Senator Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, June 9, 1852

I longed to see you. When you called I was at Eames's, discoursing on Baltimore and its scenes. This nomination¹ makes me lament anew the fatal '49, when the Barnburners and the Hunkers coalesced. Had they kept apart, we should all have been together,—perhaps in a minority, but powerful from our principles and character. For myself, I am left alone. The political fellowships I had hoped to establish are vanishing. Of course I can have nothing to do with Pierce or his platform,—probably nothing with Scott or his. How I wish we had all stuck together! Should Pierce be elected, with a Democratic Senate and House, we should have the iron rule of the slave-power.

_______________

¹ Of Franklin Pierce, as Democratic candidate for President.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, pp. 280-1

Senator Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, October 24, 1851

I heard of your illness, while I was in New York, with great regret. Time and distance did not allow me to see you at your suburban retreat, although I wished very much to confer with you, particularly on the subject of your letter. Let me say frankly, however, that I despair of any arrangement by which any candidate can be brought out on the Democratic side so as to receive active support from antislavery men. Nor do I see much greater chance on the Whig side. The tendency of both the old parties at present is to national conventions; and in both of these our cause will perish. The material for a separate organization, by which to sustain our principles, seems to exist nowhere except in Massachusetts. Had the Barnburners kept aloof from the Hunkers in 1849, the Democratic split would have been complete throughout the free States, and it would have affected sympathetically the Whig party. A new order of things would have appeared, and the beginning of the end would have been at hand. But the work in some way is to be done over. There will be no peace until the slave-power is subdued. Its tyranny must be overthrown, and freedom, instead of slavery, must become the animating idea of the national government. But I see little chance of any arrangement or combination by which this truly Democratic idea can be promoted in the next Presidential contest.

The politicians are making all their plans to crush us, and they seem to be succeeding so well that all our best energies and most unflinching devotion to principles can alone save us. For myself I see no appreciable difference between Hunker Democracy and Hunker Whiggery: in both, all other questions are lost in the 'single idea' of opposition to the Free Soil sentiment. Nor can I imagine any political success, any party favor or popular reward, which would tempt me to compromise in any respect the independent position which I now hold.

It is vain to try to get rid of this question of the slave-power except by victory over it; and our best course, it seems to me, is to be always ready for the contest. But I am a practical man, and desire to act in such way as best to promote the ideas which we have at heart. If you can show me the road, I am ready to follow. . . The two years before us will be crucial years, years of the Cross. But I know that better times will soon come. For God's sake, stand firm! I hope John Van Buren will not allow himself to be enmeshed in any of the tempting arrangements for mere political success. He is so completely committed to our cause that he can hope for nothing except by its triumph. I know no one who has spoken a stronger or more timely word for us than he has. I am much attached to him personally. I admire his abilities, and am grateful for what he has done; but I feel that if he would surrender himself more unreservedly to the cause he would be more effective still. Few have such powers.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 255-6

Senator John C. Calhoun to Anna Calhoun Clemson, June 23, 1848

Washington 23d June 1848

MY DEAR DAUGHTER, If a long interval lies between the date of this and your last, you must attribute it to the fact, that my heavy correspondence, publick and private, and official duties, compel me to lengthen the period between my answers and the letters to which they reply, to a much greater extent than I desire in writing to you and the rest of the family. I correspond with all of them which of itself occupies a good deal of my time.

The opinions you express in reference to the state of things in Europe are very sensible and just. There is no prospect of a successful termination of the efforts of France to establish a free popular Government; nor was there any from the begining. She has no elements out of which such a government could be formed; and if she had, still she must fail from her total misconception of the principles, on which such a government, to succeed, must be constructed. Indeed, her conception of liberty is false throughout. Her standard of liberty is ideal; belongs to that kind of liberty which man has been supposed to possess, in what has been falsely called a state of nature, a state supposed to have preceded the social and political, and in which, of course, if it ever existed, he must have live[d] a part, as an isolated individual, without Society, or Government. In such a state, if it were possible for him to exist in it, he would have, indeed, had two of the elements of the French political creed; liberty and equality, but no fraternity. That can only exist in the social and political; and the attempt to unite the other two, as they would exist, in the supposed state of nature, in man, as he must exist in the former, must and ever will fail. The union is impossible, and the attempt to unite them absurd; and must lead, if persisted in, to distraction, anarchy and finally absolute power, in the hand of one man.

It is this false conception that is upheaving Europe, and which, if not corrected, will upset all her efforts to reform her social and political condition. It is at the same time threatening our institutions. Abolitionism originates in it, which every day becomes more formidable, and if not speedily arrested, must terminate in the dissolution of our Union, or in universal confusion, and overthrow of our system of Government. But enough of these general speculations.

We are in the midest of the presidential canvass. It will be one of great confusion. Neither party is satisfied, or united on its nominee; and there will probably be a third candidate, nominated by what are called the Barnburners, or Van Burenites. The prospect, I think, is, that Taylor will succeed, tho' it is not certain. The enclosed will give you all the home news.

It is still uncertain, when Congress will adjourn; but, I think it probable it will about the 1st August.

My health continues good. I am happy to hear you are all well, and that the children [are] growing and doing so well. Kiss them for their Grandfather, and tell them how happy he is to learn, that they are such good children. Give my love to Mr. Clemson.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 757-9

Senator Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, May 2, 1851

I would not affect a feeling which I have not, nor have I any temptation to do it; but I should not be frank if I did not say to you that I have no personal joy in this election. Now that the office is in my hands, I feel more than ever a distaste for its duties and struggles as compared with other spheres. Every heart knoweth its own secret, and mine has never been in the Senate of the United States, nor is it there yet. Most painfully do I feel my inability to meet the importance which has been given to this election and the expectation of enthusiastic friends. But more than this, I am impressed by the thought that I now embark on a career which promises to last for six years, if not indefinitely, and which takes from me all opportunity of study and meditation to which I had hoped to devote myself. I do not wish to be a politician.

Nothing but Boutwell's half-Hunkerism prevents us from consolidating a permanent party in Massachusetts, not by coalition, but by fusion of all who are truly liberal, humane, and democratic. He is in our way. He has tried to please Hunkers and Free Soilers. We can get along very well without the Hunkers, and should be happy to leave Hallett and Co. to commune with the men of State Street. The latter have been infinitely disturbed by the recent election. For the first time they are represented in the Senate by one over whom they have no influence, who is entirely independent, and is a “bachelor!” It was said among them at first that real estate had gone down twenty-five per cent!

I regret the present state of things in New York [the absorption of the Barnburners by the Democratic party, because it seems to interfere with those influences which were gradually bringing the liberal and antislavery men of both the old parties together. Your politics will never be in a natural state till this occurs.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 247-8

Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, October 4, 1850

Our Free Soil convention was very spirited. The resolutions are pungent, and cover our original ground. On this we shall stand to the end. I rejoice in the rent in New York Whiggery. If the Barnburners and Sewardites were together, there would be a party which would give a new tone to public affairs.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 218

Ausburn Birdsall* To Howell Cobb, September 8, 1848

Binghamton, N. Y., Sept. 8th, 1848.

Dear Sir: I sent you by yesterday's mail, a copy of the Albany Evening Journal, the leading whig paper in this State, in which you will find a full endorsement of the platform laid down at Buffalo as the old Whig platform. I send you herewith to-day a printed circular recently issued by the Whig State Central Committee, which is now being circulated throughout the State. I can vouch for its genuineness. The Whigs and Barnburners seem to vie with each other in the present crusade against the South. The Democratic party which supports Cass and Butler are the only advocates of a strict adherence to the Constitution and its compromises to be found in the North. Can it be possible that in such a contest the South will fail to stand by the Constitution, its own interests, and by its Northern friends? I will not permit myself to doubt that it will be found equal to the emergency. The idea is strange to us indeed, that Southern votes are to be given to aid sectional disorganizers and disunionists. It cannot — it ought not to be so. He that does not protect as well as provide for his own household is truly worse than an infidel.

_______________

* Member of Congress from New York, 1847-1849.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 125

William C. Daniell to Howell Cobb, July 1, 1848

Hall County [ga.], 1st July, 1848.

My Dear Sir: I received yours addressed to me at Savannah last night. I have been so much at home since my arrival here — more than a month — that I could give you but little information of the way in which the nominations have been received, but for the arrival last night of my friend Dr. Bailey from Savannah. He has been traveling leisurely up, and taking a deep interest in the cause of Democracy, has made inquiry everywhere on his way. Moving in a private conveyance out of the great thoroughfares, he tells us of what may be deemed, to a considerable extent at least, the spontaneous movement of the people.

He authorizes me to say to you that having travelled over the same country just four years ago, he can say with much confidence that up to this time there is more unanimity and enthusiasm among the Democracy now than there was then, whilst the Whigs are lukewarm. Where there are malcontent Democrats they vote for Taylor. The malcontent Whigs are near two to one of the Democrats, and they will not vote at all. The only malcontent Democrats he heard of were in Hancock.

He thinks that King's¹ Whig opponent will take off some 300 to 400 votes, which with the Democratic vote, should the Democrats run no candidate, which he deems the best policy, may elect Seward.²

But at present no one can see the issue that may be made in the coming presidential campaign. What is Van Buren doing? Do give me what light you can on his and Dodge's recent nominations at Utica. Is he no longer a “Northern man with Southern principles?”

If Taylor should, as I have supposed, repudiate the pledges of the Louisiana delegation in the Whig convention, what will the Whigs do? If the movement of the Barnburners should come to the head indicated by Van Buren's letter — of which I have only heard, but which assures me that he will accept a nomination of promise and that he deemed such a nomination (of promise) very probable when he wrote—where can we find the men to elect Cass or any other Democrat? If the hostility to Slavery has become so extended as to tempt Martin Van Buren to bow low and worship at its shrine for the highest office in the gift of the people, how long will it be before our own security will require that we withdraw from those who deem themselves contaminated by our touch? And how long before we shall deem those our best friends who would tell us that our only dependence is upon ourselves?

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 113-4

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, September 19, 1849

Philadelphia, Sep. 19, 1849.

My Dear Sumner, I thank you heartily for your prompt compliance with my request for information of the doings of your Convention. I have read its proceedings with great interest, and the Address with particular attention. The proceedings are worthy of the Free Democracy of old Massachusetts — earnest, poetical, principled — and tending, I hope, to great results. Would to God that you could carry the State this Fall. What a triumph it would be and what an impetus it would give to our cause in every quarter? Can it not be done? Can you not, all of you, buckle on your armor, and rousing the people by an eloquence suited to the crisis, achieve a victory for Freedom, which will prove that the world is not wholly given over to reaction, — that will compensate, in some measure, for our defeats in Vermont and Hungary?  One great difficulty we labor under is that our opponents can so palpably demonstrate our numerical weakness by pointing to the fact that we have, as yet, carried no State. This is a great discouragement to some who want to live somewhat by sight as well as by faith.

Of the Address I need only say that I think it altogether worthy of you. Not as I regard it as being so polished and perfect a composition as some which have emanated from your pen; but as replete with just sentiment, correct views and sound principles. It is, as you say, a Liberty Address, and urges the same topics which I have several times, in such papers, discussed. I cannot express how earnestly I desire that you may gather under the banner you unfurl a majority of the voters. For my own part, I mean to abide on the platform, which the Address presents, whether with few or many.

The union of the Hunkers and Barnburners of New York struck me unpleasantly as it did you. It seemed to me that our friends had gone too far, in their anxiety to secure united support of a single ticket. It seemed to me that if they had taken your Massachusetts ground, and contented themselves with proving their Democracy, not by pedigree but by works, and had appealed to the People to support them, independently of old party ties, they would have done better. When the Hunkers refused to adopt the platform, I would say, that the time for union had passed. Although, however, these views seem to me most reasonable, I do not at all distrust the sincere devotion to our principles and cause of our friends who thought and acted differently. They supposed that the entire body of the democracy, with insignificant exceptions, could be brought by the Union upon our platform, and made to take ground with us against the support of national candidates not openly and avowedly committed to our principles. If this expectation of theirs should be proved to have been warranted, by events, their movement will be sanctioned by its results. I hope it may be. Meanwhile it behooves all friends of Freedom to heed well what they are doing, and to take care that they do not become so entangled in party meshes, that they cannot withdraw themselves, in a powerful and united body, whenever (if ever) the Party shall prove false to Freedom.

For me, I think I may say, that you may depend on me. I have no senatorial or legislative experience and some qualities which will be sadly in my way; but I will be faithful to the Free Soil Cause, and, according to the measure of my discretion and ability, will labor to advance it. I shall not forget your admonition to remember what is expected of me; and though, I cannot hope, if there be such expectation as your words imply, to satisfy it, I do hope to be able (to) shew that I am not undeserving of the confidence of Freedom's Friends.

Poussin¹ came to Phila. (en route for Washington) by the same train of cars which brought me. I had some conversation with him. He appeared a good deal excited by the doings and sayings at Washington. He said that he did not know what were the grounds of offence taken by our Government — that if he had expressed himself incautiously or offensively he was quite willing to modify or retract, as propriety might require; and he seemed especially sensitive on the score that being himself an American, and ardently devoted to American Institutions, he should be thought capable of wilfully doing or saying anything injurious to the American People.

I see by this morning's papers (most of the above was written yesterday) that the Republic gives a full account of the matter. The expressions of Poussin were certainly indiscreet, but hardly justify, under all the circumstances, his abrupt dismissal. I suppose, however, it cannot be recalled. What influence will they have upon the reception of Rives? And how far has this course been adopted in view of the probable reception of Rives?

I expect to leave Phila. for Washington tomorrow — Saturday morning — and to remain there until Wednesday evening. Write me if you have time. Tell me what John Van Buren and Butler say to you. Glad that Palfrey withdraws withdrawal.

Affectionately and faithfully yours,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

Can't help thinking though that you could fill his place and be elected if he did not.

_______________

¹ Guillaume Tell Lavallée Poussin was the minister of the second French Republic, 1848-49, to the United States. He was dismissed Sept. 15, 1849, for discourtesy, the French Government having declined to recall him. See the art. in the N. Y. Courier & Enquirer for Sept. 19, reprinted in the N. Y. Tribune Sept. 20, 1849. The incident created considerable excitement and caused a fall in stocks owing to the apprehensions in regard to its consequences.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 185-8

Salmon P. Chase to Benjamin F. Butler,* July 26, 1849

Cincinnati, July 26, 1849.

My Dear Sir — The Free democracy of Ohio naturally regard with a good deal of solicitude the movement now made in New York with a view to Union between the Free democracy and supporters of General Cass: and as one of their number I have thought it best to state frankly to you the light in which the matter appears to me, and to ask in return an equally frank expression of your own thoughts upon it. Union between the different sections of the Democratic party is undoubtedly much to be desired: but it must be a union upon principle. The Buffalo Convention promulgated a Platform of Democratic Doctrines & Measures which those who composed that body pledged themselves in the most solemn manner to maintain and defend, until victory should crown the efforts of the free Democracy. That platform we adopted, as the National Platform of Freedom in opposition to the sectional Platform of Slavery. I have never met a Democrat of the Free States who did not admit that every resolution adopted by the Convention embodied sound democratic opinion. The resolution least likely to meet such general approval was that in relation to the Tariff and this resolution, as you are well aware, was the least palatable to me. Still it is unquestionable that this resolution expresses quite as distinctly the doctrine of a Tariff for Revenue, in contradistinction from a tariff for Protection, as the resolutions generally adopted on that subject in Democratic Conventions. The Buffalo Platform then is the Democratic Platform on which we are pledged to stand, at least until in National Convention the Free Democracy shall see fit to modify it, in harmony with the progress of Opinion. I see that the Pennsylvanian suggests as the basis of Union in New York general forgiveness on the part of the Cass Democrats to the Barnburners for the crime of supporting Martin Van Buren, and, in consideration thereof, the abandonment on the part of the Barnburners of the Buffalo Platform. I have no fear that any terms so degrading will be acceeded to by the generous spirits with whom you & I fought last year the most important political battle which this country has ever witnessed. But I have feared that a desire for union and the hope of a speedy triumph over their ancient antagonists the Whigs might lead them to take somewhat lower grounds on the subject of slavery than was taken at Buffalo. I should regard this as a deplorable mistake, to say no worse. I do not think that the Democracy could be reunited by such a step. You would leave out of the party formed by such a compromise, the entire body of the old liberty men and nearly all the Progressive Whigs who united with us last fall mainly on the Anti Slavery grounds: but those principles and views on political questions generally are so little whiggish, in the conservative sense of that term, that we may fairly assert them to be as Democratic in the main as our own. Besides this loss of numerical force, there would be the loss, still more to be deprecated, of moral power. The surrender or modification of Anti Slavery principle for the sake of Hunker affiliation and support would provoke and justify the contemptuous sarcasm of the entire Whig press, giving it a vantage of attack, which it would be prompt to avail itself of: Under these circumstances where would the Democracy be in future struggles, in nearly every one of the Free States? Borne down, I think, by a tide of opinion setting against it as untrue to its own principles & retrograded from its own position, much better it seems to me, will it be for the Free Democracy to maintain its own organization firmly and resolutely, and trust for growth for individual accessions and the junctions of small bodies in counties and towns, than to form any union upon the ground of compromised principle. There is no occasion for haste. The campaign of 1852 will not be opened for more than a year. The Free Democracy is daily gaining strength. The people approve our views and measures. The Old hunkers cannot go into the Battle of '52, without uniting with us on our own platform, except to meet inevitable and disastrous defeat. Not many of them have any such love for the maxims of Hunkerism as will make them covet political martyrdom. They must therefore advance to our platform however reluctantly or gradually. Better wait for them where we are than in our haste to rush to their embraces, leave our principles behind us.

I was much pleased by the remarks of John Van Buren at Cleveland.¹ He took the true ground “No more Slave States: No Slave Territory No encouragement But rather discouragement of Slavery by the General Government, and no support of any candidate for the Presidency who is not with us upon the platform” of course I don't give his language, but his views only. The last is the test clause. There are enough who will shout forth the three first propositions: but shrink from their practical application by the fourth, and agreement in the application must necessarily be the only secure basis of Union: for no other union will stand the trial of a nomination for the Presidency if that nomination would fall on a candidate of proslavery or doubtful principles. I hope that John Van Buren's sentiments truly reflect the opinions of the Free Democracy of New York. If they do whatever may become of the proposed union between the Free Democrats and hunkers in your state, the union of the Free Democracy of the union — far more important to the country and the cause of human freedom & Progress in general — is safe and its ultimate triumph as certain as the truth of its glorious principles. I enclose to you a communication to the Toledo Republican written, I suppose, by Mr. Hamlin the President of our Board of Public Works, which will still further shew you the views which prevail among us — I shall be glad to hear from you as soon as your leisure will permit and meanwhile remain

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 113 and 194-195. Benjamin Franklin Butler, 1795-1858; Attorney General of the United States 1833-1838; Acting Secretary of War October, 1836-March, 1837. Mr. Butler had presented Van Buren's name at the Buffalo convention in 1848.

¹ Probably at the Northwest Ordinance Convention, July 12. Cf. T. C.Smith Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 177.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 180-2