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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Smith* to Howell Cobb, June 27, 1848

Versailles [indiana], June 27, ’48.

Dr. Sir: Knowing the tax imposed by business, ceremony, and a little real friendship, on Members of Congress, I have refrained writing to many friends that I really wished to. Under this state of feeling I would not write you or trouble you now if I did not think and fear that a momentous political crisis was about developing that is destined shortly to shake our political fabrick. In this Confederacy the Democratic party, long in the ascendant, has had to conciliate and compromise sectional interests and feelings. In this spirit the Slavery question has been put on the ground of non-interference on the part of the Genl. Govmnt. On that basis the democratic party has planted itself. If it can maintain that position, it is the only position that it can maintain in the free states, and is there a Southern man so blind as not see it and so uninformed as not to know it?

To drive us from this ground, the Whigs and abolitionists have agitated for the last 10 or 15 years. Their denunciation of the South, Southern dictation and Southern influence, has been fierce, and their appeals have been powerful and pathetic in favour of the poor negro. To meet these arguments and such invective has required all the talent and forbearance of the Democratic party. The Democratic free-state creed commends itself strongly to the sober sense of community, and those that attempt to overturn it can't but show the incendiary's torch and the assassin's knife— “in their fury the hope of the Union is lost”. The Democratic South in our conventions, in Congress, and at the ballot box has shown the same conciliatory spirit, — in making our last and former nominations they have been foremost in favor of free-state men. But in the nomination of the present Whig candidate it is manifest to all the people, and they can't but see the finger of the South in it, and the dictatorial and domineering spirit they have shown in forcing their man upon the Convention.

It has forced some fears upon the Democrats, as well as confusion and dismay into the Whig ranks, and utter disgust into the abolition breasts. The consequence of all will be to very much widen the breach between the free and slave states of the Union. In the late Whig convention the South showed neither quarter nor respect to the North. She gave not a vote for a Northern man. . . .

But the point to which I wish to call your attention is this: the fear amongst the democratic party is that the South may so far unite on the nominal Whig candidate as to give him all the South, in disregard of the friendly spirit the free states have always shown you. If this shall be the case I cannot doubt that much democratic sympathy will be lost you, and a falling off amongst your friends in these states, that time can never cure. Because it is so plain the nomination of Taylor is a Southern Whig trick, against the feelings of the Whig party, to catch up other than Whig votes in the South, and against the sense and sentiment of the nation, that union of effort of all parties will be made against the South before his term of office, if elected, shall expire. You know that North nothing but a free-state union of effort is wanting to disfranchise the South, so far as the Presidential office is concerned; and what so well calculated to produce that result as such palpable tricks as the South has just perpetrated in the nomination of a man without talent and the independence to speak out boldly his opinions and his party fealty.

In taking such a man at such a time it must be there is something impure in it. Something behind the curtain. But it will out. If the old General shall ever be called by the people unanimously or spontaneously to the Presidency, he will find the need of opinions and fixed principles. His administration, or that of any man, must proceed upon fixed principles, and the better they are matured the better he will bear up under the responsibilities of the office.

You are aware that every Whig in Congress and out of it in all the free States in the Union by their votes, speeches and action in the primary assemblies, amongst the people, and many of the democrats, are committed to the principles of the Wilmot Proviso, and if Taylor is elected, unless they back out from their present position, which they dare not do, it will be engrafted upon the legislation of the next four years. In this great contest the South brings their General into the field unarmed. His anxiety to lead the motley forces of federalism compels him to put on the no-party badge, and to command without a sword or the armor the Constitution has put upon him for his own protection and that of the States. Mr. Jefferson says: the President's negative was given him for his own protection, the protection of the States and the judiciary, against the aggressions of Congress. But I presume as he has voluntarily divested himself of the protection the Constitution in [vested] him with, to get office, he expects to put it on in the heat and smoke of the battle. Let him not think so. If he does it, he will be shot down by his own forces and confederates; and if Tyler was denounced a traitor, he will be justly denounced an arch traitor. It is distinctly understood he will veto none of the people's measures.

Of the success of the Democratic Ticket, Cass and Butler, in this region there is no room to doubt. I have never seen in favor of any democratic ticket so ardent a spirit manifested by the party. I think in this county there is not a dissenting voice. Indiana may be set down for Cass and Butler by a large majority over all opposition. Even should Hale run, and Mr. Van Buren lead the Barnburners, we can beat them all.

I wish to know from you, my dear sir, what Georgia will do in the premises.

I have bored you with a very prosing long letter.

Our very best respects to your Lady and friends.

_______________

* Congressman from Indiana, 1839-1841 and 1843-1847.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 111-3

Henry R. Jackson* to Howell Cobb, June 21, 1848

Savannah [ga.], 21st June, 1848.

My Dear Cousin, Since the reception of your last letter I have been so constantly occupied with some vexatious law business which has kept me on the run in Savannah and taken me up into the country, that I have actually been unable to find the letter to reply to it. I have not said so much in opposition to the Calhoun clique as was my disposition, because I did not think it altogether a prudent course. With reference to those papers of the Dem. party in Georgia that had advocated the Florida and Alabama resolution, I have not sought a collision, either with the Constitutionalist or the Telegraph, because I thought the probabilities strong that both of these papers, if let alone, would eventually come out warmly for Cass, should he be the nominee of the Convention. I did not think that angry collision would operate beneficially for the party. Therefore I contented myself with simply expressing my own views fully and firmly. As events have proved, both the Constitutionalist and Telegraph are out for Cass, and are consequently thrown into opposition themselves to the Calhoun, Yancey and Charleston Mercury clique. I think it better that this should be so than that they should have been excited into animosity by a general onslaught upon them on the part of the other presses of the State.

But in the name of all that is rational, what induced the Georgia delegates in the national convention to vote for that resolution of Yancey's¹ After having voted for the nomination of Cass, how could they vote for the resolution (a pack of nonsense in itself) with the interpretation put upon it by Yancey himself? Did they not perceive that it would operate prejudicially to us in Georgia? And how could they at any rate vote for such outrageous nonsense?

My views always have coincided with yours upon this subject. I am as clear as daylight in my ideas upon it. Gen. Cass is right throughout. He has suggested the only ground upon which a Southern man can stand, and I am convinced that reflection will bring all Southern Democrats (not disposed to quit the party at any rate) to his zealous support . . .

_______________

* A lawyer, editor, and Democratic politician of Savannah, Ga., judge of the superior court of Georgia (eastern circuit), 1849-1853, brigadier-general in the Confederate army.

¹ Yancey had offered the following as an amendment to the report of the committee on resolutions at the Baltimore convention: “Resolved, That the doctrine of non-interference with the rights of property of any portion of this confederation, be it In the States or in the Territories, by any other than the parties interested In them. is the true republican doctrine recognized by this body.” This resolution was defeated, 246 to 38.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 110-1

James C. Dobbin* to Howell Cobb, June 15, 1848

Fayetteville [N. C], June 15th, 1848.

My Dear Sir: Your esteemed favour in reply to my first communication was duly received, and its perusal gave me no little pleasure, awakening, as it did, pleasing recollections of incidents during my brief political career in Washington.

I think, my dear sir, I am not deceived in inferring from the spirit and tenor of your letter that an occasional correspondence will not be unacceptable, and will serve but to keep alive that kindly attachment which I trust neither time nor separation will extinguish. Still, plunged as I have been for many months in the laborious practice of the law, I cannot but occasionally abandon the courthouse and stroll into the avenue of politics. They have rather forced me to consent to become a candidate for our Legislature. I have no opposition, and of course will have a quiet time, and a little dish of Legislative politics may not be disagreeable. Well, the agony is over and Cass and Butler are nominated, and Taylor and Fillmore; and although it has produced some sensation, the tickets seem to have been anticipated by the popular mind. We have had a large Democratic meeting here and responded very zealously to the nomination of Cass and Butler. Judge Strange and myself addressed them. The meeting was large, enthusiastic, and everything passed off well.

I struggled hard to prove Cass orthodox on the slavery question, and I would not have done [so] had I suspected him. And his letter to Nicholson is certainly liberal and magnanimous for a Northern man. I was provoked at Yancey's conduct in the convention. The introduction of his resolution¹ was unnecessary. The resolution reported by the committee was comprehensive. There was no evidence that Cass had wrong views, and the adoption of Yancey's resolution squinted very much towards a suspicion of Cass and looked too much like pressing nice, hair-spliting distinctions on the subject upon our Northern democratic friends, whose liberality should be appreciated but not abused. My own notion is that the Territorial Legislature while legislating as such and for the Territory and for territorial purposes has no right to pass a law to prohibit slavery. Because if we adopt that doctrine we at once practically exclude the slaveholder forever. The Territory acquired is filled at the time of acquisition with non-slaveholders. The Legislature meets and a law excluding slavery is enacted. This will exclude the slaveholder, for he can't get there to repeal the law. I regard the Territory as the common property of the States. And the people of each State have a right to enjoy it with or without their peculiar property. But when the people are meeting to pass a fundamental law, to adopt a Constitution and to ask admission into the Union as a State, then the prohibition or establishment of slavery becomes a subject for legitimate action. It will not do for us to admit that the first Legislature in New Mexico can pass a law immediately and exclude every slaveholder from the territory — if we do, are we not admitting that it is not the property of each and all the States? But I do not think Cass has publicly — certainly not in his Nicholson letter — expressed any opinion contravening my position. He says “leave to the people affected by the question” its regulation. He does not say that he thinks the Territorial Legislature can prohibit it. I hope he will not say so. Because it may never in all probability become a practical question on which he as President could act. Yet the expression of such an opinion would prejudice him in the South with many, very many.

But enough of this. When you write me give me your views. I can not express to you my feelings about the Whigs' nomination. If they succeed, my confidence in popular virtue and intelligence will be a little shaken. I know much virtue and much intelligence will vote the ticket. I regard it as evidence that the Whigs are afraid of their principles. They know the people are against them. They put up “Old Zac” and surround him with a blaze of military glory, and just behind him is Fillmore lurking, holding ready to fasten upon the country all the odious and rejected measures of the Whig Party. Can they succeed? What do our friends think of it? I was pleased to see that yourself and distingue were on the tour, lionizing. That is right. I have given up South Carolina and am afraid of Georgia and Louisiana. Massachusetts will bolt. Ohio will vote for Cass, so likewise Pennsylvania. But for those miserable Barnburners, New York would be all right. The South will have a hard fight. The slavery question and “Old Zac” being a slaveholder may for a moment shake some of the faithful — but I have faith in our Principles and in Providence.

I can't say much to please you about North Carolina. Reid is doing his best. I don't think he will succeed, although he has sprung up a suffrage question which is taking well. I do think we will carry the legislature. There is a strong probability of it.

But enough of politics. Tell Stephens I heartily appreciate his remembering me so kindly and assure him that the feeling is cordially reciprocated. I like Stephens. With all his bad politics he is a generous hearted fellow and of brilliant genius.

By the by, lest I forget it, in confidence, a friend of mine wishes to go abroad. Do you know of a vacancy — Naples, Rome, Belgium, etc., etc. Remember this when you write . . .

­­­­_______________

* Member of Congress from North Carolina, 1845-1847.

¹ Proclaiming the doctrine of congressional non-intervention with slavery in the Territories. See footnote 1, p. Ill, infra.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 107-9

Thomas W. Thomas to Howell Cobb, June 5, 1848

Elberton, Ga., June 5th, 1848.

Dear Sir: The last mail brought us the news of Gen. Cass's nomination, and with it came a whig paper charging him with having voted for the Wilmot Proviso. My recollection of the facts is this, the Proviso was attached to the three million bill in the House and sent to the Senate where on motion to amend it was struck out, Gen. Cass voting for the striking out. In this shape it was sent back to the House and passed without the Proviso. If my memory serves me, this was the only time the question ever came up in the Senate and Gen. Cass recorded his vote in favor of the South. Please send me the Senate journal showing all his votes on the question. I am under so many obligations to you for favors of this kind that I dislike to trouble you, and wish you to attend to my request only in case it be convenient. The Democrats here are highly gratified with the nominations and are prepared to give them a united support. Cass in my humble judgment is a perfect embodiment of progressive democracy as opposed to what the Whigs call conservatism, which in plain English means putting the people in ward, to save them from their pretended ignorance and folly; and the question is not only between free-trade and protection, but also whether we shall govern ourselves or have guardians. Cass went for 54.40, is now for the acquisition of Mexican territory, free trade, the independent treasury, and hates the British; and therefore must be worthy of democratic suffrage.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 107

Thomas R. R. Cobb to Howell Cobb, May 31st, 1848

Athens [ga.], May 31st, 1848.

Dear Brother, I return you the order which I negligently omitted to endorse.

We have the nominations. I am “reconciled,” not very much “delighted.” I am not a great admirer of Cass, although I think it a generous act on the part of Northern Democrats to nominate both anti-Wilmot Proviso men. I think a more judicious ticket could have been selected. Michigan and Kentucky are too close together to have both candidates. I don't see what strength Butler carried to Cass that any Southern man would not have carried, and more especially Quitman. And on the score of military glory, Scott or Taylor if nominated will overshadow that of either. King of Alabama would have been a much more judicious nomination, although I would vote for no man sooner than Gen. Butler. These are my first impressions. Every county in the district will be represented in the approaching Convention. You will be unanimously nominated, from all I can learn. There will be some difference of opinion as to the Elector. Most of the delegates are for Genl. Wofford if he wants it. McMillan, I think, is rather working to get it, and has friends in Elbert, Madison and Jackson. Hillyer is talked of also, and I would not be surprised if Griffin is looking at it . . .

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 106-7

Thomas W. Thomas* to Howell Cobb., May 27, 1848

Elberton [ga.], May 27th, 1848.

Dear Sir: Inclosed herewith I send a petition praying Congress to establish a line of stages from the village of Anderson to connect with the Georgia Rail Road, via Elberton. We will be much obliged if you will give yourself the trouble to present it and see that it is acted on and either granted or refused. The impression prevails very generally that such things are always treated with contempt and suffered to die in silence, and I would beg leave to suggest that you take such action in the matter as will be seen in the usual newspaper reports of the proceedings in Congress. Such a course will at least be good policy in this — the people here will see you have done your duty. Petitions for the same purpose as the one inclosed will probably be forwarded by the people of Oglethorpe and Anderson district, but whether these go or not we wish you to act on ours. We stand greatly in need of mail facilities, and if our rights are withheld much longer, I believe the people will secede and form an independent republic bounded by Broad River and Savannah. Such a movement is not only justified by the declaration of independence, but will be in accordance with the spirit of the age. Of the 330 signers a larger proportion than one-tenth sign by “his mark”, — a lamentable but overwhelming proof of the necessity of the light of letters. . . .

Among the names I sent you in the neighborhood of Broad River P. O. was one Henry Stephens. He lately got a speech from you on the Mexican War. He says the Whigs have been lying on Polk about originating the war. He says this speech has Gen. Taylor's letter in it, and it was Taylor “that sent them troops from one river to tother.” We are all curious to know who has been nominated, though we have no anxiety about the result. We have a perfect confidence the Baltimore Convention will give us a man sound on Southern rights. I have not heard a single man express himself for any favorite, though all expect if Polk is not renominated the candidate will be a northern man. Every day serves to strengthen the conviction that we can beat Gen. Taylor as easily as Clay. I can count at least a half dozen Whigs who have pledged themselves not to vote for Taylor on any conditions. I send below a short list of democrats whom I expect you have not got.

­_______________

* A lawyer and editor of Elberton, Ga.; judge of the superior court of Georgia (northern circuit), 1855-1859; colonel of the Fifteenth Regiment of Georgia infantry in the Confederate army, 1861-1862.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 105-6

Robert Toombs to James Thomas, April 16, 1848

Washington, D. C. Apr. 16, 1848.

Dear Thomas, I received your letter of the 9th inst. today and I am very glad to hear you are improving. You did not state to what point in Kentucky you expected to direct your steps. I have an extensive acquaintance with the public men of Kentucky and could give or furnish you letters to almost any point, and if you know where you will probably remain longest and will write me I will procure such letters as would no doubt greatly increase the comfort and pleasure of your trip. I could send them to any point you might designate, if you are about leaving. Mr. Crittenden, my particular friend and messmate, will leave here for Kentucky about the first of June on a gubernatorial canvass in Kentucky. I will commend you to him especially, and I hope you may fall in with him somewhere in the state, if not at Frankfort, his residence. I will send by this mail or the next some letters for Louisville where I suppose you will most likely land in Kentucky. I hope you will find it convenient to call by Washington. There is much to see here to interest an intelligent stranger; men, if not things.

Clay has behaved very badly this winter. His ambition is as fierce as at any time of his life, and he is determined to rule or ruin the party. He has only power enough to ruin it. Rule it he never can again. In February while at Washington he ascertained that the Kentucky convention would nominate Taylor. He procured letters to [McMillen ?] that he would decline when he went home, and the Taylor men from Kentucky under this assurance wrote home to their friends not to push him off the track by nominating Taylor. Mr. Clay never intended to comply, but without now having the boldness to deny it he meanly hints at having changed his determination. Bah! He now can deceive nobody here. The truth is he has sold himself body and soul to the Northern Anti-slavery Whigs, and as little as they now think it, his friends in Georgia will find themselves embarrassed before the campaign is half over. I find myself a good deal denounced in my district for avowing my determination not to vote for him. It gives me not the least concern. I shall never be traitor enough to the true interests of my constituents to gratify them in this respect. I would rather offend than betray them. Mr. Botts of the House and Mr. Berrien of the Senate and Mr. Buckner of Kentucky are the only three men from the slave states who prefer Mr. Clay for our candidate, and there are not ten Southern representatives who would not support Genl. Taylor against him if he were nominated. The real truth is Clay was put up and pushed by Corwin and McLean, Greeley & Co. to break down Taylor in the South. Having made that use of him they will toss him overboard at the convention without decent burial. It is more than probable that a third candidate may be brought forward, and Scott stands a good chance to be the man. For my part I am a Taylor man without a second choice.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 103-4

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Milton Sutliff,* January 16, 1851

Washington City, Jany. 16, 1851.

My Dear Sir, Mr. Hoadly, of Cincinnatti, has requested me to write you in relation to his election as Judge of the Superior Court, and it gives me real pleasure, — except so far as his election would deprive the office in which I am interested of his services — to comply with his request. He is a gentlemen, of very rare abilities, and in my judgment, peculiarly qualified to fill a judicial station with honor to himself and credit to his appointers. His energy and industry give assurances that the business of the Court, which is terribly in arrear, would be brought up and expedited to the great advantage of suitors and lawyers. These qualifications are first worthy of consideration, in some respects but not in all. I rank even before these a generous devotion to human liberty and a disposition to make law answer the ends of justice instead of the purposes of oppression. His views, I believe, of the Constitution and Law as bearing on the question of Human Rights are, I believe, the same as my own. What they are you know. It is something to be added to these considerations that Mr. Hoadly was one of that — it is not too much to say he was the leader — of that band of democrats, who forsook Cass when he forsook Democracy by writing the Nicholson letter, & stood with us on the Buffalo Platform. I hope, if your views of public duty permit it, that you will not, if it be possible to elect Hoadly, concur in the election of any other man, not as amply qualified, and especially not in the election of a Whig with the cooperation or under any arrangement with the friends of this administration.

Sumner is, I suppose, defeated at Boston. Websterism and Cassism coalesced against him, and every nerve was strained to defeat him by every appliance. The Hunkers have probably succeeded.

I enclose an article from the Toledo Republican, which seems to me to take right views of the course proper to be pursued in the Legislature by Free Democrats, if they cannot elect a man, [sic] out and out, of themselves. But I do not yet despair of such an election. Morse gave me a gleam of hope that you might yet be elected. I should be more than delighted to welcome you to a share of my toils. If it be impossible, however, to elect a radical free democrat, and the democrats should tender a man whose course of action has inspired his friends with the assurance that he is as good a freesoiler as I am a democrat it would be wisdom in my judgment, under present circumstances, to [sic] make arrangments with the old line for his election to the Senate & of an equitable proportion of Free Democrats to other offices. But I do not anticipate that the freesoilers can be satisfied in this way, for I do not suppose that men who refuse to vote for Medary could be brought to vote for any man who would be satisfactory to Freesoilers, even though taken from the old line ranks.

I do not myself anticipate any election. It has been said that the Whigs will elect Hitchcock. If they will, without any arrangment as to other offices, I take it for granted the Free Democrats would not refuse their votes to a man who has shewn his fidelity to our cause as he did during the campaign of '48, and has abided in the Free Democratic organization ever since. True his views are not radical like yours or mine; but that difference would not excuse such as you and I from his support, any more than it excused such as he is from my support in 1849. I would not imitate their bad example. But I would enter into no arrangement with the supporters of this Administration in relation to elections upon any terms. It would be, I verily believe, fatal to our organization and our progress. If they choose to vote for one of our men without consideration, except a preference for his character & capacity over opposing candidates, well & good. Our Natural allies are the old line democrats. If, under evil influences, they refuse the alliance, and you cannot elect independently, I say, for one, let the election go over and let us appeal to the people. I have no fears as to the result.

Nothing new here. The Hunker Leaders of the old Line are down hearted. It becomes daily more and more apparent that no one of them can unite the democratic party. One of them remarked to me the other day that the democratic party was broken up for ten years to come. I told I thought we should be able to unite on true principles in two or three years: but he didn't seem desirous of that.

Shew this to Pardee and give my best regards to him.

_______________

* Lent by Mr. Homer E. Stewart, Warren, Ohio.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 230-2

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, July 11, 1848

Cincinnati, November 27, 1848.

My Dear Sir: Thanks for your welcome and cheering letter. It is truly grateful to me to feel how responsive to each other are our judgments and sympathies. Our struggle is ended — only for the present, I would say rather, it is just begun, did not the recollections of eight years of effort, amid difficulties and discouragement far formidable than any which now encompass us, carry me back to a much earlier date of the beginning of the Contest than many assign. The Buffalo Convention of 1848, and the movements which immediately issued in that, I would call the beginning of the end. I think that now, through the twilight of the present and the mist of the future, the end may be discovered — at least by eyes annointed with faith.

You have fought a glorious battle in old Massachusetts. Young Wisconsin, alone, can claim equal honors with you. You have had to contend with long-seated prejudices arrayed against our Presidential nominee and against the overbearing money power of the Lords of the Loom. Under the circumstances, you have, I suppose, equalled if not exceeded your own most sanguine expectations. We are looking now, with great anxiety for the result of the second trial in the District of Judge Allen and our noble Palfrey. Most earnestly do I hope that Massachusetts will honor herself by sending those true sons to represent her in the next Congress. She and Liberty will need them there.

Here in Ohio we did not do near so well as we expected — not near so well as we should have done had the vote been taken immediately after the Buffalo Convention. Many causes conspired to diminish our vote. The principal were the general impression, that the contest was between Taylor and Cass, and the idea, unceasingly disseminated, that General Taylor would not veto, would, in fact, favor the Wilmot Proviso. No man labored harder to produce these impressions than Mr. Corwin. He traversed the whole state, speaking to large assemblies and to small, at the principal points and obscure villages, saying every where, “I know Gen. Taylor will not veto the Proviso”, and endeavoring to convince the people, by his stories of Gen. Taylor's action in reference to the Seminole negroes, that he was, in fact, a man of antislavery opinions and sympathies. Whether he succeeded in convincing himself I don't know; but certain it is that he exerted a mighty influence in checking the development of anti-Taylor sentiment, and in persuading many who had resolved to oppose the Philadelphia nomination, to come out in favor of it. All this operated against us in two ways. While Mr. Corwin succeeded in detaching two or three votes here and two or three there from the Free Soil Cause, securing them for Taylor, the very fact of the defection of these votes induced more or less of those who had resolved to with-hold their votes from Cass and give them to Van Buren, to forego their determination and to fall back into their old ranks. This process, placing us between the upper and the nether millstone and diminishing our force by every turn of the wheel, was carried on very actively for several weeks preceding the election; and though we did all we could to counterwork it, yet, being scattered over a large territory with hardly any pecuniary resources and a very imperfect organization and little or no mutual concert or cooperation among our Committees or speeches, all our efforts did not avail much. The battle is now over and Senator Corwin and his co-workers have the satisfaction of having quietly reduced the Free Soil vote, without any other result than that, (which the Free Soilers have predicted ever since the nomination of Taylor), of giving the electoral suffrage of Ohio to General Cass. Whether Senator Corwin has shared in the impression he has endeavored to make upon the people I do not know. One thing is certain; he has lost entirely the confidence of the sincere and earnest antislavery men of the State. The very men, who eight months ago were his warmest friends — in fact his only reliable and fast friends in the State — are now converted into his most decided and stern opposers. They still admire his talents and esteem his social qualities, but they no longer respect his principles.

The results of the contest leave us here in Ohio, in a peculiar position. The election of Taylor makes his supporters anxious that their promises to the people in his behalf shall be, in some degree, kept. Should he veto the Wilmot Proviso or conduct his administration so as to indicate disfavor to it, we may look for another revolt among the Whigs. On the other hand the defeat of Cass has secured the last link that bound a large number of Democrats — in fact a great body of them in this State to the Slave Power. They have no longer any bond of union in their old organization. The spoils are gone — and the South is gone. Under these circumstances many of them are turning a wistful eye toward the Buffalo Platform, and I should not be greatly surprised if the coming winter should witness a union between the old Democracy and the Free Democracy in our Legislature upon the principles of our Platform. Already such a union is foreshadowed by the tone of the newspapers, and the course of events in the northern part of the State. Should it take place in any considerable section of the State it must pervade the whole. In the Legislature the Free Democrats together have the majority; and they may unite in the election of a senator; though this is more doubtful than their union in future contests. Whether this union takes place or not — and it can only take place through the adhesion of the old Democracy to one principle — the course of the Free Democracy it seems to me lies clear before them. Their path, no less of safety than of honor is straightforward. They have no choice, except shameful dereliction of principle, or bold and resolute perseverance.

This is true of every other State as it is of Ohio; and I am glad to see that the choice of our friends everywhere seems to be already made. Nowhere do I observe adjudications of wavering or retreat.

I agree with you that it is of great importance that an address should be issued to the People of the union embracing the topics and indicating our future course as suggested by you. It will be difficult to get any delegation appointed by the State Committee to prepare such an address. It seems to me that your suggestion that it should be issued by the Free Democrats in Congress is a good one; or possibly, it might come, with as much effect, from the Free Soil association of the District of Columbia, having been prepared with the advice and concurrence of our friends in Congress and out of Congress who may be gathered in Washington at the commencement of the session.

Our own State Convention will be held on the 29th, June, when we shall doubtless issue an address to the People of Ohio, and define our position on questions of State policy.

I shall be very glad to hear from you frequently. Our former correspondence and your published writings had taught me greatly to esteem you; and our limited intercourse last August was sufficient to make me feel towards you the strongest sentiments of friendship. Is it not Cicero who tells us that the strong ligament of friendship is “idem velle et idem nolle”? And is not this the tie between us! At any rate I claim your friendship by this title and shall hope that you will manifest your allowance of the claim, by writing me as often as your engagements will allow.

Faithfully and cordially yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 141-5

Salmon P. Chase to Seabury Ford,* Burton, Geauga County, Ohio, July 11, 1848

July 11 [1848].

Dear Sir: You are well aware that in political action & opinion I have differed widely from you; but I have given you the same credit for sincerity of conviction & honesty of purpose which I desire for myself. There is a question on which we do agree — or rather one class of questions. I refer to those connected with slavery. I am sure that you are sincerely opposed to slavery and to its domination and extention & to the injustice of the Black Laws. On the ground of this agreement between us, I desire to support you for the office of Governor: laying out of view for the present three questions on which we differ. There are thousands who share this desire with me. But yr. present anomalous position in regard to Genl. Taylor, if nominated will compel us not only merely to withhold our suffrages from you: but to nominate a Candidate who not only agrees with us in opposition to Slavery & its Extention, but also in opposition to candidates nominated under the dictation of the friends of Slavery & its extention. Such a candidate we believe Genl. Taylor to be, and cannot consent to give our suffrages for any Gentⁿ., however worthy in other respects, who does not take a distinct position in opposition to his election to the Presidency.

Should you come out in opposition to Genl. Taylor as thousands of the truest whigs in the State have done, you will receive a more enthusiastic support I believe, than any candidate for the Gubernatorial office has ever recd. in Ohio, and I shall be greatly disappointed if you be not triumphantly elected. If you come out for Taylor, you will recd. the support of hardly any except Taylor men. If you preserve a neutral position you will lose votes from both sides, and cannot in my judgment, be elected. It seems to me that the path of duty coincides with the path of safety.

I trust you will pardon my frankness, I am really desirous to know your position. I am even more desirous that you may take a position which will warrant me in giving you a cordial and zealous support.

If you have prescribed no rule of conduct to yourself which forbids an answer to a communication like this, I shall be greatly indebted to you for a reply, directed to Columbus, where I shall be next week in attendance on the Circuit Court. You may rest assured that no use shall be made of it, other than such as you may yourself permit.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 149. Seabury Ford, 1801-1855; elected governor of Ohio in 1848 and served 1849-50.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 138-9

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, June 20, 1848

Columbus, June 20, 1848.

My Dear Sir: I thank you for the few words of cheer you sent me on the 12th. I rejoice greatly that Massachusetts is moving. But you will need firmness and courage Taylorism is furious, and would crush all dissent if it had the power.  ———¹ few Independent Whigs met together to express their dissent from the nominations were fairly yelled out of their room of meeting. At Cincinnati drunken Taylorites from Kentucky tried their best to break up our meeting, and failed only because the mass was so large that they could not move it. Taylorism is conscious of treason to the Free States, and those who have bowed the knee are enraged at the prospect of losing their reward. But I verily believe that the tocsin which is now gathering the Freemen of the North to the battle of Liberty, rings also the knell of Slavery.

Our Convention has just commenced its session. A large delegation from almost every Congressional District is in attendance. Great enthusiasm and fixedness of purpose are manifested. The delegates from the Reserve say that if a suitable free State candidate is named, the Reserve will give him 13,000 majority over Cass or Taylor and will try hard to roll it up to twenty thousand.

I have no knowledge of Judge M'Lean's position. I hardly think he will feel at liberty to accept an Independent Nomination, having suffered his name to go before the Whig Convention. But he may. He is now at Detroit, but will return to Cincinnati soon.

I suppose the New York Democracy will nominate candidates of their own; but possibly they may yield to the representations which have been made to them and invite a General Conference or Convention.

As things stand I think our Convention will nominate an electoral ticket, and invite a National Convention to assemble at Buffalo, say on the 1st of August. By that time we shall know who are for us and who are against us, and be prepared for advised (?) nominations. For myself I am well content with Hale and content also to take any fit man who will represent our views and concentrate a larger suffrage, if any care for Freedom, Free Territories, and Free Labor.

Corwin, as I feared he would, has bent the knee and received the yoke and goes for Taylor.

Yours faithfully,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

I will advise by letter to Boston tomorrow of the further action of our Convention. I hope Massachusetts will be well represented at Buffalo.

_______________

¹Torn in MS.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 137-8

Salmon P. Chase to Senator John P. Hale,* June 15, 1848

June 15, [1848.]

My Dear Sir: 1 have recd. several letters from you lately for which I feel greatly obliged to you. I can appreciate Mrs. Hales unwillingness to trust you out here in the west: for if we once get you among us you will find it very difficult to get away. Still I hope that you will come & bring her with you also. Mrs. Chase, whose grandfather was one of the original proprietors of Cincinnati & who herself was born in Missouri, & has never been east of Columbus, will be very glad to make proof to her of the qualities of western hospitality.

In reference to Slavery in the District of Columbia I have made up my mind after being somewhat troubled, in a legal way, with the difficulty you refer to. I found it impossible to resist the conviction that the general rule that the laws of ceded or conquered territories remain in force after coercion or conquest must be qualified with the limitation that such laws be not incompatible with the fundamental law or policy of the acquiring state, in other words, that such laws be not such as the legislature of the acquiring state is itself incompetent to enact. I send herewith an article of mine on the subject which states my views with tolerable clearness.

The signs of the times seem to me auspicious. The N. Y. Democracy will certainly remain firm. We had a tremendous gathering of the people here last night in opposition to the nominations of Cass & Taylor old & tried Whigs & young & enthusiastic Whigs & firm & consistent democrats, with Liberty men took part in the proceedings. If a popular candidate with any fair prospect of success could be brought out on the Free Territory platform we would have a fair chance of carrying Ohio.

I recd. a letter to day from Mr. Hamlin of Cleveland, who says that nineteen out of twenty of the Whigs of Cuyahoga refuse to support the nomination. Our meeting last night sent a delegate to the Utica convention & we shall endeavor to cooperate with the New Yorkers. I shall never cease to regret that the Liberty Convention at Buffalo last fall nominated when it did, or that you deemed it your duty to accept the nomination. I remonstrated ag^t it in the Convention & out of it, for I thought I could foresee something of what has actually taken place, & I wished you to go into the senate as an Independent Democratic Senator, occupying very nearly the same relation to the Democratic Party, on the Antislavery side of it, as Calhoun on the proslavery side. I felt certain that in that event the growing opposition to slavery would naturally find its exponent in you and that antislavery men of all parties, in case both parties should prove false to freedom would concentrate public sentiment to nominate a non slave holder favorable to Anti Slavery principles: but I wanted to be prepared for the contingency which has actually occurred. Your nomination by the Liberty Party, although in yr. letter of acceptance you stated very frankly your real position, has identified you with us & compelled you to share the undeserved opprobrium, which has attached to many of the noblest names of the land, & which, I fear, may not be dispelled until death shall remove all inducements to Slander. It is very true that your senatorial career has attracted the general admiration of all true hearted [patriots] men, and, I verily believe, that if N. Y. democracy would now place you in nomination all objections would disappear and this state could be carried for you.

But they are afraid to do so, on account of the advantage which would be taken of this movement by the Hunkers, advantages which could not be taken had you not recd. the Liberty nominnation. Perhaps I am wrong in my estimate of the influence which the fact of yr. nomination, as our Candidate will have upon the action (of) Free Territory men coming from other parties. I shall be very glad if they will meet in General Convention and nominate you. I hope at all events they will meet in General Convention, and agree if possible. But suppose they meet. Suppose the N. Y. democracy, about to assemble at Utica, calls a National Convention of all who are willing to go into the Battle for Free Territory under the Democratic Banner — what then? Would it not be expedient for you to write a letter to Mr. Lewis the President of the State Liberty Convention,—state your original position as a Democrat — that fidelity to your democratic faith compelled you to assume, with your Democratic friends in New Hampshire the position now occupied so gloriously by the New York Democracy,—that you desire most earnestly the union of Freemen for the sake of Freedom, withdraw your name & urge those who put you in nomination to attend the convention there called & govern their action by its decisions? Then if that convention should nominate you all will be well; if not, you will be still in the Senate, where you can do good service to the cause and await events, — and after the adjournment, by your eloquence before the people, [you will] be a most important auxiliary in the near at hand campaign:

Our Free Territory Convention will, I think, nominate an electoral ticket to support the nominees of the Convention called under the auspices of the New York Democracy, if such a convention be called — otherwise to vote for you. I shall send you a paper containing last nights proceedings.

I have conversed with Mr. Lewis this afternoon. He has had an interview with Judge King who is very anxious for such an union as I mention. I have also a letter from him to the same effect, which I send herewith for your perusal asking you to return it. You observed I suppose, Judge K's name among the signers to our Free Territory call.

_______________

* Letter-book 6, pp. 89. John Parker Hale, 1806-1873, member of Congress from New Hampshire 1843-1845; United States Senator 1847-1853; candidate for President of the Free-soil Party 1852; United States Senator 1855-1865; minister to Spain 1865-1869. In connection with the contents of this letter see Hart's Chase, 94ff.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 134-6

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, June 5, 1848

Cincinnati, June 5th 1848.

My Dear Sir: A long time has slipped by since I had the pleasure of hearing from you. I hope you have not erased my name from your list of correspondents.

I send you an article of mine, which I think states some important facts which ought to be much more generally known than they are. If you agree with me in thinking its statements important, will you take the trouble to get a place for it in the Boston Whig, with such a notice of it as will attract particular attention to them.

Our Independent State Convention will we expect be largely attended. Should the Whigs nominate Taylor or Scott we shall have probably a preponderance of Whigs, but should they nominate any other free state Candidate, not a military man, the majority will probably be democrats. I think the Country would go unanimously for M'Lean, but unanimously, for no other man.

The action of the New York Democracy is manful and noble. I hope for much good from it.

Very truly your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 132-3

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, February 19, 1848

Cincinnati, February 19, l848.

My Dear Sir: It always gives me a great deal of pleasure to hear from you; but I was more than gratified by your last letter. I thought I saw in it an augury of approaching union, among the true and earnest lovers of freedom of all parties — a union which every patriot and philanthropist cannot but earnestly desire. For myself, I care not under what banner the rally may be, so that the banner bear blazing on its folds the inscription of Freedom; nor shall I think it of much moment by whom it may be borne, so he be, at all events, a true hearted champion of the Right. How strange it is that such an union has not already been formed — was not long since formed! How it is possible that such facts as those stated by Mr. Palfrey in his Speech — and he gave only a few by way of sample — not at all treating the monstrous bulk — can have been known to Northern men and non-slaveholders, and yet stirred up no fever of indignation, I cannot understand. Unless indeed I adopt the humorous solution of your downeast poet, Hosea Biglow, who says in one of his inimitable lyrics:—

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?

Your overtrue description of the fate of honest antislavery men in the Whig Party, devoted to private assault and assassination — suspected, slandered, and traduced applies just as strongly to the antislavery democrats. I believe it was Euripides who said — as Milton translates him:—

There can be slain

No sacrifice, to the Gods more acceptable

Than an unjust and wicked king.

The converse of this is certainly true. There can be no more acceptable sacrifice to unjust power — the unscrupulous slave power — than the immolation of an earnest & defiant¹ friend of Freedom and the Right. And I have heard democrats complain [of efforts¹] made to ruin them in public esteem, and cut them off from all hopes of political advancement, with an emphasis not less strong than your own. But what remedy for such grievances, except by independent action? How can we expect that the people will sustain us, or that demagogues and serviles will fail to combine against us, defaming our characters, impairing our influence, depriving us opposition, and, what is greatly worse, thwarting our best purposes, unless we give them to understand that we can get along without them, if they choose to get along without us — that our principles are as dear to us as the loaves and fishes of office are dear to them? Once let it be understood by politicians, that no candidate for office can receive the suffrages of antislavery men, who does not, in some reasonable sense, represent antislavery principles, and parties will not dare to fly in the face of antislavery sentiment as they do at present. What a figure the Radical Democracy of New York will cut, if after resolving and resolving upon the absolute necessity of adherence to the Proviso under all circumstances, they should, after all, go into the Baltimore Convention next May and acquiesce in the nomination of Cass or Buchanan or any such man? What a figure will Antislavery Whigs cut in acquiescing in the nomination of Taylor, or Clay, or any other slaveholder, who gives no clear and unequivocal evidence, that he cherishes any antislavery sentiments?

I have thought much of the best means of concentrating antislavery effort. I confess I have not yet seen any clear line of action. The most eligible I have thought is to assemble in National Convention, in June next, say at Pittsburgh, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the country, and adopting such practical measures as may be then judged most expedient. My own judgment inclines to the opinion — strongly inclines to it — that should the Whigs nominate a candidate for the Presidency who will take decided ground against the extension of slavery into territories hereafter acquired, such a Convention should give such a candidate its support. The same measure should be applied to the Democratic nomination. Should both parties nominate men, not to be depended on for such opposition to slavery extension, then such a Convention should nominate a candidate of its own.

I have no expectation whatever that General Taylor will take any decided ground upon any question. He will certainly take no ground — unless he changes all his habits of thought, all his sentiments, and all his prejudices—against the extension of slavery. General Taylor is very strong in the South. I was at St. Louis and at Louisville a few weeks since, and had an opportunity of learning something of the feeling of the western southwestern slave States in relation to him. He will sweep them if a candidate like a tornado. But I am not able to see any convincing indications of his strength in the North and Northwest. I see rather signs which satisfy me that if he receives the nomination of the Whigs, it must be because the Whigs of the North and Northwest sacrifice their interests, their honors and their duties, to the ambition of party success. As to Mr. Clay, he might properly receive the support of antislavery men if he would come out unequivocally against the extension of slavery, and in favor of a Convention and some reasonable plan of emancipation in Kentucky. I have no faith, however, that he will do this, though I do not deem it quite impossible.

You say “if Judge M'Lean could be induced to take any practical ground against the extension of slavery he would be a popular candidate”. You may recollect something of a letter from Columbus last fall which appeared in the Era. That letter contained a statement of Judge M'Lean's position as understood by the writer, and it was this, that the Wilmot Proviso, as to all territories in which slavery does not exist at the time of acquisition, is in the Constitution already. A resolution of Congress may declare the principle and legislation by Congress may enforce its application; but neither resolution nor legislation is needed to establish the principle. It is in the Constitution. The paragraph of this letter containing this statement was shown to Judge M'Lean and approved by him. I had a conversation with Corwin² and I regretted to find that he did not sympathize with or concur in these views. So far as I could discover he had no definite, considered principle or opinions on the subject. He thought it best to avoid the question, by opposing territorial acquisition, but if it must come, then secure freedom by legislation.

Under all circumstances I cannot but think Judge M'Lean to be all together the most reliable man, on the slavery question, now prominent in either party. It is true he does not fully agree with those who are generally known as antislavery men. But on the question of extension of slavery he is with us, not only on the question of its impolicy and its criminality, but also because he believed such extension would be a clear infraction of the Constitution. Add to this the constant and familiar association with antislavery folks in his family and among his friends, and his known aversion to slavery itself — an aversion so strong that when he quitted Washington, although in debt, and comparatively poor, he emancipated his slaves, when sale would have produced the means of discharging all his obligations. I regret very much the decision of Judge M'Lean in the Vanzandt case and believe he fell into great error; still on the pressing issue — the extension of slavery, he is wholly with us, and in general sentiment on slavery questions, nearer to us than any other statesman of either of the two old parties. He is not against the Proviso — on the contrary he is in favor of it. He thinks it however is inexpedient to weaken the strength of the Constitutional position against slavery, by introducing a specific measure of legislation against it, under present circumstances, when its defeat in the legislature or its veto by the Executive is certain, and such defeat, in the general opinion, would take away every obstacle from the introduction of slavery into new territories.

I understand from Mr. Vaughan, that the Boston Whig has given a different statement of Judge M'Lean's position, from the one I have just set before you. You may depend, however, on the fact that mine is correct; and I leave you to judge whether I am wrong in thinking that the nomination of M'Lean by the Whig Convention would be the most substantial triumph of antislavery which has been achieved this century.

I thank you for your offer to circulate a few copies of the Vanzandt argument in Westminster Hall. I send you a dozen for that purpose. I read your address on Fame and Glory with very great pleasure.

Forgive this long letter, and believe me,

Faithfully your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ Conjectural. Torn in MS.

² First part of name torn out of MS. From the final syllable, win, Corwin is conjectured.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 128

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, December 2, 1847

Cincinnati, Dec. 2, 1847.

My Dear Sir: Several months have elapsed since I rec'd your last valued letter, and the delay of my answer has not been occasioned by an indifference to your correspondence, — far from this, — but by a consciousness that I could write nothing of particular interest to you. Within the last few months however much has occurred, of deep interest to the friends of Freedom and Progress, and it seems to be time that some beginnings should be made towards a mutual understanding in regard to the best course to be pursued during the approaching national canvass.

It was a great blow for Liberty and the Right that struck at Herkimer.¹ The Conventions of both Parties in your State, — the Old Bay State to which we were wont to look for examples of devotion to Freedom,—had repudiated the only measure, which, during the last quarter of a century, has been brought forward successfully in Congress, of an anti-slavery character. The sluggish depths of Servilism — apparently without Soundings — were stirred for the first time since the triumph of Slaveholders on the Missouri Question, by a bold and decided movement for the arrest of westward progress of the Great Cause. The Wilmot Proviso, carried in the House by an overwhelming majority, failed, in the Senate, — sad to say — through the folly or worse of a Massachusetts Senator. Ten political lives of ten John Davises, spent in earnest efforts in the best direction could not compensate for this half hour's mischief.²

The Slaveholders, startled by the sudden outburst of Free Sentiment, recovered their equanimity, when Congress had adjourned without adopting the proviso. At the next session, the Sentiment in favor of the proviso had visibly lost strength. Carried in the House, it was defeated in the Senate. Returned to the House, it was lost there. Emboldened, by these events, the Senate took more decided steps. In your State Convention the Proviso was smothered. Mr. Secretary Buchanan wrote his letter. Mr. Vice President Dallas made his speech. Who will bid highest for Southern votes? was now the question. The votes of the complaisant North were thought to be safe-secured by the bonds which Party gives to despotism. The Syracuse Convention met, and the Proviso was smothered there. A ticket of Anti-Proviso men was nominated, and the faithful were called upon to stand by the Party nomination. We felt the effect of this in Ohio. The friends of the Proviso were discouraged. Few, comparatively, — except the old Soldiers in the Antislavery warfare who with Spartan valor and in Spartan numbers have carried the Liberty banners through two election conflicts, — could be found who were willing to pledge themselves, come what might, to the Cause of Freedom. In this state of things, came the clarion call for the Herkimer Convention. I thank God that that call reached the hearts of the people of the Empire State! They rallied to the Convention. They repudiated the Syracuse Servilism. They resolved that the Wilmot Proviso — the stone which the builders rejected — should be made the head of the corner. The election followed. The Serviles were overthrown, and the Country was saved. I may be greatly in error, but I know of no event in the History of Parties in this Country, at all approaching, in sublimity and moment, the Herkimer Convention, or rather the great movement of which the Convention was the most signal, visible expression. I think there can now be no doubt that the Proviso is safe in Ohio, with both parties; nor can I believe that it can be successfully opposed in Congress.

But what next? Is there not great danger that the friends of freedom may be tricked out of the fruits of their labors by dexterous management of the Presidential Canvass? Will not a great effort be made to keep both parties together upon their old platforms? Will not attempts be made to select men who will be acceptable to the Slaveholders, and in their attempts will not love of office get the ascendancy over love of country, and secure the nomination of a devotee of Slavery or at least a worse man, — a Compromiser? Great efforts are being made I am well assured to bring Mr. Clay out as the candidate of the Whigs. His friends hope to manage the Taylor movement so as to make it contribute to this result. On the other hand the Democracy seems to be looking towards Woodbury and Cass chiefly; either of whom, would, I presume, give any desired pledges to the Slaveholders. There is, indeed, a very considerable opposition to these men; but, I fancy, it is hardly powerful enough to secure for any other person the choice of the party. I have heard, of late, indeed that Woodbury's decision in the Vanzandt case has gained for him the favor of Mr. Calhoun, while General Taylor's response to the signal³ letter has shaken the confidence of the Perpetualists in him.

In this state of things what is to be done? Cannot a great Convention of all Antislavery men be held at Pittsburgh, say next May or June, and put a ticket in nomination, which will at all events receive votes enough to carry the nominees into the House, with a reasonably fair prospect that the choice may fall on them, and, at all events, with a very good prospect of their election by the people in 1852? I have a good deal of faith in a movement of this kind. In the hope of aiding it I went to the Buffalo Convention and urged a postponement of the nomination. In that I did not succeed. I feel quite confident however that the nominees of that Convention will not stand in the way of such a movement. I declined its nomination for the Vice P'y, partly that I might be at liberty, more efficiently, to promote it, though you will readily conceive other and very sufficient reasons, why I — wholly unknown, and, out of my profession, wholly inexperienced — should decline such a nomination. Such a movement shall have, of course, my best efforts. I think there are multitudes, — I may be too sanguine — yet not active who will aid it. What do you and those friends who act with you think of it?

I send you by the mail which will convey this a number of the National Press, which contains three articles which will interest you. In your last you asked as to Judge M'Lean's position. One of these articles defines it, and, I am warranted by what I have heard from the Judge, in saying it defines it correctly. Another of them is an account of a recent slave case, tried at Columbus. The report is a good one. The verdict astonished most people. The motion for new trial is continued till next term. Will you make an abstract of the case for the “Reporter”? The other article is Mr. Gary's Speech against the War. Is it not strange that a gentleman who makes this speech is a thorough Calhoun man on the Subject of Slavery?

Very truly and faithfully your friend,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

Did I ever mention my wish that some copies of the Vanzandt argument might teach some of the legal minds of England? Will you be kind enough to aid in the accomplishment of that wish?

_______________

¹ The mass meeting of Anti-Slavery Democrats, October 26. See Shepard's Van Buren, 357-58.

² Referring to the prevalent belief that Davis's speech in favor of the Proviso at the end of the session was so long that no time was left for a vote. Cf. Von Hoist, III, 287-289; Henry Wilson, Slave Power, II, 17, seriously questions whether the Proviso could in any case have passed the Senate.

³ Written from Monterey, Mexico, May 18,1847, to the editor of the Cincinnati Signal, who had urged the nomination of General Taylor, April 13,1847. Itis printed in Niles' Register, July 3,1847, p. 288.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 124-7

Salmon P. Chase to John Thomas* of Cortlandville, New York, June 24, 1847

June 24, [1847.]

I am much obliged to you for yr. kind letter of the 11th ult. wh. I recd. yesty. It always gratifies me to hear of the condition & prospects of the great cause which engages us both & to be informed of the views & feelings of A. S. men in all parts of the Country: I wish there was more of communion between our friends. I am satisfied that it wd. greatly allay jealousy, & insure, instead, confidence & the activity wh. springs from confidence. I can echo from the heart all you say of the merits of our excellent friend Gerrit Smith. I honor him & love him as a true friend not merely of human right but of humanity. Shd. it become necessary for the Lib. Party to nom^e. candidates for the P. & V. P. in '48 & shd. he receive that nomination, he shall have my cordial & earnest support. I have not sufficy. compared the reasons wh. may be urged for his nomination, wh. may be urged for the nominⁿ. of some other equally reliable A. S. man to be able to make up my mind, whether I shd., if a memb. of a noming. convn. give my voice for him in pref. to evy other. Indeed, at this time, when we can see so little of the circums. wh. must deter^e, this choice, it seems to me the pn. of prudence, to note facts & traits of char. & reserve a final decision until the moment shall call for it.

It seems to me yet doubtful whether the Lib. P'y will have any occasion to nominate candidates for the Nat1. Elec^t. of '48: I have not a doubt that Gen. Taylor will be the Whig nominee, though he says in a letter shewn me to day & of wh. I will send you a copy to morrow that he will not accept a party nomn. If he be the candidate of the Whigs or a no party candidate, supported by the entire body of S. Whigs & the majority of N. Whigs, the N. democracy will be obliged to throw itself upon A. S. ground.

Even Gen. Taylor, cotton planter & sugar planter as he is —  slave-holder as he is — feels, as you will see, by the letter referred to, the necessity of taking if not a favorable position, at least a neutral one, in reference to the Wilmot proviso. What ground then may not the democracy be reasonably expected to take? Will they not be compelled to take, substantially, the ground of the Lib. P.? If they take it, will they not constitute in part the Lib. P.—? I am not prepared to assume the prophectic char^r. & predict the events & developments of the coming winter, but I think the signs of the times are such, that we ought to wait & observe at least until Spring: and then take that course which a wise & consistent regard to the grand paramount object of the Lib. organⁿ., viz. the overthrow of the Slave Power & the extinction of slavery in our country shall lead us to. The first political aspiration of my heart is that my country & all my countrymen may be free. This is my paramount political purpose & object. To attain this end I am content to labor & if need be to suffer. I have always regarded the Lib. organization as a means to this end I now regard it as nothing more. I feel ready therefore to give up the Lib. Organⁿ. at any time when I see that the great object can be accomplished without the sacrifice of principle in less time by another agency. I must indeed be well assured that such other agency will be more efficient & act upon honest principles, but once assured of this I shd. regard the question of duty as solved.

I acknowledge myself much gratified by the kind consideration of yrself & others. I do not think it at all probable that a contingency will arise in which the interest of the cause of Freedom will be promoted by presenting my name for the high office you refer to.

I am comparatively young, & unknown & my services to the cause have been slight in comparison with many others. For these & other reasons I do not wish to have my name spoken of for the V. P. We have worthy men enough in the West, if it be desired to have a western man. Judge King or Mr. Lewis of this State or Judge Stevens of Indiana not to mention others wd. fill the station with honor & credit. If however it shall become necessary for the Lib. Men to nominate Candidate as a distinct party, & — what seems to me very improbable — the contingency shall arise that the friends of freedom deem it wisest & best to have my name upon the ticket, I shd. hardly feel at liberty to withhold it. I shd. however, even then, consult my own sense of duty & be guided I trust by its admonitions.

I shall be very happy to hear further from you & to have the benefit of yr. suggestions as to the views I have presented as to the possible inability & inexpediency of separate Lib. nominations. I see the Macedon Lock Convention has nominated Mr. Smith & Mr. Burritt.¹ I send you the Daily Herald of to day the leading article of wh— expresses my views of the conⁿ. and its nomination. I regard this Convention & the attempts which are made to make eccl. connexion a political test in the Lib. Party, as indications that the necessities of the times will require a diff. instrumentality from that of the Lib. P. for the overthrow of sla^y.

I send you a copy of my argt. for Vanzandt — He is dead & the spoiler defeated &c.

Present to Mr. Smith when you see him the assurances of my most cordial respect & affection & believe me

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 94-95.

¹ See T. C. Smith, History of the Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the North West, 101, for this action of the “Liberty League.”

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 118-20

Salmon P. Chase to Joshua Leavitt*, June 16, 1847

June 16 1847 (?)

I have recd. your letter of the 5th inst written in behalf of Alvan Stewart Esq. Chairman of the National Committee of the Liberty Party in relation to a proposed call, by the committee of a Convention for the nomination of the Liberty Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. So far as I have been able to ascertain the sense of the Liberty men in Ohio it is in favor of deferring these nominations until May or June 1848: and such also is the inclination of my own judgement. Upon a comparison of advantages and disadvantages — and the question is one of expediency only — the balance seems to me to be in favor of that course. Were it otherwise, however, in my judgement, I could not with propriety — without different information as to the state of opinion among our friends in this state — concur in calling a Convention at an earlier period.

I would, however, cheerfully unite in a call for a Convention to be held this fall, to take into consideration the present aspect of the Antislavery cause, and to adopt such measures either by the nomination of Candidates for the Presidency & Vice Presidency, or otherwise, as shall, upon full consideration & comparison of views, be deemed best adapted to advance the cause of Freedom. Such a Convention assembled from all parts of the Country, would best develop the true sentiments of the Anti Slavery masses, and its decisions would, probably, be received with confidence & acted on with vigor.

Such a convention in my judgement should be composed of All honest opponents of slavery, willing to exert their power of the ballot for the overthrow of the great evil. The place of its assembling, recommended by considerations which seem to me weightiest, is Pittsburgh, where no great general Convention has yet been held & where the most numerous delegations may be expected from western Virginia, Kentucky & other States in similar circumstances. The time should not be later than the first week in October. Questions of greatest importance, & all if thought best, might be determined by the majority of votes, the delegates from each state, or a majority of them, casting its votes equal in number to its Electors or otherwise as the Convention itself should determine. These are my views, entertained with some confidence in their correctness. I submit them to the approval or rejection of your better judgement.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 25.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 116-7