Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, April 13, 1850

Washington, Apl. 13, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: I am surprised that you have not received a copy of my speech — It was printed here on the 4th of April in the Intelligencer, and by the mail of the 5th I sent you a copy. The Union and the Globe were dilatory; but the Era had it in full on Thursday, and I suppose on that morning you must have rec'd it in that paper. The Intelligencer I sent doubtless miscarried. To-day the Union commences the publication of it headed, “Union and Freedom, without Compromise”. It seems almost ludicrous to me to see such an old-fashioned Liberty document, by the side of the Patent Democracy of the Union. Last evening I sent you a pamphlet copy which you rec'd today or will receive tomorrow (or Monday) I suppose. I am obliged to you for speaking to Punchard. I hope he will publish; though I confess that the speech is too long. Tell him, however, it was necessary to be full at the outset, and hereafter I shall study limits.

I am glad the speech pleased you on a cursory glance, and, I hope, you will not feel obliged to change your judgment on a more deliberate perusal. I think there is some diffuseness which could have been corrected with a little more pains. But I designed it for the masses, and hoped to render a permanent service to the cause by furnishing a tolerably unexceptionable document for circulation. Hence the fullness of authorities and citations, which I should have avoided if I had aimed at reputation solely.

It would be really gratifying to me if our friends in Massachusetts should think fit to publish a handsome edition; and I feel much obliged to you for your effort in the matter. The fact — if it should become a fact — made known here would have a good effect and stimulate the circulation of them from this place and in other places. Should the publication be made I would esteem it an additional mark of kindness if you would correct the proof. The Copy used should be the Era, Intelligencer, Globe or Union, where the speech was printed in full. It should be corrected by the pamphlet copy which is most correct in type — though somewhat abridged in order to bring it in 16 pages. The pamphlet copy, however, is not more correct than the Globe or Union where it appeared in full.

I do not think it certain yet, though highly probable, that the Cabinet will break up. In that event, it is although doubtful who will succeed. I believe the Seward influence will be, if not predominant, influential. You mistake when you say, “Seward is with us”. He holds many of our antislavery opinions, and will never, I believe, abandon them. But he means to give his support to the Taylor Platform of non-action. He tells me he thinks this as far as we can get at present. He will vote for California, as a Free State. He would have voted, he says, for California as a Slave State. He will vote for the Proviso in the Territories. He knows it cannot pass, and he knows that it could pass if the Administration were favorable. He will not make his support of the Administration, conditional upon the Administration's support of the Proviso. But he will support the Administration and vote for the Proviso. The Proviso being rejected and he will make no great effort to secure its adoption — perhaps would prefer not to see the Administration embarassed with it — he will fall back upon the Administration plan of non-action. I tell you this that you may not be disappointed and that you may understand why Seward will be likely to have considerable influence in the organization of the new Cabinet if one should be organized. Non-action is General Taylor's own plan. It suits him. Neither Webster nor Clay, I imagine, are agreeable to him. They are both for the Cass plan of non-intervention. Seward is against the Webster, Clay and Cass plan and for the Taylor.

As for the Democracy, I have more hope from it than you have. It is probable, however, that the Hunkers will require another defeat to bring them to their senses. Cass is full of hope just now, a few weeks ago he thought himself used up. The Buchanan star was in the ascendant. Already I have reason to believe the Hunkers are parcelling out the offices in anticipation. But they are deceiving themselves. A leading gentleman of Ohio was written to to the effect that he had best relax his zeal for slavery restriction, and that he might look to a certain high office. His answer was that “Ohio must not be regarded as a party to any such arrangement — that his vote would never be obtained except for a reliable antislavery Democrat, — if for a democrat at all.” I learn from Connecticut that the Free Soil democrats hold the balance of power and that no man can be sent to the Senate of the United States (unless by a union of Hunkers, Whigs and Democrats) except a true and known opponent of Slavery and the Slave Power. So also from Ohio I learn that the signal democratic victory there as it is called is only a triumph of Free Soil. The Free Democrats hold a reliable balance of power. And a large number at least six of those claimed as Democrats will not support the Democratic nominee for Governor unless he will openly take Free Democratic ground. Here the outside appearance of Democracy is bad. But the fire of regeneration is burning within, and the party is sure to become antislavery—reliably antislavery I mean — long before the Whig party will — unless indeed the Slaveholders propose emancipation and Compensation, which would convert the Capitalists into Emancipationalists at once. In the mean time the Free Democracy must maintain its organization and maintain too (which I deem very important) its democratic principles in relation to other subjects than Slavery. This will constitute a powerful pressure on the Democracy — depose Hunkerism from its ascendancy — and finally bring about the result we all desire.

I have written tediously, and have left myself neither time nor space for much that I wish to say about current events here. Boston is doing nobly. I hope we shall have the Committee and secure the admission of California at all events.

Give my best regards to Palfrey when you see him. Is there any foundation for the story that he thinks of withdrawing and that a Compromise Candidate is to be selected? I trust not. Remember me also to Adams, Parker, Wilson and other friends. Has Burlingame returned from Europe yet?

Ever faithfully yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

P. S. What has become of that edition of your writings?

P. S. 2d. If Palfrey should withdraw would there be any possibility of putting Leavitt (Joshua) on the track and inducing the democrats to go for him? He would be a most important accession to our strength and perhaps his prominence in the Cheap Postage might secure votes for him.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 206-9

Senator bentonSalmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, December 17, 1849

Washington, Dec^r. 17, 1849.

My Dear Hamlin, I have just comedown from the Capitol. In the Senate we had a brief Executive Session — nothing done. Today we were to have elected Committees but the Old Line Caucus had not arranged matters to suit them, & the elections were put off till tomorrow. You know that in the Senate the Majority party selects in Caucus the majorities of such committees as they think fit so to organize & minorities on the others, & the minority party in caucus selects the balance. The committees thus selected have been hitherto adopted by common consent. What will be done tomorrow I cannot say. There was trouble yesterday between the friends of Benton & Calhoun in Caucus. I have not been invited to the Democratic Caucus. I do not think I should attend, as matters now stand, if I was: but it is not impossible that both Hale and I shall go in before the session closes. To a democratic Senator who spoke to me on the subject I answered that I thought that having been elected exclusively by Democratic & free democratic votes I ought to be invited; but whether I wd. attend or not I was not prepared to say. There was a discussion or conversation about inviting me; but of what character I dont know.

In the House they have been balloting, or rather voting for Speaker. Since the menaces of the Southern men the other day and their insolent proscription of every man, as unfit to receive their votes, except slavery extensionists the northern democrats have got their backs up and so many of them now refuse to vote for any extensionist that it seems impossible to elect any man whom the slaveholding democrats' will support, except by a coalition between these last, aided by the doughfaced democrats & the slaveholding Whigs. Rumors of such a coalition have been rife for a day or two; but the candidate of the extensionists, Lynn Boyd, has not yet received votes enough to enable those Southern Whigs who are willing to go for him, to effect his election. I am glad to be able to say that the Ohio delegation is firm on the side of the Free States, with two exceptions Miller & Hoagland. Until today I hoped that Col. Hoagland would abide with the body of the Ohio democrats; but he gave way today & voted for Boyd. This is the more to be regretted as Boyd was, as I hear, one of the foremost in clapping & applauding Toombs's insolent disunion speech the other day; and after he had closed his harrangue went to him & clapped him on the back in the most fraternizing manner.

Who, then, can be speaker? you will ask. To which I can only reply, I really cannot say. At present it seems as if the contest must be determined final by the Extensionists against the Anti Extensionists without reference to old party lines. An attempt was made today at a bargain between the Hunker Whigs & Hunker Democrats. A Kentucky member offered a resolution that Withrop should be Speaker; Forney, Clerk; & somebody, I can not say who, Sargeant at arms. The democrats voted almost unanimously to lay this resolution on the table — the Whigs, in great numbers, voted against this disposition of it. This looks well for those Hunkers who affect such a holy horror of bargains.

With these facts before you, you can form, better than I can, an idea of the probable shape of things in the future. To me it seems as if the process of reorganization was going on pretty rapidly in the northern democracy. I am much mistaken, if any candidate who will not take the ground assumed in my letter to Breslin, can obtain the support of the Democracy of the North or of the Country.

We are all looking with much interest to Ohio. Mr. Carter has received several letters urging him to be a candidate for Governor: but he will not consent except as a matter of necessity. He is a true man here, and so, above most, is Amos E. Wood. Judge Myers would be a very acceptable candidate to the Free Democracy:—  so, also, I should think would be Dimmock. My own regard for Dimmock is very strong. Judge Wood would encounter, I learn, some opposition from the friends of Tod, and his decisions in some slavery cases would be brought up against him especially with Beaver for an opponent. Still, in many respects, he wd. be a very strong man. After all it is chiefly important that the resolutions of the Convention should be of the right stamp & that the candidate should place himself unreservedly upon them.

As to the Free Democratic State Convention, — I think it desirable on many accounts that one should be held; and that it be known soon that one is to be held. I do not think it expedient to call it expressly to nominate, but rather to consider the expediency of nomination & promote, generally the cause of Free Democracy.

I have written to Pugh urging the adoption by the House, if the Senate is not organized, of resolutions sustaining their members in Congress. I think much good would be done by resolutions to this effect.

Resolved, That the determination evinced by many slave state members of Congress, claiming to be Whigs & Democrats, to support for the office of Speaker no known & decided opponent of Slavery Extension, and indeed no man who will not, in the exercise of his official powers, constitute the Committees of the House of Representatives so as to promote actively or by inaction the extension of slavery, is an affront & indignity to the whole people of the Free States, nearly unanimous in opposition to such extension.

Resolved, That we cordially approve of the conduct of those representatives from Ohio who have, since the manifestation of this determination on the part of members for the Slave States, steadily refused to vote for any Slavery Extensionists; and pledge to them, on behalf of the State of Ohio, an earnest support & adequate maintenance.

I give these resolutions merely as specimens. They are not so strong as I would introduce. Perhaps, indeed, it will be thought best to introduce a resolution appropriating a specific sum to be applied to the support of the members here in case the continued failure to organize the House shall leave them without other resources.

The bare introduction of such resolutions into our Legislature would have the happiest effect. Can't you help this thing forward? I dont want these sample resolutions used in any way except as mere specimens & suggestions.

So far as developments have yet been made the Administration has no settled policy. In the present state of the country I confess I do not much fear Cuban annexation.

Write me often.

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 189-92

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

Philadelphia, Sep. 19, 1849.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affectionately and faithfully yours,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

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

_______________

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

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