Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 1851

Washington City, Feb. 1851.

My Dear Sir, I am in debt to you, but not absolutely insolvent. I have taken to be sure rather an unreasonable stay of execution, but I always meant to pay up at last. But you will have even now to take payment in depreciated currency and that you will say is half way to repudiation. I can only give you a very hurried and unsatisfactory letter for your good one.

The papers will shew you that agitation has not been entirely excluded from the Senate. Clay has himself been the arch agitator. For myself I thought it a good occasion to appear in the character of a friend to the progress of business, and the postponement of slavery discussions, which would interfere with it at this session. I was really anxious for the progress of business — for the fate of cheap postage and the harbor & river bill depended upon it. And besides I decided to show the country the hypocrisy of those pretences which always put the "other public interests" in competition with "freedom" but never in competition with slavery. You will see my speech and I hope approve of it. It had one capital effect. It brought out Rhett in an able speech vindicating the same views of the fugitive servant clause of the Constitution which I adopt. These southern ultras are altogether more honest than the southern doughfaces. They believe slavery to be right most of them and the rest believe it to be a necessity. They all agree in believing that in the present state of the races in the slave states slavery is best for both and indeed indispensable to the safety of both. They believing and holding also that the Constitution recognizes their right of property in slaves, their conclusions are natural enough. They avow them boldly and act upon them. The Compromisers on the other hand, generally, regard slavery as a temporary institution; but use it as a means of gaining and retaining political power.

It seems to me that the only course for us who believe in equal rights without limitations or exceptions, is to act together. We shall be ruined if we undertake to act with the Whigs. We cannot merge in the Old Line Democracy, so long as it cleaves to its alliance with the slave power, without being submerged. It seems to me that our true course, in the event, that the young men's Democratic Convention in May fail, as I fear they will fail, to take ground on the slavery questions which we can approve, is to call a Convention of Radical Democrats or Jeffersonian Democrats to meet in June or thereabouts and organize throughout the State. This course will bring Hunkerism to its senses.

All on the subject of the Presidency is much as it was when I last wrote you. Douglas is figuring, but he can't come it.

Write me at Cincinnati immediately on receiving this. I expect to be there on Friday night or Saturday morning of next week: and I hope to be able to spend a day or two in Columbus before the Legislature adjourns. I desire much to see our friends there.

Miller of the Toledo Republican writes me that he is about to sell out. I am sorry; but if he and Riley can be secured for the Columbus paper the cause may not lose by it. Under existing circumstances it is very important to have a paper of the right kind at the Capital.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 232-4

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, August 13, 1850

Washington Aug. 13, 1850.

MY Dear Sumner: I heard of the death of your brother with real sorrow and with a true sympathy for you. It was a sad aggravation of the calamity that he perished so near the end of his voyage, just as he was about to step on threshold of his home. I have been taught the great lesson of sympathy in the school of bereavement. Often and often has the blow fallen upon me — so often indeed that now, at length, I live like Damocles, with a visible sword suspended over my head. It is not two weeks since my youngest child, of one single year, co-changed mortality for immortality, and the health of Mrs. Chase is so precarious that I have no respite from intense solicitude. You may well suppose that under the circumstances public life is irksome to me. Gladly would I retire and leave its duties and distinctions — the latter as worthless as the former are august and important — to others. But I seem to myself to have no choice. So few are faithful to Freedom — so few seem to have any real heartiness in the service of the country — that I feel as if it would be criminal in me to think of retiring so long as those who have the power have the will also to keep me at my post. This piece of egotism is but a preface to somewhat I have to say further. I see you have been nominated for Congress by the Free Democracy of the Suffolk District. I know your innate aversion to an election contest and I can well understand how this aversion must be enhanced by your present circumstances. But, my dear friend, you must not decline, nor even show any repugnance to acceptance. It is a time of trial for the Friends of Freedom. The short-lived zeal of many has waxed cold. Hunkerism everywhere rallies its forces, and joins them to those of slavery. Our side needs encouragement — inspiriting. You are looked to as a leader. You know it though your modesty would fain disclaim the title and shun the position. Your face must now be set as a flint and your voice sound like a clarion. You must not say “Go”! but “Follow”! Take the position assigned to you; and if Websterism must prevail in the Capital of Massachusetts — if Boston is to be yoked in with Slavehunters and their apologists, let no part of the sin lie at your door.

Here we are getting on as usual. We have ordered the Bill for the admission of California to be engrossed for a third reading to-day and should have passed it but for the yielding of Douglas, who, as chairman of the Committee on Territories has charge of the bill, to a motion for adjournment. It will probably pass before this reaches Boston. This is some compensation for the disgraceful surrender to Texas sealed by the passage of Pearce's bill which gives ten millions of dollars and half of New Mexico for a relinquishment by Texas of her “claim” —that is the word in the bill — to the other half. This is the first fruit of the Compromise Administration. This is their first measure.

Poor Chaplin.¹ You have seen the story of his arrest and imprisonment. I am very sorry for him, for he is a brave and true man, though I cannot approve of his course of action. Write me soon and believe me, faithfully and cordially your friend

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ William L. Chaplin, while in Washington as the correspondent of his paper, The Albany Patriot, had been arrested for assisting two slaves, the property of Robert Toombs and A. H. Stephens, respectively, to escape. Later, on the advice and with the help of his friends, he forfeited his bail and escaped trial. W. H. Siebert, The Underground Railroad, 175-176; H. Wilson, The Slave Power, II, 80-82.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 214-6

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, April 13, 1850

Washington, Apl. 13, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: I am surprised that you have not received a copy of my speech — It was printed here on the 4th of April in the Intelligencer, and by the mail of the 5th I sent you a copy. The Union and the Globe were dilatory; but the Era had it in full on Thursday, and I suppose on that morning you must have rec'd it in that paper. The Intelligencer I sent doubtless miscarried. To-day the Union commences the publication of it headed, “Union and Freedom, without Compromise”. It seems almost ludicrous to me to see such an old-fashioned Liberty document, by the side of the Patent Democracy of the Union. Last evening I sent you a pamphlet copy which you rec'd today or will receive tomorrow (or Monday) I suppose. I am obliged to you for speaking to Punchard. I hope he will publish; though I confess that the speech is too long. Tell him, however, it was necessary to be full at the outset, and hereafter I shall study limits.

I am glad the speech pleased you on a cursory glance, and, I hope, you will not feel obliged to change your judgment on a more deliberate perusal. I think there is some diffuseness which could have been corrected with a little more pains. But I designed it for the masses, and hoped to render a permanent service to the cause by furnishing a tolerably unexceptionable document for circulation. Hence the fullness of authorities and citations, which I should have avoided if I had aimed at reputation solely.

It would be really gratifying to me if our friends in Massachusetts should think fit to publish a handsome edition; and I feel much obliged to you for your effort in the matter. The fact — if it should become a fact — made known here would have a good effect and stimulate the circulation of them from this place and in other places. Should the publication be made I would esteem it an additional mark of kindness if you would correct the proof. The Copy used should be the Era, Intelligencer, Globe or Union, where the speech was printed in full. It should be corrected by the pamphlet copy which is most correct in type — though somewhat abridged in order to bring it in 16 pages. The pamphlet copy, however, is not more correct than the Globe or Union where it appeared in full.

I do not think it certain yet, though highly probable, that the Cabinet will break up. In that event, it is although doubtful who will succeed. I believe the Seward influence will be, if not predominant, influential. You mistake when you say, “Seward is with us”. He holds many of our antislavery opinions, and will never, I believe, abandon them. But he means to give his support to the Taylor Platform of non-action. He tells me he thinks this as far as we can get at present. He will vote for California, as a Free State. He would have voted, he says, for California as a Slave State. He will vote for the Proviso in the Territories. He knows it cannot pass, and he knows that it could pass if the Administration were favorable. He will not make his support of the Administration, conditional upon the Administration's support of the Proviso. But he will support the Administration and vote for the Proviso. The Proviso being rejected and he will make no great effort to secure its adoption — perhaps would prefer not to see the Administration embarassed with it — he will fall back upon the Administration plan of non-action. I tell you this that you may not be disappointed and that you may understand why Seward will be likely to have considerable influence in the organization of the new Cabinet if one should be organized. Non-action is General Taylor's own plan. It suits him. Neither Webster nor Clay, I imagine, are agreeable to him. They are both for the Cass plan of non-intervention. Seward is against the Webster, Clay and Cass plan and for the Taylor.

As for the Democracy, I have more hope from it than you have. It is probable, however, that the Hunkers will require another defeat to bring them to their senses. Cass is full of hope just now, a few weeks ago he thought himself used up. The Buchanan star was in the ascendant. Already I have reason to believe the Hunkers are parcelling out the offices in anticipation. But they are deceiving themselves. A leading gentleman of Ohio was written to to the effect that he had best relax his zeal for slavery restriction, and that he might look to a certain high office. His answer was that “Ohio must not be regarded as a party to any such arrangement — that his vote would never be obtained except for a reliable antislavery Democrat, — if for a democrat at all.” I learn from Connecticut that the Free Soil democrats hold the balance of power and that no man can be sent to the Senate of the United States (unless by a union of Hunkers, Whigs and Democrats) except a true and known opponent of Slavery and the Slave Power. So also from Ohio I learn that the signal democratic victory there as it is called is only a triumph of Free Soil. The Free Democrats hold a reliable balance of power. And a large number at least six of those claimed as Democrats will not support the Democratic nominee for Governor unless he will openly take Free Democratic ground. Here the outside appearance of Democracy is bad. But the fire of regeneration is burning within, and the party is sure to become antislavery—reliably antislavery I mean — long before the Whig party will — unless indeed the Slaveholders propose emancipation and Compensation, which would convert the Capitalists into Emancipationalists at once. In the mean time the Free Democracy must maintain its organization and maintain too (which I deem very important) its democratic principles in relation to other subjects than Slavery. This will constitute a powerful pressure on the Democracy — depose Hunkerism from its ascendancy — and finally bring about the result we all desire.

I have written tediously, and have left myself neither time nor space for much that I wish to say about current events here. Boston is doing nobly. I hope we shall have the Committee and secure the admission of California at all events.

Give my best regards to Palfrey when you see him. Is there any foundation for the story that he thinks of withdrawing and that a Compromise Candidate is to be selected? I trust not. Remember me also to Adams, Parker, Wilson and other friends. Has Burlingame returned from Europe yet?

Ever faithfully yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

P. S. What has become of that edition of your writings?

P. S. 2d. If Palfrey should withdraw would there be any possibility of putting Leavitt (Joshua) on the track and inducing the democrats to go for him? He would be a most important accession to our strength and perhaps his prominence in the Cheap Postage might secure votes for him.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 206-9

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 2, 1850

Philadelphia, Jany 2, 1850

My Dear Hamlin, I can hardly express to you the mingled feelings of gratitude and pleasure which I experience in being permitted to announce to you a marked improvement in the condition of my dear wife. I have been watching by her side during the entire holidays, never leaving her except when obliged to do so for her own sake, administering to her comfort in every way possible to me. For the first three days after our arrival at Parkeville, of which no doubt Hutchins has told you she mended daily. Then came a sudden change for the worse which filled me with dismay. Then she rallied again and I hung between hope and despair. But now, today, God be praised, she seems better than at any time since we left Washington. I left her a few hours ago, and am on my way to Washington, intending to be in my seat tomorrow: — and to decline, unless strongly advised by our friends to the contrary, the appointment in the Com. on Rev. Claims. Perhaps I may accompany the declination with some few remarks on the Constitution of the Committees — perhaps not. I have as yet made no speech defining my position. Perhaps I shall not make any speech with that special purpose. Certainly I shall not unless some occasion seems distinctly to call for it. I prefer to let my position define itself, except so far as it comes in for remark incidently.

I write in haste; but I wanted to tell you my good news; and I wanted also to thank you — as I do most gratefully — for your kindness in keeping me so well advised as to matters at Columbus; and I wanted finally to answer your query in relation to Mr. Giddings probable course — in the event of the nomination of Judge Myers by the Demc. Convention & the adoption by it of adequate antislavery resolutions. I wrote to Hutchins on this very subject in part a few days since. I cannot say with certainty what Mr. G 's course would be. But certain is it, that he is farther from the Whigs than ever, and that he looks to the Democracy to carry out, ultimately, antislavery measures. From what he has said to me I believe that in the contingency named he would support Judge Myers.

I agree with you in thinking that if the Old Line nominates a Hunker it will be best for us that they pass no antislavery resolutions at all. It will best, also, for the progressives who should, in that event, act little with us — as we would, in the event, of the nomination of a progressive and the adoption of these progressive ideas, act with them. I could myself, however support Medill cordially, if the Convention would make a right platform & Medill would take decided position upon it. But should Medill be nominated and the non-intervention doctrine sanctioned we must nominate ourselves & nominate a democrat — Swift or some such man — and make an insurrection in the democratic party, by putting the contest distinctly on the issue, Shall democratic ideas, or proslavery policy prevail? We shall then see how large a portion of the democratic party prefer democracy to hunkerism.

I have no time to write more at present. I will write tomorrow or next day from Washington.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 193-5