Congressman Horace Mann to Reverend Samuel J. May, January 8, 1852

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 1852.

REV. S. J. MAY.

DEAR SIR,—It is now a long time since I have received any copies of your shots at Mr. C. So I suppose the war is ended. I did not see his articles; but, from yours, I should suppose you had much the better of him, both in temper and logic. It is curious that you should propose to engage my professional services for your defence in a case arising out of the Fugitive-slave Law, and that so soon my own writings on the subject should require legal defence. I presume you have seen in the "Commonwealth" that Mr. Commissioner Curtis has commenced an action for libel against Mr. Muzzey, the publisher of my speeches, on account of that Lancaster exhibition of himself. What do you say now to being my counsel? Are you ready to do as you would be done by?

I hope you see full debates of Congress—such as are published in the "Globe"—in relation to the reception of Kossuth. The whole opposition to him comes from the South, and from Northern Hunkers who are devoted to the South. The avowed opposition is based on the question of "intervention;" but the real motive is slavery. While they demand that one fugitive shall be fettered and sent home, they cannot bear to see another fêted and honored. You see the cloven foot; indeed, you can see nothing else. With best regards for your family, I am

Very truly yours, &c.,

HORACE MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 356

Congressman Horace Mann to E. W. Clap, January 5, 1851

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5, 1851.

To E. W. CLAP, Walpole, Mass.

MY DEAR SIR, — . . . After a week of factious opposition, we have at last, this morning, passed a vote, by a large majority, to do the handsome thing to Kossuth. The South and the "Old Hunkers" have been in a tight place." How could they vote to honor one fugitive from slavery, and chain and send back another? If an Austrian "commissioner" should issue his warrant for Kossuth, and he should kill the marshal, would he, like the Christiana rioters, be guilty of treason?

You see my book* has been prosecuted, in the name of the publishers, for libel. If the greater the truth, the greater the libel, the book must plead guilty. Regards to you all.

As ever, very truly yours,

HORACE MANN.

_______________

* "Of Antislavery Documents and Speeches," which is to be republished with some additional matter.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 345

Senator John C. Calhoun to Andrew Pickens Calhoun, April 16, 1848

Washington 16th April 1848

MY DEAR ANDREW, Everything here is in a state of uncertainty, in reference to the Presidential election. The parties are more distracted than ever. Clay's address¹ has done him great injury with his party. It has in particular deeply offended the Southern portion.

In the mean time, the address of the Barnburners, just come out, has weakened and distracted the Democratick party. They take strong ground against us on the Wilmot proviso, and proclaim that they must be received by the Baltimore Convention to the exclusion of the Hunker delegates from the State. That I take it will be impossible, and a permanent split, with the loss of the State will be the result. I trust, out of all this confusion, a sufficient number of both parties will be found to be independent enough to make a rally to save ourselves and our institutions. As bad, as you suppose things to be here, it is not worse than the reality.

We are waiting with impatience for farther information from Europe. I have little hope from France, but a good deal of reliance on Germany. She has the materials for a good Govt, if they should be skillfully used. But we shall soon see.

My love to Margeret and the children.

_______________

¹ Clay's speech at Lexington on the Mexican War, November 13, 1817, is probably referred to.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 751-2

Senator Charles Sumner to George Sumner, September 30, 1851

The field of our national politics is still shrouded in mist. Nobody can clearly discern the future. On the Whig side, Fillmore seems to me the most probable candidate; and on the Democratic side, Douglas. I have never thought Scott's chances good, while Webster's have always seemed insignificant. His course lately has been that of a madman. He declined to participate in any of the recent celebrations,¹ cherishing still a grudge because he was refused the use of Faneuil Hall. The mayor told me that Webster cut him dead, and also Alderman Rogers, when they met in the apartments of the President. The papers-two Hunkers — have hammered me for calling on the President.² It is shrewdly surmised that their rage came from spite at the peculiarly cordial reception which he gave me. Lord Elgin I liked much; he is a very pleasant and clever man, and everybody gave him the palm among the speakers. I was not present at the dinner, and did not hear him.

There is a lull now with regard to Cuba. The whole movement may have received an extinguisher for the present; but I think we shall hear of it when Congress meets, in a motion to purchase this possession of Spain. This question promises to enter into the next Presidential election. The outrages caused by the Fugitive Slave bill continue to harass the country. There will be no end to them until that bill becomes a dead letter. It is strange that men can be so hardened to violations of justice and humanity, as many are now, under the drill of party. Mr. Webster has done more than all others to break down the North; and yet he once said, in taunt at our tameness, “There is no North!” The mischief from his course is incalculable. His speech at the reception of the President was regarded—and I think justly—by many Englishmen as insulting.

Our State politics promise to be very exciting. There has been a prodigious pressure upon me to take the field; but thus far I have declined. Under present circumstances I do not see my way to speaking. I am unwilling to defend the coalition, as in so doing I shall seem to be defending my own election; and I do not wish to seem to pursue Winthrop. His defeat seems to me inevitable, though in a contest like the present there must be an allowance for accidents and for treachery.

_______________

¹ Railroad Jubilee, Sept. 15, 1851.

² September 17, in Boston, on the occasion of the Railroad Jubilee. Sumner, as already seen, had strongly condemned President Fillmore a year before for approving the Fugitive Slave bill.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 254-5

Senator Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, October 24, 1851

I heard of your illness, while I was in New York, with great regret. Time and distance did not allow me to see you at your suburban retreat, although I wished very much to confer with you, particularly on the subject of your letter. Let me say frankly, however, that I despair of any arrangement by which any candidate can be brought out on the Democratic side so as to receive active support from antislavery men. Nor do I see much greater chance on the Whig side. The tendency of both the old parties at present is to national conventions; and in both of these our cause will perish. The material for a separate organization, by which to sustain our principles, seems to exist nowhere except in Massachusetts. Had the Barnburners kept aloof from the Hunkers in 1849, the Democratic split would have been complete throughout the free States, and it would have affected sympathetically the Whig party. A new order of things would have appeared, and the beginning of the end would have been at hand. But the work in some way is to be done over. There will be no peace until the slave-power is subdued. Its tyranny must be overthrown, and freedom, instead of slavery, must become the animating idea of the national government. But I see little chance of any arrangement or combination by which this truly Democratic idea can be promoted in the next Presidential contest.

The politicians are making all their plans to crush us, and they seem to be succeeding so well that all our best energies and most unflinching devotion to principles can alone save us. For myself I see no appreciable difference between Hunker Democracy and Hunker Whiggery: in both, all other questions are lost in the 'single idea' of opposition to the Free Soil sentiment. Nor can I imagine any political success, any party favor or popular reward, which would tempt me to compromise in any respect the independent position which I now hold.

It is vain to try to get rid of this question of the slave-power except by victory over it; and our best course, it seems to me, is to be always ready for the contest. But I am a practical man, and desire to act in such way as best to promote the ideas which we have at heart. If you can show me the road, I am ready to follow. . . The two years before us will be crucial years, years of the Cross. But I know that better times will soon come. For God's sake, stand firm! I hope John Van Buren will not allow himself to be enmeshed in any of the tempting arrangements for mere political success. He is so completely committed to our cause that he can hope for nothing except by its triumph. I know no one who has spoken a stronger or more timely word for us than he has. I am much attached to him personally. I admire his abilities, and am grateful for what he has done; but I feel that if he would surrender himself more unreservedly to the cause he would be more effective still. Few have such powers.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 255-6

Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, January 11, 1851

Whatever may be the result of our proceedings, I am desirous that you should know my position. I have never directly or indirectly suggested a desire for the place, or even a willingness to take it. I shall not generally be believed if I say I do not desire it. My aims and visions are in other directions, in more quiet fields. To sundry committees of Hunker Democrats, who have approached me to obtain pledges and promises with regard to my future course in the State, or in the Senate if I should go there, I have replied that the office must seek me, and not I the office, and that it must find me an absolutely independent man. The Hunkers, Whigs, and Democrats are sweating blood to-day. You perceive that all the Hunker press, representing Cassism and Websterism, are using every effort to break up our combination.

SOURCES: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 239

Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, January 21, 1851

You are right in auguring ill from the Fabian strategy. When the balloting was postponed for three days, I thought our friends had lost the chances. My own opinion now is that they are lost beyond recovery; but others do not share this. The pressure from Washington has been prodigious. Webster and Cass have both done all they could. Of course, Boston Whiggery is aroused against me. There were for several days uneasy stomachs at the chances of my success. It is very evident that a slight word of promise or yielding to the Hunkers would have secured my election, it would now if I would give it; but this is impossible. The charge used with most effect against me is that I am a 'disunionist;' but the authors of this know its falsehood, — it is all a sham to influence votes. My principles are, in the words of Franklin, “to step to the verge of the Constitution to discourage every species of traffic in human flesh.” I am a constitutionalist and a unionist, and have always been.

SOURCES: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 239-40

Charles Sumner to John Bigelow, September 2, 1850

You inquire about Eliot.¹ He is an honest and obstinate man, but essentially Hunker in grain. In other days and places he would have been an inquisitor. He dislikes a Democrat, and also a Free Soiler, as the gates of hell; still he is not without individual sympathies for the slave. I doubt if he can be a tool; besides, personally, he has little confidence in Webster. The attack here is just now most bitter upon Horace Mann. The substance of his “Notes” they cannot answer; but they have diverted attention from them by charging him with personalities, and then by criticism of his classical criticism of Webster. Now, in this matter two things are to be said: first, Webster was the first offender in personalities; and, secondly Webster is clearly wrong in the classical matter.

_______________

¹ Samuel A. Eliot, elected to Congress as successor to Winthrop.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 217

Governor John A. Andrew to Senator Charles Sumner, June 4, 1862

What means Stanley¹ in N. C.? Don't they know whom they send? Do they wish to drive our N. E. troops out of the field and disgust mankind? The most “hunker” officers we have ever sent, cry out, in their private correspondence, that the army is so managed in its relations to Southern men that a positive bribe is held out to whites and blacks both to be disloyal. Even guards are furnished for rebels' property not vouchsafed to men of known loyalty. This in McClellan's Department.

My letter to Mr. Stanton was within the truth. Our militia, startled by the most startling summons I issued at midnight, based on the telegram of the Sec. of War, supposing the very capitol in danger, rushed to Boston. But all were unwilling, and but a handful consented, to go for the full Militia period. It was not so a year since. No one was reluctant. No one stipulated for short terms. Twenty regiments eagerly pressed for leave to go for any term however indefinite. Now, a battery Co. whose enlistment began a week yesterday has not 85 men. And they are only enlisting for Six Months. The War looks to be of indefinite length. . . .

Perhaps all men do not reason out a conclusion by careful logic or minute observation, but the instinctive sagacity and practical sense of our people is an element we may always be sure exists. Most public men despise the people, think they are foolish and knowing their own personal limitations, believe the people not to be honest.

But Yankees are pretty knowing; they are by instinct sagacious; they have sense of the hardest sort; and they are by disposition honest and manly.

In the long run he will always dupe himself who doubts the people. An honest and brave man who looks into his own heart will find public opinion just there. He need not look at the clouds nor the church steeples, watching the wind for evidence.²

_______________

¹ Edward Stanly, a conservative, appointed May 19 military governor of North Carolina.

² June 4, 1862.

SOURCE: Henry Greenleaf Pearson, The Life of John A. Andrew: Governor of Massachusetts, 1861-1865, Volume 2, p. 22-3

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, July 1852

Boston, July, 1852.

My Dear Sumner: — I have to thank you for many documents, valuable in themselves, but the more so as signs of your kind remembrance of me. I have not troubled you with letters, for you must be encombri already. Everybody but the most desperate of Hunkers is loud in your praise. You know how I feel; with none of their surprise at your prompt and gallant repulse of a cowardly attack, I have more than their appreciation of your motives for so much moderation.

I will tell you of only two out of a hundred things said — one by a lady — young, handsome, enthusiastic; she disliked you formerly — but the other day said with enthusiasm — “If I should meet him now I should be prompted to throw my arms around his neck and kiss him!” My banker, Blake, a Hunker, said yesterday — “Your friend Mr. Sumner has forced my admiration and earned my gratitude; he has done nobly; tell him so!”

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 384-5

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, July 2, 1852

Boston, July 2d, 1852.

My Dear Sumner: — There is a scattering of our forces here, or there has been, but I think now we begin to settle down to this conclusion — that we cannot vote for Scott,¹ and that we have only to prevent as many Democrats from voting for Pierce as possible. What do you say? Shall you not write to the Worcester Convention, or a letter to a friend that may be used there? Speaking for myself alone, I must say the course seems clear; to go for the abstract right and disregard the consequences. We must teach all parties that there are some men (and they are becoming more numerous) who will not be bought and sold and handed over by any conventions.

I have always had an instinct in me which I have never been able to body forth clearly — which tells me that all this manoeuvering and political expediency is all wrong, and that each one should go for the right regardless of others. If every man, or every third man, would do so, an unworthy candidate, or an unworthy platform, would never be put up; and is it less one's duty to do so because only every three-thousandth man will follow his example? Why is it deemed necessary to go on with great parties, and to twist principles until they all but break — why but because there are so few men who will be inflexible? Let us make those few more, and all will be right.

Can you not foretell about when you shall speak? If you can, with any degree of certainty, I shall be strongly tempted to go on there to hear. Great things are expected of you.

I was in at Mills's to-day; one or two desperate Hunkers were there: they caught eagerly at my expression of a firm belief in Scott's anti-slavery tendency, and Mills swore he would publish what I said. I believe they still cling to the hope of bringing the old man, their man, [Webster] upon the ring yet. They do not know how, or when, but hope for a contingency.

Do write me; and believe me ever faithfully,

S. G. Howe.

_______________

¹ Winfield Scott.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 380-1

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, April 25, 1852

Boston, Tuesday, 25th April, 1852.

My Dear Sumner: — I am only waiting to see Kossuth and to ascertain whether I can do anything for his cause, after which I shall flit for Washington.

There is considerable stir and bustle, and note of preparation in our streets (half-past twelve). He will probably be here in an hour or two. I shall hardly go out, for I have no part to play, and I shrink from the crowd and the noise. My whole heart and soul is with this man and his noble cause. I hail him as prophet of good, as high priest of humanity, and I would cheerfully make any sacrifices in my power to aid him in his holy work; but I cannot push forward in the crowd who will be eager to attract his notice. Wilson dined with me on Sunday to meet George [Sumner] and he told me he should have me down among the invited guests at the banquet — but for that I should only see K—— in private, if I can get an interview. He wrote a very kind answer to my letter inviting him to accept my house.

About George, I hardly know what to say. I think he will be well received except by the ultras of the Hunkers. He dines with Prescott on Thursday. Your sisters will probably have told you who and which have called upon him. He is cautious about committing himself in the Kossuth matter. I do not like caution; it betokens little faith in God's arrangement, by which the truth is sure to prevail sooner by bold and open declaration. I reproach myself bitterly for want of faith and courage in my past. The rocks on which most of my hopes have split, — approbativeness, the care for what this one or the other may think. There is nothing good, nothing enduring, nothing worth living for, nothing worth dying for, but truth.

Ever yours,

S. G. Howe.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 370-1

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, April 8, 1852

Boston, April 8th, 1852.

Dearest Sumner: — I am very grateful for your frequent though brief notes. I know how much your present position increases the value of those grains of the hour-glass which even in days of leisure you were wont to count as grains of gold.

I should now be on my way to join you, but for the illness of my Flossy. It is nothing serious, I trust, but I could have no comfort away from her. The health of my children is seldom interrupted; they are vigorous, beautiful, bright and happy; but all this makes me less (instead of better) able to bear an interruption.

I have a vacation at the Blind [Institution] and though the Idiots call for some of my time and thought, I shall leave them as soon as my child's health is restored.

I note what you say about your course respecting the compromise, etc. It is perfectly manifest that if you did not feel called upon by a high sense of duty to speak, your silence respecting slavery, and your action upon other matters, are fortunate and felicitous, for you will speak with all the more power and effect when the proper time comes.

As for the Hunkers, they would have made a much worse outcry against you for having spoken, had your speech been that of an angel, than for your having been silent. I say to all here (what is needless however), that your friends may count upon your tact as to “time when,” as you can count upon your friends (?). . . .

We have nothing of interest here.

Kossuth is coming and this will stir up a little excitement.

I have written to offer my whole house and servants to him for as long as he will stay and even if it be two months.

Let us not criticize such a man too closely, dear Sumner. His mission is a high and noble one, and if he asks much, asking boldly, even pretentiously, let us pardon and admire. If God would but vouchsafe to the earth a hundred Kossuths, would it not go forward with a rush?

Ever thine,

S. G. Howe.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 368-9

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, March 15, 1852

Boston, Thursday, March 15, 1852.

Dearest Sumner: — I write you from my house, to which I have been confined by a more than commonly severe attack of neuralgia. I have been indisposed four days, or else I should have studied the land question in order to be able to give a reason for the faith that is in me. I have a sort of instinct that you are in the right, but that you do not go far enough. This whole matter of ownership of God's earth, whether by individuals or by nations, has got to be ripped up and readjusted upon principles and considerations different from those ever yet entertained by any except those who are pooh-poohed down as visionaries.

I do not think the press can make much impression by their outcry against you; besides, that will cease now that Daniel, in order to make a little capital, has followed in your wake. However, I shall be out to-morrow, and will see what I can do.

Some of your friends, and good judicious ones, have been alarmed by the onslaught made upon you for your silence about slavery;¹ and all Hunkerdom shouted “a hit! a capital hit!” when Judge Warren quoted something of yours about the effect of Washington atmosphere upon our Northern representatives &c. Some friends say that you cannot altogether get over an impression (if such should get abroad) that you had wavered, even by your being ever so firm afterwards. I do not share their alarm — not as yet. I do not much regard any temporary and passing policy got up by the daily press; by and by it will not be asked how long was Sumner silent — at what precise moment did he speak — but it will be asked did he speak out and speak bravely? I do think it important, and more than a matter of taste, that your speech should be well-timed, and seem to be called for. There are great and vital questions yet to come up about the Territories, and about California. However, I know nothing about the how, the why, the when — but this I know, you are true and brave—the Bayard of politicians, sans peur et sans reproche.

You will, I doubt not, give due weight to those considerations which your friends urge as calling for a speedy manifestation of your principles.

Vaughan is here, upon Kossuth business principally, but this is entre nous.

I have seen much of him; he is a very intelligent man and I think an honest one as politicians go.

I saw Longfellow at his beautiful home a few days ago.

I saw Palfrey too — growing rapidly into an old man; thin, wan and sad. He is a noble and beautiful spirit.

At the State House our friends are fighting for freedom in every way that seems to them likely to redound to their own credit and continue them in power.

They talk, you know, of violating the common law of custom, and running Rantoul into the Senate — but they will hardly venture, because they do not feel strong enough, and a defeat would be very bad. I am sorry they ever put out any feelers about it.

Your description of your genial days makes me sigh; to-day we have a cold easterly storm and the ground is covered with snow and sleet.

I had fully determined to leave on the first of April when my vacation at the Blind begins; but I have to look out for the Idiots.

Seguin² has been here two months, and proves to be a man of great vigour of intellect, and full of resources; he has done wonders — but we can hardly keep him; he is full of self-esteem and exigeant to the uttermost; one of his conditions is that the Trustees shall not be allowed to hold any meetings without his being present. Another that neither the matron nor any teachers shall hold any communication with the parents of the pupils, &c., &c. Besides, he is choleric, not benevolent, and not very high in his motives.

C'est la gloire — la gloire.

But I must close. Ever thine,

s. G. H.

_______________

¹ See post, p. 382.

² Dr. Edward Seguin, author of “De l'Idiotie,” etc., came in 1852 to “take charge of the school for Idiots long enough to organize the classes, and introduce his method of training.” This gentleman . . . was at the head of the first public institution (for the teaching of idiots,) organized in France.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 365-8

Samuel Gridley Howe to Charles Sumner, December 12, 1851

Boston, Dec. 12, 1851.

My Dear Sumner: — But for an aching head and a sad heart (my spirits always sink to zero when my body is out of working gear), I should write you fully about your speech, which everybody likes and praises, everybody but I! I think you made a mistake, and went too far — and I'll tell you why I think so, when I have any nervous energy to stimulate the brain.

I am glad to hear its praises however, though not so much from Hunkers as others.

Would I could have heard you! And had I known you were to speak I should have done so at any cost. I had determined upon one thing as what I would not swerve from — hearing your maiden speech. But on the 8th you did not know you were to speak.

I fear we shall not succeed in the attempt to get up a Kossuth demonstration here. I have tried in many quarters in vain. I had faint hopes of Hillard, though others said he was earnest in favour of K——. I found him in a poor mood, evidently ill and irritated. He swore by all his Gods, and with an earnestness amounting almost to fierceness, that he would never again as long as he lived take any part in anything of the kind; he denounced politics and political movements, and vowed never to go one inch out of his way for any public matter whatever.

The prospect is that we shall not have a meeting.

I saw Miss Catherine Sedgwick last evening: she felt most warmly about K—— and was indignant at the coldness here. She said she had been here two weeks and seen many people, but I was the first one who had expressed any feeling in favour of K—— being received with honour.

If our party leaders write to you they will tell you there is trouble ahead. I hope to Heaven they have not in any way pledged the party to the Democrats; we have been their bottle holders long enough. Oh! that we had nominated Mann for Governor! It may be Palfrey will go in.

We must fight the Democrats before long. They have not — the masses have not — intelligence enough to overcome their prejudices about colour. The Whigs have more — and when their tyrant oppressor — the Lord and master of their bodies and souls — Black Dan¹ — is dead politically or corporeally — if it happens soon — they will be better allies than the Dems.

But I cannot write more.

Ever thine,

S. G. Howe.

_______________

¹ Daniel Webster.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 352-3

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

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 22, 1854

Washington Jany 22, 1854

My Dear Sir, I think you are mistaken in the am^t, of my debt to you — it was for one letter instead of two or three when you wrote last, and it is for two now. I am quite willing however that the balance in this account should be decidedly against me, as your letters have much more interest for me than mine can have for you; and besides I am harder pushed than you can be.

I don't feel a great deal of interest in the election of Senator, since our side has nothing to expect. If it could be postponed we should have a fair chance:— as it is, I suppose, we have none though I feel right sure that the time is not distant when men who now vote to have Ohio represented here by a Hunker will rue it as a foolish & unnecessary act.

My great anxiety is to have our friends in Ohio buckle on their armor & go to work to redeem the State. We can do that I am sure if we will & by our means. I think, circumstanced as you now are, you ought to reestablish your connection with the press, or at least take up your location in a part of the State where you can advantage the cause — say, Toledo Cleveland or Cincinnati. You ought to resume the Editorial charge of the True Democrat. Wade says he will give you his interest of $1000 — I will give you mine of $200 — if an arrangement can be made by which you will become permanently interested & Editor. I should think you would feel as deeply as I do on the subject of wresting Ohio from the Hunkers.

The Nebraska Bill is the principal topic of conversation here. What is the prospect of the Resolution on the subject in our Legislature? I enclose the Washⁿ. Sentinel that you may see with what insolence the Editor speaks of our State. It makes me repent my vote for Tucker for printer, & wish I had voted for some one wholly unconnected with the Political Press or for Bailey. It will prevent me from voting to give him the Patent Report to print which he needs much.

Benton says (I dined with him yesterday) that Douglas has committed political suicide He is staunch against the repeal of the Missouri Prohibition. Gov. Allen, & two of the members for R. I. will vote against it. The Governor has written to R. I. for Legislative instructions, which if they come will fix his colleagues. Mason, of Virginia told Fish that he did not want the Nebraska Bill: he was content that things should stand as they are. Douglas, I suppose, eager to compel the South to come to him has out southernized the South; and has dragged the timid & irresolute administration along with him.

Won't you write a strong article for the Columbian on the Sentinel Article?

Let them know immediately the prospect of the Resolution in the Senate & House. It should be pushed to a vote at the earliest moment.

Tell me the names of the most prominent men of the two Houses, with short sketches of them. Do you know Makenzie? Give me all the information you can. Where is Townshend? What of his wife's health.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 254-6

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

Washington City, Dec. 5, 1851.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, April 28, 1851

Columbus, April 28, 1851.

My Dear Sumner, Laus Deo! From the bottom of my heart I congratulate you — no, not you but all friends of freedom everywhere upon your election to the Senate. Now, I feel as if I had a brother — colleague — one with whom I shall sympathize and be able fully to act. Hale, glorious and noble fellow as he is, is yet too much an offhand man himself to be patient of consultation — while Seward, though meaning to maintain his own position as an Antislavery man, means to maintain it in the Whig Party and only in the Whig Party. Wade, who has been elected to be my colleague, is not known to me personally. I am told he denounced [?] Fillmore, Webster & the Compromise before election. Since, he has written a letter proclaiming himself a Whig & only a Whig, claiming only toleration of differences of opinion in the Whig Party on the slavery questions. I think he will generally go with Seward. He is one of the original abolitionists and I do not believe he will be derelict to the Antislavery faith. None of these are to me as you are. I feel that you have larger broader views, and that you are willing to labor more systematically for the accomplishment of greater purposes.

In this state a large body of the democracy is prepared to throw off the slaveholders yoke. I anticipate a movement before long, and I hope the best effects from it. If we can only have a Free Democracy — Independent Democracy — in deed as well as in name the day of our country's redemption and the slave's deliverence will not be far off. But it must be made of sterner stuff than that portion of the New York Democracy which united with us at Buffalo and afterwards consented to the union with the Hunkers on the Baltimore Platform!

I hope we shall be inmates of the same house next winter. Last winter I had lodgings on the Northeast corner of C & 4½ streets & took my meals at a boarding house. I found this a good arrangement. If the house is still open you can get as good rooms in it as anywhere in Washington. In order to obtain a seat at all eligible in the Chamber it will be well to ascertain at once what seats are vacant, and get the best of them. This can be done best, perhaps, by a letter from Hale or Davis, as either may be most convenient to you, to the Secretary of the Senate. Write me soon.

Most sincerely yours

[Salomon P. Chase.]

P. S. Do you know that you are in my debt for a letter or two?

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 235-6

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