Files
Download
Download Full Text (26.9 MB)
Content Warning
The Charles P. McIlvaine letters were written in the 18th and 19th century and therefore may contain language that we understand today as harmful or offensive. You may encounter paternalist descriptions of Native Americans, racial slurs, or sexism. For more information, see our policy page.
Description
Trip to England.
Date
1-28-1862
Keywords
letter, McIlvaine, Chase, England
Recommended Citation
McIlvaine, Charles Pettit, "Letter from C.P. McIlvaine to S.P. Chase" (1862). Charles Pettit McIlvaine Letters. 248.
https://digital.kenyon.edu/mcilvaine_letters/248
Rights Statement
Transcript
Bp. McIlvaine,
Sunday, London Jan. 28 1862
My dear friend,
Thank you for a good, long letter-- begun Dec. 17-- and entertained and ended two weeks later (not the worse for that). [?] gave me the evidences of how early before the first [?] the [?] affair was heard of at home, your [?] had taken the news of it, which men afterwards acted [?] and I have not failed to use it, in answer to the sides which one hears so often here, that had it not been for the prospect of the war, and a [?] of a country [?], the captain would not have been delivered up. The [?] sound scared in [?] her (we Americans) by the French Empire’s speech, so different as it was [?] from what was expected and after that our fort was to be [?] by [?] [?], who returned from Paris later, Dr. M[?] and I believe Thomsend, says he was informed by the two former that “Better information” had changed the Emperor’s mind for the forecast. I suppose information as to the stone part of the blockade. I rather think it was a [?] of our Gov’t-- a supplicant of which, precisely as they feel in regard to all [?] found the Emperor’s words, lead them to interpose any words of Dr. Sewards in that most unfortunate sense they can properly be made to bear. I will say a little as to the [?] of this surprisingly [?] [?] feeds me. Not to go back away further than Dr. D’s [?] conversations with the Duke of New Castle. I have heard that everywhere. It was ([?] supposes) the staple of the talk-- “What are we to make stand where Dr. D would say so and so?” How sick I am of the question. Dr. [?] the Dark’s account of what another had a very great deal to do with the strong idea, living for a long time, that the Great affair was an intended insult on my part and with the hearty breathing up of the [?] be ready for [?]. And now it is known here that Mr. J denies the whole thing away. There is not a word of truth in it-- that he knew not the [?] but [?] and the only one going for the [?] [?] to the Nature. Mr. Remy [?] with [?] today of a long letter from Dr. Everett also who ever had previously rec’d one from Dr. Q then denying all. But the Duke is very pristine and particular. I know the version at least to where he told it-- and one of those heard it of [?] twice. I have heard nothing of the Duke since our last news is the [?] of B[?] force and who succeeded after Remy Jr.
I have just heard of the treason of the Rev. Dr. Wilmer whose 20 trusts and whose person ever searched in his way to be and found it certain so much [?] and I saw the boxes, or trunks, at Barnam the day [?] I went last to walk and he was there and talked a considerate sort of [?] so that we [?]. I am sorry he was not dealt with at least as squarely as any [?] would have been. He abused and intended to abuse the confidence placed in a clergyman and my dict[?] is that such ever should have a “benefit of clergy.”