Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, February 26, 1851

Washington City, Feb. 26, 1851.

My Dear Sumner, I have long desired to write you, but have postponed it from day to day in the hope that I might be able to congratulate you on your election. I suppose another attempt has been made today, but the past has discouraged me. The treachery of the rascals who have hitherto defeated you is probably too deep to be repented of. But there will be a glorious issue to go to the people upon. The Free Democracy and the Old Line Democracy will now be drawn into closer sympathy. I think this approximation is needed. Your old style for our organization of the Free Democracy, rather than Free Soil, you know, was always most acceptable to me. In fact I should not myself be willing to fight in a mere free soil party at the present time. I should be too uncertain whither it would drift. We must soon grapple with the great question of emancipation. It will not be long before the gentlemen who are always for compromise, will be ready for some scheme of emancipation by which the masters will be indemnified. Capital in mills and shops and stocks and capital in men women & children will ally themselves together and propose a grand national debt for raising the means of compensation. To be safe we must place ourselves on the ground of the separation of the Genl. Government from slavery leaving all questions of slavery within states to the states themselves. This is the democratic view, and harmonizes with the original policy of the Government.

But why talk to you of these things, when you know all about them? Let me hear from you. I shall leave on Tuesday morning or evening for Cincinnati.

Yours ever,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 234

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, December 14, 1849

Washington, Dec. 14,, 1849.

My Dear Sumner: I thank you for your argument in defense of equality before the law¹ for the colored people of Boston, in respect to public instruction. It is something more than reason — it is reason inspired by the sentiment of humanity. I take it for granted that it will be published in pamphlet form. When so published I hope you will send me a number of copies. It will give me real pleasure in aiding its circulation.

The papers show you the course of things here. Giddings, who is himself a living pillar, says there is less doublefacery here than at any former session. But the amount visible is disgusting. But for the presence of the Spartan Boss of Free Democrats, I have no doubt the South would have completely triumphed.

Yesterday was a day of great excitement. Discussion, speeches, and arrays of clippings, as in a theatre, was the programme of the Slaveholders, and for a time it frightened many Northern men. Judge Allen's speech reassured some of them. His illustration of the slaveholding demonstration by comparison with the arrangement of poor Goldsmith's friend to give eclat to the production of its first play was exceedingly well timed. And how admirably he exposed Winthrop. The political committees, he showed from W’s own admissions and statements were constituted for action— the Committees on the District, the Territories, and the Judiciary were constituted for inaction.

It is impossible now to foresee how all will end. But we hope the best. Certainly great advantages have been gained, and the Free Soilers have made by every point so far.

Most Cordially yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ This phrase so familiar to-day seems to have been introduced into English by Sumner. It represents the French “Egalite devant la loi.” “Equality before the law” is not denned nor is any example of its use cited in the New English Dictionary edited by J. A. H. Murray and others. Cf. Pierce's Sumner, Vol. III, p. 40.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 188-9

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

Philadelphia, Sep. 19, 1849.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affectionately and faithfully yours,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

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

_______________

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

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

Salmon P. Chase to W. G. Kephart,* Winchester, Adams County, Ohio, May 8, 1849

June 19, [1849.]

My Dear Sir — On my return from Frankfort, Kentucky, day before yesterday, I found your note of the 7th inst. on my table. I shall not think it worth while to respond to the editorials of the Bee; but when a true & devoted friend to the sacred cause of Freedom asks my attention to any particular matter of accusation against me, I cannot hesitate about giving him all the satisfaction in my power. You write as if you feared some bad results to the cause of Free Democracy from the imputation of the Bee, implied rather than stated, that I changed or modified my opinions in regard to the Mexican war, for the sake of securing my election to the Senate. Neither this nor any other imputation alarms me. I have neither time nor inclination for replies to the attacks made on me by the partizans of Tay lorism. I prefer to let the acts of my life speak for me. If these witnesses are not believed, neither will any statement that I can make obtain credence. I do not therefore as a general rule take any notice of Newspaper aspersions. To you, however, a friend, I say distinctly that I neither retracted nor modified any old opinion, or adopted or expressed any new one, for the sake of securing my election. I abandon opinions when convinced that they are wrong and adopt opinions when satisfied that they are right, not otherwise. As to my opinions on the Mexican war I do not believe that a dozen members of the Legislature knew what they were. Certainly I was not interrogated at all in respect to them, nor can I recollect that I conversed with any member on that subject, until after my return from Washington, though it is by no means impossible that I may have done so. I have however expressed on various occasions my views on the subject in conversation both with friends and opponents, and these conversations may have been reported to members, though I have no knowledge of the fact. Of course there is not the slightest ground for the idea that I “stooped” to any insincerity or disguise for the sake of being Senator. I can say, I believe with truth, that the office has very little charm for me, except so far as it adds to my ability to promote the welfare of my country and advance the interests of the cause of Freedom.

I never took any active part in the controversy between the Whigs & Democrats in regard to the Mexican war. I was engaged in a different contest & on different questions. To me the question of slavery seemed paramount in importance to the question of the war: and I never thought it desirable to divide those who agreed in opposition to slavery, by raising disputes among them on the subject of the war. In fact this seemed to me the general policy of the Liberty men; and consequently we find no expression of opinion either in the Resolutions of the National Convention of 1847, or of any Convention in our own State on this matter. The Liberty men, generally, condemned the war, but some in one degree & some in another; and very few, to that degree, that they could not unite cordially with the Free Soil Democracy of New York, who generally sanctioned the war, in the support of the same national candidates; one of whom it is remarkable enough, sustained while the others opposed the Government in the prosecution of it. Holding the view which was thus acted on by the Liberty men generally I seldom referred to the war at all in any public addresses and, when I did, thought it best to abstain from any line of remark calculated to introduce division among ourselves. I had, however, my individual views on the subject, which I freely expressed, whenever the occasion seemed proper for it, in private talk. These views I have not held or expressed dogmatically, or with any absolute certainty that they were right exclusively, and that everybody who dissented from them was wrong. They were in substance the same as those expressed by Wilberforce in relation to the war of England against France in 1803 — a war in my judgment, the commencement of which was quite as indefensible as that of our war against Mexico “I strongly opposed this war” he remarked “differing from those with whom 1 commonly agreed, at a great cost of private feeling; but when once it had begun, I did not persist — in declaiming against its impolicy & mischiefs, because I knew that by so doing I should only injure my country.”

I was not in any position to make my views of any consequence; and in this respect my circumstances were very unlike those of Wilberforce, who was a prominent and influential member of Parliament. As a private citizen, however, though I did not approve the commencement of the war but on the contrary always regarded the pretension of Texas to the boundary of the Rio Grande as groundless, and the order of the President, that the troops should advance to that river as therefore unwarranted, I did not on the other hand, after the war was actually begun & had received the sanction of the Congress, think it my duty to oppose its vigorous prosecution, on the contrary it seemed to me, reasoning on actual facts & not on facts as I could have wished them to be, that this course was the only practicable road to a sure & permanent peace. In this I may have been wrong, and when convinced that I was, I shall fully admit it. I rejoice certainly that I was in no public position, which would constrain me, holding these views and unconvinced by argument against them to differ in action from those who felt themselves constrained by honest convictions of imperative duty uninfluenced by the spirit of opposition to the existing administration, to oppose all measures for the prosecution as well as the commencement of the war. Nor do I expect that any future circumstances will arise, the war being now terminated, in which I shall be compelled to differ from them. I might go farther in this subject, but I have said enough to shew you my exact position. In one thing we shall probably all agree that the result of the war has signally disappointed the anticipation of those who supported it as some doubtless did with a view to the extension of slavery. The acquisition of New Mexico & California, free from slavery, by their own laws, and the bold demand of the slaveholders that they shall be surrendered to its blight, has aroused a spirit of inquiry upon the whole subject of that terrible curse and the relations of the National Government to it, which can hardly fail to precipitate the downfall of the slave power & hasten the era of emancipation. Let me assure you, my dear sir, that I shall always receive the “reproofs of instruction” with respectful consideration. I am far from believing that I have attained correct views of every subject. I dare not say that I am exempt from even more than the ordinary bias of human nature in forming my judgments. But I can say that I desire to be right & pray that I may be kept from all error, & especially all error harmful to our beloved country or to the cause of Human Freedom & progress — Join me in these prayers & when you believe me wrong tell me so. If after all, in any particular, my course shall not meet your approbation, before you go beyond a simple condemnation of that particular action or line of action and think of withdrawing your confidence from me or inducing others to do so, consider whether you are warranted in so doing by the whole tenor of my life and the general character & scope of all my conduct. Having thus considered act as your sense of duty prompts you. I ask no more.

P. S. I shall be pleased to hear from you in answer to this.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, p. 91 (continued on 107).

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 174-7

Salmon P. Chase to Joshua R. Giddings,* April 4, 1849

April 4, [1849.]

My Dear Sir, I have just received your kind note of the 3rd March inviting me, in default of being able to obtain lodgings on my arrival at Washington, to share yours. It was left for me at Coleman's I suppose, & I never saw it until to day. I wish I had arrived in season to avail myself of it.

I have recd. since my return on Saturday last (31st ult) yr. 2 letters of the 14th & 28th March. I wish I could agree with you in the sentiment, “let by gones be by gones”: & in view of it I do. Let us arrange a satisfactory basis of future action & I will cordially respond to the sentiment But is it not manifest what has past must be reviewed, in some measure, in order to determine on this basis? It is clear to me that the question growing out of the division of this County ought to have been settled this winter by the repeal of the clauses effecting the division. In my judgment also the apportionment law, (so called,) should have been modified by the disjunction of counties improperly joined; & I held junction improper, if not unconstitutional, in all cases, where the counties, if separated, would be respectively entitled to a member. I am very sure that had the Representatives of the Free Democracy in the Senate and House last winter been willing to have done justice in these particulars to the old Democracy, not only might all division in our own ranks have been avoided, but the democrats, propitiated by this action, would have cheerfully aided the Free Soilers not only in the repeal of the Black laws, but in the enactment of suitable laws against kidnapping & prohibiting the use of state jails & the aid of State officers to the pursuers of fugitive slaves, & generally in carrying through our distinctive Free Soil Measures.

These consequences would have flowed naturally & inevitably from the state of feeling which always springs up among men, who find themselves in the relative positions occupied by the Free Democrats and the Cass Democrats & act justly & liberally towards each other.

A different line of conduct was resolved on, & the results of the winter session are far less complete, in my judgment, than they would otherwise have been: & we are now embarrassed by the question What shall be done with the division of Hamilton County? I do not see how we can keep this question out of the elections next fall: nor, in my judgment, is it now desirable to do so. I quite agree with you that “standing as we must in opposition to the administration necessity will compel the democrats & free soilers to act together on all matters touching the administration”: & I would add to this that there being a substantial agreement between the platform of State policy adopted by the Free Democratic State Convention last winter, & that of the old Democracy, it seems to me, that the same general harmony of action may be easily secured as to State matters. If such harmony can be secured without the sacrifice of principle, & without the sacrifice of the independent organization of the Free Democracy, the result cannot fail to be auspicious to the cause of Freedom & to its maintainers. Such harmony, resulting in a triumph of the Democrats & Free Democrats in the State election, would strengthen, infinitely, your position in the House & my position in the Senate, & give complete ascendency to our principles & measures in the Senate. The harmonious cooperation cannot be had, I apprehend, without a definition of its position by the Free Democracy on the Hamilton County question:¹ &, therefore I say that it does not seem to me desirable to avoid it. In fact I should have brought the question forward in our State convention had I felt assured that the clauses would be repealed before the end of the session & therefore yielded to the suggestions of several, & waived the introduction either into the Committee or into the Convention of a resolution which I had prepared.

But if it were desirable to keep this question out of the canvass could we do it? It must be decided by the next house & the next senate. The Democrats will elect, in this county representatives for the whole county on a single ticket. The Free Democracy will vote in the same way in all probability. The Whigs will vote by Districts. The democrats will have a majority in the first eight wards of Cincinnati, which they claim to be a district. The two sets of representatives will again present themselves at Columbus claiming seats. The free soilers, in all probability, will again have the question to decide between the claimants. How can we avoid the enquiry, How will the Candidates proposed by the Free Democratic Conventions vote on the question? If we should avoid it & elect men ignorant of their views on this question, does not the experience of last winter clearly shew that its decisions will divide the Free Soilers? I think then, that the Hamilton County question must be met & settled in our primary conventions.

My views in relation to it are fixed. I thought last winter & still think that the division clauses are not warranted by the constitution but that these clauses having been regarded as binding by a large proportion though a decided minority of the voters, the election held, partly under them & partly in disregard of them, should be set aside, the clauses repealed, & the election sent back to the people. I did not, however, regard it as the absolute duty of the Legislature to set aside the election in every event. On the contrary the Democratic Claimants to be entitled, stricti juris, to their seats. & therefore when it became impossible to send the election back to the people with the clauses repealed, through the refusal of Whig Freesoilers to vote for the repeal of them, I did not hesitate to approve the determination of Mess. Morse & Townshend to admit them to their seats, as constitutionally elected. I think, of course, that the candidates of whatever party they may be, having the highest number of votes cast in the whole county, next fall, will be entitled to seats in the House. So fixed is this opinion in the minds of the Democrats, that I do not doubt  that they will refuse to sit in a House from which the members from Hamilton County shall be excluded.

It seems to me, therefore, that the question of the Constitutionality & validity of the divisions — clauses, as well as the validity of the pretended enactment of the apportionment law should be fairly discussed in our conventions. I believe the result of such a discussion will be general acquiescence in the opinions, which I, in common with nearly all Liberty men, & Democratic Freesoilers & not a few Whig Free Soilers, confidently hold. If such be the result, it seems to me certain that we can achieve a most important victory next fall.

I have thus given you my views freely, I shall be glad to know they strike you. I learn that Briggs has repeated the charge of one of the Taylor Papers, here, that before the meeting of the Legislature I expressed an opinion in favor of the Constitutional of the division, & changed it afterwards to effect my purpose. This is simply false: & I should think Mr. Briggs must have known it to be so: & I am mistaken greatly if I did not express the opinion I now hold, in one or more letters to Cleveland before the meeting of the Legislature not so fully perhaps as I should now, for I had not so fully considered the subjects involved but substantially the same.

As to all personal attacks, however, I shall content myself with a simple appeal to the whole tenor of my past life & leave my vindication to Time & Public Reason. 1 enclose a statement of the popular vote on the question of annexation the southern part of Mill Creek to the city a bill for which purpose was so strenuously resisted by the Whigs in the Legislature last winter & was defeated by a tie vote in  the Senate. Hunker Whiggism musters in Whig Cincinnati only 1092 votes. The Democrats & Free Soilers united with the Whig annexationists & elected also an annexation council carrying every ward but one.

With very great regard,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 133 and 174-175.

¹ See T. C. Smith Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 161.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 166-70

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

Cincinnati, January 24, 1849

My Dear Hamlin: You know I mentioned to you at Columbus that I thought of writing a frank letter to Giddings on the subject of the State of things at Columbus and the Senatorial election. I have done so at last, and now enclose to you a copy of the letter. I do not know whether or not you will deem it expedient to make any use of it. I leave this altogether to your discretion. Perhaps it would be good policy to shew it to Randall & Riddle & possibly to others: but you know best, and can do as you please.

I learn from Washington that Giddings wrote to Randall in respect to me some two weeks ago, expressing his conviction that I am a sincere & earnest friend of the Free Soil Cause! and saying that, if he cannot be elected, he wishes that I may be; and that he has also written, more recently, to Morse, to the same effect.

I had a letter today from Clinton, from Mr. Hibbin, a member of the Free Soil Committee of that County, stating that Jones “ejected” from the House had come home “in agony” lest he might be “rejected by the People,” “and fortified with a letter from Beaver, Chaffee & others” certifying to the genuineness of his Freesoilism! & recommending him to the support of the Free Soilers! What do you think of that? I do wish these gentlemen would just reflect what they would say of Townshend & Morse if they should give to Trimble, Jones' opponent and just as good a Freesoiler as Jones himself, such a letter. Mr. Hibbin writes me that an effort is made to have the democrats support the regular freesoil Candidate, and that some conferences have been had between Committees of the old & the free democracy on the subject. He fears, however, that no union can be had. Vaughan will go up to Clinton tomorrow and see what he can do. We all feel the great importance of having a reliable freesoiler returned from Clinton and, if the democrats, to whom the prevention of Whig ascendency is as important as it is to us, would only help cordially, the thing could be done. Perhaps they will but I fear they will not.

Yesterday I understood from Columbus, by your letter and from other sources, that Pugh & Peirce would be certainly admitted, and the black laws repealed by Democratic votes; today I learn from Brough that some of the Democrats have bolted from their engagement to vote for the repeal, and that the admission of Pugh & Peirce is again in doubt. How is this?

You know I have agreed with you that the most expedient course is to repeal the clauses dividing Hamilton County, both on the ground of unconstitutionality & inexpediency, and then, inasmuch as all parties regarded these provisions to a certain extent in the election, to declare the seats vacant & send the election back to the people. Men, convinced of the unconstitutionality and injustice of the law — to say nothing of the fraud and usurpation of power by which it was passed — might vote to declare the seats vacant, on the ground that the election was held under it's unconstitutional provisions: but, of course, men so convinced could never vote to admit Spencer & Runyon. If we look at the strict right of the case, however, it will be difficult to escape the conclusion, if we believe the division clauses unconstitutional as I certainly do, that Pugh & Peirce must be admitted without sending the election back. If the law were repealed the general expediency of the case and its influence as a precedent might be considered; but, if it be not repealed, such considerations should, I think, have no weight. For if the law be not repealed & the election be sent back, the Governor will doubtless order an election in the first district. All the Hamilton County members might thereupon vacate their seats, and probably, under the circumstances, would feel it to be their duty to do so. But suppose they should not. The Democrats would again run a ticket to be voted for throughout the county. The Freesoilers might do the same. The Whigs would run candidates only in the first eight wards of Cincinnati. The clerk would again give the certificates to the Democratic members. They would again come up with their prima facie evidence, and the whole business would have to be gone over again. In the meantime a Whig may be elected from Clinton; and in that case, supposing no other seats disturbed, there would be thirty-five Whigs & Freesoilers, (counting Kiddle, against my will & conscience, among the last,) to thirty five Democrats, Democratic Freesoilers & Independents. It is obvious, therefore, that unless some change of views shall have taken place by that time in the minds of members, both sets of claimants will be again rejected. And thus great expense & much ill blood will be occasioned for just nothing at all. These considerations seem to me conclusive against sending the election back to the people unless the law be first repealed. If the law be not repealed, I see no way out of the difficulty except by the admission of Pugh & Peirce.

And it is quite manifest that it will not do, to delay action on the case, until after the Clinton election; for in case Jones should be returned from that County, there would probably be enough Whigs, & Free Soilers who consider themselves virtually committed on this question, to defeat any proposition for their admission by a tie vote: wherefore a proposition for the admission of Spencer & Runyon would be defeated also, and the consequences of an attempt at a special election would be such as I described. I should be very glad to see Morse's bill, including the provision for the repeal of the Black Laws pass — and pass by democratic votes. I hope to see it. It should if possible be pushed through in advance of a vote on the admission of Pugh & Peirce.

But should an aggreement to vote for it be made an indispensible condition for voting for the constitution and right in the case of Pugh & Peirce? It seems to me it should not. I would say, Get as many votes pledged to that great measure of Justice & Humanity — the repeal of the Black Laws, — as possible. But I should dislike to make my vote on one question of right, contingent absolutely upon other men's votes on another question of right. The Democrats should undoubtedly vote for Morse's bill. Sound policy as well as Democratic Principles require it of them. I would be satisfied, however, if enough of them, including Pugh & Peirce, would vote for it, to ensure its passage with the aid of Whig & Freesoil votes. In fact, I am inclined to think that the admission of Pugh & Peirce to their seats, and the vindication, thereby of a great principle of constitutional right, would so dispose the Democrats to good will towards the Free Soilers, that they would give votes enough for the bill to insure its passage, whether pledged to do so or not. Col Brough tells me that as soon as he can get a printed copy of the bill he will publish it, and come out in support of it: and he thinks, if he can do it, anybody else may.

But why should I trouble you with these considerations, all of which have doubtless occurred to your own mind, when, being on the spot, you can so much better judge of their weight than I can?

I have just recd. your letter of yesterday and find as I suspected that my suggestions were unnecessary. Consider this as an answer and you in my debt. I will attend to what you say as to the Col^d. woman. A President of the Board of P. W. must be elected by the Legislature this winter although future Election by the People may be provided for. You should have that. If not, unless something better can be done you might take the Judgeship — but this would lay you up, which I should not like; and Bolton must be consulted.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 156-60

Salmon P. Chase to Ahaz Merchant,* Cleveland, Ohio, Saturday, January 23, 1849

Jan. 23d [1849.]

Dear Sir — I received this morning your favor of the 18th inst. & I beg leave to disclaim at once all pretention to the position, which your courtesy assigns to me, of “head of the Free Soil Party of Ohio”. I am but one of a numerous host, animated by a common desire to divorce our National & State governments from all support of Slavery, and thus ensure the speedy deliverance of our country by Constitutional means, from its greatest curse; and to apply the principle of equal rights, on which our action against slavery is based, to other permanent questions of public policy. This body of citizens constitutes the Free Democracy or Free Soil Party, in which and with which I am content to labor, in any position which may be assigned to me, but without aspiring to lead so long as the great purpose of its organization require my service. You enquire as to my views, 1. in relation to a National Tariff  2d. in relation to Banking; 3d. in relation to Lake & River Improvements by the General Government. — I am not averse as those acquainted with me well know, to a frank expression of my opinions, as an individual, to any who may think fit to ask for them:— But, I confess I should feel some hesitation in answering your questions, put to me as they appear to be under an unfounded impression, that I sustain some peculiar relation to the Free Soil Party of the State, if I did not find answers ready to my hand in the resolutions of our National & State Conventions which set forth views, which, I as a Free Soiler, adopt & defend without reserve. I answer your first question, therefore, by a reference to the fourteenth resolution of the Buffalo Convention:— your second, by a reference to the fourth, fifth & eleventh resolutions of our own Free Democratic Convention, recently held at Columbus; and your third by a reference to the twelfth resolution of the Buffalo Convention. As you may not have at hand the Resolutions of these Conventions, which constitute the State & National Platforms of the Free Democracy of Ohio, I enclose a copy. I also enclose a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Free Territory Convention of Ohio on the 21st of June on the subject of River & Harbor Improvements, which though offered by our friend Mr Briggs, was drafted by me and expresses my views.

With great respect,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From letter-book 6, p. 165.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 155-6

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

Sat. 20 Jany.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cincinnati, Jan’y 20, 1849

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cincinnati, January 19, 1848 [1849].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cincinnati, January 17, 1848 [1849?]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please hand the enclosed to Stanley Matthews forthwith.

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

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

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

Cincinnati, January 16, [1849].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________

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

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

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 Eli Nichols,* Walhonding, Coshocton County, Ohio, July 11, 1848

Cin^ti. Nov^r. 9 [1848.]

My Dear Sir, I recd. yrs of the 6th to day, & as I shall be obliged to leave the city to attend the Circuit Court at Columbus on M’day next & shall be much engaged in the meantime I an^r it at once. In regard to State Policy, which the Free Democracy should adopt, I think it of great importance that it should be, in the first place, truly Democratic and, in the second, well considered & generally approved by our friends. Neither your views nor mine may be fully met, — yet if the general principles of the policy adopted be sound, I do not doubt that we shall both be satisfied, approximation to particular opinions is all that can be expected in the details of a general plan. I agree that the advantages of a paper currency, securely based upon & promptly convertible into specie, are such that there is no reasonable probability that its use will be dispensed with. The great problem then is to make it safe and deliver it from the monopolizing control of corporations & favored individuals. I am wedded to no particular plan. Let us have the most efficient. The most prominent objection likely to be made to yrs., is that it makes the Government of the State a Banker. I have been accustomed, myself, greatly to distrust Government Banking: but I have neither time nor place to state my reasons now. When we meet at Columbus we will talk the matter over. I am much obliged to Governor Shannon for his kind opinion of me, & cordially reciprocate his good will. I think, however, the times require, — and such I am assured is the opinion of the friends of our movement in our own & other states, — in the Senate of the United States, from Ohio, a man, who thoroughly understands & will steadfastly maintain the whole platform of the Free Democracy. I do not know but Governor Shannon is such a man. If so, I shall witness his elevation to any station which the Legislature or the People may confer upon him, with unfeigned pleasure. For myself, I have no aspirations for the office of Supreme Judge. I have devoted eight of the best years of my life to one great object — the overthrow of the Slave power and slavery by Constitutional Action: and I desire no position in which I cannot efficiently promote this leading purpose. On the bench I could do little for it:— not so much, I think, as I can in my present position.

Nor do I desire to be considered as a candidate for any other place. Some of our friends have been pleased to think I can be of use to our cause in the Senate: and men of other parties have said that, in the contingency that their strength in the Legislature shall prove insufficient to elect a candidate of their own, they will be satisfied with my election to that body. I am not weak enough to found any serious expectations or aspirations upon these views and expressions. I look upon the election of myself or any other Free Soiler as a contingent possibility — nothing more.

I trust that the Representatives of the Free Democracy in the General assembly, will act when they meet at Columbus, with the patriotic wisdom & independent firmness which the crisis will require. Upon all the questions which they will be called upon to decide, as virtual arbiters, between the other parties, I hope they will manifest strict impartiality, and decide then, without bias, as their own conscientious convictions demand. In selecting their own candidates, for whatever public stations, they should inquire not “Whence is he ?” — nor “With what party, did he act?” but “Will he, if elected, promote most efficiently the interests of our cause?” and “For whom can the suffrages of our fellow members be most certainly obtained?” It would be affectation in me to say, that I should not be highly gratified if the choice of the Free Soil members in the Legislature should fall on me, and that choice should be approved by a majority of their fellow members:— for I do believe that I understand the history, principles & practical workings of the Free Soil movement as thoroughly as most men, & nobody, I presume, will question my fidelity to it. If, however, that choice made on those principles should fall on another than myself — upon Giddings, Root, Swan, Hitchcock, Brinkerhoff, or any other of those true-hearted & able men who have so nobly sustained our cause during the recent struggle — no man will be more prompt than I to concur cordially in it or more desirous than I to see it confirmed by the Legislature. What I wish to have understood is this, — I do not seek any office:— much less do I claim any. I do not even desire any, however elevated or honorable, in which, while discharging faithfully its general duties, I cannot efficiently promote the cause of Free Democracy:— but should our friends have the power & feel the disposition to place me in a position, in which, while so discharging its duties, I can so serve our cause, the reproach of “sinister motives” —the cheap missile of malignant detraction — would have as little influence in deterring me from accepting it, as similar attacks have had on my past action against slavery. No man, I trust, is more sensitive to just blame than I:— few I am sure are more indifferent to censure felt to be undeserved.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 160. Eli Nichols was a worker for Chase in the Ohio Senatorial election, which resulted, after a contest of nearly three months, in Chase's election, Feb. 22, 1849. See Hart's Chase, 103-112, and T. C. Smith's History of the Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 160-175.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 139-41

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, March 25, 1848

Cincinnati, Mar. 25th, 1848.

My Dear Sir: With this I send you our call, the letter inviting signatures being signed by men of all parties — most Whigs. Would not a similar movement in old Massachusetts be better than manful resolves and inert action? I hear that a call for a Free Soil Convention (National) may be expected from Washington, from members of Congress of all parties. May God so dispose their minds. The 4th of July would be a glorious day for the assemblage of such a Convention.

I have had much conversation with Judge M'Lean since I returned from Washington. If the Whigs will not nominate him, all will be well. He is emphatically right on the Free Territory Question, nearer right than any so prominent man of the old parties I know, on many others; and right on principle and not from impulses.

I will be glad to hear from you soon.

Very truly yours,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

Did I send you those copies of the Vanzandt argument? I have actually forgotten.

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

William Schouler* to James S. Pike, April 25, 1850

House Of Representatives,

Boston, April 25, 1850.

My Dear Pike: You don't know how glad I was to receive your letter of the 20th inst. The spirit of the letter was in unison with my own feelings and with the feelings of all good Whigs in this quarter. The ways of Congress to some are “past finding out,” but they are now being discovered. I know that I do not overstate the fact when I tell you that our good old President is daily increasing in popular favor and regard, and Clay and Webster are decreasing in a like ratio.

We are determined here to stand by the administration, and no longer pay court to Hunkerdom anyhow. I have taken an unequivocal position, and I shall sink or swim with it. I find, however, that very little nerve is required to sustain this ground, for the people here are all of one accord. Even those who signed the letter to Mr. Webster, and were recalled by a certain speech to a “true sense of their constitutional duties,” do not find fault with me, with one or two exceptions, and they are the “born thralls of Cedric,” the Wambas and Gurths, for whom I care nothing, and who have little or no influence upon the popular mind because they are known, known even without the brass collar.

The Whig party in our State stand firm as a rock, and I have no doubt that we shall draw in a large part of the Freesoil party to the support of the administration. I don't know what we shall do in the Fourth District. The election takes place on the 29th of May. I think, however, that whoever the Whig Convention nominates will be elected. The Whig candidate, you know, has declined. He may be renominated again. His letter of declension was first-rate, and has added to his popularity, and may cause him to be put on the track again. It is possible that Hon. Samuel Hoar will receive the nomination; if so, he will certainly be elected, as the Freesoil men and Whigs can both elect him. I have known him for twenty years, and there is no better Whig living. He was opposed to General Taylor, but he has been satisfied with the old man, and he told me this forenoon that every thing which the administration had done since it came into power met with his hearty concurrence. He has had a seat alongside of me in the House for nearly four months, and I know of no better Whig anywhere. Still it is doubtful whether he will be nominated, or, if nominated, that he would accept to run against Palfrey. Nous verrons.

Your letters to the Courier are just the fodder, and I read them with great delight; they will do good.

I really hope that you will write me often. I like your letters hugely. Give my respects to the “honorable Truman,” and all other good and true Taylor men.

Yours truly,

Wm. Schoulbr.

_______________

* Editor of the Boston Atlas.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 42-3