Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, December 5, 1851

Washington City, Dec. 5, 1851.

My Dear Sir, I have just sent that letter to you to the Post Office as there was but just time to save the mail. Fearing you may not come on, I have thought it best to write you a little more at large in explanation of my views.

It was supposed, before the session, commenced that the Democratic Caucuses of the Senate and the House might be induced to adopt the Compromises as parts of the Democratic Platform and thus exclude the Antislavery men. It was the anxious wish of Foote, Cobb & Co, including the Whigs of the South, that they should do so, and thus open the door for the admission of the Constitutional Union Party into the bosom of the democracy. But when Congress assembled and the Antislavery Representatives (Democrats) such as King, Cleveland & Rantoul went into Caucus declaring that if any such test as adherence to the Compromises was imposed they must withdraw, light suddenly shone into the understandings of the Hunkers and they became suddenly convinced that Resolutions endorsing the Compromises were inexpedient. The rationale of the matter was that they feared the loss of the Progressive Democrats more than they desired the gain of the Constitutional Union Men. So the resolution was laid on the table in the House Caucus and the idea of introducing it into the Senate Caucus was abandoned. Foote has brought into the Senate, on his own responsibility, the resolution which was rejected in the House Caucus. It may pass, but I think it doubtful. I know its introduction is condemned by the most prominent democrats. If it passes it must be by a combined vote of whigs & democrats. It cannot receive democratic votes enough to pass it.

Under these circumstances I feel pretty sure that there will be no attempts to engraft any approval of the Compromise measures upon the Baltimore Platform. On the contrary, I think it more probable—though I do not think it absolutely probable—that the Pro Slavery Resolution now constituting part of that Platform may be dropped.

It seems to me, then, that there never was so fair an opportunity for Antislavery democrats to work as now. It is certain that they have the convictions of a majority of the people with them, and they are now virtually admitted to be too strong to be proscribed.

We need in Ohio and especially at Cincinnati a liberal democratic press. The Nonpareil is substantially that now, but it is edited upon no fixed plan and is without a chart. Give it an Editor, who would make it a readable paper, maintaining substantially the same position as now, until the Presidential Election shall come on and then giving a hearty support to the candidates of the Democracy or, if the Democracy shall be divided then to the candidates of the Progressive Wing, and I do not see how it can fail to be a profitable concern. If I had charge of it, I would not perceptibly change its present position; but would, very gradually, give it an Independent Democratic character, without distinctly avowing any party bias. I believe in this way it could be made acceptable to its present readers while gaining increased circulation and influence among the democrats. Another consideration, in favor of the paper is that it has the city printing worth about $1000 per annum.

Now if you can raise the means to pay for the paper— say 1800 cash to meet immediate payments, I will provide in 6 month, or less time if necessary, $1000 to complete the purchase. Then means could be raised to carry on the paper, until the subscription & advertising should furnish, themselves, the means. I believe you could make the paper profitable and useful and I shall be extremely glad if you see your way clear to take hold of it.

I do not abandon the hope of seeing you here, but I thought it safest to write at all events.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 238-40

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 Edward S. Hamlin, January 15, 1851

Washington City, Jany 15, 1851.

My Dear Sir, Why have you not written me these many days? I believe you are my debtor, but I shall stand on no formality.

It seems to me that there never was more pressing need of vigilant and decided action on the part of the friends of freedom. I am exceedingly anxious for the adoption of Sutliff's resolutions or their equivalents. We need the voice of Ohio here. If I were a free democrat in the Legislature I would not take a step, in cooperation with either of the old parties until I had obtained a clear expression either by legislation or resolution on the great questions of freedom — I mean of course after organization.

It is well understood here that a combined effort has been made to defeat the resolution [reelection] of Fremont in California. It seems that in the election of members of the Legislature men of southern proslavery sympathies [were nominated]. This would, had Fremont drawn the long term, secure Gwin's reelection, if he should take sides as he seems to have done with the proslavery men, or of someone who would take such side in his place. Some anticipate that the California Legislature will sanction slavery or propose amendments of the Constitution with that view. Col. Benton thinks, however, they will hardly dare to venture on this. Fremont is to be defeated, however, if possible, on account of his opposition to slavery, and the probability is that his defeat will be achieved. This is not very encouraging from California, and does not look much like a settlement of the slavery question.

Col. Benton's election will probably be determined one way or the other before this reaches you. To enable you to judge, however, what influences are at work to defeat him I will barely mention that I accidentally heard today one slaveholding democrat expressing to another, who was supposed to have much influence with the Missouri members, a strong wish that they would vote for the Whig candidate, if sound on the slavery question. The gentleman addressed appeared to acquiesce in this view.

Gen Cass has never denied Foote's statement in New York that he would willingly see Clay elected if such should be the result of the action of the Compromise Committee, and never will. He now however, it is understood, takes ground against the Union organization. There has been an attempt to get up a meeting of members of Congress independent of old party lines to denounce the Free Democracy. But as yet it is a failure.

I received a letter from Santa Fe today from an intelligent man. It is dated Nov. 29th. The writer says great efforts are made to create a proslavery sentiment and that the question of slavery or freedom in New Mexico hangs suspended upon the action of this administration.

Slaves are held in the territory now, and more will be introduced, if the organization of the Territorial Government encourages the hope that the holders will be undisturbed.

Under these circumstances let no friend of freedom fold his arms or think his work done. Especially let our friends in the Legislature be firm, vigilant & wary.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 228-30

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, December 21, 1850

Dec. 21, 1850.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

There is a good deal of Presidential speculation here. Our friends generally favor Benton, and he will certainly run, if the people call on him, against any “rotten”, as he calls the runners after the Omnibuseers. Old Gen1. Dodge of Wisconsin is also spoken of. Cass' prospects look blue. The Southern Rights Party is dead against him & embraces a majority of those known heretofore, as Southern Democrats. This makes his case hopeless in the South.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 227

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, August 22, 1850

Washington City, August 22, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, I recd. yours of the 14th this morning. Doubtless you have, also, just recd. my last to you, which answers in part the enquiries you make.

I have no faith at all in this administration. It has pursued the Whig policy of Evasion thus far. The resolute face towards Texas was assumed for the North. The appeal for a settlement of the boundary question, when they well knew that settlement by Congress, except by millions for nothing, was out of the question was for the south. It was as if our Fathers had said to Tripoli, you have no right to hold our fellow citizens in bondage and we will wage war with you if you do, and at the same time had said if you will release half of them we will pay you so many millions & say nothing about the rest. I hate oppression, but I despise truckling. I abhor the doctrines of the extreme South, but I contemn Whig policy. I am not for any union with any body who will not in good faith adopt and uphold the principles of the Buffalo & Columbus platforms. I do not believe the Whigs can adopt them for on other questions than that of Slavery they are democratic. I do not believe the National! democratic party will adopt them; for they hope more from treason to freedom than from union with radical democrats. Let both these gang their gaits. I am for maintaining our independent organization as a Jeffersonian Democratic Party & let who will desert or give back maintaining it firmly.

I hoped that Judge Wood would put such an exposition of the Columbus old Line Antislavery Resolution as would make his election an antislavery democratic triumph. 1 wished to support him. I yet wish to do so. But, at present, I wait for future developments. I look for the action of the Free Dem. Convention held today with great interest. If it is really democratic it will do much good.

I am anxious for the election of the free democratic candidate in the 21st district. I suppose from the information I receive that Dr. Townshend will be the man. I think his election of far greater importance to Freedom than any success of one candidate for Governor over another. The Freesoil Whigs, I suppose, will oppose him as they did me — I trust, with as little success.

As to the withdrawal of Judge McLean's name, that lie can do no harm. I have the Judge's own letters in my possession, which, if necessary, will speak for themselves. Besides I am not in the least sorry that the Judge was not our candidate. He could not have been elected: and the chances are three to one that he would have declined it or withdrawn. If he could have been elected who can say that he would have stood the test better than Webster or Fillmore. He is quoted now as authority for Webster's Fugitive Slave bill. And his decision in Indiana is such as I, though reposing the greatest confidence in his personal integrity, cannot sanction.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 217-9

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, August 14, 1850

Washington, Aug. 14, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, I find your letter of the 11h of July among my unanswered letters but my impression is very strong that I have answered it. Is it so or not?

I wrote you a day or two since enclosing a recommendation of Th. K. Smith by Donn Piatt for Collector at Cincinnati. — Smith was a student in our office, and always did well what I wished him to do. He has good talents, but was, at one time, rather given to idling away his time. In this I think he has reformed since his marriage. He is poor & has his father's family to support. If you can give him the office I feel persuaded he will discharge its duties well, and do no discredit to your selection. That I shall be gratified by it I need not add. The only thing I know to Smith's disadvantage was his association as law partner with Read & Piatt which is somewhat to his discredit if not damage of his liberty principles.

Well — we have passed in the Senate a bill for the admission of California at last. After organizing Utah without the proviso &, what was ten times more objectionable, a bill giving half New Mexico and ten millions of dollars to Texas in consideration of her withdrawing her unfounded pretension to the other half, we were permitted to pass the California admission bill. The Texas Surrender Bill was passed by the influence of the new administration which is Hunker & Compromise all over. The Message of Fillmore asserting the right of the United States and declaring his purpose to support it and then begging Congress to relieve him from the necessity of doing so by a compromise—that message did the work. That message gave the votes of Davis & Winthrop, of Mass — Clarke & Greene of R. I. Smith of Conn. & Phelps of Vermont to the Bill.

I hardly know what to wish in regard to the Cleveland Convention. Luckily this is the less important as my wishes have very little influence with the Clevelanders. I am persuaded that the Jeffersonian democracy will be bound to take distinct ground against the Hunkers who are straining every nerve to put Cass into the field again, and may succeed in nominating Woodbury, who is more objectionable. We must adhere to our principles, and, so long as those principles and the course of action which fidelity to them requires are not recognized by the Old Line Democrats, to our organization also. Perhaps a nomination for Governor would be useful at this time — especially if the right kind of a man and upon a reaffirmation of the democratic Platform of '48. In the National Contest which is impending I think Benton will go with us against the Hunkers, if they drive us to a separation.

I shall send this to Olmsted, expecting it will find you there. Wherever it may find you write me soon. There is no prospect of adjournment before September.

Since writing this letter last night, I have recd your last this morning. I thank you for it—now you are in my debt — remember.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 216-7

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, May 27, 1850

Washington, May 27, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, * * * What a singular political conjunction is that of Cass, Clay & Webster? What a curious spike team they make with Foote for a driver! Where will he drive them to? Political perdition, I imagine you to answer. And really I think you are more than half right. The signs are ominous of evil to the compromisors. Their patch work hardly seems to please anybody. The southern men will go against it, unless they can obtain amendments, which Clay himself dare not vote for — dare not simply because he would by so doing merely transfer himself to their ranks without followers. The break between Clay and the Administration seems to be complete and final. His course reminds every body of his action when Tyler came in. But the difference in circumstances between now and then is very remarkable. Taylor was elected President and is the head of the Whig Party by choice. Tyler became President by a dispensation of Providence and was never the head of the Whig Party at all. Clay now holds a faction — then he lead a Party. The difference is great. He is in danger of being treated as a rebel. The article in the Republic this morning is significant of more to come. On the other hand the Southern extremists regard Clay with little favor — rather I might say with jealous dislike. He has never been with him, [them] and his attempt to head them now — to put himself in their van and dictate to them their course excites no very amiable feelings among them. You may look with great confidence for the failure of the Compromise.

Great interest is felt here in regard to the result in Palfrey's District. The democrats there have acted with great liberality, and we expect, with great solicitude the news of Palfrey's election. The result is decided by this time, and the wires are perhaps even now carrying tidings of it to every section of the country.

Corwin, I understand, is to speak soon. He intends I believe to take ground against Clay. He says he feels a little awkward, having escaped from Clay's service, in which he has been held so long, and is a little apprehensive of reclamation under the fugitive law — but he don't want to go back — he don't like the service. I think he will make a telling speech.

I learn, but am not certain as to the accuracy of my intelligence, that Taylor desired to keep the Texans out of New Mexico, but was overruled by his cabinet.

Write soon & often.

Mrs C. is better, but the disease, I fear, not vanquished.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 212-3

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, April 16, 1850

Washington, Ap1. 16, 1850.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

Benton fights bravely the battle for California & Freedom against the whole array of the slaveholders, reinforced by Cass, Whitcomb, Bright, Dickinson & Webster! The old man says, in consequence of his position, some things not very palatable to us, but something surely may be pardoned to him who displays a political heroism unparalleled in our time.

P. S. I send you my speech. I have no reason to complain of the degree of credit awarded to it even by those who dissent [?] from its position. I hope you will like it.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 210

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, March 16, 1850

Mar. 16, 1850.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

As to affairs here, there is little of interest which you will not learn from the papers. Of our Ohio Democrats I regard only four as heartily opposed to the extension of slavery. These are Carter, Wood, Cable & Morris. All the rest except Miller & perhaps Hoagland may be relied on to vote for the proviso when brought forward. But I am not sanguine that it can be passed. The ground taken by the Administration and the hope on the part of the Old Line Democracy of securing the support of the slaveholders in the next Presidential struggle, and the peculiar circumstances which tie up Col Benton & prevent him from taking ground in favor of the proviso & induce to represent it as unnecessary — all these things are against the friends of freedom. Still this Congress will not go by without something gained for humanity and progress — the slave trade will be abolished in the District & two cents postage probably established. It will then remain for the Free Democracy by its steadfastness, courage, & perseverance to bring up the nation to the standard of our principles, by declaring and acting upon, a fixed resolution to support no candidate who will not take decided ground against all slavery which the national jurisdiction reaches and against all national political alliances which involve the support of slavery. Our cause is onward. The fluctuations which ordinary politicians see are occasioned by the ebb and flow of the accidental floating mass which comes and goes without principle. But the current, which knows no ebb flows on steadily swelling in volume & accumulating power, freighted with the hopes of millions.

I send you Seward's speech & Hamlin's. Walker of Wisconsin also has made a good speech which I will send you by & by. Hale is to speak Tuesday. I have been endeavoring to get the floor lately, but have not succeeded as yet. I am only beginning feel at home.

P. S. Was any thing done about getting a suitable Editor for the Columbus paper. Do see to it that we have a real democratic platform.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 204-5

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 18, 1850

Washington, Feb. 18, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, Your last letter was very interesting to me. I regret that our friends in the Legislature do not purpose to act in concert with the Democrats in the Legislature in the elections. I regret it, because I do not see any thing in our present relations so different from those which existed last winter as to call for a different line of action. But to be sure it is now more necessary to preserve union among ourselves. Then, the Freesoilers elected as Whigs & Democrats respectively could not be expected to stand together as harmoniously as those elected last fall without concert with either of the old parties, all of whom now stand in the same position in which Morse & Townshend stood last winter, and I agree with you that action with either party is not so important as harmony among the Free Democrats.

Giddings is strongly of opinion that Hutchins should be nominated for Governor. In this I fully agree, provided that Wood is determined to remain mum, as all the information I get indicates that he will.

I should be glad to have Stanley Matthews elected Secretary of State; but if he cannot be nominated I hope Taylor may get it. Taylor has edited the Mirror with great discretion & perfect fidelity to the cause of Free Democracy. He has talent enough and sagacity enough to make a leading man; but his boiler will bear more steam than he puts on, except when something rouses him pretty thoroughly. I do hope that if Matthews cannot be made Secretary of State that his services may be secured as an Editor of the Standard. I will cheerfully do my part towards paying his salary, I wish we could have an equally competent man at the head of the Nonpareil. I would gladly, also, contribute liberally to pay his expenses. As to Matthews you may assess me according to your discretion: and why cannot you make up the amount needed in this way by just assigning to leading men in different parts of the State their respective quotas and telling them they must come forward with the dust?

Speaking of newspaper projects you may be interested in knowing that the Northern Democrats are talking seriously of establishing a Democratic Paper here in opposition to the Union. Bailey is also talking of issuing his Paper as a Daily. If he does not do so, I think the project of the Northern Democratic Daily & weekly will be pushed in earnest. I have offered to be one of fifty or if necessary one of twenty to make up $10,000 for the object. I believe the whole sum could be raised in a week. There is the strongest dissatisfaction felt in regard to the course of the Union.

Are you aware that Medary's correspondent “Oche” is also the correspondent of the Charleston Mercury? I am informed that such is the fact. I wonder that Medary continues his engagement with him, when he could have the services of men here who would contribute to spread a feeling conducive to the ascendancy of the Democratic Party in Ohio, rather than, by alienating the Antislavery wing contribute to its overthrow. Cant you talk to Medary on this subject, and advise me what he says and why he continues this man Wallace as his correspondent?

The signs here are favorable to freedom. The Doughfaces who voted against Root's resolution are getting thoroughly scared. Root had the floor today, & gave them, especially, Winthrop a terrible scathing. Mann, also, gave the slaveholders a talk on the frailties of dissolution, its modus operandi and certain consequences.

In the Senate it has become certain that California will be admitted with uncurtailed boundaries, which will give the deathblow to the Missouri Compromise Project; the Kentucky Senators, the Delaware Senators & Benton will vote for it and I know of no Northern Senator who will probably vote against it except Sturgeon. We would have passed Benton's proposition to instruct the Committee on Territories to report a bill for the admission of California unconnected with any other subject today, but for the wish expressed by Benton himself seconded by Webster that opportunity might be given to all for the expression of their views.

The Admission of California will be the forerunner, I think, of the defeat of the slaveholders this winter on all their important propositions. Little Clemens has the floor for next Tuesday when we shall have blood & thunder in quantity. The California question of course, for the present suspends all action on Clay's resolutions on which I meant & still mean, if an opportunity occurs to speak, and develop fully the views & principles of the Free Democracy.

Give my kindest regards to all our friends at Columbus. I shall send them in a few days the speeches of Berrien & Davis as I want them to be aware of the extreme Southern positions, the real positions in fact of the Slave Power.

I am glad to say that Mrs. Chase's health is improving Is Mrs. Hamlin with you this winter? I see some statements about your colleagues of the Board in the Senate debates. What is meant?

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 201-3

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

Feb. 2, 1850.

* * * You have seen Clay's Compromise resolutions — sentiment for the north substance for the south — just like the Missouri Compromise — all that is in issue given up by the nonslaveholders — unsubstantial concessions of matters not in issue by the slaveholders. The great discussion is now evidently near at hand and I must speak. Well, I have broken the ice, & though all circumstances have conspired to prevent any adequate preparation on my part, I will speak. Perhaps the sling & the five stones from the brook will again avail against Goliah.

Hutchins speech on the Apportionment Law was an admirable one. Give my regards to all our friends & believe me

[Salmon P. Chase.]

P. S. If you get the right kind of a man with you in the Board of Public Works remember James Kelly. Do you know James Brooks of Dayton? He will wish to be associate Judge of Montgomery? And if you know no reason to the contrary I shall be glad to have you speak a good word for him.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 200-1

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 17, 1850

Washington, Jany 17, 1850.

Mr Dear Sir, I received your last letter at Philadelphia. I am not certain whether I replied to it or not. The fact is the severe illness of my dear wife, presenting varied symptoms from day to day, not on the whole very encouraging nor absolutely discouraging, gives me so much uneasiness and such constant employment of my thoughts, that I hardly remember, from day to day, what I did the preceding day.

I regret exceedingly the action of the Democratic Convention in regard to slavery. The proposed action of Mr. Warner, after the 4th & 5th resolutions were withdrawn especially did not go far enough. To reject them was going, in my judgment, very far wrong. I do not pretend to determine what is best under the circumstances, to be done. To me, at a distance, it does not appear that the Convention by refusing to adopt Mr. Warner's resolutions, intended to pronounce against the Proviso: but merely to determine that opinions either way on that question should not be made a test. The resolutions actually adopted, in my construction of them, cover all the ground I maintain, and all that is necessary, as Senators from the South here admit — nay assert — to secure the final abolition of slavery throughout the land. On the other hand, a man has only to say that no power over any question relating to slavery has been “clearly given” to Congress and the resolutions become as meaningless as any lump of dough than can well be prepared. Now under these circumstances it may be that Judge Wood will give to these resolutions the construction I do myself. If he does, (and I think that construction will be sanctioned by a majority of the democracy of Ohio, so great, that no division will be needed to ascertain the fact) what are we to do then? What will be the effect of a separate nomination under these circumstances? These things should be considered. All I can say is I will go with the Free Democracy, provided it maintains in good faith its position in the Free Democracy, by adhering, honestly and earnestly to the Columbus Platform. I will, under no circumstances, commit myself to any position in which I shall be obliged to vindicate the course & action of Beaver, Blake &, I am sorry to add, Randall. I do not think that course right, and, not thinking it right, I cannot defend it. Nor will I, under any circumstances, be committed, either by my own action or by that of those with whom I act, to the standstill theories & measures of conservative whigism.

I see that the Standard undertakes the vindication of Blake. That vindication, of course, implies censure on yourself and Swift. What is the meaning of this? Does Mr. Gale write these articles? If so, who are his counsellors? In my judgment, Mr. Blake's course cannot be vindicated. Without any reference to any stipulation of any kind the facts are enough. He was elected Senator by Swift's vote. That vote Swift had publicly declared he would give to no man who would not recognize Johnson. Mr. Blake did recognize Johnson as the Senator from Hamilton County. He went further he voted for the Democratic candidate for clerk. The Senate was full and was organized. Then Mr. Blake undertook to recognize Broadwell as Senator from the First District of Hamilton County. By doing this he introduced a 37th Senator against the Constitution, against the Law, and, by doing so, disorganized the Senate and arrested the course of Legislation. Now this is enough. There is no possible escape from the charge of misconduct in any allegation that there was an arrangement in pursuance of which he recognized Johnson, & breach of which on the part of the democrats justified him in recognizing Broadwell. If he recognized Johnson, without believing that the action of the Senate had decided him to be entitled prima facie to his seat or believing himself that he had that right, then he violated his sense of duty to be speaker. If he recognized him, under the belief that he was entitled of right or by decision made in any way, then he could not recognize another without violating that conviction.

You say something of the necessity of my having an organ. I want no organ. I want no support except so far as the Cause of Freedom may be advanced by it. I am exceedingly desirous to have that cause adequately represented by the Press. I am ready to contribute my full proportion to expense of supporting such a press. At Cincinnati we could have the Nonpareil, if we had an Editor. But I know nobody competent except yourself, and you decline going. We have a paper at Columbus; but I wish it were a daily for the Session, and, more strongly, that it might be edited with a more thorough knowledge of the practical workings of our cause. I wish you were its editor, Gale & Cleveland still being proprietors & Gale associate Editor. I would gladly contribute my full proportion to that object, & perhaps you would be as useful at Columbus as at Cincinnati. Again we ought to have a Daily here & must have one, if we are to have another National Contest: and I am ready to contribute my full proportion to that. Would you take the Editorial chair at Columbus? Miller writes me you wd. What say Gale & Cleveland? What our friends in the House. If I give $100 can the balance needed be obtained?

Let me hear from you soon — very soon. What was the result of the Medina & Summit Conference with our Freesoil Friends? Is there any foundation for the representation that the Free Democrats in the House approve of the course of Randall & Blake in the Senate?

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 197-9

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 12, 1850

Parkeville, Near Woodbury N. J.  Jany 12, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, I have had no fair chance to write to you for the last few days, having been living at a Hotel, while looking out for permanent rooms. I at last found quarters to my mind — that is as much to my mind as I could expect — and on Thursday had my things moved into them. Wood's room adjoins mine & Carter's is on the floor below, and we three are the sole inmates of the House. We are to take our meals at the [illegible], where there is a goodly lot of freesoil democrats. Wood is as true a man as I ever met with. Carter is as true as Wood in his purposes, but is not quite so clear in his action. We should have a first rate delegation, if we only had Brinkerhoff, in the place of John K. Miller: for [sic] he would keep Hoagland right and prevent any wavering among the rest.

The Senate adjourned on Thursday till Monday, and I came off immediately, without having taken possession of my new quarters, to see Mrs Chase, and, travelling all night, reached here yesterday morning, after 12. I found her still improving, and, though not out of danger, with a better prospect of recovery than heretofore. The Doctor is confident that there is as yet no lesion of the lungs, and thinks if the inflammation of the tubercles can be arrested before disorganization, a cure can be effected. He seems to be much encouraged, and I have great confidence in him.

You will see that I made a little speech on Monday. I dont know how the Reporters will dress it up, but if they do no better by it than they have done by the telegraphic abstract, it will not do me much credit. It was an offhand affair — intended, only, as first attempt on a small scale by way of feeling my way. It stirred up the Southerners wonderfully.

You will see that the slaveholders have achieved another triumph in the House in the election of a clerk. The Whigs gave the slaveholders a slaveholding speaker; and in return the slaveholders have given the Whigs a slaveholding clerk. The slaveholders who would have 2/3^d. rule at Baltimore, find at Washington that even a plurality rule will suffice. When will submission have an end? Evidently the northern men have been studying Hosey Biglow.

We begin to think its nater

      To take sarse and not be riled:—

Who'd expect to see a tater

      All on eend at bein' biled?

But perhaps I wrong them. I see that on the ballot for the slaveholding sergeant at arms only 88 voted for the caucus nominee. Some of them were, doubtless, men who were unwilling to drain the absolute dregs of the cup of humiliation. However there is one comfort and that not a small one in the election of Campbell. That ineffable doughface Forney is defeated, and that too by the votes of the very men for whose suffrages he degraded himself. The Southerners have kicked their own dog, and who had a better right to do it.

I see Wood is nominated. The Platform I have not yet seen: but the despatch to Disney which brought the news of Wood's nomination, predicted the adoption of the resolutions of ’47. As the despatch came from Lilley — one of our Hamilton Anti-proviso men — I hope it may turn out that a better platform was constructed. What will our Free Democracy now do? I am particularly solicitious to know their views. I trust nothing will be done precipitately or rashly. We must take a course which will secure the ascendency of our principles, and men who may be relied on for a staunch and fearless advocacy of them. The next Legislature will be more important to us than a Governor: and concert and harmony with the Old Line Democracy is necessary to secure the ascendancy of our principles and men in that body. I cannot help thinking that this session of Congress will go far make the whole Northern Democracy thoroughly anti slavery. If they can stand such insults as are daily heaped on them by their southern associates I am greatly mistaken.

P. S. I neglected to mention that some efforts are made to procure the rejection of Perry? (Columbus Postmaster) What do you think of him? My impressions and feelings are all favorable. If you think fit, it may not be amiss to suggest to him, the expediency of forwarding a representation of some influential Democrats & free Democrats endorsing him as fit and capable. No rejections will be made on mere grounds of difference in political views: but some will try to make opposition to the war a test of disqualification.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 195-7

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

Senator bentonSalmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, December 17, 1849

Washington, Dec^r. 17, 1849.

My Dear Hamlin, I have just comedown from the Capitol. In the Senate we had a brief Executive Session — nothing done. Today we were to have elected Committees but the Old Line Caucus had not arranged matters to suit them, & the elections were put off till tomorrow. You know that in the Senate the Majority party selects in Caucus the majorities of such committees as they think fit so to organize & minorities on the others, & the minority party in caucus selects the balance. The committees thus selected have been hitherto adopted by common consent. What will be done tomorrow I cannot say. There was trouble yesterday between the friends of Benton & Calhoun in Caucus. I have not been invited to the Democratic Caucus. I do not think I should attend, as matters now stand, if I was: but it is not impossible that both Hale and I shall go in before the session closes. To a democratic Senator who spoke to me on the subject I answered that I thought that having been elected exclusively by Democratic & free democratic votes I ought to be invited; but whether I wd. attend or not I was not prepared to say. There was a discussion or conversation about inviting me; but of what character I dont know.

In the House they have been balloting, or rather voting for Speaker. Since the menaces of the Southern men the other day and their insolent proscription of every man, as unfit to receive their votes, except slavery extensionists the northern democrats have got their backs up and so many of them now refuse to vote for any extensionist that it seems impossible to elect any man whom the slaveholding democrats' will support, except by a coalition between these last, aided by the doughfaced democrats & the slaveholding Whigs. Rumors of such a coalition have been rife for a day or two; but the candidate of the extensionists, Lynn Boyd, has not yet received votes enough to enable those Southern Whigs who are willing to go for him, to effect his election. I am glad to be able to say that the Ohio delegation is firm on the side of the Free States, with two exceptions Miller & Hoagland. Until today I hoped that Col. Hoagland would abide with the body of the Ohio democrats; but he gave way today & voted for Boyd. This is the more to be regretted as Boyd was, as I hear, one of the foremost in clapping & applauding Toombs's insolent disunion speech the other day; and after he had closed his harrangue went to him & clapped him on the back in the most fraternizing manner.

Who, then, can be speaker? you will ask. To which I can only reply, I really cannot say. At present it seems as if the contest must be determined final by the Extensionists against the Anti Extensionists without reference to old party lines. An attempt was made today at a bargain between the Hunker Whigs & Hunker Democrats. A Kentucky member offered a resolution that Withrop should be Speaker; Forney, Clerk; & somebody, I can not say who, Sargeant at arms. The democrats voted almost unanimously to lay this resolution on the table — the Whigs, in great numbers, voted against this disposition of it. This looks well for those Hunkers who affect such a holy horror of bargains.

With these facts before you, you can form, better than I can, an idea of the probable shape of things in the future. To me it seems as if the process of reorganization was going on pretty rapidly in the northern democracy. I am much mistaken, if any candidate who will not take the ground assumed in my letter to Breslin, can obtain the support of the Democracy of the North or of the Country.

We are all looking with much interest to Ohio. Mr. Carter has received several letters urging him to be a candidate for Governor: but he will not consent except as a matter of necessity. He is a true man here, and so, above most, is Amos E. Wood. Judge Myers would be a very acceptable candidate to the Free Democracy:—  so, also, I should think would be Dimmock. My own regard for Dimmock is very strong. Judge Wood would encounter, I learn, some opposition from the friends of Tod, and his decisions in some slavery cases would be brought up against him especially with Beaver for an opponent. Still, in many respects, he wd. be a very strong man. After all it is chiefly important that the resolutions of the Convention should be of the right stamp & that the candidate should place himself unreservedly upon them.

As to the Free Democratic State Convention, — I think it desirable on many accounts that one should be held; and that it be known soon that one is to be held. I do not think it expedient to call it expressly to nominate, but rather to consider the expediency of nomination & promote, generally the cause of Free Democracy.

I have written to Pugh urging the adoption by the House, if the Senate is not organized, of resolutions sustaining their members in Congress. I think much good would be done by resolutions to this effect.

Resolved, That the determination evinced by many slave state members of Congress, claiming to be Whigs & Democrats, to support for the office of Speaker no known & decided opponent of Slavery Extension, and indeed no man who will not, in the exercise of his official powers, constitute the Committees of the House of Representatives so as to promote actively or by inaction the extension of slavery, is an affront & indignity to the whole people of the Free States, nearly unanimous in opposition to such extension.

Resolved, That we cordially approve of the conduct of those representatives from Ohio who have, since the manifestation of this determination on the part of members for the Slave States, steadily refused to vote for any Slavery Extensionists; and pledge to them, on behalf of the State of Ohio, an earnest support & adequate maintenance.

I give these resolutions merely as specimens. They are not so strong as I would introduce. Perhaps, indeed, it will be thought best to introduce a resolution appropriating a specific sum to be applied to the support of the members here in case the continued failure to organize the House shall leave them without other resources.

The bare introduction of such resolutions into our Legislature would have the happiest effect. Can't you help this thing forward? I dont want these sample resolutions used in any way except as mere specimens & suggestions.

So far as developments have yet been made the Administration has no settled policy. In the present state of the country I confess I do not much fear Cuban annexation.

Write me often.

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 189-92

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

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, Columbus, Ohio, February 27, 1849

Cincinnati, Feb. 27, 1849.

My Dear Hamlin; I recd. your letter on Saturday and meant to answer it that day but was prevented.

I do not fear the war. I hope however for the sake of the cause and for their own sakes, that the Whig Freesoilers will avoid it. Least of all should I wish to see Riddle engage in it. His is too generous a nature and too noble a mind to be made to do the work of Chaffee and such.

As to the paper, I have a despatch for Garrard asking, if he sells to Giddings for $700, if I will endorse 1/3, 30 days, 1/3 6 mos & 1/3 12 mos. It seems to me that it would be better to raise the money in the way you suggested — say $500 to be paid Garrard & $500 yourself & secured to me 500 on office & 500 on the Books. But I am willing to do what is asked, provided the same security be given for the 700 as was proposed for the 500 to Stanley Matthews in my behalf. I don't wish to have my name connected with any security on the paper for obvious reasons.

I will write to Matthews more fully but perhaps may not find time to write today. I shall have to make him my business substitute.

As to yourself I greatly desire that you should remain in Columbus; but I cannot stand sponsor for $1000 a year. If I became sponsor for it I must pay it myself, and that I am utterly unable to do in addition to the other claims I must necessarily meet. I am willing to be a liberal contributor to a fund for the object, but not to stand surety that the fund shall be made up. It seems to me that it would be quite safe for you to remain as Editor, taking the position of President of the Board of P. W., trusting to a fund & the paper; but if you should think otherwise, I would advise you to take the Superintendence of Schools, and let some other person take the Paper; though if, in your place, I should prefer to be at the head of the Paper and in the other office.

I am glad that the printing which Phillips contracted for is to be given to him. It would be a hardship, and a moral though probably not a legal wrong were it otherwise. If this whole printing business could now be compromised in the Senate & House & joint Houses it would be an excellent thing.

You must not hesitate about telling Mr. Braye plainly your terms. The Ferry Company can well afford to pay liberally, and if you act for them & the bill is defeated $500 is moderate — too moderate I think.

Write me at Washington.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 165-6

Salmon P. Chase to Thomas Stanley Matthews,* February 26, 1849

Feby 26 ['49.]

My D^r Stanley, I wish to ask y^r intervention for me in the affairs of the Standard. I had a despatch from Mr. Garrard to day enquiring whether in case he should sell to Mr Giddings, at 30 days, 6 mos, — 12 mos. for $700 I would endorse the notes; I ans^d. by a letter to Hamlin, that I would, provided a mortgage of the establishment would be executed to you in my behalf to indemnify me against loss. The fact is I have already advanced to the Standard directly, this winter, $310 besides $10 for subscriptions & $75 to enable Mr. Hamlin to remain in Columbus, as editor &c in which you may understand more than ever Lord Coke discerned in the &cs of Littleton. These and other expenses that you wot of and the necessity I am under to meet a third of a $700 liability for Mr. Hamlin within the next month make so heavy drafts upon my resources that I have become alarmed & dare not venture much farther. Still I am so satisfied of the necessity of sustaining the Standard that I am willing to encounter the risk involved in the endorsements named, provided I can be made in any degree secure: At the same time I do not wish to take any mortgage on the establishment directly to myself, because I do not wish my name connected with the paper at all, which could not be avoided in case of a mortgage to myself, as the mortgage, under the law must be recorded to be of any validity. I want you to represent me in this matter and act as you would for yourself and regard it simply as a business transaction, except I am not particular that the establishment shall be a perfectly sufficient security for the seven hundred dollars. I shall be content to run the risk of losing a hundred or two dollars, beyond the amount of the security.

Mr. Hamlin writes me that some $500 can be realized from the printing for the House. I shall be glad, if out of this $500 the first instalment of the $700 can be paid while the balance can be applied to the support of the paper until subscriptions can be collected and a fund made up. Still if nothing better can be done, I will consent to take on myself the burden of providing for the first instalment, though circumstanced as I am. I don't want this burden put upon me unless it be absolutely necessary.

Will you attend to all this matter for me? — Considering yourself fully authorized to act in the premises.

Don't go into the matter at all unless there is a reasonably certain prospect of the paper going ahead and paying its way. It would be useless folly for me to endorse for the purchase of the paper, if it must die at any rate, or be thrown on me for support, exclusively, or nearly so.

As the subscriptions for the Daily were proportioned to 3 mos in time, I do not see that there is any obligation to supply subscribers beyond that time, and, as it will not be practicable to keep up the Daily through the year, I think the present is a good time for stopping it. A clear full and racy sketch of the proceedings of the Legislature, made up from the Statesman and the Journal, would be more interesting to the majority of readers than the ordinary reports. In this way a first rate weekly could be made & expenses could be greatly reduced. If Mr Giddings would take hold of the paper in real earnest and go into the field to get subscribers it seems to me that the paper could be sustained.

I think I have made my views intelligible to you. I want you to act cautiously for me, remembering my position & circumstances & bearing in mind all I have said, I enclose a power which, if necessary, you can use.

I shall be very anxious to hear from you as to the state of things in the Legislature. I hope you will use your influence to have a caucus organized consisting of Swift, Van Doren Townshend & Morse and others, if any, who are willing to join them on the basis proposed by Dr. T., and have frequent meetings for consultation. Be sure, also, to get the kidnapping bill which I handed to Smith of Brown put through both Houses. A Homestead Exemption Bill, a Bill prohibiting use of State Jails &c & services of State Officers to pursuers of Slavery, and a bill to prevent kidnapping are necessary free soil measures which Townshend & Morse should not fail to obtain the passage of. They should also press the New Constitution Bill to a vote, and use their efforts to get a fair apportionment Bill. By the way, it seems to me quite important that Riddle should be induced to consent to such amendments of his Hamilton County Bill, as he can be brought to by persuasion, & that the bill should then pass in that shape. It is quite certain to my mind that if a new apportionment bill cannot be had the repeal of the division of Hamilton County should be secured without much regard to form or pleas: and it is also certain that if a new apportionment bill cannot be got through the Senate, no bill to which Riddle does not consent can be got through that body even in relation to Hamilton County. Hence the necessity of concert & consultation with Riddle & pressing nothing through the House to which he does not consent. See Pugh as to this & others, & let discretion guide. Write me at Washington & let me know from day to day how matters stand. I will telegraph you when I am about to start.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 170-171

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 162-5

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, Columbus Ohio, January 29, 1849

Cincinnati, Jany 29, 1849.

My Dear Hamlin: Thank you for your kindness in keeping me advised of events transpiring at Columbus. Nothing has occurred here of interest since I wrote you.

This morning the Globe contains an admirable article in relation to the Apportionment Act which does Taylor great credit and which I hope you will republish. The only thing exceptionable is the reference to me as having urged a compromise by which Spencer & Runyon should be admitted to their seats & the Hamilton County clauses repealed. There is no foundation for this and I hope you will omit this sentence containing the reference & the next one in case you republish. The article will read as well without these two sentences as with them. Don't neglect this; for the reference seems to me calculated to do harm.

All I ever did having any relation to this matter was to suggest in conversation with Whigs & Democrats before the meeting of the Legislature the avoidance of all violent excitement by waiving the question of constitutionality, admitting Spencer & Runyon under the law, & repealing the clauses. But I never thought that the decision of the constitutional question could be avoided or should be avoided if insisted on by either party, and that the law could be held constitutional, if the question should be pushed to a decision. My opinion on this matter, and also as to prima facie right are too well known, I think, to allow the possibility of harmful misrepresentation in most quarters. Still it is possible some may get wrong impressions from the paragraph, if published, and I hope therefore you will not fail to leave it out.

I had a letter from Hibben yesterday. He thinks Tillinghast may be fully relied on. But he must have a seat next Townshend & Morse.

I do wish I could see you and have a talk. Can't you come down say Friday night & spend Saturday & Sunday: returning Monday?

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 161-2

Joshua Reed Giddings to Oran Follett, June 2, 1845

Jefferson June 2, 1845

My Dear Sir

In the course of last winter I became acquainted with Mr Hamlin of Elyria who I believe is also personally known to yourself. From his letters to the Cleveland Herald and some other writings of his I formed a very favorable opinion of his talents as a writer, and often spoke with him upon the subject of being employed as an Editor. I again saw him last week and again suggested the same thing to him, and he informed me that he was not now employed in any other business than that of his profession and that he would have no particular objections to editing a paper. Can you inform me where there is a suitable opening for him? If you do [sic] will you please inform me when convenient?

Very respectfully

J R Giddings

O Follett Esq

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