Robert Toombs to James Thomas, April 16, 1848

Washington, D. C. Apr. 16, 1848.

Dear Thomas, I received your letter of the 9th inst. today and I am very glad to hear you are improving. You did not state to what point in Kentucky you expected to direct your steps. I have an extensive acquaintance with the public men of Kentucky and could give or furnish you letters to almost any point, and if you know where you will probably remain longest and will write me I will procure such letters as would no doubt greatly increase the comfort and pleasure of your trip. I could send them to any point you might designate, if you are about leaving. Mr. Crittenden, my particular friend and messmate, will leave here for Kentucky about the first of June on a gubernatorial canvass in Kentucky. I will commend you to him especially, and I hope you may fall in with him somewhere in the state, if not at Frankfort, his residence. I will send by this mail or the next some letters for Louisville where I suppose you will most likely land in Kentucky. I hope you will find it convenient to call by Washington. There is much to see here to interest an intelligent stranger; men, if not things.

Clay has behaved very badly this winter. His ambition is as fierce as at any time of his life, and he is determined to rule or ruin the party. He has only power enough to ruin it. Rule it he never can again. In February while at Washington he ascertained that the Kentucky convention would nominate Taylor. He procured letters to [McMillen ?] that he would decline when he went home, and the Taylor men from Kentucky under this assurance wrote home to their friends not to push him off the track by nominating Taylor. Mr. Clay never intended to comply, but without now having the boldness to deny it he meanly hints at having changed his determination. Bah! He now can deceive nobody here. The truth is he has sold himself body and soul to the Northern Anti-slavery Whigs, and as little as they now think it, his friends in Georgia will find themselves embarrassed before the campaign is half over. I find myself a good deal denounced in my district for avowing my determination not to vote for him. It gives me not the least concern. I shall never be traitor enough to the true interests of my constituents to gratify them in this respect. I would rather offend than betray them. Mr. Botts of the House and Mr. Berrien of the Senate and Mr. Buckner of Kentucky are the only three men from the slave states who prefer Mr. Clay for our candidate, and there are not ten Southern representatives who would not support Genl. Taylor against him if he were nominated. The real truth is Clay was put up and pushed by Corwin and McLean, Greeley & Co. to break down Taylor in the South. Having made that use of him they will toss him overboard at the convention without decent burial. It is more than probable that a third candidate may be brought forward, and Scott stands a good chance to be the man. For my part I am a Taylor man without a second choice.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 103-4

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, September 3, 1853

Ravenna, Sep. 3, 1853.

Dear Sumner, I mourn with you over the opinion of Judge McLean; but I expected nothing otherwise. His whole course of judicial action in reference to cases under the act of '93 had prepared me for it. With a kind heart & honest purposes he has suffered his reverence for imagined rights under the constitution to lead him into conclusions from which you & I must ever shrink. Well, we must look to the future!

Prospects in Ohio are as good as could be expected. Nothing can be definitely said respecting the result; but we are all cherishing good hopes.

I have spoken in about twenty counties, and our candidate for Governor, Mr. Lewis, in nearly fifty. The people turn out well and we hope to cast such a vote as will — if not elect our candidate, — at least put an end to triangular contest.

We think much can be done by three great meetings — say one at Cleveland or vicinity — one at Mt. Vernon in Knox County & one at Cincinnati or vicinity. Can you not give us — or me — your powerful aid, say for the last week in this month. The journey & speeches need occupy no more than ten days.

Yours cordially

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

Answer immediately to Cincinnati

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 252

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

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, June 20, 1848

Columbus, June 20, 1848.

My Dear Sir: I thank you for the few words of cheer you sent me on the 12th. I rejoice greatly that Massachusetts is moving. But you will need firmness and courage Taylorism is furious, and would crush all dissent if it had the power.  ———¹ few Independent Whigs met together to express their dissent from the nominations were fairly yelled out of their room of meeting. At Cincinnati drunken Taylorites from Kentucky tried their best to break up our meeting, and failed only because the mass was so large that they could not move it. Taylorism is conscious of treason to the Free States, and those who have bowed the knee are enraged at the prospect of losing their reward. But I verily believe that the tocsin which is now gathering the Freemen of the North to the battle of Liberty, rings also the knell of Slavery.

Our Convention has just commenced its session. A large delegation from almost every Congressional District is in attendance. Great enthusiasm and fixedness of purpose are manifested. The delegates from the Reserve say that if a suitable free State candidate is named, the Reserve will give him 13,000 majority over Cass or Taylor and will try hard to roll it up to twenty thousand.

I have no knowledge of Judge M'Lean's position. I hardly think he will feel at liberty to accept an Independent Nomination, having suffered his name to go before the Whig Convention. But he may. He is now at Detroit, but will return to Cincinnati soon.

I suppose the New York Democracy will nominate candidates of their own; but possibly they may yield to the representations which have been made to them and invite a General Conference or Convention.

As things stand I think our Convention will nominate an electoral ticket, and invite a National Convention to assemble at Buffalo, say on the 1st of August. By that time we shall know who are for us and who are against us, and be prepared for advised (?) nominations. For myself I am well content with Hale and content also to take any fit man who will represent our views and concentrate a larger suffrage, if any care for Freedom, Free Territories, and Free Labor.

Corwin, as I feared he would, has bent the knee and received the yoke and goes for Taylor.

Yours faithfully,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

I will advise by letter to Boston tomorrow of the further action of our Convention. I hope Massachusetts will be well represented at Buffalo.

_______________

¹Torn in MS.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 137-8

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, June 5, 1848

Cincinnati, June 5th 1848.

My Dear Sir: A long time has slipped by since I had the pleasure of hearing from you. I hope you have not erased my name from your list of correspondents.

I send you an article of mine, which I think states some important facts which ought to be much more generally known than they are. If you agree with me in thinking its statements important, will you take the trouble to get a place for it in the Boston Whig, with such a notice of it as will attract particular attention to them.

Our Independent State Convention will we expect be largely attended. Should the Whigs nominate Taylor or Scott we shall have probably a preponderance of Whigs, but should they nominate any other free state Candidate, not a military man, the majority will probably be democrats. I think the Country would go unanimously for M'Lean, but unanimously, for no other man.

The action of the New York Democracy is manful and noble. I hope for much good from it.

Very truly your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 132-3

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

Cincinnati, Mar. 25th, 1848.

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

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

I will be glad to hear from you soon.

Very truly yours,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

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

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

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, February 19, 1848

Cincinnati, February 19, l848.

My Dear Sir: It always gives me a great deal of pleasure to hear from you; but I was more than gratified by your last letter. I thought I saw in it an augury of approaching union, among the true and earnest lovers of freedom of all parties — a union which every patriot and philanthropist cannot but earnestly desire. For myself, I care not under what banner the rally may be, so that the banner bear blazing on its folds the inscription of Freedom; nor shall I think it of much moment by whom it may be borne, so he be, at all events, a true hearted champion of the Right. How strange it is that such an union has not already been formed — was not long since formed! How it is possible that such facts as those stated by Mr. Palfrey in his Speech — and he gave only a few by way of sample — not at all treating the monstrous bulk — can have been known to Northern men and non-slaveholders, and yet stirred up no fever of indignation, I cannot understand. Unless indeed I adopt the humorous solution of your downeast poet, Hosea Biglow, who says in one of his inimitable lyrics:—

We begin to think its nater,

To take sarse and not be riled,

Who'd expect to see a ’tater,

All on eend at bein’ biled?

Your overtrue description of the fate of honest antislavery men in the Whig Party, devoted to private assault and assassination — suspected, slandered, and traduced applies just as strongly to the antislavery democrats. I believe it was Euripides who said — as Milton translates him:—

There can be slain

No sacrifice, to the Gods more acceptable

Than an unjust and wicked king.

The converse of this is certainly true. There can be no more acceptable sacrifice to unjust power — the unscrupulous slave power — than the immolation of an earnest & defiant¹ friend of Freedom and the Right. And I have heard democrats complain [of efforts¹] made to ruin them in public esteem, and cut them off from all hopes of political advancement, with an emphasis not less strong than your own. But what remedy for such grievances, except by independent action? How can we expect that the people will sustain us, or that demagogues and serviles will fail to combine against us, defaming our characters, impairing our influence, depriving us opposition, and, what is greatly worse, thwarting our best purposes, unless we give them to understand that we can get along without them, if they choose to get along without us — that our principles are as dear to us as the loaves and fishes of office are dear to them? Once let it be understood by politicians, that no candidate for office can receive the suffrages of antislavery men, who does not, in some reasonable sense, represent antislavery principles, and parties will not dare to fly in the face of antislavery sentiment as they do at present. What a figure the Radical Democracy of New York will cut, if after resolving and resolving upon the absolute necessity of adherence to the Proviso under all circumstances, they should, after all, go into the Baltimore Convention next May and acquiesce in the nomination of Cass or Buchanan or any such man? What a figure will Antislavery Whigs cut in acquiescing in the nomination of Taylor, or Clay, or any other slaveholder, who gives no clear and unequivocal evidence, that he cherishes any antislavery sentiments?

I have thought much of the best means of concentrating antislavery effort. I confess I have not yet seen any clear line of action. The most eligible I have thought is to assemble in National Convention, in June next, say at Pittsburgh, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the country, and adopting such practical measures as may be then judged most expedient. My own judgment inclines to the opinion — strongly inclines to it — that should the Whigs nominate a candidate for the Presidency who will take decided ground against the extension of slavery into territories hereafter acquired, such a Convention should give such a candidate its support. The same measure should be applied to the Democratic nomination. Should both parties nominate men, not to be depended on for such opposition to slavery extension, then such a Convention should nominate a candidate of its own.

I have no expectation whatever that General Taylor will take any decided ground upon any question. He will certainly take no ground — unless he changes all his habits of thought, all his sentiments, and all his prejudices—against the extension of slavery. General Taylor is very strong in the South. I was at St. Louis and at Louisville a few weeks since, and had an opportunity of learning something of the feeling of the western southwestern slave States in relation to him. He will sweep them if a candidate like a tornado. But I am not able to see any convincing indications of his strength in the North and Northwest. I see rather signs which satisfy me that if he receives the nomination of the Whigs, it must be because the Whigs of the North and Northwest sacrifice their interests, their honors and their duties, to the ambition of party success. As to Mr. Clay, he might properly receive the support of antislavery men if he would come out unequivocally against the extension of slavery, and in favor of a Convention and some reasonable plan of emancipation in Kentucky. I have no faith, however, that he will do this, though I do not deem it quite impossible.

You say “if Judge M'Lean could be induced to take any practical ground against the extension of slavery he would be a popular candidate”. You may recollect something of a letter from Columbus last fall which appeared in the Era. That letter contained a statement of Judge M'Lean's position as understood by the writer, and it was this, that the Wilmot Proviso, as to all territories in which slavery does not exist at the time of acquisition, is in the Constitution already. A resolution of Congress may declare the principle and legislation by Congress may enforce its application; but neither resolution nor legislation is needed to establish the principle. It is in the Constitution. The paragraph of this letter containing this statement was shown to Judge M'Lean and approved by him. I had a conversation with Corwin² and I regretted to find that he did not sympathize with or concur in these views. So far as I could discover he had no definite, considered principle or opinions on the subject. He thought it best to avoid the question, by opposing territorial acquisition, but if it must come, then secure freedom by legislation.

Under all circumstances I cannot but think Judge M'Lean to be all together the most reliable man, on the slavery question, now prominent in either party. It is true he does not fully agree with those who are generally known as antislavery men. But on the question of extension of slavery he is with us, not only on the question of its impolicy and its criminality, but also because he believed such extension would be a clear infraction of the Constitution. Add to this the constant and familiar association with antislavery folks in his family and among his friends, and his known aversion to slavery itself — an aversion so strong that when he quitted Washington, although in debt, and comparatively poor, he emancipated his slaves, when sale would have produced the means of discharging all his obligations. I regret very much the decision of Judge M'Lean in the Vanzandt case and believe he fell into great error; still on the pressing issue — the extension of slavery, he is wholly with us, and in general sentiment on slavery questions, nearer to us than any other statesman of either of the two old parties. He is not against the Proviso — on the contrary he is in favor of it. He thinks it however is inexpedient to weaken the strength of the Constitutional position against slavery, by introducing a specific measure of legislation against it, under present circumstances, when its defeat in the legislature or its veto by the Executive is certain, and such defeat, in the general opinion, would take away every obstacle from the introduction of slavery into new territories.

I understand from Mr. Vaughan, that the Boston Whig has given a different statement of Judge M'Lean's position, from the one I have just set before you. You may depend, however, on the fact that mine is correct; and I leave you to judge whether I am wrong in thinking that the nomination of M'Lean by the Whig Convention would be the most substantial triumph of antislavery which has been achieved this century.

I thank you for your offer to circulate a few copies of the Vanzandt argument in Westminster Hall. I send you a dozen for that purpose. I read your address on Fame and Glory with very great pleasure.

Forgive this long letter, and believe me,

Faithfully your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ Conjectural. Torn in MS.

² First part of name torn out of MS. From the final syllable, win, Corwin is conjectured.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 128

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, December 2, 1847

Cincinnati, Dec. 2, 1847.

My Dear Sir: Several months have elapsed since I rec'd your last valued letter, and the delay of my answer has not been occasioned by an indifference to your correspondence, — far from this, — but by a consciousness that I could write nothing of particular interest to you. Within the last few months however much has occurred, of deep interest to the friends of Freedom and Progress, and it seems to be time that some beginnings should be made towards a mutual understanding in regard to the best course to be pursued during the approaching national canvass.

It was a great blow for Liberty and the Right that struck at Herkimer.¹ The Conventions of both Parties in your State, — the Old Bay State to which we were wont to look for examples of devotion to Freedom,—had repudiated the only measure, which, during the last quarter of a century, has been brought forward successfully in Congress, of an anti-slavery character. The sluggish depths of Servilism — apparently without Soundings — were stirred for the first time since the triumph of Slaveholders on the Missouri Question, by a bold and decided movement for the arrest of westward progress of the Great Cause. The Wilmot Proviso, carried in the House by an overwhelming majority, failed, in the Senate, — sad to say — through the folly or worse of a Massachusetts Senator. Ten political lives of ten John Davises, spent in earnest efforts in the best direction could not compensate for this half hour's mischief.²

The Slaveholders, startled by the sudden outburst of Free Sentiment, recovered their equanimity, when Congress had adjourned without adopting the proviso. At the next session, the Sentiment in favor of the proviso had visibly lost strength. Carried in the House, it was defeated in the Senate. Returned to the House, it was lost there. Emboldened, by these events, the Senate took more decided steps. In your State Convention the Proviso was smothered. Mr. Secretary Buchanan wrote his letter. Mr. Vice President Dallas made his speech. Who will bid highest for Southern votes? was now the question. The votes of the complaisant North were thought to be safe-secured by the bonds which Party gives to despotism. The Syracuse Convention met, and the Proviso was smothered there. A ticket of Anti-Proviso men was nominated, and the faithful were called upon to stand by the Party nomination. We felt the effect of this in Ohio. The friends of the Proviso were discouraged. Few, comparatively, — except the old Soldiers in the Antislavery warfare who with Spartan valor and in Spartan numbers have carried the Liberty banners through two election conflicts, — could be found who were willing to pledge themselves, come what might, to the Cause of Freedom. In this state of things, came the clarion call for the Herkimer Convention. I thank God that that call reached the hearts of the people of the Empire State! They rallied to the Convention. They repudiated the Syracuse Servilism. They resolved that the Wilmot Proviso — the stone which the builders rejected — should be made the head of the corner. The election followed. The Serviles were overthrown, and the Country was saved. I may be greatly in error, but I know of no event in the History of Parties in this Country, at all approaching, in sublimity and moment, the Herkimer Convention, or rather the great movement of which the Convention was the most signal, visible expression. I think there can now be no doubt that the Proviso is safe in Ohio, with both parties; nor can I believe that it can be successfully opposed in Congress.

But what next? Is there not great danger that the friends of freedom may be tricked out of the fruits of their labors by dexterous management of the Presidential Canvass? Will not a great effort be made to keep both parties together upon their old platforms? Will not attempts be made to select men who will be acceptable to the Slaveholders, and in their attempts will not love of office get the ascendancy over love of country, and secure the nomination of a devotee of Slavery or at least a worse man, — a Compromiser? Great efforts are being made I am well assured to bring Mr. Clay out as the candidate of the Whigs. His friends hope to manage the Taylor movement so as to make it contribute to this result. On the other hand the Democracy seems to be looking towards Woodbury and Cass chiefly; either of whom, would, I presume, give any desired pledges to the Slaveholders. There is, indeed, a very considerable opposition to these men; but, I fancy, it is hardly powerful enough to secure for any other person the choice of the party. I have heard, of late, indeed that Woodbury's decision in the Vanzandt case has gained for him the favor of Mr. Calhoun, while General Taylor's response to the signal³ letter has shaken the confidence of the Perpetualists in him.

In this state of things what is to be done? Cannot a great Convention of all Antislavery men be held at Pittsburgh, say next May or June, and put a ticket in nomination, which will at all events receive votes enough to carry the nominees into the House, with a reasonably fair prospect that the choice may fall on them, and, at all events, with a very good prospect of their election by the people in 1852? I have a good deal of faith in a movement of this kind. In the hope of aiding it I went to the Buffalo Convention and urged a postponement of the nomination. In that I did not succeed. I feel quite confident however that the nominees of that Convention will not stand in the way of such a movement. I declined its nomination for the Vice P'y, partly that I might be at liberty, more efficiently, to promote it, though you will readily conceive other and very sufficient reasons, why I — wholly unknown, and, out of my profession, wholly inexperienced — should decline such a nomination. Such a movement shall have, of course, my best efforts. I think there are multitudes, — I may be too sanguine — yet not active who will aid it. What do you and those friends who act with you think of it?

I send you by the mail which will convey this a number of the National Press, which contains three articles which will interest you. In your last you asked as to Judge M'Lean's position. One of these articles defines it, and, I am warranted by what I have heard from the Judge, in saying it defines it correctly. Another of them is an account of a recent slave case, tried at Columbus. The report is a good one. The verdict astonished most people. The motion for new trial is continued till next term. Will you make an abstract of the case for the “Reporter”? The other article is Mr. Gary's Speech against the War. Is it not strange that a gentleman who makes this speech is a thorough Calhoun man on the Subject of Slavery?

Very truly and faithfully your friend,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

Did I ever mention my wish that some copies of the Vanzandt argument might teach some of the legal minds of England? Will you be kind enough to aid in the accomplishment of that wish?

_______________

¹ The mass meeting of Anti-Slavery Democrats, October 26. See Shepard's Van Buren, 357-58.

² Referring to the prevalent belief that Davis's speech in favor of the Proviso at the end of the session was so long that no time was left for a vote. Cf. Von Hoist, III, 287-289; Henry Wilson, Slave Power, II, 17, seriously questions whether the Proviso could in any case have passed the Senate.

³ Written from Monterey, Mexico, May 18,1847, to the editor of the Cincinnati Signal, who had urged the nomination of General Taylor, April 13,1847. Itis printed in Niles' Register, July 3,1847, p. 288.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 124-7

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

Cincinnati, Apr. 24, 1847.

C. Sumner, Esq., Boston.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the greatest regard,

Yours most truly,

[Salmon P. Chase]

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

_______________

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

² Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.

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

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

John McLean

John McLean, a native of Scotland, came to America when he was twenty-six years old. He was born June 13, 1826, near Glasgow, and settled in Dundee, Kane county, Illinois. He was a veteran of the Civil war, having enlisted in the fall of 1864, in Company K., in the Fifteenth Iowa Regiment, and was discharged July 24, 1865. He accompanied General Sherman on his famous march to the sea. He died Jan. 20, 1907.

SOURCE: Franklyn Curtiss-Wedge, The History Of Renville County, Minnesota, Volume 2, p. 1047, abstracted from the biographical sketch of Ephraim McBroom.