of inordinate egotism and vanity, inclined to make a fool of himself, and absolutely intolerant of dissent from his extravagant notions. This surely is not the picture you meant to draw. But with such quotations as that of what Richard H. Dana once said, in an irritated state of mind, and of many things you say yourself, it does convey something like that impression; and this impression is but little modified by what you drop in by way of disclaimers. Sumner has been much misjudged by those who did not intimately know him and who formed their opinions of him mainly from hearsay. I did know him intimately. I knew his weak as well as his strong points. I did not win his friendship by “deference.” We disagreed on things which he had very much at heart, for instance his civil rights bill. But this did not at all disturb our warm and confidential relations. I was in daily intercourse with him during the critical period you describe. I witnessed in him the working of motives deserving the highest respect, and I must confess, it touches me somewhat painfully when I find them called in question.
I also was well acquainted with the character and the doings of the White-House-crew of that time, which pursued Sumner and which likewise drove out of the Cabinet its best members—Hoar, Cox and Jewell—and came very near making Fish himself resign from sheer disgust.
Pardon the frankness of my criticisms. I have spoken without concealment because I thought that was what you desired.
P. S. I will not detain this letter any longer, and send it off without having copied it. Will you do me the favor of having a copy made by your typewriter, and of sending it to me? You will oblige me. I expect to use it in writing my memoirs.
