Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 27, 1849

Cincinnati, January 27, l849.

My Dear Hamlin; As I write, entirely uncertain whether you will receive this or not, I shall be very brief.

I am glad you approve my letter to Giddings. I am far from sure that it is worthy approval. I more than half suspect that I did a very foolish thing when I wrote it. However the truth can hardly do much harm and I certainly have not the slightest feeling of antagonism towards Mr. Giddings, and never shall permit myself to have so long as he remains faithful to the cause of Free Democracy. I think, also, as I said to him that he being in Congress, and I not, that the interests of the cause require my election or that of some reliable man not in Congress, rather than his. I may be wrong in this — misled, perhaps, by the “Ambition” so freely ascribed to me. If so let Giddings be chosen. I shall not complain. I cannot help thinking, however, that the election of one who has been longer convinced of the necessity and is more thoroughly identified with the policy of a distinct & permanent Free Democratic organization, will do the cause and the friends of the cause more good.

I do hope you will not find it necessary to leave Columbus until after the elections. Your presence there will be doubtless important.

You must not decline drawing on me from any motives of false delicacy. Through the blessing of Providence and the confidence of the community I have a good business; and I am willing to give to the extent of my means and beyond my means even, to advance the cause, and I want no one to feel trammelled in his action for the cause, by any sense of obligation to me. “The cause first, and friends afterwards,” is a sentiment I am perfectly willing to have applied to me by my friends.

I have written Stanley Matthews in regard to the Clinton member. Get him to read to you what I have written about him, and see he gets the right seat.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 160-1

Edward Stowe Hamlin

Edward Stowe Hamlin, 1808-1894, of New England parentage; settled in Elyria, Ohio, 1830; prosecuting attorney 1833-35; nominated by Whigs candidate for the 28th Congress, was unsuccessful but elected to the 29th (1844), receiving many Liberty votes. Cf. Philanthropist, Nov. 8, 1843. In 1846 he established the True Democrat which be edited for a year or more. As an anti-slavery Whig he attended the Liberty party convention for the Northwest, Chicago, 1846, where he “spoke for Ohio with liberality and good sense, holding to his Whiggery, but avoiding anything that could rasp his Liberty audience.” Cf. Smith, T. C. Liberty and Free Soil Parties of the Northwest. This author describes the aid given by him to Chase and the Democrats in the Ohio Legislature of 1849. Ibid. pp. 165-175. He drafted the somewhat famous instrument signed by Townsend, Morse, and others, in which the contracting parties agreed to vote for the Democratic nominees to all State offices provided they would vote for Salmon P. Chase for U. S. Senator. Previously Riddle, Lee, and other ex-Whigs had entered into a deal with the Taylor men in regard to the offices, hoping to secure their support later on for the election of a U. S. Senator. Cf. Ibid.

The Ohio Standard, Columbus, was established as a Free Soil paper by E. S. Hamlin and I. Garrard, 1848; subsequently, 1854, the former assumed control of the Columbian, Columbus. Member of the Free Soil convention in Buffalo, 1848, and one of the Committee on Resolutions. Served three years as president of the Board of Public Works of Ohio, and by special act of the Legislature, was attorney for the State to arrange the water leases of the canals. Declined the appointment of Attorney-General of Ohio. Planned several canals and railroads in Ohio, and was the attorney for the Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Lafayette R. R. for a number of years. Later his various projects took him to Virginia. For further accounts see Hart's Chase; Townsend's Account of the 47th General Assembly of Ohio, 1848-9, in Mag. of Western History, V. 6, p. 623; also, Letters of Salmon P. Chase (45 in number) to Edward S. Hamlin, in American Hist. Association Annual Report, 1902, Vol. II.

SOURCE: Quarterly Publication of the Ohio Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, 1915-1917, Volumes X-XII, Selections from the Follett Papers, III, p. 23-4

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 26, 1849

Cincinnati, January 26, 1849.

My Dear Hamlin; I have just received yours of yesterday & have time but for a word in reply. I am glad to have you say that you “do not beleive that Col. Morse can be moved.” I have had no idea that he could be. For him to give way now, upon any promises whatever by the Whigs who have abused him so much and to whom he owes nothing, would be to sign and seal his own destruction. His only course of safety and honor, is, as he expressed it himself in his letter to me, to go straight on. I shall be more disappointed in him, than I have ever been in any man if he do s not.

I shall look with great anxiety for the next intelligence from Columbus. The Whigs have generally ceased, I think, out of Columbus, to look for the exclusion of Pugh & Peirce. Almost all lawyers and others who have examined the subject decline to defend the constitutionality of the clauses dividing Hamilton County; and many of them give up the point frankly.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 160

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 24, 1849

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 Col^d. 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

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, Saturday, January 20, 1849

Sat. 20 Jany.

I see the correspondent of the Enquirer suggests that the Dems. will vote against Riddle's bill. Would not that be a grand move? Mama gave little Jack a piece of pie. Jack pouted and wanted a whole one. Mama said “no.” Jack flung down the piece offered and said he would have none. He would go to bed without his supper, that he would, before he would take such a little piece. Mama said “go,” and Jack got neither pie nor piece. Consult Esop for the moral.

Swift acted nobly in regard to the Governor business: I am glad that the credit of settling that matter belongs to him. He is a first rate man; and if he, Smart, Townshend, Riddle, Morse & Van Doren would form a caucus, or nucleus of one, there might be a real free soil party in the Legislature; and Townshend & Morse might be greatly strengthened.

I have mentioned to Hoadly what you say about his article. He says, “Make any use of it you please; but no use which you think will injure the cause.” He has no sensitiveness of authorship. Make an article of it or lay it aside altogether, as you think best. But is it not important to bring distinctly to view the fact that at the time of the Election of Shuber there was no Free Soil Caucus properly speaking but only a caucus of Whig Free Soilers? And that T. &. M. have always been in favor of a Free Soil Caucus or conference on the principles laid down by the State Convention.

It is a shame that you should be compelled, in your circumstances to sacrifice so much for the cause. I do hope that soon the necessity for it may be removed. In the meantime, though I am not a little straitened myself, you are perfectly at liberty to draw on me for fifty dollars, and we will settle it when convenient to yourself.

Write me as often and as much in detail as you can.

P. S. Do you hear anything from Bolton? He has not written me. I fear he dont like what I said of Bliss.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 154-5

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 20, 1849

Cincinnati, Jan’y 20, 1849

My Dear Hamlin; I wrote you fully by this morning's mail, and had sent my letter to the Post Office before I received your note of yesterday. I am very glad to hear of the prospect of the passage of Morse's Colored Children's School Bill, including the repeal of the Black Laws. The Repeal of those laws is an object dearer to me than any political elevation whatever; and is worth more to us as a Party than the election of any man to any office in the gift of the Legislature. It removes out of our path the greatest obstacle to our complete triumph, while it is in itself a great victory of humanity and justice. I shall rejoice in the passage of the bill on another account. The credit of it will redound to our friend Morse.

What has become of the Bill to prevent Kidnapping which I drew, and which you promised to hand to Riddle? I hope it is not lost. With a little improvement it might be made a complete safeguard, not only against the action of our officers & the use of our jails for the recapture of fugitive slaves, but also against the kidnapping by force or fraud of free persons. I shall be glad to see it on its way through the two Houses.

As to the School bill I hope its friends will not consent to any amendment of any kind, unless merely verbal, but push it right through just as it is.

I do not know that I can say anything more than I have said in relation to the Standard. I have done and said all I could for it, and shall continue my efforts. I have no doubt all the money needed can be raised in the Spring. Vaughan told me he would write to Townshend tonight on the subject of the Printing. I hope Riddle will read the letter.

I received today a letter from Dr. Bailey in which he speaks of an interview with Giddings, in which the Senatorial Election in Ohio was the subject of Conversation. I will extract a few sentences which shew that Mr. Giddings entertains none but the kindest feelings towards me — no other indeed than those which I have so often expressed to you in relation to him.

“I have seen” says the Doctor “and talked freely with Giddings. He is moderately ambitious —would like to be United States Senator. If there is a good chance of his election, if the Free Soil men will unite upon him, he wishes to run. If they cannot or will not unite upon him, he says you & you alone, by all means are the man. I told him he ought to write to one of his Free Soil friends in the Legislature just as he talked to me, frankly, fully, and request the letter to be shown to you, so that his position and views might be clearly known”

The Doctor adds a good deal as to the advantage of having me in the Senate, Giddings being already in the House, which I will not offend against modesty by transcribing. I fear, however, that the Doctor agrees with me in opinion that if Giddings were out of Congress as well as myself, he & not I should be placed in the Senate. He desires my election on the theory that Giddings cannot be spared from the House, and that getting me in the Senate, Giddings being already in the House, would be clear gain. I have quoted the extract to show you that Giddings does not entertain the wish, which some have imputed to him, to defeat an election if he cannot be himself elected.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 153-4

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, Columbus, Ohio, January 19, 1849

Cincinnati, January 19, 1848 [1849].

My Dear Hamlin: Thanks for your two letters, both which I recd. today. If you can contrive to let me have future letters mailed on the day you write, so much the better.

Vaughan will go to Clinton on Monday. The Democrats at Columbus ought to use their influence with the Clinton People to unite on a true Free Democrat. If they do not, but persist in encouraging Trimble to run, I fear Vaughan's mission will prove unavailing. If anything occurs at Columbus, important to be known by him in Clinton, a letter directed to me, & reaching me on Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday, can be forwarded to him on Wednesday, Friday & Monday. But, perhaps, the communication direct from Columbus to Wilmington may be more prompt.

I am glad to hear of your meeting with Dimmock & others. I suppose good must come of it. I hope Morses bill will be made to go along with the bill to repeal the division clauses of the apportionment law. Let the Black Laws & those clauses perish together. They will be fit tenants of a common sepulchre.

As to the Standard, it must not be suffered to stop. Its failure will injure the cause immensely, as well as be extremely injurious to Garrard & yourself, having recd. advance subscriptions for a year. I would cheerfully advance further myself if I were able, but I am not; and it would be unjust to me, after I have subscribed $200 to allow the paper to stop without exhausting every effort to induce the Free Soilers of the State to come forward to its support. I have paid today $100, being the note for the first instalment of my subscription. I cannot think that Mr. Garrard will hesitate to use his credit to the extent necessary to carry the paper beyond the elections in the Legislature, when you will be disengaged and I shall be able to cooperate efficiently with you. Every letter I send out now contains an appeal & is accompanied by a prospectus for the Standard. I sent one to Dr. Paul of Williams County today, & I shall send one to Hoffman of Trumbull tomorrow.

I do hope that Randall will vote for the repeal of the division clauses. It can do him no hurt but rather great good, and will be exceedingly beneficial to the cause. Vaughan says if there is any danger of Hitchcock's election he will come up & oppose it with all his power. I wish Giddings knew the true state of things.

I feel confident Morse will be firm. He is in earnest in the cause of Free Democracy, and he sees clearly the true position in which things are. He knows too that the only safe course is the straight forward one — that to falter or look back, or turn aside is to be lost.

How stands Van Doren now? Watson said that if it were necessary he would come down. If you think best write to him at Upper Sandusky. Upper I believe, but Van Doren can tell. Do you have any conference with Nickols? I have had several letters from him, in the best spirit. He may be fully relied on I think in any matter you may wish to confide to him. How far do you & Matthews understand each other? He is a true man, every inch.

I dont think the McClure &c Circular will effect much in Clinton. The old Liberty Guard constitutes there more than half the Free Soil strength. If any man can do anything there it is Vaughan backed by the Liberty men. Is there any possibility that Johnson of Medina can lose his seat? From his statements to me I supposed his rights clear. It must be, if these were true. If there be any such possibility it is more important that the democrats in Clinton should unite with us on a Free Soiler, who is a Free Democrat in reality. We should risk too much by uniting with him unless it is certain that Johnson must go out. They would risk nothing by uniting with us; but would gain much especially by refuting the notion that the Whigs are the more favorable party.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 150-2

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, Columbus, Ohio, January 17, 1849

Cincinnati, January 17, 1848 [1849?]

My Dear Hamlin: I wrote you yesterday a few words in reply to yours of the 13th.

Vaughan has written to Briggs. He takes up my defence quite in earnest and very generously. You will see Matthews defence of Morse & Townshend in the Globe, made upon my suggestion. The Era of this week will I expect contain another. While I am thus active in having these gentlemen defended, it does seem to me that a little might be done in the same way for me. But, perhaps, it is thought silence is my best defence, and that my character will take care of itself. Perhaps this idea is correct; but, I confess, it galls me a little to see such insinuations as that of Briggs & others on the Reserve, go without any antidote whatever. I do not know what to say in reference to the paper. I do not think it advisable for you to leave until after the Senatorial Election, unless you have given up all expectation of such an issue of that as we have desired; and, with my limited means of information I see no reason as yet to despond. It strikes me that, if the printing of the House cannot be secured, the most advisable course would be for Mr. Garrard to borrow enough to carry on the paper till spring, when you could go out and raise means, with what aid I and others could give, to pay off the debt and make everything straight. Just at present I am in the most awkward position possible to act for the paper. After the Senatorial Election, whether the choice falls on me or another, I can act more efficiently, and you may rely on me, in every event, to the extent of my ability.

I will ascertain the state of things with the Cincinnati Globe and let you know. I should be delighted to have you here, but do not see how you could be spared from Columbus. Perhaps however we could find some one to fill that post, and you could be there in the winter: especially if you can be elected to the Pres. of the B^d of P. W.

1 am not certain that Whitman occupies the attitude you think he does. Would it not be well for you to call on him, and ascertain his views. He will, I am confident, meet you frankly and fairly.

How do Beaver, Johnson, Lee & Chaffee feel towards me now? They were very savage after the election of Speaker; and, perhaps, they had some reason in as much as they had no warning of the purpose of Col. Morse & Dr. Townshend to vote for Breslin, and supposed I was instrumental in keeping that purpose from them. They were quite mistaken in this. I approved the intention of Messrs. M. & Townshend, because I thought it was the only way to save the Free Democracy from identification with Whigism, but I never thought of making any secret of it. Had they held such a conference as I proposed, eschewing dictation and yet using perfect frankness one towards another, the whole matter would doubtless have been explained by the gentlemen concerned. Had Mr. Beaver, or Mr. Chaffee, or Mr. Johnson or Mr. Lee chanced to call on me after I became apprized of the intention of Messrs. T. & M. to vote as they did, I should, most probably, have mentioned it to them. But it so happened that I was just then,—the Court in Banc being about to adjourn — engaged night & day upon my arguments, and did not go over to the State House or to the Capitol House for some days. So far as I was concerned, therefore, the non-communication to them of the intention of Messrs. M. &T. was entirely accidental. So far as those gentlemen were concerned, I think they will admit, if they will candidly & generously review all that occurred, that their own course towards them had not been such as to invite the most entire freedom of communication.

I am looking anxiously for the introduction of the bill to repeal the Ham. Co. division clauses of the apportionment law. I hope Mr. Riddle will introduce it; and the sooner it is done the better. It is very plain to me that the Free Democracy will never espouse the Whig side of this controversy.

What has become of the bill to establish Separate Schools for Cold persons, &c., which Morse was to introduce? I hope you will give some attention to this. It is really important, and if it can be got through with the help of Democratic votes, will do a great deal of good to the cause generally & our friend Morse especially. I am glad to hear that he stands firm. I think he need not be afraid but that the people will stand by him. It is evident to my mind that before the Legislature rises the Freesoilers in it will be compelled to take his ground, or give up their claims to the title altogether.

Ask Dr. Townshend & Mr. Morse why they don't write to me. I am very desirous to hear from them. Do write me as often as you can, and believe me,

Please hand the enclosed to Stanley Matthews forthwith.

P. S. Has anything been done to secure the cooperation of the democrats in returning a Free Soiler of the right stamp from Clinton? This could certainly be done, if proper exertions were made, and you cannot fail to see its great importance. Nichols intended to go down, but writes me that he has not done so. If you think best, however, I do not doubt that he will go. Had you not better see him. Vaughan will go, if it is desired; or possibly you might kill two birds with one stone by going yourself & presenting also the claims of the paper. I have written to Thos. Hibben of Wilmington & enclosed a Standard Prospectus &c.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 148-51

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* Columbus, Ohio, January 16, 1849

Cincinnati, January 16, [1849].

My Dear Hamlin: I have had my supper, — I have donned my dressing gown & slippers;—my wife is beside me in our snug dining room;— everything is comfortable around me;— and I am writing to a friend in whom I repose full confidence. At this moment I cannot find it in my heart to indulge a single unkindly or uncharitable thought toward any human being. To be sure, I do feel as if a certain individual, who rejoices in the initials S. P. C., might be a good deal better employed, than in political navigation; and sometimes find it difficult to suppress a rising sentiment of indignation against him, when I think of his preposterous folly in venturing to have opinions of his own, & even, what is scarcely credible, daring occasionally to act upon them. But with the exception of the slight disturbance occasioned by the conduct of this individual the current of my thoughts flows quite smoothly tonight. I wish you were here to sit down & chat with me. How pleasantly we might contrive to dispose of an hour or two!

But I can easily imagine your actual situation, — not half so pleasant as mine — sitting in the Standard office, at the long pine? table, scribbling some Editorial for the paper perhaps a defence of Townshend & Morse, — perhaps a gentle hint to our amiable friend Chaffee. Well, I am sorry for you. If wishes could “execute themselves” — as the rascally slaveholders who preside in the Supreme Court of the United States say of the fugitive clause in the Constitution — you should have a nice large cushioned leather library chair, with the easiest flowing gold pen, and the blackest ink and the finest blue wove paper, a bright fire, a warm carpet, and all the etcetras which could make an editorial sanctum attractive and delightful. Then you should have a plentiful income coming in like the tides into the Bay of Fundy, and a long, long list of faithful paying subscribers, constituting a congregation that the Pope — and every editor, you know is an infallible Pope — might be proud to preach to. But I can almost fancy you exclaiming “Stop! Stop! What is the fellow after? Does he want to drive me to suicide by reminding me so ruthlessly of the vast difference between the ideal & the actual?” and so I will stop; for I want no such responsibility on my shoulders or conscience.

I suppose you see the True Democrat regularly, and of course, have noticed the course of Briggs towards Townshend, Morse & myself. The object seems to me plain enough. If he can cut Townshend & myself down, & terrify Morse into unhesitating acquiescence into the decisions of the Whig Freesoil Caucus the course will be left clear, he thinks, for the unchecked sway of Free Soilism of the Whig stamp. But I think he must fail in his reckoning. He cannot, 1 believe, hurt Townshend or myself, nor do I imagine that his threats or menacing intimations will have much effect on Morse. I feel, however, a good deal of solicitude to know whether Mr. Morse maintains his independent position. I shall be much disappointed if he does not. To recede now would be worse than never to have taken it. How is it with our good friend, Mr. Van Doren? Is he regarded now as an Independent Free Soiler or a Whig Free Soiler?

I do wish that the Free Soilers in the Legislature could unite on the only practical basis of union. That is let the Democratic Free Soilers, & the Whig Free Soilers, and the Independent Free Soilers (which terms I use for distinction's sake only) meet together and confer freely on the course best to be pursued in every case of importance. At these meetings let mutual and perfect toleration be exercised by each towards all the rest, and let everything which is done or spoken be under the seal of the most sacred confidence. If they can after a comparison of views find a ground on which all can stand honestly & in good faith, let them take it and maintain it no matter who may be benefitted or injured by it. If they cannot find such a ground but, after the best efforts to reach it have failed, they find themselves, in consequence of honest convictions, influenced or not influenced by former party associations, unable to agree let each take his own course, with perfect respect for the others and with fixed determination not to ascribe or even indulge the supposition of improper motives. Of course such conferences of Free Soilers should allow the attendance of none, however antislavery or personally worthy, except those who adopt, in good faith, & without reservation, the National & State Platforms of Free Democracy, and have fully made up their minds and openly avowed their determination to act permanently in & with the Party organized upon them. I can think of no way so well calculated to prevent discord and secure a mutual good understanding as this. I do not know whether even this way is practicable.

I have this moment, (Tuesday 12 M) recd. your letter and thank you for it. Vaughan has written a reply to Briggs for the Cleveland True Democrat. It does not put the action of Morse & Townshend on the true ground precisely but I think it will do good. It does more than justice to me. Vaughan I am glad to find, agrees with us as to the prima facie right of Pugh & Peirce and thinks the division clauses should be repealed. I do not think he has considered the question as to the unconstitutionality of the law. I am glad Riddle proposes to introduce a bill to repeal the clauses. It is the right thing to do at this time, and he is the right man to do it. It will reflect credit on him, and do much service to Townshend & Morse. I regretted to see Beaver's remark that the division clauses of the apportionment law w^d not be repealed while the First district remains disfranchised. This will do no good. The true question is, “Is the repeal right?” If it is, it cant be done too soon. I would write to Randall, but I did write to him a few days since, on the subject of the Governor's Return, as friendly a letter as I could & took great pains here & with friends elsewhere to set his action in that matter in the most favorable point of view. But I have heard nothing from him, & don't wish to seem to force a correspondence on him. Suppose you find out, as you easily can, why he dont write?

It seems to me that you must come out in defence of Townshend & Morse: and I am not sure that justice does not require a frank statement of the whole action in Columbus, resulting in the virtual expulsion from the caucus of all the Democratic & Independent Free Soilers.

I have no time to write further without losing the mail. I am very glad your cough is better.

_______________

* Edward S. Hamlin was a member of Congress from Ohio, 1844-45. He was an ardent worker for Chase, and at this time was the editor of an anti-slavery paper at Columbus, the Ohio Standard.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 145-8