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
