Cincinnati, January 24, 1849
My Dear Hamlin:
You know I mentioned to you at Columbus that I thought of writing a frank
letter to Giddings on the subject of the State of things at Columbus and the
Senatorial election. I have done so at last, and now enclose to you a copy of
the letter. I do not know whether or not you will deem it expedient to make any
use of it. I leave this altogether to your discretion. Perhaps it would be good
policy to shew it to Randall & Riddle & possibly to others: but you
know best, and can do as you please.
I learn from Washington that Giddings wrote to Randall in
respect to me some two weeks ago, expressing his conviction that I am a sincere
& earnest friend of the Free Soil Cause! and saying that, if he cannot
be elected, he wishes that I may be; and that he has also written, more
recently, to Morse, to the same effect.
I had a letter today from Clinton, from Mr. Hibbin, a member
of the Free Soil Committee of that County, stating that Jones “ejected” from the
House had come home “in agony” lest he might be “rejected by the People,”
“and fortified with a letter from Beaver, Chaffee & others”
certifying to the genuineness of his Freesoilism! &
recommending him to the support of the Free Soilers! What do you think of that?
I do wish these gentlemen would just reflect what they would say of Townshend
& Morse if they should give to Trimble, Jones' opponent and just as
good a Freesoiler as Jones himself, such a letter. Mr. Hibbin writes me that an
effort is made to have the democrats support the regular freesoil Candidate,
and that some conferences have been had between Committees of the old & the
free democracy on the subject. He fears, however, that no union can be had.
Vaughan will go up to Clinton tomorrow and see what he can do. We all feel the
great importance of having a reliable freesoiler returned from Clinton and, if
the democrats, to whom the prevention of Whig ascendency is as important as it
is to us, would only help cordially, the thing could be done. Perhaps they will
but I fear they will not.
Yesterday I understood from Columbus, by your letter and
from other sources, that Pugh & Peirce would be certainly admitted, and the
black laws repealed by Democratic votes; today I learn from Brough that some of
the Democrats have bolted from their engagement to vote for the repeal, and
that the admission of Pugh & Peirce is again in doubt. How is this?
You know I have agreed with you that the most expedient course
is to repeal the clauses dividing Hamilton County, both on the ground of
unconstitutionality & inexpediency, and then, inasmuch as all parties
regarded these provisions to a certain extent in the election, to declare the
seats vacant & send the election back to the people. Men, convinced of the
unconstitutionality and injustice of the law — to say nothing of the fraud and usurpation
of power by which it was passed — might vote to declare the seats vacant, on
the ground that the election was held under it's unconstitutional provisions:
but, of course, men so convinced could never vote to admit Spencer & Runyon.
If we look at the strict right of the case, however, it will be
difficult to escape the conclusion, if we believe the division clauses
unconstitutional as I certainly do, that Pugh & Peirce must be
admitted without sending the election back. If the law were repealed the general
expediency of the case and its influence as a precedent might be considered;
but, if it be not repealed, such considerations should, I think, have no
weight. For if the law be not repealed & the election be sent back, the
Governor will doubtless order an election in the first district. All the
Hamilton County members might thereupon vacate their seats, and probably, under
the circumstances, would feel it to be their duty to do so. But suppose they
should not. The Democrats would again run a ticket to be voted for throughout
the county. The Freesoilers might do the same. The Whigs would run candidates
only in the first eight wards of Cincinnati. The clerk would again give the
certificates to the Democratic members. They would again come up with their prima
facie evidence, and the whole business would have to be gone over again. In the
meantime a Whig may be elected from Clinton; and in that case, supposing no
other seats disturbed, there would be thirty-five Whigs & Freesoilers,
(counting Kiddle, against my will & conscience, among the last,) to thirty
five Democrats, Democratic Freesoilers & Independents. It is obvious,
therefore, that unless some change of views shall have taken place by that time
in the minds of members, both sets of claimants will be again rejected. And
thus great expense & much ill blood will be occasioned for just nothing at
all. These considerations seem to me conclusive against sending the election
back to the people unless the law be first repealed. If the law be not
repealed, I see no way out of the difficulty except by the admission of Pugh
& Peirce.
And it is quite manifest that it will not do, to delay
action on the case, until after the Clinton election; for in case Jones should
be returned from that County, there would probably be enough Whigs, & Free
Soilers who consider themselves virtually committed on this question, to defeat
any proposition for their admission by a tie vote: wherefore a proposition for
the admission of Spencer & Runyon would be defeated also, and the
consequences of an attempt at a special election would be such as I described.
I should be very glad to see Morse's bill, including the provision for the
repeal of the Black Laws pass — and pass by democratic votes. I hope to see it.
It should if possible be pushed through in advance of a vote on the
admission of Pugh & Peirce.
But should an aggreement to vote for it be made an
indispensible condition for voting for the constitution and right in the case
of Pugh & Peirce? It seems to me it should not. I would say, Get as many
votes pledged to that great measure of Justice & Humanity — the repeal of
the Black Laws, — as possible. But I should dislike to make my vote on one
question of right, contingent absolutely upon other men's votes on another
question of right. The Democrats should undoubtedly vote for Morse's bill.
Sound policy as well as Democratic Principles require it of them. I would be
satisfied, however, if enough of them, including Pugh & Peirce, would vote
for it, to ensure its passage with the aid of Whig & Freesoil votes. In
fact, I am inclined to think that the admission of Pugh & Peirce to their
seats, and the vindication, thereby of a great principle of constitutional
right, would so dispose the Democrats to good will towards the Free Soilers,
that they would give votes enough for the bill to insure its passage, whether
pledged to do so or not. Col Brough tells me that as soon as he can get a
printed copy of the bill he will publish it, and come out in support of it: and
he thinks, if he can do it, anybody else may.
But why should I trouble you with these considerations, all
of which have doubtless occurred to your own mind, when, being on the spot, you
can so much better judge of their weight than I can?
I have just recd. your letter of yesterday and find as I
suspected that my suggestions were unnecessary. Consider this as an answer and
you in my debt. I will attend to what you say as to the Cold. woman.
A President of the Board of P. W. must be elected by the Legislature
this winter although future Election by the People may be provided for. You
should have that. If not, unless something better can be done you might take
the Judgeship — but this would lay you up, which I should not like; and
Bolton must be consulted.
SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical
Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 156-60
No comments:
Post a Comment