he would reach the next morning. Mr. h.o.a.r thanked him but told him again that he could not and would not go, and that he had rather his broken skull should be carried to Ma.s.sachusetts by somebody else, than to carry it home safe himself whilst his duty required him to remain.

The newspapers say, following the Charleston papers, that he consented to depart: this he did not, but in every instance refused,--to the Sheriff, and acting Mayor, to his friends, and to the committee of the S. C. a.s.sociation, and only went when they came in crowds with carriages to conduct him to the boat, and go he must,--then he got into the coach himself, not thinking it proper to be dragged."

I add this letter from Dr. Edward Everett Hale.

39 HIGHLAND ST., ROXBURY, Ma.s.s., Mar. 13, 1884.

_Dear h.o.a.r:_

Thank you very much for your memoir of your father. I was in Was.h.i.+ngton the day he and your sister came home from Charleston.

I remember that Grinnell told me the news--and my first real feeling _in life_ that there must be a war, was when Grinnell said on the Avenue: "I do not know but we may as well head the thing off now--and fight it out." The first public intelligence the North had of the matter was in my letter to the _Daily Advertiser,_ which was reprinted in New York, their own correspondents not knowing of the expulsion.

Always yours, EDW. E. HALE.

I have Dr. Vedder's permission to publish the accompanying correspondence, which so happily turns into a means of delightful reconciliation what has been so long, but can be no longer, a painful memory. I was received in Charleston with the delightful hospitality of which no other people in the world so fully understand the secret.

CHARLESTON, S. C., Oct. 20, 1898.

THE HONORABLE GEORGE F. h.o.a.r.

_Dear Sir:_

We have a New England Society in Charleston which is now seventy- six years old. It has had a notable history, Daniel Webster having been among its annual orators. Its Forefathers' Anniversary is the social and literary event of our year. I write to extend the warm greeting of the Society to yourself, and the earnest request that you will be our guest at the banquet on Forefathers' Day Dec. 22, and speak to the sentiment-- "The Day we Celebrate," or any other that you would prefer.

Of course, it will be our privilege to make your coming wholly without cost to yourself. May I venture to urge that your presence with us will have a beautiful significance in its relation to the good feeling which so happily obtains in all our land, and a past event which a.s.sociates your honored Father's name so memorably and sadly with our City? Charleston would fain give the honored Son a welcome which shall obliterate the past.

Hoping for a favorable and early reply, I remain, Yours with great respect, CHARLES S. VEDDER, _President._