Congressman Albert G. Brown’s Speech on the Slavery Question, August 29, 1850

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 29, 1850.

MR. BROWN said he designed to make a few remarks only in reply to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. McClernand], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks], who had just taken his seat. Both these gentlemen had taken a position which had been assumed since the beginning of the session by many gentlemen from the Northern States, and had put forth views which they seemed to regard as likely to obtain the favor of the South. If these gentlemen (said Mr. B.) were right in supposing that we of the South are mere shadows, occupied only in the pursuit of shadows, then they might succeed in the object at which they aim. But if we are real, substantial men, things of life and not shadows, then they will find themselves mistaken in their views. What was it the South had demanded? She had asked to be permitted to go into these newly-acquired territories, and to carry her property with her, as the North does; and he desired to tell his friends from Illinois and from New York, that she would be satisfied with nothing less than this. It was in vain to tell the people of the South that you will not press the proviso excluding slavery, because circumstances are such as to exclude slavery without the operation of this provision, and therefore it is not necessary to adopt it. He would tell gentlemen who use this argument, that the southern people care not about the means by which slavery is to be excluded. They will not inquire whether nature is unpropitious to the existence of slavery there, while they know that the whole course and desire of the North has been with a view to its exclusion from the shores of the Pacific. It was only necessary to look at the history of the last few years to satisfy ourselves that it has been the purpose of the North to produce this exclusion.

The honorable gentleman from Illinois had administered a welldeserved rebuke to the factious spirit of free soil, as manifested in the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Root]; for that he (Mr. B.) felt as profoundly grateful as any other man. It was a spirit which ought to be rebuked everywhere. It deserved the universal execration of all good men. But it was his duty to say to his honorable friend, that so much of his remarks as were directed against the proviso, on the ground that it was not necessary to our exclusion, failed to excite his (Mr. B.'s) gratitude, as they would fail to elicit the gratitude of the southern people. The gentleman from Illinois would not be informed that he had Mr. B.'s highest respect as a gentleman, and his sincere personal regard—but, as a southern man, he felt bound to say at all times, and on all occasions, to all persons, friends and foes, that he and his section demanded as a right an equal participation in all these territories, and they could not feel grateful to any man who placed his opposition to the proviso on no higher grounds than that they were excluded by other means. If his honorable friend had placed his opposition to the proviso on the grounds that the South had rights, and that those rights ought to be respected, then Mr. B. and the whole South would have felt a thrill of gratitude which none of them would be slow to express. If the proviso was wrong, it ought to be opposed on the high ground of principle, and not on the feeble assumption that it was unnecessary. To oppose it on the ground that it was not necessary, was to say in effect that it would be sustained if it was necessary.

The gentleman from New York had just informed the House that he was elected as a Wilmot proviso man, and now he rises and makes it his boast that he is backing out from the position he then assumed.

Mr. BROOKS (Mr. Brown yielding) said, that although this proviso was made a test, he had told the people who elected him that he would not pledge himself to vote for it; that he was willing to remain at home, but that, if he was elected, he must go as an independent man.

Mr. BROWN resumed. The gentleman from New York had certainly taken high ground. But, if he was not mistaken, that gentleman was the editor of a daily paper in New York (the Express), and in that journal, unless he was again mistaken, the Wilmot proviso had been supported. The gentleman, therefore, had not left much room for doubt as to his real sentiments. There was very little occasion for him now to come forward and to say whether he was for or against the proviso. But he desired to ask that gentleman, whether he was for or against this proviso when its adoption was deemed necessary for the exclusion of slaves from the new territories? If he was then in favor of the proviso, the fact that he is now opposed to it, because he is satisfied that the

South cannot carry her slaves thither on account of the hostility of the climate and soil, and other more potential causes, his position was one not calculated to excite the gratitude of the friends of the South.

Mr. BROOKS (Mr. Brown yielding) said, he had not changed one principle, but he had been converted to the gentleman's doctrine of nonintervention, or non-action. It had always been his opinion that the power of the general government ought never to be exercised, whether in favor of or against slavery. If the South should suffer from her inability to carry her slave property into these territories, the North would suffer still more if she was permitted to do so, because her citizens would not consent to go to these territories if slavery existed there.

Mr. HOLMES. I congratulate the whole country that the gentleman from New York has given up his adhesion to the Wilmot proviso.

Mr. BROWN (resuming). The conversion of the gentleman from New York to the doctrine of non-intervention had come about as much too late as his abandonment of the Wilmot proviso. They were both too late to do any good. If the gentleman had kept his hands off slavery before the last presidential election, then, indeed, the southern people might have had some reason for gratitude. But, instead of doing that, the gentleman adheres to the proviso until it is too late for non-intervention to do any good, and then he forsakes the former and becomes a convert to the latter.

The gentleman from New York appeared to be greatly horrified at what he was pleased to call political associations on this floor—at the strange phenomenon of the two great extremes of the North and the South voting together. He would explain this apparent inconsistency. The South regarded the whole of the territory to latitude 42° and east of the Rio Grande as the property of Texas, and was not disposed to permit any portion of that territory to be surrendered for the purpose of being made free soil. This was the position occupied by the southern extreme. The northern extreme considers the title of the United States to all this territory as clear beyond dispute, and therefore are opposed to purchasing it. This is the reason why the two extremes are acting together on principles apparently antagonistical, for the purpose of defeating this bill. Is it remarkable that he (Mr. B.) and his southern associates, believing conscientiously that the title to the country, in the language of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], is in Texas, and that the United States has neither title nor color of title, should refuse to give it up? Is it strange that other gentlemen, believing, as they say they do, that the title of the United States is clear and indisputable, should refuse to pay Texas ten millions to withdraw an unfounded claim? Gentlemen may pretend to marvel at this singular political conjunction, but they all know perfectly well the motives which have produced it.

He, however, deemed that it would be found quite as remarkable a political phenomenon that the gentleman from New York, and many of his political friends from the South, should be found cheek-by-jowl with these same detested Free-Soilers on another question. We vote with them from exactly opposite motives, as the gentleman and the whole country very well know. But from what motive does the gentleman and his southern friends vote with them for the admission of California? Is there any opposite motive there? None, sir, none. There is one motive common to them all, and that is, the admission of a free state into the Union. The gentleman expresses special wonder that we are found voting with the Free-Soilers. Can he give any other reason than the one just assigned why he and his southern friends vote with them on another question?

Until the gentleman could assign some satisfactory reason why he and his party, North and South, were found in political fellowship with every Free-Soiler and Abolitionist in the land for the admission of California, it would be modest to suppress his wonder at the accidental association of Free-Soilers and southern gentlemen on the boundary of Texas.

The difference between us (said Mr. B.) is this: we act with them from extremely opposite motives; you from concurrent opinions and sentiments; and we will leave to posterity and the country to decide which stands most justified in the eyes of all honest and impartial men.

But his main object in rising to address the House was to say what were the demands of the South. She asks for an equal participation in the enjoyment of all the common property; and if this be denied, she demands a fair division. Give it to her, give it by non-intervention, by non-action, or by any other means, and she will be satisfied. This is her right, and she demands it. But if, instead of doing this, the North insists on taking away the territory and abridging the rights of the South, she will not submit to the wrong in peace, nor meanly kiss the hand that smites her. He uttered no threat, but it was his duty to say that the South could neither forget nor forgive a wrong like this. She cannot forget that these new territories were purchased in part by her blood and treasure, and she will not forgive the power that snatches them from her. He had never undertaken to say what course the South would feel it her duty to pursue on the consummation of her unjust exclusion from these territories, but he would say, that the act of her exclusion would sink like a poisonous arrow into the hearts of her people, and it would rankle there, and in the hearts of their children, as long as the union of these states continued. The consummation of northern policy may not produce an immediate disunion of these states; but it will produce a disunion of northern and southern hearts; and he left it to others to say whether a political union under such circumstances could be long maintained, or whether it was worth maintaining.

It can excite no feeling of gratitude that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] says he is now opposed to the Wilmot proviso. He is for the spirit of the proviso. He would be for its letter, if it was necessary for our exclusion. He consents to abandon it simply because it is useless. There was a day when it was potential. Then the gentleman was for it. Now, when he supposes our exclusion almost perfect, and the means at hand for its entire consummation, he magnanimously abandons the proviso. Wonderful liberality! Amazing generosity to the South! If the gentleman is not canonized as the most generous man of his age, surely gratitude will have failed to perform her office.

We of the South well understand the means employed for our exclusion. This proviso, once so much in favor with the gentleman from New York, now so graciously abandoned, performed its office. It was held in terrorem over California: southern property, termed as property always is, was kept out of the country. The column of southern emigration was checked at the onset—whilst every appliance was resorted to to swell the column of northern emigration. Every means was resorted to which political ingenuity could devise and federal power make effective, to hurry on this emigration, and then, with indecent haste, the emigrants, yet without names or habitations in the country, were induced to make a pretended state constitution, and insert in it the Wilmot proviso. The gentleman need not be told how far the federal administration was responsible for these things. He need not be reminded that he and his quondam proviso friends were prominent actors in all these scenes. Need he be told that the proviso was the SHIBBOLETH of their power? It was used so long as it was effective. It was used for our prostration, and now it is thrown aside for no better reason than that it is useless— that it is no longer necessary.

Does not the gentleman from New York know very well that the California constitution is no constitution until adopted by Congress? Does he not know that that constitution contains the proviso? Does he not know that the proviso is powerless in that constitution until sanctioned by Congress? And does he not mean to vote for that constitution, with the full intent and purpose of giving vitality to that proviso? With how much of liberality—with how much of justice to the South, does the honorable gentleman come forward to assure us that he is against the proviso? The gentleman is opposed to ingrafting the proviso on the territorial bills for Utah and New Mexico; and we thank him for his opposition. But what reason does the gentleman give for this opposition? The decrees of God have already excluded us. He has no idea that slavery would ever penetrate the country opposed to the proviso, because it is unnecessary. If it was at all necessary for our exclusion, the honorable gentleman would be for it. He must excuse us if our gratitude fails to become frantic for this singular exhibition of forbearance and liberality.

Mr. Brown was willing to trust the rights of the South on the strict doctrine of non-intervention. If God, in his providence, had in fact decreed against the introduction of slavery into Utah and New Mexico, he and his people bowed in humble submission to that decree. We think the soil and climate are propitious to slave labor; and if they are not, we shall never seek the country with our slaves. All we ask of you is, that you will not interpose the authority of this government for us or against us. We do not fear the Mexican laws, if you will in good faith stand by the doctrine of non-intervention. We will risk the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the banner of the stars and stripes, for ourselves and our property. All we ask of you is, that you will in good faith stand neutral.

He had never announced his purpose of voting against the territorial government for Utah. He meant to vote for it, and he should vote for the territorial government for New Mexico if the boundary was so arranged as to respect the rights of Texas. He was opposed to the admission of California, because her constitution was a fraud—a fraud deliberately perpetrated for the purpose of excluding the South; but he was in favor of giving governments to Utah and New Mexico on the ground of strict non-intervention. He did not want to be cheated in this business, and he therefore proposed this question to the honorable gentleman from New York: Suppose we pass these Utah and New Mexican bills at this session without the Wilmot proviso; and suppose the Southern people commence moving into the territories with their slaves, and it becomes apparent that they are to be slave territories and ultimately slave states; and suppose that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Root], at the opening of the next Congress, offers the Wilmot proviso with a view to check our emigration and to exclude us from the territories with our slaves, will the gentleman, if a member of Congress, then vote for the proviso?

Mr. BROOKS replied in the negative, as far as he was heard.

Mr. BROWN. Then if we take our slave property into the territories, we are assured that we are not to be disturbed in its peaceable and quiet enjoyment by any act of this government.

Mr. BROOKS said, that if he should be here he certainly should not vote to repeal any territorial bill for which he had voted. He only spoke for himself.

Mr. BROWN was gratified to hear this statement; whilst he could not insist on the gentleman answering for the North, he must express his regret that he did not feel authorized to answer at least for his political friends. The gentleman had answered manfully, and, he did not doubt, sincerely; and if the whole North, or a majority even, would answer in the same way, it would go far towards restoring harmony. He asked honorable gentlemen whether they were ready to pipe to the tune set them by the gentleman from New York? If they were, the whole South. would listen. It was a kind of music they liked to hear from the North. There was in it more of the gentle harp, and less of the war-bugle than they had been accustomed to from that quarter.

Mr. BROOKS said, it appeared after all that there was no essential difference between them.

Mr. BROWN. So far as this Congress is concerned, we ask nothing more than that we shall be treated as equals, and that no insulting discrimination should be made in the action of Congress against slave property. If the gentleman agrees to this, there can be no essential difference between us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the subject of the Texas boundary. Is there one man in this House, or throughout the nation, who does not know that but for the question of slavery, there would be no such question as that of the Texas boundary? Suppose, sir, that Texas and New Mexico were both as clearly slaveholding countries as North and South Carolina, how long, sir, do you think it would take this Congress to fix a boundary between them? Not one hour—certainly not one day. Of what consequence could it be to the North, whether Texas extended to the 32d or to the 42d degree, or to any intermediate point? Take out the question of slavery, and of what consequence is it where the boundary of Texas may be fixed? Does any man suppose that the money-loving men of the North would vote ten millions of dollars from a common treasury to buy a slip of soil from a slaveholding State, simply to give it to a slaveholding Territory? No, no. We all understand this matter. If the country is left in the possession and ownership of Texas, it must be slave territory, and if it is given up to New Mexico, you mean that it shall become free territory, and you do not intend to leave any stone unturned to accomplish this end. We know this, and we govern ourselves accordingly. Let northern gentlemen speak out on this subject.

The thin covering, that they want to do justice between Texas and New Mexico, furnishes a poor disguise to the real purpose. We all know that slavery restriction is the lever with which you are lifting the title of Texas off this country, and giving it up to New Mexico; and we all know that you are attempting to do this without right, or color of right, to perform such an act.

Mr. MCCLERNAND (Mr. Brown yielding) said, that Texas claimed the Rio Grande for its whole extent to be her western boundary. By the resolutions annexing Texas to the United States, slavery is interdicted north of 36° 30' within her professed limits. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Boyd) provides that slavery may exist in any portion of the territory west of the boundary of Texas, as proposed by the Senate bill, between 32° and 38° north latitude, east of the Rio Grande. That is, the amendment provides that slavery may exist in any part of said territory, according as the people inhabiting it may determine for themselves when they apply for admission into the Union. So that to the extent of so much of said territory now claimed by Texas, lying between 36° 30′ and 38° north latitude, the South, according to the test of my able and worthy friend from Mississippi, stands upon a better footing under the amendment proposed than she does under the resolutions of Texas annexation.

Mr. BROWN resumed. If we are left in that condition in which we were by the annexation resolutions, we are satisfied. What we ask in regard to Utah, New Mexico, and California, is, that the North will not, by means direct or indirect, disturb us then in the quiet enjoyment of our property. What we ask in regard to Texas is, that you will abide by the resolutions of annexation. We are satisfied with the contract, and we are opposed to making any other. This contract gives us all south of 36° 30' as slave territory, and dedicates all north of that line to free soil. We stand by this. If gentlemen want to buy from Texas her territory north of 36° 30′, let them do it. They had his full consent to give her ten, twelve, or fifteen millions of dollars. He should interpose no objection. But when it came to selling out slaveholding Texas with a view of enabling the North to make New Mexico a non-slaveholding state the more readily, he felt it his duty to interpose by all the means in his power. He never meant to give his vote for any proposition or combination of propositions which looked to the deprivation of Texas of one inch of her rightful soil. He wanted to deal fairly by all parts of the country. He trusted he should be as ready to act fairly by the North as by the South, but he invoked the vengeance of Heaven if ever he gave his vote for any bill or proposition to buy the soil of a slave state to convert it into free soil.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 208-14

Diary of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, April 25, 1851

The papers are all ringing with Sumner, Sumner! and the guns thundering out their triumph; meanwhile the hero of the strife is sitting quietly here, more saddened than exalted. Palfrey dined with us. I went to my Don Quixote at college, leaving the two Free Soilers sitting over their nuts and wine.¹

_______________

¹ Sumner's first use of a senator's frank was upon documents to promote Palfrey's re-election to Congress. With his large correspondence, he valued the privilege, and parted with it reluctantly when it was finally discontinued in 1870. He wrote a public letter urging Palfrey's election ("Commonwealth," May 22, 1851), but it did not avail.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 245-6

Senator Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, May 2, 1851

I would not affect a feeling which I have not, nor have I any temptation to do it; but I should not be frank if I did not say to you that I have no personal joy in this election. Now that the office is in my hands, I feel more than ever a distaste for its duties and struggles as compared with other spheres. Every heart knoweth its own secret, and mine has never been in the Senate of the United States, nor is it there yet. Most painfully do I feel my inability to meet the importance which has been given to this election and the expectation of enthusiastic friends. But more than this, I am impressed by the thought that I now embark on a career which promises to last for six years, if not indefinitely, and which takes from me all opportunity of study and meditation to which I had hoped to devote myself. I do not wish to be a politician.

Nothing but Boutwell's half-Hunkerism prevents us from consolidating a permanent party in Massachusetts, not by coalition, but by fusion of all who are truly liberal, humane, and democratic. He is in our way. He has tried to please Hunkers and Free Soilers. We can get along very well without the Hunkers, and should be happy to leave Hallett and Co. to commune with the men of State Street. The latter have been infinitely disturbed by the recent election. For the first time they are represented in the Senate by one over whom they have no influence, who is entirely independent, and is a “bachelor!” It was said among them at first that real estate had gone down twenty-five per cent!

I regret the present state of things in New York [the absorption of the Barnburners by the Democratic party, because it seems to interfere with those influences which were gradually bringing the liberal and antislavery men of both the old parties together. Your politics will never be in a natural state till this occurs.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 247-8

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, Wednesday Evening, April 1851 – 10 p.m.

Wednesday Eve., April, 10 o'clock, 1851.

My Dear Mann: — I am sad and sick at heart at the probable issue to-morrow. You know I have never advocated nor consented to the coalition with the Democrats; I always condemned it as unwise and useless; I always thought that the Free-soil party might have carried the day in five years without coalescing with anybody; I go with Palfrey in his circular; and yet I have come to wish and pray that Sumner may be elected to the Senate, because no man now eligible here can so well represent the anti-slavery sentiment of the North as he.

It is useless for me to go into the causes of the defeat of the Free-soilers here. They have been mainly three, any one of which was enough. Want of skilful leaders; — bad faith on the part of Democrats; — and the prodigious outside pressure of the Union, as it were, upon the waverers. The first defeat was owing to the bungling mismanagement of Earle,¹ who allowed the election to be postponed; then the foolish trusting to Democrats by electing their Governor instead of laying him on the table — and so it has been. I do not believe that more than half the Democrats were honest; and there were some of them who even contemplated defeating Sumner, provided they could not seduce him to compromise himself by pledges. He has rather, I think, leaned over backward, in his attempt to stand erect and firm and be uncompromising. He uselessly froissait (as the French say) some of the Hunker² Democrats who waited upon him at the time when it seemed certain that he would be elected. All this is over now; the Senate has elected him, and to-morrow the House will, I forebode, reject him. Boutwell and the Speaker, and a few other leading Democrats, make a bluster, swear Sumner must and shall be put through, &c. &c. — but I mistrust them. There are all the old Hunkers at work like the devil. Old M——, the slimy snake, who has all along been crawling into Sumner's office and confidence, and telling him that he conferred with no one else on politics, — he has long been denouncing Sumner, and straining every nerve to defeat him. Cushing and Hallett et id genus omne are at work; and there has been brought to work in unison with them the governmental influence at Washington. What did B. R. C[urtis]³ go there for? his friends here said he was going south, perhaps to the West Indies, for his health. Tell that to the marines! We have little or no outside influence; Downer has done more than all the rest put together. There seems a spell on them. Bird has been for trust; Alley (a good man and true) seems utterly paralyzed and discouraged; Wilson can't do much, though he has more head than the rest at the House; Keyes has been firing and fizzing, but can't keep up at red heat long; Phillips has been much miffed; Adams and Palfrey, anti-coalitionists, will not work — and so it goes. The end of the whole matter will be that Sumner will gradually fall behind — the thing will be put off and put off — and nothing done at all. The Democrats will satisfy their consciences by seeming to try for what they know they cannot do.

I think all our friends who have taken office should resign as soon as it is certain Sumner cannot be elected. How to re-unite our broken ranks I know not. We must be honest; eschew coalitions, and get a reputation by living well in future.

Ever yours,

S. G. H.

_______________

¹ John Milton Earle of Worcester.

²The "Hunkers" were conservative Democrats, generally supposed to have a leaning toward slavery; the same class as the “Copperheads” of the Civil War.

³ Benjamin R. Curtis.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 343-5

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, February 6, 1851

Boston, Feb'y 6th, 1851.

My Dear Mann: — The telegraph will tell you the result of to-morrow's fight before this reaches you.

Adams, and the shrewdest men I meet, say it is impossible to foretell what will be the result. The knowing Whigs say they will be beaten; whether they say so to gammon us, I know not. For myself I have little hope. It looks to me as if the Democrats meant to let Sumner get within one or two votes, and yet not get in; it is however a dangerous game.

This I know, things look better than they ever have before. The Coalition has certainly gained three votes, the Whigs have certainly lost two; and unless some of the Democrats who voted for Sumner before bolt the track, he goes in. I fear they will.

There has certainly been much hard work done, and much drilling and coaxing resorted to to bring the waverers into line. I have done what I could in conscience, — but oh! Mann! it goes against the grain. I have a right to boost Sumner all I can, and I will do so, but not as a Coalitionist, not by working with pro-slavery men. Think of Free-soilers voting to put Rantoul into the Senate; he is no more a Free-soil man than R. C. Winthrop, not a whit! the Free-soilers should have declined all State offices, and claimed the long and short term.

However, let that go.

Mr. W— is a very pig-headed, impracticable man, all the more so because he means to be liberal and thinks he is so. Others have yielded to the great outside pressure upon them.

We have one more card, and that we must play if Sumner fails to-morrow: we must bring pressure enough to bear on Wilson and every Free-soiler in office, to make them go to Boutwell and tell him to put Sumner straight through, or they will all throw up office, leave the responsibility with the Democrats, and go before the people and make war with them. Boutwell is a timid, cunning, time-serving trimmer. He can elect Sumner if bullied into it: he has only to send for half a dozen men to his closet and tell them that Sumner must and shall be elected, and he will be. He won't do it unless he is forced to do so, and Wilson will not force him unless he is forced by outside pressure. We can manufacture that pressure, and by the Jingoes we'll squeeze him tight but he shall do it.

You complain of the paper; bless you, Mann, you do not know under what difficulties we have laboured: I say we have done well to start a new daily paper at four days' notice, commence it without an editor, and carry it on thus far as well as it has been carried on. A daily paper is no joke — you know well enough. . . .

I have been hoping for something from you that we could publish — but in vain. I am going to Albany as soon as this fight is over to address the Legislature on the subject of idiocy.

Our friends are in high spirits here — I am not, but am

Ever yours,

S. G. Howe.

I have used your letter, but it has not been out of my hands.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 337-9

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, Tuesday, February 1851

Tuesday, February, 1851.

My Dear Mann: — Many thanks for your spicy and able article; truly you are great on Scripture! I always have said I would pay a higher pew tax if you were in the pulpit than I would for any other preacher since Socrates. I shall have the article in to-morrow morning if possible.

We have got still to fight on, and I begin to think that we shall succeed; the bolting Democrats, and many others who in their hearts have sided with them, begin to be in an agony of fear that the Free-soilers will stand firm and go before the people defeated by their treachery. They will hardly adjourn without fulfilling their contract.

We must keep the Free-soilers supplied with ammunition and stiffening: you have no idea what a limpsy set they are. Good honest men, and inclined to be brave and persistent, but utterly without head or backbone. They had a caucus yesterday afternoon, in which Stone of Charlestown put forth as a feeler the question of the propriety of changing the candidate. I had got Hopkins down; he was there; so was Downer. They asked the outsiders to express their sentiments: Hopkins made a strong argumentative speech; Downer put in some hot shot, and I used my popgun (at half cock perhaps), and I tell you Stone took nothing by his motion. We left them brave as Julius Caesar; how long they will stay put I don't know.

We want more from you. Short, spicy articles. Your incog, shall be kept if you do not betray it yourself, which you will do by your piety. I can keep dark, even to my chum and brother Sumner, and often do.

Ever yours,

s. G. h.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 336-7

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, Friday, January 24, 1851

Boston, Friday, 24th Jan’y, 1851.

My Dear Mann: — You will see by the papers that Sumner falls short four votes to-day of his yesterday's vote. I have been doing what I can, and have thrown aside the repugnance I had to being seen in the State House. I was astonished to find that save Downer's there was no energetic Free-soil pressure from without: within, our friends are like a flock of sheep without a shepherd.

I find that one of the Free-soil Whigs who is voting for Phillips is Rev. Mr. Wight of Wayland, father of our Miss W——, an excellent man and very conscientious, but whom Dr. Parkman and others had made to believe that Sumner was a very dangerous demagogue. I have laboured hard with him, and shall bring all the influence to bear upon him that I can. We will fight it out, but alas! it is almost a desperate game.

I wrote you a hasty line yesterday. I will write again to-morrow.

I have had a very heavy pressure of business — Annual Reports and others on my shoulders — but am getting free.

Ever yours,

S. G. Howe.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 335-6

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, December 29, 1850

South Boston, Dec. 29th, 1850.

My Dear Mann: — It is not as you say, out of sight out of mind, as far as regards my feelings towards you. I was too grateful for your letter to answer it in the hurry and turmoil in which I have been. I have been looking and longing for a leisure hour to confer with you, and I seize the first one I have had.

Shall I tell you all about myself? A part of each day I have to fight for life; if I do not take at least one cold bath I get sick; and if after each bath I do not take smart exercise for at least half an hour I should turn into an icicle and die. I am up at half-past five, and chilled down and warmed up again by half-past six, for the first exercise at the Institution. I have to work there and to walk some six miles daily and see to my idiots, and worry the rest of the time.

I have been hard at work in all odd hours writing a paper upon, or rather against, the proposed State Reform School for Girls. I suppose it will be published and I shall send you a copy. My ground is that we should not build a great central House of Reformation and gather the girls there, because the principle ought to be that of separation and diffusion, not of congregation of vicious persons, because the girls will be exposed to public gaze, and get the character of bad girls, and learn to think themselves such; because we have thousands and thousands of natural reform schools, viz. virtuous families, in which they ought to be received and reformed, & c., &c. The Boys' Reform School costs, with the interest on the capital, $27,000 per annum. I maintain that with half this sum we may place the girls in good families, paying a bonus and giving their services as domestics, and support a corps of women whose business it shall be to visit them and see to them. But you will see my plan.

I have been put upon the Board of Trustees (of four) to get up the new Free-soil paper, and a precious mess I have made of it, — for it takes so much of my time as not to leave enough for sleep. I send you the prospectus which I published last evening.

I have nearly closed a bargain with Elizur Wright to merge his Chronotype¹ in ours and to work as sub-editor on a salary of $1300. He is to do the office work, news, etc.; to have a bit in his mouth and say nothing editorially that the Chief does not approve. The Chief was to be Palfrey, but yesterday he threw a bombshell into the Free-soil camp in shape of a Confidential Circular to the Members of the Legislature, calling upon them not to unite with the Democrats and to have nothing to do with the plan of selling a Governor and buying a senator. This alarms our trustees, and though I think it is the true doctrine I cannot make them think so. I never could see how this coalition was anything but a compounding with the devil: a bad thing done that a good thing might come out of it; (to use an absurd figure, for good never can come out of evil). However, perhaps it is my stupidity, for wiser and better men than I approve it. Sumner and others took a good deal of pains once to convince me (and succeeded in doing so) that it was necessary to carry Free-soil principles into State elections: now they want to unconvince me, and to prove to me that it is not necessary to have a Free-soil Governor or to vote for one.

We have a fund raised for our paper, and can carry it on for some time at least. We have a good deal of talent that can be worked in; Wright (a host in himself), Hildreth, Adams, Palfrey and Bird, Bradburn and others. We shall be, for the first few weeks, dependent on labours of love, and hope you can help us. Can you not send something that will be useful?

I have seen G. B. Emerson several times, and he sought occasion to talk with me about you. He is a very singular man. He has much war in his elements. He wants to be generous and true and high, but has not enough back-bone. He said he was about to write a notice of your labours (which as he said were really prodigious and unparalleled) when your Notes appeared; and then, said he, “I found it would be of no use, that people would not hear,” &c., &c. He did not know how much he yielded to the blast; how much nobler it would have been for him then to have spoken and turned the public clamour. Finding how much he made of the Notes, I put it to him whether he and others were not treating you as though you had been guilty of some moral delinquency, of some unprincipled act, whereas, according to the worst showing of your worst enemies, you had shown nothing but bad temper and bad taste. He could say nothing. He admits and deplores, as he says to me, the demoralizing influence of D—— W——² upon the public of New England.

I compared him to a great black mountain which possessed the power of disturbing the moral compass, and producing moral shipwreck, and he admitted the truth of the comparison.

I tell you, Mann, you gave the old fellow a terrible shaking; his hold upon the public of the North is loosened very much; there is a feeling of disgust gradually spreading through the community, and it only needs something to crystallize round to assume vast proportions. If any one should set forth, strongly and vividly, the falsehood and treason to virtue and right which is implied by this worship of an immoral, drunken debauchee, people would see it and be ashamed of it. They would see that they are but little better, in the homage they render to mere strength of intellect, than the savages in their homage to mere bodily prowess.

I have had some occasion to know something of your successor³ and his mode of doing business, — but what a falling off! It took me nearly a week to get an answer to a question about the rules of the Normal School, and the answer was finally from a sub saying that it was the opinion of the Secretary, &c. &c. that the rule was so and so, but he would ascertain, &c.

There will be very busy and exciting times here this week and the next, and no man can say what the end will be. The Democrats will try to outwit the Free-soilers, but these are upon their guard. Sumner cannot strongly will one way or another: my advice is worth little because I know little about the machinery, — but my love for Sumner makes me wish that he could be exalted by something better than a coalition which I regard as rather iniquitous.

Sumner feels very anxious and disturbed about it: he means to be perfectly upright and conscientious, and will not compromise any of his high principles. It will be hard for him to escape unpleasant dilemmas. He dislikes to give up his dreams of a quiet literary life. He is a rare and noble spirit, too good for the political ring.

Remember me kindly to Madame, and believe me, dear Mann,

Ever thine,

S. G. Howe.

_______________

¹ A paper edited by Wright.

² Daniel Webster.

³ The new Secretary of the Board of Education.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 330-3

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Congressman Lewis D. Campbell,* May 25, 1855

Cincinnati, May 25th [1855.]

Dear Sir: On my return this evening from the East, I find your note of the 18th on my table, and I shall answer it frankly according to your wish.

Last fall the Independent Democrats or Freesoilers entered heartily and earnestly into the people's anti-nebraska movement, animated by the simple desire to redress the Nebraska wrong. They accepted frankly the State Candidates of the 13th July Convention, neither of whom was taken from their ranks. After the election many of them, and not a few also of the liberal whigs and Democrats, anxious that some token of the popular approval of my course as Senator should be given and especially moved, as I suppose, by the consideration that in consequence of the ascendency of the administration party in the Legislature, I alone of all the earnest opponents of the Nebraska Iniquity from Ohio, could not be approved by a re-election, manifested a disposition to make me the candidate of the people's movement this fall. They were pleased to think, also, that my nomination and election to that office would afford to the friends of freedom throughout the union a most significant indication that Ohio would tread no step backward from the glorious stand she has just taken against slavery and the domination of Slavepower. To the suggestions of these friends I have uniformly replied by an unhesitating avowal of the gratification which such an endorsement of the people would give me, provided I could be nominated and elected without any surrender or modification of my well known principles of political action.

Had I supposed that opposition to my nomination would have been made in the particular quarters in which it has since appeared I should have promptly declined to allow my name to be proposed at all. Nothing but the gratification and advantage of the implied indorsement, and the belief that my election under the circumstances would greatly inspirit and encourage the friends of freedom outside of Ohio, could have induced me to consent to the use of my name, and these considerations would not have prevailed with me, had I not supposed that the nomination for Governor would this year be cheerfully conceded to the choice of the distinctive anti-slavery men. As things now are I confess myself much embrassed, and quite undecided as to the course which duty to myself, to the cause, and to the friends who have honored me with their confidence require me to pursue. One thing, however, seems plain, which is that no duty, whatever, under existing circumstances, requires me to accept a nomination for atty. general or Supreme Judge, and certainly my inclination does not lead me in that direction. For the rest, I can only say that it would be infinitely more agreeable to me to support my old friend Brinkerhoff, than to be a candidate myself, if he could be said at this time to represent the pure element of opp. to Slavery extension & Slav'y domination. But if he is to be forced upon them, and his election taken as triumph of another element, it is obvious that this must have a powerful influence on the course of those with whom the Slavery question is paramount to every other.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 190-191. Lewis Davis Campbell, 1811-1882; Member of Congress 1849-1858, United States minister to Mexico 1865-1868

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 273-4

Diary of Theodore Parker, November 6, 1851

Saw Dr. Howe this afternoon: he looks better, in fine health and spirits. I went with him to the Faneuil Hall meeting of Free-soilers. Sumner was on his legs — a fine speaker, a very sincere and good fellow, only he wants courage. Howe is braver and richer in ideas, but not so well trained for literary work.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 266-7

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, November 21, 1854

Private.

Cin. Nov. 21, 1854..

My Dear Sir, * * * I confess I feel more uneasiness about the probable influences of the Order on our movement than I did when I saw you last: but I still think that it is best not to say anything against them. Wait until it becomes necessary & it may never become necessary. What is objectionable may come itself. Meantime Antislavery men should be constantly warned of the importance of Keeping the Antislavery idea paramount. There is danger of its being shoved aside. They must see that it is not lost sight of. Now even more than ever is it essential that an earnest antislavery tone should be maintained by our [?] & that the [?] should be sustained.

You are aware that for some days past this city has been the seat of a grand American Council. What they call it I do not know; but I am told delegates are in attendance from every state in the Union including Cal^a. There seem great divisions of opinion.

For example, one very intelligent gentleman from Virginia was anxious to have the ideas which we hold denationalization, &c. adopted as the basis of a National party. Others & most, seem to be of opinion that they must steer clear of northern & southern ultraism as they call our ideas there of the Nullifiers. One man is reported to have said that it is as settled they were to cut loose from Freesoilers & Southern. Another that the organization must not in any way attack slavery; and that the [convention] sitting here is in fact the American Legislature whose decisions Congress must follow. Certain it is that Kenneth Rayner of N. C. & E [illegible] Davis of Ky. are here & both leading spirits. Humphrey Marshall is also here or has been & Daniel Allman, prominent friends as you know of Fillmore. Fillmore is talked of among them for the Presy., & Davis also. Houston also, but not much so far as I learn. He, by the way, was the favorite of the gentlemen I first named.

These are some of the straws I see floating. They indicate that the current (nationally) will not float as we would wish. But it may in the State.

All we have to do, at all events, seems to me to maintain our principles; act with no organization that dishonors them; cooperate frankly with any which does not; & bide our time. * * *

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 265-6

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, September 9, 1852

Cincinnati, Sept. 9, 1852.

My Dear Sumner, I have read as well as heard your truly great speech. Hundreds of thousands will read it, and everywhere it will carry conviction to all willing to be convinced and will infuse a feeling of incertitude and a fearful looking for of judgment into the minds of those who resist the light and toil in the harness of party platforms irreconcilable with justice. Massachusetts deserves to lead the van of regenerated Democracy, for she has given to the cause its most faithful and eloquent champion. God bless the old Bay State: Amen.

I found Judge McLean reading your speech. He spoke of it with praise; but thought he had detected you in an error of fact in the paragraph where you speak of the Fugitive Slave clause of 1793 being introduced without much deliberation or [on?] previous occasion. He thought the correspondence between the Governors of Virginia & Pennsylvania & General Washington was in reference to a fugitive from labor; and seemed somewhat reluctant to admit my correction that it related to a fugitive from justice.

At my sister in law's I found her brother who is about to settle in Texas reading the speech to her aloud. I hope he will carry its truths with him.

Our friends in Ohio are in good spirits; and the vote for Hale & Julian will be respectable — not so great as it would have been had there been no conspiracy against me, but still as large, I hope, as that of 1848. Most of the democratic free soilers have been too far alienated by that conspiracy to be immediately brought back. I shall do what I can.

Our State fair will be held at Cleveland on the 15th. 1 mean to be there, so will have an opportunity to see how the land lies; and will advise you as to prospects.

You ought to carry Massachusetts for the Independent Democracy. You can do it if you have faith enough and works answerable. I am glad to see that you are going to work in earnest. You must do it. When Douglas, Houston, Cass & other champions of the Compromise Democracy are traversing the Union for their candidates we cannot honorably fail in our devotion to a nobler cause and better men.

Faithfully yours,

[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. 247-8

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, July 19, 1852

Washington City, July 19, 1852.

My Dear Sir, I say as usual, “ditto to Mr. Burke.” The ideas of your letter are my own. I fear more danger — much more to the cause of Freedom from Pierce's election than from Scott's. Still, if the least dependence can be placed on the professions of the Freesoil Democrats who are supporting him, even he will not be able to do much mischief should the vote for the Pittsburgh nominees prove large & their support warm. Clay writes me the cause moves steadily on in Kentucky: and I think it probable that all the boarder slave states will be represented at Pittsburg, as well as all the Free States. This will make a great impression, & if the vote shall correspond, and the Freesoil Democrats shall prove true, not much need be apprehended even from Pierce.

The present duty seems to be that of putting the Pittsburg Convention on the right ground and under the right name — then getting the right candidates and then giving the largest possible vote. My judgment is that it should assume the name of the Independent Democracy — adopt the Buffalo Platform — modified by the introduction of judicious Land Reform & European Freedom Resolutions — and nominate Hale for President & Spaulding or some other good western democrat for Vice & make the best fight possible. Much has been said to me about receiving the nomination, but my judgment is against it. Hale & Sumner urge me & our friends in the House I think agree with them — that as a Democrat I would carry the largest votes — but I think Hale is good enough Democrat — far better certainly than Cass or Buchanan or Pierce or King; and I wish to be out of the scrape for many reasons.

I hear from Cleveland that there is a good deal of feeling there against me, & I should not be surprised if there were some in Cincinnati.

You will see my letter to Butler before long. The Herald Correspondent here applied to me to allow its appearance first in that paper, which I consented to thinking it would be read by more of the class I wish to reach, than in any other paper at first. I hope you will approve of it.

I wish very much that you wd. buy the Nonpariel & put Miller there, or get somebody else to do so. I will cheerfully contribute $500.

P. S. I want to ask you two or three questions in confidence, and to beg of you perfectly frank answers.

Do you think I ought to be reelected? Do you think there is any probability of my reelection; and, in this connection, what so far as you know are the sentiments of the Democrats towards me? What do you think my course ought to be in relation to state politics?

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 243-4

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

Washington City, Jany. 16, 1851.

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________

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

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

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Milton Sutliff,* December 20, 1850

Washington City, Dec. 20, 1850.

My Dear Sir, I recd. your letter last night and thank you for it. I had written you the day before and have little to add.

Those in Ohio, who think that the Radical Democracy are going to acquiesce in the nomination of a partizan of the leading measures of this administration as a Democratic Candidate for the Presidency deceive themselves; and those who think that any democratic candidate can be elected without the aid of the Radical Democracy deceive themselves still more egregiously. There may be a democratic National Convention, but its action will hardly be as binding as that of 1848. The Slaveholders and their allies declare openly that they will support nobody who is tainted with Freesoilism, in other words, nobody who does not agree to except slavery from the application of his principles: with what force can they complain of us, if we refuse to support anybody who does? Complain or not they will find enough, who are inflexible, to defeat their cherished scheme of reaching the patronage of the National Government through the prostitution of the Democratic organization to the purposes of the slaveholders. I venture the prediction that Benton will support none of the Compromise Tribe. He don't worship the "political trinity" of Foote — Clay — Cass — Webster.

I see the Chillicothe Advertiser, The Cin. Enquirer, the Mt. Vernon Banner, and the Trumbull Democrat are joining in denunciation of the election of Morse, and of all cooperation with Free Democrats by the Old Liners. I am sorry that the defeat of Myers has prepared some to sympathize with this spirit, who would otherwise have been differently affected. But after all, I trust, the influence of this denunciation will not be great. The Old Line democrats of Ohio, separating themselves from the Free Democrats, cannot hope for power, except by submitting to Whig terms and Whig alliances. The demoralization of the party would be sure to result. I cannot believe that any considerable number will consent to it.

I hope the Free Democrats in the Legislature will stand firm. I regret exceedingly Mr. Randall's course: but it is too late to amend the past. Mr. Giddings sees it as I do, and regrets it as I do. But at all events stand firm, not for mere freesoilism but for free democracy, for the whole glorious family of free principles, in land, currency, trade & men.

As to Senator if the free democrats think of going out of their own rank for the Cong term why not vote for Spalding, Myers, Carter, or Stanton, — some man of known and proved sympathy with us? Mere pledges, without antecedent works, are of little worth. How can democrats either object to such a man as Brinkerhoff or Fitch, always democrats. Though they voted for the Buffalo nominee last election, did they not vote for the elder and better democrat?

But the Old Line democrats must meet the Free democrats on terms of equality. Our democracy is as good as theirs — we think it better. Our devotion to democratic principles is as ardent as their and as constant. We think it more ardent and more constant. They must recognize us as democrats, differing from them in only one respect, that we will not cooperate with slaveholders, who make antislavery a disqualification for their suffrages, in party organization. In voting for a true free democrat for Senator, they sacrifice nothing of principle or interest. I trust there will be no yielding to the clamor of the Hunker Presses, and that the Free Democrats will not relax their standard in consequence of it. Rather than aid in placing in the Senate, a man who will sell out to the slaveholders, let the election go over, or let the Hunkers of both sides combine, and take the consequences. Better elect in cooperation with the Whigs — though hardly any circumstances would, under the present aspects of National politics, reconcile me to this — if a good and reliable freesoiler can be secured, though of whig affinities, than take the responsibility of voting for a man who may deceive you.

I have read Wood's message. It is not very definite, and his doctrines on the subject of the Fugitive Slave law are unworthy of him; but on the whole it is antislavery enough to give no satisfaction whatever to the Hunkers here. Write often.

_______________

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

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 225-7

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, December 14, 1850

Washington, Dec. 14, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: I should rejoice in the election of Giddings to the Senate but no man can tell who will be elected. Mr. G's friends in the Senate of Ohio acted badly in voting for and electing a National Fillmore Whig as Speaker in preference to and over a radical Free Soil Democrat. This has, of course, exasperated the Old Line.

I am delighted with your assurance that a Freesoiler will be elected from Massachusetts. But you have no right to take yourself out of the list from which a selection shall be made. Let there be a free choice and the result acquiesced in cheerfully. You cannot withdraw to more quiet pursuits whether elected to the Senate or not. Freedom has need of all and more than all her able champions. The struggle is but just begun. When you have elected a Senator he will need support and the cause will need that he should be supported.

I can't tell what will be done this session. If somebody better qualified does not anticipate me I mean to discuss the fugitive slave bill in full. I mean, also, as occasion shall offer, to express my views on other topics. I wish besides, to show that I can do something for Ohio and Western Interests.

I don't know what Seward will do. I have never been able to establish much sympathy between us. He is too much of a politician for me. It is said that he is disinclined to agitation and disposed to be gracious to his Fillmore co-partizans.

I believe nothing will be matured this winter as to Presidential candidates. The canvass seems somewhat active; but it is hard to find out what men are and who they are with. Parties are not cohesive enough for the practical purposes of Presidential patriots.

Yours cordially,

[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. 224

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

Washington City, August 22, 1850.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington, Feb. 18, 1850.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Penn Clarke

WILLIAM PENN CLARKE was born in Baltimore, Maryland, October 1, 1817. At the age of fourteen he went to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and learned the printing business. In 1838 he came west on foot at the age of twenty-one and reaching Cincinnati established a daily newspaper, and later became editor of the Logan Gazette, in Ohio. In 1844 he went farther west and located at Iowa City where he was admitted to the bar in 1845. He was a ready writer and contributed frequently to the newspapers on the slavery issue, being a “free-soiler” in politics. He attended the Pittsburg National Convention which took the preliminary steps toward the organization of the Republican party in 1856, acting as one of the secretaries. At the National Republican Convention in 1860, Mr. Clarke was one of the delegates from Iowa and was chosen chairman of the delegation. He soon after purchased the State Press at Iowa City and took an active part in the antislavery contest leading to the Kansas war. As a member of the National Kansas Committee he sent a company of men to aid the citizens of that Territory in expelling the “Border Ruffian” invaders. He was for many years the keeper of a station on the “underground railroad” and was fearless in aiding fugitive slaves to freedom, cooperating with John Brown during his operations in Iowa. Mr. Clarke prepared the original ordinances for the government of Iowa City. He was reporter of the decisions of the Iowa Supreme Court for five years. As an influential member of the Constitutional Convention of 1857 he acted as chairman of the committee on judiciary. Early in the Civil War Mr. Clarke was appointed paymaster in the army, serving until 1866. He was then chosen chief clerk in the Interior Department at Washington, resigning when Andrew Johnson began his war on the Republican party, and returning to the practice of law in Washington, he died February 7, 1903.

SOURCE: Benjamin F. Gue, History of Iowa from the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, Volume 4, p. 52-3

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

Washington, Jany 17, 1850.

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

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

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

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

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

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