Amos Tuck to Rev. James C. Boswell and Samuel A. Haley, November 20, 1846

EXETER, Nov. 20, 1846.

TO REV. JAMES C. BOSWELL, President, and SAMUEL A. HALEY, ESQ., Secretary, &c.

Gentlemen:—I have received your letter of October 24th, in reference to the proceedings at the Convention of Independent Democrats and Liberty men of the First Congressional District, and I embrace the earliest opportunity which my engagements have allowed to send you an answer.

I believe it to be the object of those assembled at the above named convention, to re-affirm the fundamental principles of republican liberty, and to act out with fearless devotion the doctrines of human equality and universal justice. Entertaining these views, I rejoice in their free expression, and am content to stand or fall with the others in their defense.

Two causes have contributed more than all others to effect the late change in the political balance of parties. The first has been the despotism of party power, by which generous impulses have been repressed and discouraged, the exercise of private judgment made dangerous, and all individuality of character sought to be extinguished, by compelling men to believe, or to profess, those sentiments only which were suggested by a selfish and ever-shifting policy and sanctioned by self-constituted party leaders. No tyranny is more galling than that which would quench the free thoughts of free men; no tyrants are more despicable than those who, "dressed in a little brief authority," would attempt in a democracy to exercise the power and the prerogatives hereditary despots; no engine of influence is more dangerous or more execrable than a hireling press, speaking no words for truth or justice, but devoting all its energies to the perpetration of human servitude. To free New Hampshire from such influences, and to expose in their deformity those who had wielded them too long, was one object in our organization, and this object, I rejoice in believing, has been in a good degree accomplished.

The second and chief cause of the late change has been the existence and progressing power of the institution of slavery. The encroachments of the slave-holding interests, and the subserviency of public men to its numerous exactions, have been so exorbitant and so notorious as to have become just cause of alarm to every friend of humanity and the country. The people, irrespective of party, have at length turned their attention to the subject, and by unequivocal manifestations are teaching their public servants that hereafter other things will be expected of them than a base and servile homage to the dark spirit of slavery; that some efforts will be demanded at their hands, more efficient than a “masterly inactivity," or a halting opposition to an abstract idea; that it is time for them to stand up like men, and, echoing the strong voice of a free people, to say to the sweeping tide of oppression, "thus far and no farther." The inquiry now is, what can be done, what can Congress do to free the master and the slave and the nation from the sin and the retributions of slavery? Of cowardly discussion about the extent of our powers we have had enough. The exigency of the country as well as the spirit of the age require now the performance of those acts whose constitutionality and propriety are beyond reasonable doubt. They require that the shadow of slavery shall no longer darken the District of Columbia, and that the trader in human beings shall no longer be permitted to shelter himself from the scorn of the Christian world beneath the wings of the national capitol. They require that no new slave state, with a constitution recognizing slavery, shall hereafter be admitted to the Union, and that no existing state, whether Texas or Florida, shall be dismembered to subserve the slave holding interest. They require that the domestic, inter-state slave trade, a traffic in no respect less infamous than that foreign slave trade which has been branded by the civilized world as piracy, shall, under the clause in the Constitution which gives power to Congress, "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states," be utterly and forever prohibited. They require that the labor and interest of the free states should be respected, and that slavery be no longer permitted to give character to our legislation.

Let the people of the free states come now to the rescue of freedom and the Constitution, and something may be done to perpetuate the Union,—let them be found wanting in this trial of their integrity, and let the South for a few years more continue unchecked her schemes in behalf of slavery, and no human power can prevent a dissolution. For the sake then of the Union, let the people of the free states be careful to discern and perform on this subject the duties of patriotism and humanity.

One other subject claims attention. The present war with Mexico cannot be lost sight of in any discussion of the public interest. Originating in the unauthorized and iniquitous scheme of the annexation of Texas, it is now prosecuted without that public necessity which can justify us on the page of impartial history, and with no prospect of “conquering a peace," or effecting an honorable reconciliation. It has become a war of conquest, and as such is in violation of every principle of a popular government, as well as of every precept of Christianity. It is adding immense territory to the southern portion of the country, and is thus threatening to destroy the balance of the states, and to consign the nation more hopelessly to the control of slaveholders. It is waged against a neighboring nation, a younger republic, which for years, in weakness and distraction, endeavored to follow the example of our prospering nation; and as such, the war is disgraceful and mean. It is carried on at the expense of the blood of brave men, whose valor is worthy of a better cause, and has already exhausted the treasury of the country, and involved the nation in a heavy debt. Under these circumstances there can be no doubt that the honor and best interests of the country demand a speedy end of the contest, and that all matters in dispute be settled by arbitration or negotiation.

I have thus spoken briefly of some of the topics suggested by your resolutions. It remains for me simply to acknowledge my deep sense of the honor which your nomination has conferred upon me. If it is thought that my acceptance of this nomination can subserve the interests of the cause in which we are engaged, I shall not feel at liberty to shrink from the position in which you have placed me; but shall remain,

Your obedient servant,

AMOS TUCK.

SOURCE: Charles R. Corning, Amos Tuck, p. 21-4

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: The New Hampshire Patriot, November 17, 1838

A Friend has shown us this week's number, and we see by it that poor Mr. Barton is yet at home. We wonder people should be so insensible to the pleasures of journeying. To be sure, the season is getting to be inauspicious—the trees are naked, and the landscape muddy, and the winds chilled, and the music of the birds hushed—all, all very uncongenial to such a mellifluous spirit as the patriot's of New Hampshire. But still we somehow feel disappointed that he don't travel more. We would respectfully suggest to Mr. Barton the interesting objects with which this free country abounds—all parts of which he cannot yet have visited. Has he ever been to the White Sulphur springs? He need be under no apprehension in going there. To be sure, complexion is attended with inconvenience there, and blood has its hazards. But we think Judge Larrimer and Colonel Singleton and General Carter and Major Thornton would stand the friend of a Colonel from the North, and prevent him any disagreeable consequences of an indiscriminate operation of the domestic slave trade. They are keen observers. They know the invasions the peculiar institution has made upon the Anglo-Saxon color, and they know how the pure Americo-Anglo-Saxon has verged towards the servile shadows without coming within the lawful scope of the institution, and then the symptomatic cry of “nigger,” ever and anon breaking out asleep and awake, would reveal to them at once that the Colonel had the genuine negro-phobia, which a nominal slave never has, and which goes so hard with doubtful white people. They would protect any northern gentleman against being imprisoned and sold for fees, provided they could be satisfied that his proslavery merits overbalanced his colored liabilities—which we think might easily be vouched. The Colonel has a vein of “chivalry” about him, which would go a good way in offset to mere color of liability, which after all is but prima facie evidence of servility.—We warrant him a journey to the White Sulphur against the lawful claims of any person or persons whomsoever.

Then there is Texas—the Colonel has not, peradventure, been to Texas. It is a place of resort for people of enterprise, and where patriotism is a ready passport to consideration, although it has been slanderously styled a valley of villains, field of felons, sink of scoundrels, sewer of scamps, &.c. &,c. Yet it is a most republican clime, “where patriots most do congregate.”

There is Arkansas too—all glorious in new-born liberty—fresh and unsullied, like Venus out of the ocean—that newly-discovered star in the firmament-banner of this republic. Sister Arkansas, with her bowie knife graceful at her side, like the huntress Diana with her silver bow—her knife dripping with the heart's blood of her senators and councillors, shed in legislative debate,—O, it would be refreshing and recruiting to an exhausted patriot to go and replenish his soul at her fountains. The newly-evacuated lands of the Cherokee, too—a sweet place now for a lover of his country to visit, to renew his self-complacency by wandering among the quenched hearths of the expatriated Indians, a land all smoking with the red man's departing curse— a malediction that went to the centre. Yes, and Florida—blossoming and leafy Florida, yet warm with the life-blood of Osceola and his warriors, shed gloriously under flag of truce. Why should a patriot of such a fancy for nature immure himself in the cells of the city, and forego such an inviting and so broad a landscape? Ite viator. Go forth, traveller, and leave this mouldy editing to less elastic fancies. We would respectfully incite our Colonel to travel. What signifies? Journey—wander—go forth —itinerate—exercise—perambulate—roam.

We cannot sustain ourselves or our waning cause against the reasonings of this military chieftain if he stays at home and concentrates his powers. Nigger nigger nigger, and nigger, and besides that nigger, and moreover nigger, and therefore nigger, and hence nigger, and wherefore nigger, and more than all that, and yielding every thing else, “bobalition!” urged with the peculiar force and genius of this deadly writer—with his grace, point and delicacy—with his “nihil tetigit, quod non ornavit." We crave a truce. We appeal to the magnanimity of the Patriot,— to his nighthood—to go abroad, and leave us in apprentice hands or some journeyman's; or if he won't travel in courtesy, we beseech him to turn his editorship upon other enemies than us. Let him point his guns at the Statesman, or the Courier.

But if we must meet him, we protest against encountering the arguments aforesaid. That we are a nigger we can't deny, and we can't help it. That our little paper is a "Nigger Herald," we can't deny, and we can't help it. What signifies arguing that against us, all the time? We don't deny it—we never did deny it—we never shall. And what can we do? We can't wash off our color. We cannot change our Ethiopian skin any more than the Patriot can its “spots.” The sun has looked upon us, and burnt upon us a complexion incompatible with freedom?

Is it so? Will the demoeratic Patriot aver this? Are we to be denied the right of a hearing because we are a "nigger?" Are we to be deprived in New Hampshire of human consideration because we are black, and shall Cyrus Barton dispose of us thus, because he is White? We lay before the yeomanry of New Hampshire the appalling truth, that slavery has rooted itself deep into the heart of American liberty;—“Nigger Herald,” argues this snow-drop Colonel; “Bobalition!” and our appeal is silenced. We warn the country that slavery is overshadowing the North, and that ranting and rampant professing democrats will give their very backs to the southern cart-whip. "Nigger!" replies the Honorable Cyrus Barton; “eh, old nigger!” “old black nigger!” Is it an answer, we ask the country?

But poor Mister Barton is jealous we are after votes for James Wilson. If he is really so, we pity him. He is non compos if he suspects it. He ought to be sent right up to the town farm. Votes for James Wilson! Is this the purpose and aim of the great anti-slavery enterprise that now shakes Europe and America to the centre? Is West India emancipation a plot to defeat the Patriot's democracy here in universal New Hampshire? Are George Thompson and Daniel O'Connell and Henry Brougham thundering for human liberty in Exeter Hall, (henceforth and forever the cradle of liberty—not the cradle of the bastard infant, rocked in Faneuil Hall of Boston, now formally dedicated to the Genius of Slavery,) are these champions of liberty plotting with the fifteen hundred anti-slavery societies of America to defeat the election of Governor John Page?

We give our poor jaundice-visioned neighbor no other answer than this to his paltry accusations about plotting against his partisans. We have other and bigger objects altogether.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 51-4 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of November 17, 1838.

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, April 24, 1847

Cincinnati, Apr. 24, 1847.

C. Sumner, Esq., Boston.

My Dear Sir: I am much indebted to you for your very kind letter of March 12th, to which I should have replied earlier had I not been prevented by the fear of burdening you with an unprofitable correspondence. Your approbation of my argument for poor old Vanzandt¹ is very grateful to me. I gave to the effort the best exertion of my ability, in the short time allowed me for preparation, and I had collected the material for the most part previously with a view to an oral discussion. I do not suppose that the judges of the Supreme Court regarded the argument as worth much attention. I have reason to believe that the case was decided before they received it; and that the opinion was designed for no more than a cursory notice of the points in the case, under the impression that it was not worth while to consider the views presented by the ––– on Vanzandt. I trust, however, and believe that the discussion will not be without a salutary effect upon the professional mind of the country, and if so, even though my poor old client be sacrificed, the great cause of humanity will be a gainer by it. I send you a notice of the decision which I prepared for the Morning Herald in this city. It is hurried and imperfect, but will serve perhaps to suggest something better to others. I hope you will give the argument of the court a review in the Reporter. It is, it seems to me, amazingly weak at all points. A worse decision, supported by feebler reasons, can hardly be found.

I was surprised by what you said of Judge Story. How could he regard the Prigg² decision as a triumph of Freedom? The decision contains, indeed, a dictum in favor of the doctrine that slavery is local; just as the decision in the Mississippi case went upon the ground, so far as it related to the interstate slave trade, that under the Constitution all men are persons. But who, that knows anything of slaveholding aggression, will believe that, when the question of the locality of slavery comes directly in issue, there will be more regard paid to the dictum of the Prigg case, opposed as it is to the whole spirit of that most unfortunate decision, than was paid in the Vanzandt case to the doctrine of Groves and Slaughter³ that slaves are persons. The Supreme Court is, doubtless, composed of men of humanity—who in particular cases, involving no general principle touching what I may call the corporate interests of slaveholding, would willingly decide in favor of the liberty of individuals: — but they cannot be trusted at all when that great corporate interest is in question: and all attempts to compromise the matter by getting the court committed on such matters as the locality of slavery, in decisions of leading questions in favor of the slaveholders, will be found as unavailing as the efforts of the Philistines with their green withs upon Samson. It has been too much the fashion, both among politicians and among judges of the Free States to endeavor to get the best of the bargain in compromises. They have never succeeded and they never will. Despotism admits of no such compromises. The Devil cannot be cheated. “Resist the Devil and he will flee.” We have the highest authority for this: but there is no warrant for expecting success in an effort to circumvent him.

I saw poor Vanzandt a day or two ago. He came into town in his wagon, and sent up his son to ask me to come down to him, as he was unable to get up stairs to my office. He was very weak. Pulmonary disease had made sad work with his hardy frame. The probability is strong that before the mandate of the Supreme Court can be carried into a judgment of the Circuit Court the old man will have gone to another bar, where aid to the weak and suffering will not be imputed as a crime. I said to him that I could hardly suppose that, in view of his approaching end, he could feel any regret for having aided the fugitives, whose appeals to his compassion had brought him into his present troubles. The old man's eye lighted up, as he answered “No; if a single word could restore the man who escaped and save me from all sacrifice I would not utter it.” And such I believe is the universal spirit of those who have aided the oppressed in regaining their freedom.

You have noticed no doubt the case of Habeas Corpus before Judge Downie, of the District Court at Pittsburgh. The applicants for the Writ had arrested a fugitive slave, alleged to be such, and were about to carry him off by force. His cries attracted attention, and he was rescued from them. They were then arrested under the late law of Pennsylvania, which makes it a penal offence to retake slaves with violence, and were brought before Judge Downie by the Habeas Corpus. He, like Mr. Justice Woodbury held that slaves were property under the Constitution, and that the recaptors, having used no more force or violence than was necessary, were entitled to their discharge. Thus the detestable doctrine of property in man is spreading, having received the Countenance of the Supreme Court. Is it not the duty of every lover of Liberty in the profession, to do all that he can to counteract its vices?

I wish with you that Judge M’Lean had a “stronger backbone of Constitutional Antislavery.” He is a good man and an honest man, and his sympathies are with the enslaved. He emancipated one or more when he left Washington, leaving himself in debt beyond his then ability to pay. His opinions, however, are in favor of the construction of the Constitution, which he has put forth in the Vanzandt case; a very different construction indeed from that which the Supreme Court has given in the same case, but which allows, in that case at all events, the same practical results. I suppose, however, that the military fever will carry all before it in the Whig party, and that Mr. Taylor will be the Whig candidate. He is a large slaveholder, — has a sugar and cotton plantation — entertains the Calhoun opinion of slavery— would be an inflexible enemy of the Wilmot Proviso — would favor a high tariff, for the benefit of sugar, and probably, would regard with approbation the establishment of a Bank of the U. States. There is nothing in this character, which would make him unacceptable I presume to the “Whig party of the United States,” though the large and highly respectable antislavery portion of that Party would doubtless be not well pleased. Even of that portion, however, some, would, I fear, be willing to take the Slaveholder for the sake of the Whig, and vote for Slavery to keep out Locofocoism.

In my humble judgment, however, in the contingency indicated if the Democrats should be willing to take the Constitutional ground of opposition to Slavery, and nominate a Wilmot Proviso man who may be confidently relied on, it would be the duty of every friend of freedom to support the nomination. If the Democracy can now be brought onto antislavery ground, they will be sure to keep there until they clear the field.

With the greatest regard,

Yours most truly,

[Salmon P. Chase]

P. S. — I have sent some copies of my argument to some friends in England. It has struck me that as you are personally acquainted with many professional gentlemen there, you might think it useful to send some copies to them. If so, 1 shall take pleasure in sending to you as many as you may name.

_______________

¹ On the Van Zandt case, see Schuckers' Chase, 53 ff.

² Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.

³ The Case of Groves vs. Slaughter, 1841, 15 Peters, 449. Cf. Hurd Law of Freedom and Bondage, I, 147, n. 2.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 113