Note 68 — Chapter XXVII · President Johnson Interposes

In the preparation for the publication of these Memoirs, I found myself continually lighting upon evidences of irregularity in the Government’s proceedings against Mr. Clay. I was met constantly by what appeared to be a persistent and inexplicable persecution of Messrs. Davis and Clay (if not a plot against them, as hinted by Representative Rogers) at the hands of the War Department, acting through Mr. Joseph Holt. I encountered charges, not ambiguously made against Mr. Holt, of malice, and of rancour which would be satisfied only with the “judicial murder” of the prisoners in his hands. Charges of malice and meanness have been made against him by living men as frequently as by those who have passed away; men, moreover, whose integrity of purpose has never been challenged. A rather general condemnation of Mr. Holt appears in certain correspondence of the sixties. It was uttered publicly in the press in the early and middle portion of that decade. In the pamphlet alluded to and quoted from in Chapter XXII. of these “Memoirs,” the Rev. Stuart Robinson had quoted Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, and another, to show the peculiar estimate in which Mr. Holt was then held. “I know little,” wrote Mr. Robinson, in June of ’5, “either of the personal or public character of Mr. Holt.... The only well-defined impression I have of his personal character is gained from two remarks concerning him in 1861–’2. The first, that of a venerable Christian lady, of the old-fashioned country type, made to me: ‘Joe Holt, Sir, is the only young man I ever knew that left this country without leaving one friend behind him in it!’ The other, the fierce retort of the venerable Crittenden, to a Cabinet officer, reported to me by Governor Morehead: ‘Joseph Holt, of Kentucky, did you say, Sir? I tell you, Sir, by Heaven! there is no such man as Joseph Holt, of Kentucky!’”

In addition to such contemporaneous public utterances concerning Mr. Holt, I have learned much that is corroborative by word of mouth from men whose opinions have been softened by time, and whose conspicuous positions in national affairs establish their utterances as both weighty and trustworthy. Said one of these, a United States Senator, within the year (1903), “Joseph Holt was the meanest man of his time. He was both unscrupulous and ambitious; and the smartest man I ever knew!”

Another as prominent in the nation’s affairs, said, using the same adjective as did the Senator just quoted, “He was a peculiarly mean man. I don’t know the true circumstances of Mr. Davis’s and Mr. Clay’s imprisonment, but the suspicions that attached to Holt were never proven, nor, so far as I know, investigated. After he went out of office he seemed to have no friends. He remained in Washington. I often saw him. Every morning he would get into a shabby old buggy and drive to market, where he would buy his meat and vegetables, potatoes, etc., for the day. These he would carry back to the house in his buggy, and his cook would prepare his solitary meals for him. I never felt anything but dislike for him,” said this gentleman, “and I don’t know any one else who did!”

“True!” responded another gentleman, whose word has balanced national opinion to a large extent for many years, “Mr. Holt was repugnant to me. I think he was generally regarded as a man who had forsaken his own section for gain. I thought him a heartless man. When he left office he went into utter obscurity!”

These remarks, coming from sources so authoritative, lent strength to the supposition that Mr. Holt’s behaviour toward his self-surrendered prisoner and former friend, Clement C. Clay, if it might be traced to its source, would, indeed, reveal a persecution at once vengeful and malicious, springing from some personal animus. For a year I made continuous effort to find this motive, but without success. Pitiless enmity, supported by almost unlimited powers (vested in Mr. Holt as Judge Advocate General, when the Government was in an unprecedented condition of chaos), this officer surely exercised toward Messrs. Davis and Clay; but, where was the raison d’être?

By an accident, “at the eleventh hour,” the paper in Mr. Clay’s handwriting containing the sentence quoted in the preceding text came to light. I wrote promptly to Mrs. Clay-Clopton concerning it, urging her to try to recall, if possible, the “reasons” which Mr. Clay, in his prison in Fortress Monroe, on the night of December 29, 1865, had given her in explanation of Mr. Holt’s animosity toward him. Her reply ran as follows:

“I can give you, in regard of Mr. Holt’s persecution of my husband, one very important reason! On the breaking out of the war, I think on the secession of Mississippi, Holt, who had won both his fame and his fortune in that State of his adoption, espoused the Southern cause. Whether this was known to others than Mr. Davis and Mr. Clay, I do not know. From the impression that remains on my memory, Holt communicated in confidence to those two gentlemen alone his intention of standing by the South. Possibly, it was said to Mr. Davis alone, as the latter was Mississippi’s leading Senator, and by Mr. Davis repeated to Mr. Clay. It was a common thing in those days to keep secret one’s intentions.” [See visit of Admiral Semmes, Chapter IX.] “Whether Holt’s decision was known to others than Mr. Davis and Mr. Clay, his friend,” continues the letter, “I do not know. I remember Mr. Clay telling me that Mr. Holt was a renegade and a traitor, who had pledged himself to the South; but when, in his selfish ambition, he received a higher bid from the Federal Government, he deserted our cause and went over to the opposition. I do not recall the position offered Mr. Holt by the Federal Government, but it was a plum he coveted.

“You ask whether Mr. Clay and Mr. Holt ever had any dealings with each other, political or business:

“None of any kind! Mr. Clay only knew of Holt’s base defection from our cause and condemned him for it. My husband told me (in the Fortress), ‘Mr. Holt knows the estimate Mr. Davis and I have of his defection and would fain get us out of the way!’” A. S.