Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, April 24, 1847

Cincinnati, Apr. 24, 1847.

C. Sumner, Esq., Boston.

My Dear Sir: I am much indebted to you for your very kind letter of March 12th, to which I should have replied earlier had I not been prevented by the fear of burdening you with an unprofitable correspondence. Your approbation of my argument for poor old Vanzandt¹ is very grateful to me. I gave to the effort the best exertion of my ability, in the short time allowed me for preparation, and I had collected the material for the most part previously with a view to an oral discussion. I do not suppose that the judges of the Supreme Court regarded the argument as worth much attention. I have reason to believe that the case was decided before they received it; and that the opinion was designed for no more than a cursory notice of the points in the case, under the impression that it was not worth while to consider the views presented by the ––– on Vanzandt. I trust, however, and believe that the discussion will not be without a salutary effect upon the professional mind of the country, and if so, even though my poor old client be sacrificed, the great cause of humanity will be a gainer by it. I send you a notice of the decision which I prepared for the Morning Herald in this city. It is hurried and imperfect, but will serve perhaps to suggest something better to others. I hope you will give the argument of the court a review in the Reporter. It is, it seems to me, amazingly weak at all points. A worse decision, supported by feebler reasons, can hardly be found.

I was surprised by what you said of Judge Story. How could he regard the Prigg² decision as a triumph of Freedom? The decision contains, indeed, a dictum in favor of the doctrine that slavery is local; just as the decision in the Mississippi case went upon the ground, so far as it related to the interstate slave trade, that under the Constitution all men are persons. But who, that knows anything of slaveholding aggression, will believe that, when the question of the locality of slavery comes directly in issue, there will be more regard paid to the dictum of the Prigg case, opposed as it is to the whole spirit of that most unfortunate decision, than was paid in the Vanzandt case to the doctrine of Groves and Slaughter³ that slaves are persons. The Supreme Court is, doubtless, composed of men of humanity—who in particular cases, involving no general principle touching what I may call the corporate interests of slaveholding, would willingly decide in favor of the liberty of individuals: — but they cannot be trusted at all when that great corporate interest is in question: and all attempts to compromise the matter by getting the court committed on such matters as the locality of slavery, in decisions of leading questions in favor of the slaveholders, will be found as unavailing as the efforts of the Philistines with their green withs upon Samson. It has been too much the fashion, both among politicians and among judges of the Free States to endeavor to get the best of the bargain in compromises. They have never succeeded and they never will. Despotism admits of no such compromises. The Devil cannot be cheated. “Resist the Devil and he will flee.” We have the highest authority for this: but there is no warrant for expecting success in an effort to circumvent him.

I saw poor Vanzandt a day or two ago. He came into town in his wagon, and sent up his son to ask me to come down to him, as he was unable to get up stairs to my office. He was very weak. Pulmonary disease had made sad work with his hardy frame. The probability is strong that before the mandate of the Supreme Court can be carried into a judgment of the Circuit Court the old man will have gone to another bar, where aid to the weak and suffering will not be imputed as a crime. I said to him that I could hardly suppose that, in view of his approaching end, he could feel any regret for having aided the fugitives, whose appeals to his compassion had brought him into his present troubles. The old man's eye lighted up, as he answered “No; if a single word could restore the man who escaped and save me from all sacrifice I would not utter it.” And such I believe is the universal spirit of those who have aided the oppressed in regaining their freedom.

You have noticed no doubt the case of Habeas Corpus before Judge Downie, of the District Court at Pittsburgh. The applicants for the Writ had arrested a fugitive slave, alleged to be such, and were about to carry him off by force. His cries attracted attention, and he was rescued from them. They were then arrested under the late law of Pennsylvania, which makes it a penal offence to retake slaves with violence, and were brought before Judge Downie by the Habeas Corpus. He, like Mr. Justice Woodbury held that slaves were property under the Constitution, and that the recaptors, having used no more force or violence than was necessary, were entitled to their discharge. Thus the detestable doctrine of property in man is spreading, having received the Countenance of the Supreme Court. Is it not the duty of every lover of Liberty in the profession, to do all that he can to counteract its vices?

I wish with you that Judge M’Lean had a “stronger backbone of Constitutional Antislavery.” He is a good man and an honest man, and his sympathies are with the enslaved. He emancipated one or more when he left Washington, leaving himself in debt beyond his then ability to pay. His opinions, however, are in favor of the construction of the Constitution, which he has put forth in the Vanzandt case; a very different construction indeed from that which the Supreme Court has given in the same case, but which allows, in that case at all events, the same practical results. I suppose, however, that the military fever will carry all before it in the Whig party, and that Mr. Taylor will be the Whig candidate. He is a large slaveholder, — has a sugar and cotton plantation — entertains the Calhoun opinion of slavery— would be an inflexible enemy of the Wilmot Proviso — would favor a high tariff, for the benefit of sugar, and probably, would regard with approbation the establishment of a Bank of the U. States. There is nothing in this character, which would make him unacceptable I presume to the “Whig party of the United States,” though the large and highly respectable antislavery portion of that Party would doubtless be not well pleased. Even of that portion, however, some, would, I fear, be willing to take the Slaveholder for the sake of the Whig, and vote for Slavery to keep out Locofocoism.

In my humble judgment, however, in the contingency indicated if the Democrats should be willing to take the Constitutional ground of opposition to Slavery, and nominate a Wilmot Proviso man who may be confidently relied on, it would be the duty of every friend of freedom to support the nomination. If the Democracy can now be brought onto antislavery ground, they will be sure to keep there until they clear the field.

With the greatest regard,

Yours most truly,

[Salmon P. Chase]

P. S. — I have sent some copies of my argument to some friends in England. It has struck me that as you are personally acquainted with many professional gentlemen there, you might think it useful to send some copies to them. If so, 1 shall take pleasure in sending to you as many as you may name.

_______________

¹ On the Van Zandt case, see Schuckers' Chase, 53 ff.

² Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.

³ The Case of Groves vs. Slaughter, 1841, 15 Peters, 449. Cf. Hurd Law of Freedom and Bondage, I, 147, n. 2.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 113

Hawkins Taylor to Abraham Lincoln, December 27, 1859

Keokuk Dec 27^th 1859

My Dear Sir

Our State Convention comes off soon probably too Soon for the appointment of delegates to the National Republican Convention. As the National Convention is so convenient I am truly sorry that our Convention was appointed so early, there may be great changes in public sentiment between now and next June. I do not expect to be a delegate to the Convention. I do not know how many delegates we may have but th[ere] will probably be one to each Judicial District appointed who will be appointed from our district it is hard to say. There is probably more than half the Political talent in the State in our Judicial District still I will fill my part in the appointment of Delegates at the State Convention and if alive and well I will be at the National Convention and I hope able to exert some influence and the Question is who is the Right Man to bear the Republican Banner In my opinion he should be Conservative yet thoroughly honest and above evry thing else a man of Iron Nerve And evry Kick a Republican. Let him say to the South keep your Slaves if you want to. You shall be fully protected in all your Constitutional Rights, but you must let all free Territory alone except as free setlers while it remains a Territory. You shall have all the Appointments both at home & abroad that your White population entitle you to but not one more. You must let the mails of the Country alone

In a word behave your selves as other people have to do and you Shall be treated as other people are

The candidate should be thoroughly in favor of the Homestead Bill and the Great Central National Road to the Pacific and a Good Tariff Man in feeling. With such a man there no danger of defeat. But without such a man victory would be a defeat worse than defeat itself

I would rather see you the candidate than any other man, but I am willing to see Camron & You the candidates or I am willing to see Bates and some Pensylvany Man the candidates. I have some doubts of Bates. I fear that there is too much “Old Line Whig” about him and besides I would rather see both the Candidates taken from Free States so that we could Show the conservative portion of the South that the Republican party can be a National & conservative party when in power and the Fire Eaters that they can & will be Hung by a Republican administration if they do not behave them selves. I hope & trust that Douglass is politically dead for the next four years at least so far as being a Candidate for President is concerned It is not worth while to disguise the fact he is Strong stronger than any other Man that could be nominated It would be next to impossible to keep him from getting Iowa & all of the Western States, over almost any body And very largely over such candidates as Seward, Chase, Banks, or any such men. The West will not vote for any but a Western Man against a Western Man. We Want and must have free Lands And a Pacific Road and if the National Republican Convention do not give us such a man they need not make a nomination with any hope of success, unless the Locos nominate Some fireeater Which they are sure not to do. They will give us a Third addition of the Polk & Pierce Dodge or I am mistaken

Write me fully when you receive this I am very anxious to hear from you before our State Convention

Yours truly

Hawkins Taylor

Hon. A. Lincoln

SOURCE: Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

Endorsement of Governor Salmon P. Chase, December 20, 1856

Columbus, Dec. 20, 1856.

Captain John Brown, of Kansas Territory, is commended to me by a highly reputable citizen of this State as a gentleman every way worthy of entire confidence. I have also seen a letter from Governor Charles Robinson, whose handwriting I recognize, speaking of Captain Brown and his services to the cause of the Free-State men in Kansas in terms of the warmest commendation. Upon these testimonials I cordially recommend him to the confidence and regard of all who desire to see Kansas a free State.

S. P. Chase.¹

________________

¹ This eminent man, afterward Senator from Ohio and Chief-Justice of the United States, sent another letter to Brown six months later, but while he was still Governor of Ohio. It is interesting as showing that Governor Chase either did not know or did not choose to recognize the alias of “Nelson Hawkins,” by which Brown was then addressed to avoid the opening of his letters by proslavery postmasters.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 363

Horace Greeley to James S. Pike, March 5, 1860

New York, March 5, 1860.

Friend Pike: Your grammar is perfect. The bet is all right — $20 to $20 on Douglas's nomination. Now if you want to go $20 more on Seward against the field for our nomination, I take that. I can spare the money, for I don't want to go to Chicago, and mean to keep away if possible.

If Douglas shall be nominated, I think Bates will have to be, unless we mean to rush on certain destruction. However, we shall see what we shall see.

“Capital States” and “Labor States” is foolish. Slave States and Free States tells the story, and no one can misunderstand it.

Why don't you go in hard for awarding the printing to the lowest bidder? I should be perfectly willing that Mrs. B. should have it all under that rule, if you can get it. Under the present system, I object. And a “National Printing Office” would be worse than this. Do try to help along some practical reform. I've written Sherman to send me a table of the mileage. Then we'll see who votes and how when that question comes up, and what they make or lose by it.

Yours,

Horace Greeley.

J. S. Pike, Esq., Washington, D. C.

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. 501

William E. Forster to John Lothrop Motley, March 30, 1861

Burnley, near Otley,

March 30, 1861.

My Dear Mr. Motley: I am very much obliged to you for both your letters, and can assure you that they, especially the longer one, will be of the greatest service to me if I take part in the debate on the 16th prox.

As I go up to London next Friday, and as I hope to see you and talk the matter over fully between then and the 16th, I will do little more now than thank you.

So far as I can judge from the newspapers, the chances of avoiding war increase. It seems to me Lincoln's policy is shaping itself into first attempting, by refraining from hostile measures, by keeping the door for return open on the one hand, and by making their exclusion on the other as uncomfortable as possible, to get the seceding States back; and, secondly, should this turn out to be impossible, to let them go peaceably, straining every nerve to keep the border States. My great fear still is, lest the Republicans should, in order to keep the border States, compromise principle; but as yet they have stood as firm as one can reasonably expect.

You must excuse my saying that I do not agree with you that supposing the Union patched up again, or the border slave States left with the North, you will even then get rid of the negro question. So long as the free States remain in union with slave States, that question will every day press more and more urgently for solution. Such union will be impossible without a fugitive-slave law, and any fugitive-slave law will become every day more and more impossible to execute; and, again, slave-holding in one State, with freedom of speech and pen in the next State, will become more and more untenable. I do not doubt, however, that the question will, in case of the border States being left by themselves with the North, be solved by their freeing themselves before long from their slave population, partly by sale and partly by emancipation. Did I not think so, I would wish them to join the South.

As it is, however, unless the North degrades and enslaves itself by concession of principle, the cause of freedom must gain by present events, either in case of the cotton States returning, as they would have to do on Northern terms, or in case of their going on by themselves, when they will be far less powerful for harm than they were while backed by the whole strength of the North. I am therefore most anxious that our government should not, as yet, recognize the South, not only because I think a premature recognition would be an interference in your affairs, and an interference most unjust and unfriendly to the old Union, our ally, but because I think it would strengthen the South, and so either tend to harden her against concession to the North, or give her a fairer chance, and therefore more power for evil, in a separate start. Such recognition would also, I fear, do harm by making it less unlikely for the seceding States to join the South. I thought I ought to write this much in order to show you why I feel so interested in this matter; but the best mode of meeting the debate in the House must be left for consideration nearer the time, when I hope to see you.

Yours most faithfully,

W. E. FORSTER

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 121-3

John Lothrop Motley to Mary Benjamin Motley, June 18, 1861

June 18th, Tuesday morning, 7 A.M. — I continue my letter for a moment before breakfast. We are going across the Potomac at nine—Tom and I and the two Lees. I dined with Seward entirely enfamille, no one being present but his son and son's wife. . . .

We had, among the first acts of the new anti-slavery administration, agreed to do, what we have been so freely reproached for not doing, when our Government was controlled by an administration of which Jefferson Davis was a member, and we are met on the threshold lby the declaration that his invitation to pirates of all nations is sufficient to convert them into good, honest belligerents.¹

Had the English declaration been delayed a few weeks or even days, I do not think it would ever have, been made, and I cannot help thinking that it was a most unfortunate mistake. Nevertheless I am much less anxious about the relations between our two countries than I was. Nobody really wishes a rupture on either side, and I think that the natural love of justice and fair play which characterises England will cause regret at the mistake which has been committed. Moreover, there can hardly be much doubt, despite the misrepresentations of an influential portion of the English press and of some public men, that the English nation will understand the true position of the American Government in this great crisis.

We have circumscribed slavery, and prevented for ever its extension by one square inch on this continent, and at the same time we mean to preserve our great republic one and indivisible. It is impossible that so simple and noble a position as this should fail to awaken the earnest sympathy of nine-tenths of the English nation. To the question whether the task is beyond our strength, I can only repeat that General Scott — than whom a better strategist or a more lofty-minded and honourable man does not exist — believes that he can do it in a year; and so far as I can make out his design, it is by accumulating so much force and by making such imposing demonstrations everywhere, as to convince the rebels that their schemes — already proved to have been false in all their calculations founded on co-operations in the Free States — have become ridiculous. Thus without any very great effusion of blood perhaps, the rebellion may be starved out and broken to pieces. Mr. Seward says that the great cause of the revolt is the utter misapprehension in the Slave States of the Northern character. It has hitherto been impossible to make the sections thoroughly acquainted with each other. Now they will be brought together by the electric shock of war. And they will learn to know each other thus, which is better than not knowing each other at all — and so on. I give you a brief idea of his schemes and hopes.

He read me a long despatch which he is sending to-day to the French and English Governments. He did this of course confidentially, and because, as he was pleased to say, I had been fighting our battles so manfully in England, for he, like every one else, praised warmly my Times' letter. I suppose ultimately this despatch will be published; but I have only room now to say that I think it unobjectionable in every way — dignified, reasonable, and not menacing, although very decided. I said little in reply, and soon afterwards we went to the White House, in order to fall upon Abraham's bosom. I found the President better- and younger-looking than his pictures. He is very dark and swarthy, and gives me the idea of a very honest, confiding, unsophisticated man, whose sincerity of purpose cannot be doubted. I will say more of him in my next, for I am obliged to close suddenly. By the way, let me correct one statement in another part of my letter. Both the President and Seward tell me that, in Scott's opinion, an attack by the rebels on the lines before Washington is not impossible. It would be a desperate and hopeless venture. Maryland has just gone for the Union by a very large majority, electing all members of Congress. Good-bye. God bless you and my darlings!

Ever your affectionate

J. L. M.

_______________

¹ Early in the administration of Mr. Lincoln, the Government of the United States proposed to accede to the four articles in regard to maritime warfare adopted at the Congress of Paris in 1856. The British Government, however, wished to state that by the proposed convention for such accession Great Britain did not mean to undertake any engagement bearing upon the Civil War in America. The President decided that such a declaration was inadmissible, as the United States could accede to the Articles only upon a perfectly equal footing with all the other parties. The American Government was aggrieved by the obstruction offered by Great Britain to its accession to the four articles, especially as Great Britain was at the time secretly proposing to the Confederate Government to accept but three of them. The exequatur of the British Consul at Charleston, who had been the intermediary of the negotiations of his Government with the Confederate authorities, was revoked by the President.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Volume 1, p. 380-2

Sermon of Reverend James Freeman Clarke: April 21, 1861

If the true position of a nation is its highest moral attitude, then we may say that these free States were never in a better condition than they are to-day. The end is not yet; no, and though they take Washington, take our President prisoner, seize the archives, and install themselves in the Capitol, that is not the end. So long as the magnificent spirit which actuates the whole North to-day continues, the spirit of devoted patriotism, of perfect unanimity of sentiment, of generous self-sacrifice, of calm, quiet courage, which does not boast at the beginning nor flinch at the end, so long the nation is safe. . . .

This is a sort of Pentecostal Day, in which the whole multitude are of one heart and one soul; nor says any one that aught that he possesses is his own, but we have all things in common. . . .

For the sake of national prosperity, for the sake of outward union, for the sake of a mere mercantile peace, we have here at the North been conniving for years at a system of despotism more cruel than exists elsewhere on the face of the earth.

Now we are punished in just those three points. Our prosperity has received a terrible check, our Union is dissolved, and our peace has terminated in what threatens to be an awful war. . . .

Let us stand by each other now in these dark hours, trusting in God's eternal justice and truth. He that is for us is more than they that be against us.

SOURCE: Edwin Everett Hale, Editor, James Freeman Clarke: Autobiography, Diary and Correspondence, p. 271-2

Charles Eliot Norton to Arthur H. Clough, February 10, 1861

Shady Hill, 10 February, 1861.

. . . Well, since I wrote last to you, great things have been going on here. It has been no time for writing letters, for the speculations of one day were forgotten the next in the new aspect of affairs. Not even yet is there any certainty as to the result of our present troubles and excitements, so far as the South is concerned. It is still doubtful whether the states that have already left the Union will be the only ones to do so, or whether the whole body of Slave States will go off and set up an attempt at a Confederacy to be managed in the interest of the owners of slaves, and for the protection and extension of slavery. There is little to choose between the two. For many reasons, political, social, and economical, it would be desirable to keep the northern tier of Slave States united with the Free States; but on the other hand, if they go off, the Free States no longer have any connection with or responsibility for Slavery. For my own part I have been hopeful from the beginning that the issue of these troubles, whatever it might be, would be for the advantage of the North, and for the permanent and essential weakening of the Slave power; and I see no reason to change this opinion. The truth is that it is the consciousness of power having gone from their hands that has induced the revolutionists of the South to take the hasty, violent, and reckless steps they have done. It is not the oppression of the North, it is not any interference with the interests of the South, it is not John Brown, or Kansas, or the principles of the Republican party, that are the causes of secession, — but it is the fact that the South, which has heretofore, from the beginning, controlled the government of the country, is now fairly beaten, and that it prefers revolution to honest acknowledgment of defeat and submission to it. But disunion is no remedy for defeat; the South is beaten in the Union or out of it. If the Slave States had accepted in a manly way their new position they would have secured their own interests. Slavery would not have been interfered with. But the course they have pursued has already done more work in damaging Slavery as an institution than all the labours of the Abolitionists could have effected for years. The competition for the supply of cotton which has now been effectually roused will be the great means by which slave labour will be rendered unprofitable to the owners of slaves; and as soon as they find this out Slavery will cease to be defended as a Divine Institution, and as the necessary basis of the best form of society. In fact we are seeing now the beginning of the death struggles of Slavery; and there is no ground for wonder at the violence of its convulsions. Civil war between the Free and the Slave States is a remote possibility. It will be hard to drive us of the North into it. But we are quite ready to fight, if need be, for the maintenance of the authority of the Civil Government, (threatened by a prejudiced attack of the Southern revolutionists on Washington,) and, I hope, also for the freedom of the Territories. But I trust that fighting will not be required, and I believe that Mr. Lincoln will be quietly inaugurated on the 4th March. He has shown great courage and dignity in holding his tongue so completely since his election.

I could fill twenty sheets with the rumours, the fancies, and the theories of the day, but by the time my letter reaches you they would not be worth so much as last year's dead leaves. Of course there is no other news with us, for the intensity of the interest in public affairs lessens that of the other events, and diminishes the number of the events themselves. . . .

Emerson's new volume has been a great success here, and has met with far more favour than it seems to have done in England. Ten thousand copies of it have gone off here in spite of the political excitements. I do not wonder that the English critics do not like the book, for every year the imaginative and mystic element of the intellect, as it shows itself in literature, is getting more and more scouted at by them, — but I do not wonder at the abusive vulgarity of the article in the “Saturday Review.” The book is the most Emersonian, good and bad, of all his books; certainly a book to do good to any one who knows how to think. But Emerson's books, as you know, are not nearly so good as himself. . . .

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 216-8

Salmon P. Chase* to John Greenleaf Whittier, November 23, 1860

Columbus, Nov. 23, 1860.

My Dear Friend:

I missed no gloves, but presume those left at friend Sparhawk's were mine. I am gratified that you made them useful to the cause and to yourself.

We have indeed great reason to rejoice; for the power of the Slave Interest is certainly broken. What use will be made of the victory, does not so clearly appear. Some indications lead me to apprehend that the wisest and best use will not be made. Great efforts will doubtless be put forth to degrade Republicanism to the Compromise level of 1850.

There are also some serious dangers on the disunion side. I have always regarded the Slavery question as the crucial test of our institutions; and it has been my hope and prayer that a peaceful settlement of this question on the basis, first, of denationalization, and then final enfranchisement through voluntary State action, would establish beyond all dispute the superiority of free institutions, and the capacity of a free Christian people to deal with every evil and peril lying in the path of its progress.

To this end, all needless irritation should be carefully avoided, and much forbearance exercised. The citizens of the Free States have now to suffer injuries, when travelling or temporarily sojourning in Slave States, which, under ordinary circumstances and upon common principles, would, as between independent sovereignties, justify extreme measures. If extreme measures are not resorted to, it is because the people of the Free States love the Union and prefer to forbear. And this is right.

On the other hand, however, the Slave States have, regarding matters from their standpoint, some just causes of complaint. The slaveholders undoubtedly think that they have a right to take their slaves, as property, into the territories and be protected in holding them by Federal power, and nearly all jurists and statesmen, North and South, are agreed that the Fugitive Servant Clause of the Constitution entitles them to have their fugitive slaves delivered up on claim. The Republicans insist, however, that the first demand is not well founded in the Constitution, while some propose what they call a reasonable Fugitive Act in satisfaction of the second, and others, still, refuse to have anything to do with the returning of fugitives, Constitution or no Constitution.

Now two facts seem clear to me; first, that the Constitution was intended to create, and fairly construed, does create an obligation, so far as human compacts can, to surrender fugitives from service; and secondly, that in the progress of civilization and Christian humanity it has become impossible that this obligation shall be fulfilled. With my sentiments and convictions, I could no more participate in the seizure and surrender to slavery of a human being, than I could in cannibalism. Still there stands the compact: and there in the Slave States are fellow citizens, who verily believe otherwise than I do, and who insist on its fulfilment and complain of bad faith in its nonfulfilment: and in a matter of compact I am not at liberty to substitute my convictions for theirs.

What then to do? Just here it seems to me that the principle of compensation may be admitted. We may say, true there is the compact — true, we of the Free States cannot execute it — but we will prove to you that we will act in good faith by redeeming ourselves through compensation from an obligation which our consciences do not permit us to fulfil. Mr. Rhett of S. C. once very manfully denounced the Fugitive Act as unconstitutional, but still insisted on the Constitutional obligation which he summed up in these words "Surrender or Pay." Now, if we say we cannot surrender, but we will pay, shall we not command the highest respect for our principles, and do a great deal towards securing the final peaceful and glorious result which we all so much desire?

There would be some difficulties of detail, if the principle were adopted; but none insuperable.

There is still another plan of adjustment which might be adopted, though I fear that, in the Slave States, and perhaps in the Free States, it would meet with greater objection. It would consist in amendments of the Constitution by which the Slave States would give up the Fugitive Slave Clause altogether, and the Free States would agree to a representation in Congress of the whole population, abrogating the three fifths rule. One advantage of this would be that the Constitution would be freed from all discriminations between persons, and would contain nothing which could, by any implication, be tortured into a recognition of Slavery. Will you think over these matters carefully and give me your ideas upon them?

I have written in much haste, but I think you will understand me. What I have written is too crudely expressed for any but friendly eyes; and I hope that you will let nobody see this letter, except if you think fit, our friend Sparhawk and your sister.

Affectionately and faithfully yours,

S. P. Chase.

John G. Whittibr

_______________

* Of Chase Whittier wrote in 1873 (Prose Works, ii, 278): "The grave has just closed over all that was mortal of Salmon P. Chase, the kingliest of men, a statesman second to no other in our history, too great and pure for the Presidency, yet leaving behind him a record which any incumbent of that station might envy."

The letter is marked “Private and Confidential,” but the occasion for such ceased long ago. It illustrates the difficult situation that had to be faced after the election of Lincoln.

SOURCE: John Albree, Editor, Whittier Correspondence from the Oak Knoll Collections, 1830-1892, p. 134-9

Diary of Rutherford B. Hayes, Monday, January 27, 1861

Six States have "seceded." Let them go. If the Union is now dissolved it does not prove that the experiment of popular government is a failure. In all the free States, and in a majority if not in all of the slaveholding States, popular government has been sucessful. But the experiment of uniting free states and slaveholding states in one nation is, perhaps, a failure. Freedom and slavery can, perhaps, not exist side by side under the same popular government. There probably is an “irrepressible conflict”* between freedom and slavery. It may as well be admitted, and our new relations may as well be formed with that as an admitted fact.

__________

* This phrase had first been used by William H. Seward in a speech at Rochester, New York, October 25, 1858.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 4

Rutherford B. Hayes to Sardis Birchard, January 12, 1861

CINCINNATI, January 12, 1861.

DEAR UNCLE: — I will write oftener hereafter. I have some work, the days are short, and the state of the country is a never-ending topic which all you meet must discuss, greatly to the interruption of regular habits. I rather enjoy the excitement, and am fond of speculating about it.

We are in a revolution; the natural ultimate result is to divide us into two nations, one composed of free States, the other of slave States. What we shall pass through before we reach this inevitable result is matter for conjecture. While I am in favor of the Government promptly enforcing the laws for the present, defending the forts and collecting the revenue, I am not in favor of a war policy with a view to the conquest of any of the slave States; except such as are needed to give us a good boundary. If Maryland attempts to go off, suppress her in order to save the Potomac and the District of Columbia. Cut a piece off of western Virginia and keep Missouri and all the Territories.

To do this we shall not need any long or expensive war, if the Government does its duty. A war of conquest we do not want. It would leave us loaded with debt and would certainly fail of its object. The sooner we get into the struggle and out of it the better.

There, you can read that perhaps. If you can't, you lose nothing. If you can, it is no more worthless than the dispatches from Congress. . . .

Sincerely,

R. B. HAYES.

S. BlRCHARD.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 2, p. 3-4

The Free Negro Population

The subjoined table, compiled from the census of 1860, is interesting at this time.  It will be seen that the free negro population of the South is considerably in excess of the North:

NUMBER OF FREE NEGROES
In the Free States.		In the Slave States
California	3,816	Alabama	2,680
Connecticut	8,542	Arkansas	137
Illinois	7,069	Delaware	19,723
Indiana	10,869	Florida	908
Iowa	1,023	Georgia	10,146
Kansas	623	Kentucky	10,146
Maine	1,195	Louisiana	18,638
Massachusetts	9,454	Maryland	83,718
Michigan	6,823	Mississippi	731
Minnesota	229	Missouri	2,988
New Hampshire	450	North Carolina	30,097
New Jersey	24,947	South Carolina	9,648
Ohio	36,225	Texas	339
Oregon	121	Virginia	57,579
Pennsylvania	66,373	Dist. Columbia	11,107
Rhode Island	3,918		259,078
Vermont	582
Wisconsin	1,481
	222,747

– Published in the Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, April 12, 1862, p. 4