E.C. Hubbard to Dear Brother, January 18, 1862

...You made a remark in one of your last letters to which I want to reply. I should have done so before, but I have had no opportunity. The remark was this.—Jim Lane is worth both fo them speaking of Sherman and Ship Island Phelps, “though he be ‘a coward.’” Now you and seemingly all of the country are honest in this opinion. But I tell you it is a mistake. Genl. Sherman is a thorough soldier and in his operations in South Carolina he must be acting under orders only, for if he were not would he be allowed to remain in Command of the Federal Army? I think not. Were he ordered to take and burn Charleston or Savannah would he hesitate? Did Sherman’s Battery every refuse to do as they were ordered? Its well known reputation says no. So if Genl. Sherman was directed by Genl. McClellan to march on Manassas itself I believe he would do it in a manner becoming a soldier. Genl Phelps is perhaps a good deal of a nondescript. Would make a better private than a general. But if the conduct of these Generals does not suit the country or does not suit Congress why in the name of God does not the latter body lay down some plan to control all [underlined “all”] of our Generals in this negro matter? If they do not do it why dont the President, the commander in Chief of the U.S.A. assume as did Andrew Jackson, the responsibility?

There seems to be a shirking back of the Administration is this negro policy. As if they were not equal to the moment. Afraid ot let the world know that Lincoln and his cabinet controls the destiny of this Republic…. Here is the manifest supremacy of the British Government. Should a question like this come before the Premier it would be decided in one meeting of the Cabinet. The delay of the Administration in the smatter is costing the people of these United States millions upon millions of money and still they hesitate. Now Jim Lane is correct in his position in Congress so far as the contraband question is concerned. But what is his motive? Is it because that he strikes a blow at the South that he steals negroes? No. It is the effect of his seemingly inherent desire to rob and plunder. He will rob a Union man as soon as he will a secesh. To illustrate this I will give an incident which occurred while at Springfield. Lane while at that place took his quarters in the finest resident in the city. The families consisted of a mother and two daughters together with two slaves. The husband it is true was in the Southern Army. While living with this family he, his staff and all of his friends we treated only as family of the finest circles know how to treat a gentleman. Yet when Lane left Springfield he actually had his men steal these two negroes from that family, and at the intercession of Col Carr, who threatened to complain of the gentleman they were released. After Lan had been gone from the City two hours five of his men were caught by Col. Carr engaged in packing these negroes and their traps in a wagon to convey them away. A guard was placed around the house finally. This is one among the many acts of the patriot Lane. There is some respect among thieves but I do believe Lane would steal from his Mother. I tis men like him that injure the cause of the North....