Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 4, 1853

Private.

Washington, Feb 4,, 1853.

Dear Hamlin, Thanks for your two letters, the last of which was received today.

I do not wonder that some of our friends of the Old Line feel uneasy in relation to our present position. It is a strong one and will be certain to deprive them of the control of the State, unless they are liberal & fair in their action. There is however nothing in it to alarm any real friend of democratic progress. All the liberals have to do is to pursue a just and conciliatory course towards us, and there will be in Ohio, in less than two years a united Democracy united upon principle and determined to maintain their principles everywhere — even in National Conventions, of which liberal men will be the natural exponents, and which will not only [be] irresistible in the State, but which will give tone to the nation. Judge Burtley in particular, has nothing to apprehend. I regard his election as certain beyond any contingency except that of a serious division in the democratic ranks or a repudiation by or in behalf of the Old Line Democrats of their present platform: neither of which events seems to me, at present, very probable.

Our present position, as Independent Democrats, is more useful to the liberals in the regular ranks than our incorporation into those ranks could be.

I was very much pleased with the results of the Free Democratic Convention. The resolutions were excellent & suited me exactly: but how happened it that those relating to myself and Giddings & Townshend were never printed.

Our position it seems to me was never so strong as now. The Dem. Convention (old line) went right and the Ind^t. Dem. Convention, also, went right, and the prospect here seems to be that the incoming administration will be liberal. Our present manifest duty and policy, it seems to me, is to strengthen our existing organization as much as possible.

Here the feeling is very good. Carter says he shall do all he can to secure my reelection. Cable, I am told, says the same thing: and Johnson, of Coshocton, told me today that in his opinion the condition of things in Ohio indicated that result. Giddings expresses himself decidedly and earnestly for me. I do not, however, permit myself to indulge any sanguine expectations. I know how precarious are all calculations of the future: and shall be content whatever event may turn up — so that our cause goes forward.

It is my duty to testify truly as to the wishes of the people of Ohio in respect to a cabinet officer: and I have no doubt that Medary is the choice of four fifths of the Democracy if not a larger portion. Nor do I doubt that he can make a competent Postmaster General. I should expect from him if appointed an energetic and able administration. Thus thinking, I speak. I know he has not given me that hearing or favor in his paper which he might have done; but I allow much for his circumstances. I am sorry to differ from you in this matter, but the difference is of no great importance, as I have no hand in making cabinet officers The most I do is to give my honest opinion when asked.

The last statement from Concord is that Gushing, Dix and Medary are certain to go into the Cabinet. The next comer may bring a different story.

I like Manypenny very much and have great confidence in his ability and honesty both. The time may come when I shall be able to serve him, when it comes, sooner or later, I shall be ready — McLean is an old friend, and a warm hearted, generous fellow. His connection with the Miami Tribe has brought on him some enemies — but more have seized this matter as a means of enabling them to gratify old grudges. Some of those who are opposed to him are, also, very friendly to me. Of course I take no part in the quarrel, but endeavor to conciliate & harmonize.

I do wish you were in the control of the Nonpariel. I hope it may be arranged, and am willing to do my full part towards it at any time.

I have received a number of a German paper at Cincinnati supporting the Free Dem. ticket. Do you know anything of it?

Would it not be an even better disposition for the present of your time and talents to go through the state every where and organize; and especially make arrangements to secure the right kind of men in the Legislature? I have mentioned this matter to Rice & wish it might be arranged through the Committee. I will bear my full proportion of the expense.

I have heard what you write about Wilson. I doubt the extent of his influence at Concord. It is hardly so great as represented.

Medary is here. He has confined himself for the most part to the Agricultural Convention; and will start on his return day after tomorrow.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 248-50

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

Toledo, June 28, 1851.

My Dear Sumner, We had a glorious time at Ravenna. Fifteen hundred or two thousand people were present. The best men of the Reserve were there — Giddings & Townshend of the House—Spalding, of our Supreme Court — Morse, Speaker of our last House of Representatives and many others of less note. The resolutions were not quite fundamental enough in their democratic character to suit me; but they will do. It was occasion of much regret that you were not there, and I did not receive your note until yesterday just as I was leaving Cleveland for this place, with Mrs. C. and my little daughter.

Mrs. C. has nearly relinquished the idea of a journey to Europe. We may however before we return to Cincinnati visit Boston.

I notice what you say of the state of things in Massachusetts. With us the same bitterness does not yet discover itself; but we have got to go to work. The chiefly [sic] difficulty we labor under is the want of a common uniting principle. That I am satisfied will be found in a cordial recognition of the great democratic principle of Equal Rights & Exact Justice, with a fixed purpose to carry it out into practical application to all subjects of governmental action. That will unite us with the strong bond of fraternity. That will give us the name & character of democrats and make us invincible.

Yours cordially,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

P. S. How wd. you like a house at Washington jointly with me or with me & Hale? I must contrive some way to be near you. I reckon upon so much benefit from your society.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 237-8

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Milton Sutliff,* January 7, 1851

Washington, Jany 7, 1851.

My Dear Sir, I am not certain whether I replied to your letter of the 22nd which I received in New York where I spent Christmas. At any rate I will write you a few lines now.

I rejoice greatly in the unanimity which characterizes the action of the majority of the free democrats in the Legislature and I still more rejoice in their determination to make good their title to the name of democrats by their acts. We reproach the old line democracy for their inconsistency in allying themselves with slaveholders to effect their purposes. We profess to see more clearly and to follow more unreservedly the teachings of Jefferson. But in what is our inconsistency less, if we yield to alliances with the Black Power or Monopoly Power, for the sake of carrying particular points of our own. My only hope for the triumph of our antislavery principles is by consistent action upon a truly democratic platform under the democratic banner & with the democratic name. If our brethren of the old Line see us consistent they will infallibly be drawn to cooperation & final union with us. Designing men may delay this for a time, but as you remark the continuances will be at their costs.

Giddings, now, thinks, I believe, very much as I do on this subject, and when you all go home in the spring a movement in the right direction of tremendous power may be and should be made.

But to secure our greatest efficiency we should have papers of the right stamp at the most important points. The “Standard” should be placed under vigorous editorial control and its circulation extended as far as possible. I am in hopes we shall not be long without a genuine antislavery democratic paper at Cincinnati. The true Democrat at Cleveland is far from what we need. Its Whig sympathies paralyze its efficiency for good. I have conversed with Mr. Vaughan, whom I cordially esteem for his many good qualities, though I differ widely from him as to the proper course to be pursued by the Free democracy, upon this subject, but he is not at all inclined to adopt the views which seem to me obviously sound. Do — let me beg of you — consult our friends and if it be a possible thing get the Standard into right hands and under vigorous headway, I am willing to be taxed what is right.

I am glad that Col. Medary takes a liberal view of things. His paper favors cooperation between old line democrats and the radical democrats, and has drawn down upon itself the wrath of some of the Hunkers — I hope our friends will make up, by their support, all it loses by the hostility of the proslavery folk.

There is nothing new here. Give my best regards to Pardee — “a brother beloved,” though unknown in the flesh.

_______________

* 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. 227-8

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

Washington City, Dec. 20, 1850.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________

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

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

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

Washington, Dec. 14, 1850.

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

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

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

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

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

Yours cordially,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 224

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, November 18, 1850

Cincinnati, Nov. 18, I850.

My Dear Sumner: Thanks for your note, and your excellent speech. The intelligence from Massachusetts is glorious. God grant that the friends of freedom may act wisely, harmoniously, and successfully, this winter, in Massachusetts and in Ohio! If they do our Free Democratic Representation in the Senate will be doubled. How it will rejoice my heart to welcome a Sumner or an Adams or a Phillips to the Senate from Massachusetts — especially a Sumner. And how glad would the Senator from Massachusetts be to meet a Giddings, a Tilden,¹ or one of like spirits and political connexions from the Empire State of the Ordinances. Nothing will [prevent] but such mismanagement as may throw the Hunkers of the two old Parties into alliance. In Massachusetts, perhaps, they are better prepared for that than in Ohio. I regretted to see the name of Caleb Gushing among the returned to the Legislature. I, with you, fear mischief from him. He has forgotten his zeal of 1841 in favor of the Northern Institution of Freedom.

The Union meeting here was a miserable failure. No men of high character and general influence partook in it. The People are against the [illegible] Measures of Congress. The fugitives defend themselves. One a few days ago, some forty miles from this, shot his pursuer dead. Another would have dealt a like fate to his but for the interposition of handcuffs or some hard material in the pocket. There is no peace except in the denationalization of slavery.

Ever yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

* * * [A postscript of one line torn in the MS.]

_______________

¹ D. R. Tilden, of Ohio.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 223

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

Washington, Feb. 18, 1850.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 2, 1850

Philadelphia, Jany 2, 1850

My Dear Hamlin, I can hardly express to you the mingled feelings of gratitude and pleasure which I experience in being permitted to announce to you a marked improvement in the condition of my dear wife. I have been watching by her side during the entire holidays, never leaving her except when obliged to do so for her own sake, administering to her comfort in every way possible to me. For the first three days after our arrival at Parkeville, of which no doubt Hutchins has told you she mended daily. Then came a sudden change for the worse which filled me with dismay. Then she rallied again and I hung between hope and despair. But now, today, God be praised, she seems better than at any time since we left Washington. I left her a few hours ago, and am on my way to Washington, intending to be in my seat tomorrow: — and to decline, unless strongly advised by our friends to the contrary, the appointment in the Com. on Rev. Claims. Perhaps I may accompany the declination with some few remarks on the Constitution of the Committees — perhaps not. I have as yet made no speech defining my position. Perhaps I shall not make any speech with that special purpose. Certainly I shall not unless some occasion seems distinctly to call for it. I prefer to let my position define itself, except so far as it comes in for remark incidently.

I write in haste; but I wanted to tell you my good news; and I wanted also to thank you — as I do most gratefully — for your kindness in keeping me so well advised as to matters at Columbus; and I wanted finally to answer your query in relation to Mr. Giddings probable course — in the event of the nomination of Judge Myers by the Demc. Convention & the adoption by it of adequate antislavery resolutions. I wrote to Hutchins on this very subject in part a few days since. I cannot say with certainty what Mr. G 's course would be. But certain is it, that he is farther from the Whigs than ever, and that he looks to the Democracy to carry out, ultimately, antislavery measures. From what he has said to me I believe that in the contingency named he would support Judge Myers.

I agree with you in thinking that if the Old Line nominates a Hunker it will be best for us that they pass no antislavery resolutions at all. It will best, also, for the progressives who should, in that event, act little with us — as we would, in the event, of the nomination of a progressive and the adoption of these progressive ideas, act with them. I could myself, however support Medill cordially, if the Convention would make a right platform & Medill would take decided position upon it. But should Medill be nominated and the non-intervention doctrine sanctioned we must nominate ourselves & nominate a democrat — Swift or some such man — and make an insurrection in the democratic party, by putting the contest distinctly on the issue, Shall democratic ideas, or proslavery policy prevail? We shall then see how large a portion of the democratic party prefer democracy to hunkerism.

I have no time to write more at present. I will write tomorrow or next day from Washington.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 193-5

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, December 21, 1849

Washington, Dec^r. 21, 1849

My Dear Hamlin, As to unfaithfulness, I deny the charge. This is my third letter to you, and it is in answer to your third just received.

It is quite true that I don't give you a quid pro quo, for your letters are very interesting, and give me an insight into things in Ohio, which I greatly desire to have, whereas mine to you are very barren; and this present one must be most barren of all.

M^rs Chase, since coming here, has become quite ill, and her symptoms, pulmonary, are quite alarming. I have concluded to take her to the Hydropathic Establishment near Phila. and shall start tomorrow. 1 write, therefore, tonight; and must write briefly. Next week I hope to be back and settled.

Mr. Giddings has written to Mr. Randall advising him to vote for Swift and to aid in repealing the Hamilton County division clauses as soon as possible. He seems to have a clear idea of the necessity of this action. You suggest that Randall may be elected if he will agree to recognize Randall [Johnson?]. Giddings says Randall will vote for admission of Johnson as prima facie entitled, but wants a pledge that he will not vote in his own case. To require such a pledge is absurd. Mr. Johnson has rights — Mr. Randall is bound to recognize them. He has no more right to ask pledges of Johnson, than Johnson has to ask pledges of him. I do hope to hear soon of the settlement of this affair. Randall is bound by every consideration to yield to Swift — not Swift to Randall, this year.

I regret to see what you say of the hesitation of the Old Line Democracy to take decided anti slavery ground. But if they wish to lag behind the people they must take the consequences. Defeat will follow the adoption of the stationary policy as surely as day follows night. If the Democracy wishes to succeed let them act boldly — declare openly for freedom — adopt the first of the two slavery resolutions of '47 & instead of the second adopt one declaring the want of power in Congress to legislate for emancipation in the states, but its possession of power to exclude slavery in the Territories and to repeal all Acts of Congress by which slavery is sustained in this District & elsewhere & its duty to exercise that power promptly & efficiently. If they will do this & nominate any man of fair character who will heartily espouse the platform, they can triumph.

I trust you will refer to the resolutions of '47, & put them into shape, and use all your influence to bring the democracy right.

The Old Line Caucus in the Senate had much discussion about me. All the northern democrats, I believe, except Dickinson & possibly one or two more were for placing me at the head of one of the prominent committees, and some of the southern men concurred. The majority, however, decided the other way, and my name was, therefore, as you see, omitted from the list of committees.

I have no time to write more. Goodnight & may God bless you — Write often.

Dimmock, Myers or Carter — either it seems to me wd make an excellent Candidate for Governor.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 192-3

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, December 14, 1849

Washington, Dec. 14,, 1849.

My Dear Sumner: I thank you for your argument in defense of equality before the law¹ for the colored people of Boston, in respect to public instruction. It is something more than reason — it is reason inspired by the sentiment of humanity. I take it for granted that it will be published in pamphlet form. When so published I hope you will send me a number of copies. It will give me real pleasure in aiding its circulation.

The papers show you the course of things here. Giddings, who is himself a living pillar, says there is less doublefacery here than at any former session. But the amount visible is disgusting. But for the presence of the Spartan Boss of Free Democrats, I have no doubt the South would have completely triumphed.

Yesterday was a day of great excitement. Discussion, speeches, and arrays of clippings, as in a theatre, was the programme of the Slaveholders, and for a time it frightened many Northern men. Judge Allen's speech reassured some of them. His illustration of the slaveholding demonstration by comparison with the arrangement of poor Goldsmith's friend to give eclat to the production of its first play was exceedingly well timed. And how admirably he exposed Winthrop. The political committees, he showed from W’s own admissions and statements were constituted for action— the Committees on the District, the Territories, and the Judiciary were constituted for inaction.

It is impossible now to foresee how all will end. But we hope the best. Certainly great advantages have been gained, and the Free Soilers have made by every point so far.

Most Cordially yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ This phrase so familiar to-day seems to have been introduced into English by Sumner. It represents the French “Egalite devant la loi.” “Equality before the law” is not denned nor is any example of its use cited in the New English Dictionary edited by J. A. H. Murray and others. Cf. Pierce's Sumner, Vol. III, p. 40.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 188-9

Salmon P. Chase to Joshua R. Giddings,* April 4, 1849

April 4, [1849.]

My Dear Sir, I have just received your kind note of the 3rd March inviting me, in default of being able to obtain lodgings on my arrival at Washington, to share yours. It was left for me at Coleman's I suppose, & I never saw it until to day. I wish I had arrived in season to avail myself of it.

I have recd. since my return on Saturday last (31st ult) yr. 2 letters of the 14th & 28th March. I wish I could agree with you in the sentiment, “let by gones be by gones”: & in view of it I do. Let us arrange a satisfactory basis of future action & I will cordially respond to the sentiment But is it not manifest what has past must be reviewed, in some measure, in order to determine on this basis? It is clear to me that the question growing out of the division of this County ought to have been settled this winter by the repeal of the clauses effecting the division. In my judgment also the apportionment law, (so called,) should have been modified by the disjunction of counties improperly joined; & I held junction improper, if not unconstitutional, in all cases, where the counties, if separated, would be respectively entitled to a member. I am very sure that had the Representatives of the Free Democracy in the Senate and House last winter been willing to have done justice in these particulars to the old Democracy, not only might all division in our own ranks have been avoided, but the democrats, propitiated by this action, would have cheerfully aided the Free Soilers not only in the repeal of the Black laws, but in the enactment of suitable laws against kidnapping & prohibiting the use of state jails & the aid of State officers to the pursuers of fugitive slaves, & generally in carrying through our distinctive Free Soil Measures.

These consequences would have flowed naturally & inevitably from the state of feeling which always springs up among men, who find themselves in the relative positions occupied by the Free Democrats and the Cass Democrats & act justly & liberally towards each other.

A different line of conduct was resolved on, & the results of the winter session are far less complete, in my judgment, than they would otherwise have been: & we are now embarrassed by the question What shall be done with the division of Hamilton County? I do not see how we can keep this question out of the elections next fall: nor, in my judgment, is it now desirable to do so. I quite agree with you that “standing as we must in opposition to the administration necessity will compel the democrats & free soilers to act together on all matters touching the administration”: & I would add to this that there being a substantial agreement between the platform of State policy adopted by the Free Democratic State Convention last winter, & that of the old Democracy, it seems to me, that the same general harmony of action may be easily secured as to State matters. If such harmony can be secured without the sacrifice of principle, & without the sacrifice of the independent organization of the Free Democracy, the result cannot fail to be auspicious to the cause of Freedom & to its maintainers. Such harmony, resulting in a triumph of the Democrats & Free Democrats in the State election, would strengthen, infinitely, your position in the House & my position in the Senate, & give complete ascendency to our principles & measures in the Senate. The harmonious cooperation cannot be had, I apprehend, without a definition of its position by the Free Democracy on the Hamilton County question:¹ &, therefore I say that it does not seem to me desirable to avoid it. In fact I should have brought the question forward in our State convention had I felt assured that the clauses would be repealed before the end of the session & therefore yielded to the suggestions of several, & waived the introduction either into the Committee or into the Convention of a resolution which I had prepared.

But if it were desirable to keep this question out of the canvass could we do it? It must be decided by the next house & the next senate. The Democrats will elect, in this county representatives for the whole county on a single ticket. The Free Democracy will vote in the same way in all probability. The Whigs will vote by Districts. The democrats will have a majority in the first eight wards of Cincinnati, which they claim to be a district. The two sets of representatives will again present themselves at Columbus claiming seats. The free soilers, in all probability, will again have the question to decide between the claimants. How can we avoid the enquiry, How will the Candidates proposed by the Free Democratic Conventions vote on the question? If we should avoid it & elect men ignorant of their views on this question, does not the experience of last winter clearly shew that its decisions will divide the Free Soilers? I think then, that the Hamilton County question must be met & settled in our primary conventions.

My views in relation to it are fixed. I thought last winter & still think that the division clauses are not warranted by the constitution but that these clauses having been regarded as binding by a large proportion though a decided minority of the voters, the election held, partly under them & partly in disregard of them, should be set aside, the clauses repealed, & the election sent back to the people. I did not, however, regard it as the absolute duty of the Legislature to set aside the election in every event. On the contrary the Democratic Claimants to be entitled, stricti juris, to their seats. & therefore when it became impossible to send the election back to the people with the clauses repealed, through the refusal of Whig Freesoilers to vote for the repeal of them, I did not hesitate to approve the determination of Mess. Morse & Townshend to admit them to their seats, as constitutionally elected. I think, of course, that the candidates of whatever party they may be, having the highest number of votes cast in the whole county, next fall, will be entitled to seats in the House. So fixed is this opinion in the minds of the Democrats, that I do not doubt  that they will refuse to sit in a House from which the members from Hamilton County shall be excluded.

It seems to me, therefore, that the question of the Constitutionality & validity of the divisions — clauses, as well as the validity of the pretended enactment of the apportionment law should be fairly discussed in our conventions. I believe the result of such a discussion will be general acquiescence in the opinions, which I, in common with nearly all Liberty men, & Democratic Freesoilers & not a few Whig Free Soilers, confidently hold. If such be the result, it seems to me certain that we can achieve a most important victory next fall.

I have thus given you my views freely, I shall be glad to know they strike you. I learn that Briggs has repeated the charge of one of the Taylor Papers, here, that before the meeting of the Legislature I expressed an opinion in favor of the Constitutional of the division, & changed it afterwards to effect my purpose. This is simply false: & I should think Mr. Briggs must have known it to be so: & I am mistaken greatly if I did not express the opinion I now hold, in one or more letters to Cleveland before the meeting of the Legislature not so fully perhaps as I should now, for I had not so fully considered the subjects involved but substantially the same.

As to all personal attacks, however, I shall content myself with a simple appeal to the whole tenor of my past life & leave my vindication to Time & Public Reason. 1 enclose a statement of the popular vote on the question of annexation the southern part of Mill Creek to the city a bill for which purpose was so strenuously resisted by the Whigs in the Legislature last winter & was defeated by a tie vote in  the Senate. Hunker Whiggism musters in Whig Cincinnati only 1092 votes. The Democrats & Free Soilers united with the Whig annexationists & elected also an annexation council carrying every ward but one.

With very great regard,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 133 and 174-175.

¹ See T. C. Smith Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 161.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 166-70

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, Columbus, Ohio, February 27, 1849

Cincinnati, Feb. 27, 1849.

My Dear Hamlin; I recd. your letter on Saturday and meant to answer it that day but was prevented.

I do not fear the war. I hope however for the sake of the cause and for their own sakes, that the Whig Freesoilers will avoid it. Least of all should I wish to see Riddle engage in it. His is too generous a nature and too noble a mind to be made to do the work of Chaffee and such.

As to the paper, I have a despatch for Garrard asking, if he sells to Giddings for $700, if I will endorse 1/3, 30 days, 1/3 6 mos & 1/3 12 mos. It seems to me that it would be better to raise the money in the way you suggested — say $500 to be paid Garrard & $500 yourself & secured to me 500 on office & 500 on the Books. But I am willing to do what is asked, provided the same security be given for the 700 as was proposed for the 500 to Stanley Matthews in my behalf. I don't wish to have my name connected with any security on the paper for obvious reasons.

I will write to Matthews more fully but perhaps may not find time to write today. I shall have to make him my business substitute.

As to yourself I greatly desire that you should remain in Columbus; but I cannot stand sponsor for $1000 a year. If I became sponsor for it I must pay it myself, and that I am utterly unable to do in addition to the other claims I must necessarily meet. I am willing to be a liberal contributor to a fund for the object, but not to stand surety that the fund shall be made up. It seems to me that it would be quite safe for you to remain as Editor, taking the position of President of the Board of P. W., trusting to a fund & the paper; but if you should think otherwise, I would advise you to take the Superintendence of Schools, and let some other person take the Paper; though if, in your place, I should prefer to be at the head of the Paper and in the other office.

I am glad that the printing which Phillips contracted for is to be given to him. It would be a hardship, and a moral though probably not a legal wrong were it otherwise. If this whole printing business could now be compromised in the Senate & House & joint Houses it would be an excellent thing.

You must not hesitate about telling Mr. Braye plainly your terms. The Ferry Company can well afford to pay liberally, and if you act for them & the bill is defeated $500 is moderate — too moderate I think.

Write me at Washington.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 165-6

Salmon P. Chase to Thomas Stanley Matthews,* February 26, 1849

Feby 26 ['49.]

My D^r Stanley, I wish to ask y^r intervention for me in the affairs of the Standard. I had a despatch from Mr. Garrard to day enquiring whether in case he should sell to Mr Giddings, at 30 days, 6 mos, — 12 mos. for $700 I would endorse the notes; I ans^d. by a letter to Hamlin, that I would, provided a mortgage of the establishment would be executed to you in my behalf to indemnify me against loss. The fact is I have already advanced to the Standard directly, this winter, $310 besides $10 for subscriptions & $75 to enable Mr. Hamlin to remain in Columbus, as editor &c in which you may understand more than ever Lord Coke discerned in the &cs of Littleton. These and other expenses that you wot of and the necessity I am under to meet a third of a $700 liability for Mr. Hamlin within the next month make so heavy drafts upon my resources that I have become alarmed & dare not venture much farther. Still I am so satisfied of the necessity of sustaining the Standard that I am willing to encounter the risk involved in the endorsements named, provided I can be made in any degree secure: At the same time I do not wish to take any mortgage on the establishment directly to myself, because I do not wish my name connected with the paper at all, which could not be avoided in case of a mortgage to myself, as the mortgage, under the law must be recorded to be of any validity. I want you to represent me in this matter and act as you would for yourself and regard it simply as a business transaction, except I am not particular that the establishment shall be a perfectly sufficient security for the seven hundred dollars. I shall be content to run the risk of losing a hundred or two dollars, beyond the amount of the security.

Mr. Hamlin writes me that some $500 can be realized from the printing for the House. I shall be glad, if out of this $500 the first instalment of the $700 can be paid while the balance can be applied to the support of the paper until subscriptions can be collected and a fund made up. Still if nothing better can be done, I will consent to take on myself the burden of providing for the first instalment, though circumstanced as I am. I don't want this burden put upon me unless it be absolutely necessary.

Will you attend to all this matter for me? — Considering yourself fully authorized to act in the premises.

Don't go into the matter at all unless there is a reasonably certain prospect of the paper going ahead and paying its way. It would be useless folly for me to endorse for the purchase of the paper, if it must die at any rate, or be thrown on me for support, exclusively, or nearly so.

As the subscriptions for the Daily were proportioned to 3 mos in time, I do not see that there is any obligation to supply subscribers beyond that time, and, as it will not be practicable to keep up the Daily through the year, I think the present is a good time for stopping it. A clear full and racy sketch of the proceedings of the Legislature, made up from the Statesman and the Journal, would be more interesting to the majority of readers than the ordinary reports. In this way a first rate weekly could be made & expenses could be greatly reduced. If Mr Giddings would take hold of the paper in real earnest and go into the field to get subscribers it seems to me that the paper could be sustained.

I think I have made my views intelligible to you. I want you to act cautiously for me, remembering my position & circumstances & bearing in mind all I have said, I enclose a power which, if necessary, you can use.

I shall be very anxious to hear from you as to the state of things in the Legislature. I hope you will use your influence to have a caucus organized consisting of Swift, Van Doren Townshend & Morse and others, if any, who are willing to join them on the basis proposed by Dr. T., and have frequent meetings for consultation. Be sure, also, to get the kidnapping bill which I handed to Smith of Brown put through both Houses. A Homestead Exemption Bill, a Bill prohibiting use of State Jails &c & services of State Officers to pursuers of Slavery, and a bill to prevent kidnapping are necessary free soil measures which Townshend & Morse should not fail to obtain the passage of. They should also press the New Constitution Bill to a vote, and use their efforts to get a fair apportionment Bill. By the way, it seems to me quite important that Riddle should be induced to consent to such amendments of his Hamilton County Bill, as he can be brought to by persuasion, & that the bill should then pass in that shape. It is quite certain to my mind that if a new apportionment bill cannot be had the repeal of the division of Hamilton County should be secured without much regard to form or pleas: and it is also certain that if a new apportionment bill cannot be got through the Senate, no bill to which Riddle does not consent can be got through that body even in relation to Hamilton County. Hence the necessity of concert & consultation with Riddle & pressing nothing through the House to which he does not consent. See Pugh as to this & others, & let discretion guide. Write me at Washington & let me know from day to day how matters stand. I will telegraph you when I am about to start.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 170-171

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 162-5

Joshua Reed Giddings to Oran Follett, June 2, 1845

Jefferson June 2, 1845

My Dear Sir

In the course of last winter I became acquainted with Mr Hamlin of Elyria who I believe is also personally known to yourself. From his letters to the Cleveland Herald and some other writings of his I formed a very favorable opinion of his talents as a writer, and often spoke with him upon the subject of being employed as an Editor. I again saw him last week and again suggested the same thing to him, and he informed me that he was not now employed in any other business than that of his profession and that he would have no particular objections to editing a paper. Can you inform me where there is a suitable opening for him? If you do [sic] will you please inform me when convenient?

Very respectfully

J R Giddings

O Follett Esq

SOURCE: Quarterly Publication of the Ohio Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, 1915-1917, Volumes X-XII, Selections from the Follett Papers, III, p. 23-4

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 27, 1849

Cincinnati, January 27, l849.

My Dear Hamlin; As I write, entirely uncertain whether you will receive this or not, I shall be very brief.

I am glad you approve my letter to Giddings. I am far from sure that it is worthy approval. I more than half suspect that I did a very foolish thing when I wrote it. However the truth can hardly do much harm and I certainly have not the slightest feeling of antagonism towards Mr. Giddings, and never shall permit myself to have so long as he remains faithful to the cause of Free Democracy. I think, also, as I said to him that he being in Congress, and I not, that the interests of the cause require my election or that of some reliable man not in Congress, rather than his. I may be wrong in this — misled, perhaps, by the “Ambition” so freely ascribed to me. If so let Giddings be chosen. I shall not complain. I cannot help thinking, however, that the election of one who has been longer convinced of the necessity and is more thoroughly identified with the policy of a distinct & permanent Free Democratic organization, will do the cause and the friends of the cause more good.

I do hope you will not find it necessary to leave Columbus until after the elections. Your presence there will be doubtless important.

You must not decline drawing on me from any motives of false delicacy. Through the blessing of Providence and the confidence of the community I have a good business; and I am willing to give to the extent of my means and beyond my means even, to advance the cause, and I want no one to feel trammelled in his action for the cause, by any sense of obligation to me. “The cause first, and friends afterwards,” is a sentiment I am perfectly willing to have applied to me by my friends.

I have written Stanley Matthews in regard to the Clinton member. Get him to read to you what I have written about him, and see he gets the right seat.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 160-1

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 24, 1849

Cincinnati, January 24, 1849

My Dear Hamlin: You know I mentioned to you at Columbus that I thought of writing a frank letter to Giddings on the subject of the State of things at Columbus and the Senatorial election. I have done so at last, and now enclose to you a copy of the letter. I do not know whether or not you will deem it expedient to make any use of it. I leave this altogether to your discretion. Perhaps it would be good policy to shew it to Randall & Riddle & possibly to others: but you know best, and can do as you please.

I learn from Washington that Giddings wrote to Randall in respect to me some two weeks ago, expressing his conviction that I am a sincere & earnest friend of the Free Soil Cause! and saying that, if he cannot be elected, he wishes that I may be; and that he has also written, more recently, to Morse, to the same effect.

I had a letter today from Clinton, from Mr. Hibbin, a member of the Free Soil Committee of that County, stating that Jones “ejected” from the House had come home “in agony” lest he might be “rejected by the People,” “and fortified with a letter from Beaver, Chaffee & others” certifying to the genuineness of his Freesoilism! & recommending him to the support of the Free Soilers! What do you think of that? I do wish these gentlemen would just reflect what they would say of Townshend & Morse if they should give to Trimble, Jones' opponent and just as good a Freesoiler as Jones himself, such a letter. Mr. Hibbin writes me that an effort is made to have the democrats support the regular freesoil Candidate, and that some conferences have been had between Committees of the old & the free democracy on the subject. He fears, however, that no union can be had. Vaughan will go up to Clinton tomorrow and see what he can do. We all feel the great importance of having a reliable freesoiler returned from Clinton and, if the democrats, to whom the prevention of Whig ascendency is as important as it is to us, would only help cordially, the thing could be done. Perhaps they will but I fear they will not.

Yesterday I understood from Columbus, by your letter and from other sources, that Pugh & Peirce would be certainly admitted, and the black laws repealed by Democratic votes; today I learn from Brough that some of the Democrats have bolted from their engagement to vote for the repeal, and that the admission of Pugh & Peirce is again in doubt. How is this?

You know I have agreed with you that the most expedient course is to repeal the clauses dividing Hamilton County, both on the ground of unconstitutionality & inexpediency, and then, inasmuch as all parties regarded these provisions to a certain extent in the election, to declare the seats vacant & send the election back to the people. Men, convinced of the unconstitutionality and injustice of the law — to say nothing of the fraud and usurpation of power by which it was passed — might vote to declare the seats vacant, on the ground that the election was held under it's unconstitutional provisions: but, of course, men so convinced could never vote to admit Spencer & Runyon. If we look at the strict right of the case, however, it will be difficult to escape the conclusion, if we believe the division clauses unconstitutional as I certainly do, that Pugh & Peirce must be admitted without sending the election back. If the law were repealed the general expediency of the case and its influence as a precedent might be considered; but, if it be not repealed, such considerations should, I think, have no weight. For if the law be not repealed & the election be sent back, the Governor will doubtless order an election in the first district. All the Hamilton County members might thereupon vacate their seats, and probably, under the circumstances, would feel it to be their duty to do so. But suppose they should not. The Democrats would again run a ticket to be voted for throughout the county. The Freesoilers might do the same. The Whigs would run candidates only in the first eight wards of Cincinnati. The clerk would again give the certificates to the Democratic members. They would again come up with their prima facie evidence, and the whole business would have to be gone over again. In the meantime a Whig may be elected from Clinton; and in that case, supposing no other seats disturbed, there would be thirty-five Whigs & Freesoilers, (counting Kiddle, against my will & conscience, among the last,) to thirty five Democrats, Democratic Freesoilers & Independents. It is obvious, therefore, that unless some change of views shall have taken place by that time in the minds of members, both sets of claimants will be again rejected. And thus great expense & much ill blood will be occasioned for just nothing at all. These considerations seem to me conclusive against sending the election back to the people unless the law be first repealed. If the law be not repealed, I see no way out of the difficulty except by the admission of Pugh & Peirce.

And it is quite manifest that it will not do, to delay action on the case, until after the Clinton election; for in case Jones should be returned from that County, there would probably be enough Whigs, & Free Soilers who consider themselves virtually committed on this question, to defeat any proposition for their admission by a tie vote: wherefore a proposition for the admission of Spencer & Runyon would be defeated also, and the consequences of an attempt at a special election would be such as I described. I should be very glad to see Morse's bill, including the provision for the repeal of the Black Laws pass — and pass by democratic votes. I hope to see it. It should if possible be pushed through in advance of a vote on the admission of Pugh & Peirce.

But should an aggreement to vote for it be made an indispensible condition for voting for the constitution and right in the case of Pugh & Peirce? It seems to me it should not. I would say, Get as many votes pledged to that great measure of Justice & Humanity — the repeal of the Black Laws, — as possible. But I should dislike to make my vote on one question of right, contingent absolutely upon other men's votes on another question of right. The Democrats should undoubtedly vote for Morse's bill. Sound policy as well as Democratic Principles require it of them. I would be satisfied, however, if enough of them, including Pugh & Peirce, would vote for it, to ensure its passage with the aid of Whig & Freesoil votes. In fact, I am inclined to think that the admission of Pugh & Peirce to their seats, and the vindication, thereby of a great principle of constitutional right, would so dispose the Democrats to good will towards the Free Soilers, that they would give votes enough for the bill to insure its passage, whether pledged to do so or not. Col Brough tells me that as soon as he can get a printed copy of the bill he will publish it, and come out in support of it: and he thinks, if he can do it, anybody else may.

But why should I trouble you with these considerations, all of which have doubtless occurred to your own mind, when, being on the spot, you can so much better judge of their weight than I can?

I have just recd. your letter of yesterday and find as I suspected that my suggestions were unnecessary. Consider this as an answer and you in my debt. I will attend to what you say as to the Col^d. woman. A President of the Board of P. W. must be elected by the Legislature this winter although future Election by the People may be provided for. You should have that. If not, unless something better can be done you might take the Judgeship — but this would lay you up, which I should not like; and Bolton must be consulted.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 156-60

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 20, 1849

Cincinnati, Jan’y 20, 1849

My Dear Hamlin; I wrote you fully by this morning's mail, and had sent my letter to the Post Office before I received your note of yesterday. I am very glad to hear of the prospect of the passage of Morse's Colored Children's School Bill, including the repeal of the Black Laws. The Repeal of those laws is an object dearer to me than any political elevation whatever; and is worth more to us as a Party than the election of any man to any office in the gift of the Legislature. It removes out of our path the greatest obstacle to our complete triumph, while it is in itself a great victory of humanity and justice. I shall rejoice in the passage of the bill on another account. The credit of it will redound to our friend Morse.

What has become of the Bill to prevent Kidnapping which I drew, and which you promised to hand to Riddle? I hope it is not lost. With a little improvement it might be made a complete safeguard, not only against the action of our officers & the use of our jails for the recapture of fugitive slaves, but also against the kidnapping by force or fraud of free persons. I shall be glad to see it on its way through the two Houses.

As to the School bill I hope its friends will not consent to any amendment of any kind, unless merely verbal, but push it right through just as it is.

I do not know that I can say anything more than I have said in relation to the Standard. I have done and said all I could for it, and shall continue my efforts. I have no doubt all the money needed can be raised in the Spring. Vaughan told me he would write to Townshend tonight on the subject of the Printing. I hope Riddle will read the letter.

I received today a letter from Dr. Bailey in which he speaks of an interview with Giddings, in which the Senatorial Election in Ohio was the subject of Conversation. I will extract a few sentences which shew that Mr. Giddings entertains none but the kindest feelings towards me — no other indeed than those which I have so often expressed to you in relation to him.

“I have seen” says the Doctor “and talked freely with Giddings. He is moderately ambitious —would like to be United States Senator. If there is a good chance of his election, if the Free Soil men will unite upon him, he wishes to run. If they cannot or will not unite upon him, he says you & you alone, by all means are the man. I told him he ought to write to one of his Free Soil friends in the Legislature just as he talked to me, frankly, fully, and request the letter to be shown to you, so that his position and views might be clearly known”

The Doctor adds a good deal as to the advantage of having me in the Senate, Giddings being already in the House, which I will not offend against modesty by transcribing. I fear, however, that the Doctor agrees with me in opinion that if Giddings were out of Congress as well as myself, he & not I should be placed in the Senate. He desires my election on the theory that Giddings cannot be spared from the House, and that getting me in the Senate, Giddings being already in the House, would be clear gain. I have quoted the extract to show you that Giddings does not entertain the wish, which some have imputed to him, to defeat an election if he cannot be himself elected.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 153-4

Salmon P. Chase to Eli Nichols,* Walhonding, Coshocton County, Ohio, July 11, 1848

Cin^ti. Nov^r. 9 [1848.]

My Dear Sir, I recd. yrs of the 6th to day, & as I shall be obliged to leave the city to attend the Circuit Court at Columbus on M’day next & shall be much engaged in the meantime I an^r it at once. In regard to State Policy, which the Free Democracy should adopt, I think it of great importance that it should be, in the first place, truly Democratic and, in the second, well considered & generally approved by our friends. Neither your views nor mine may be fully met, — yet if the general principles of the policy adopted be sound, I do not doubt that we shall both be satisfied, approximation to particular opinions is all that can be expected in the details of a general plan. I agree that the advantages of a paper currency, securely based upon & promptly convertible into specie, are such that there is no reasonable probability that its use will be dispensed with. The great problem then is to make it safe and deliver it from the monopolizing control of corporations & favored individuals. I am wedded to no particular plan. Let us have the most efficient. The most prominent objection likely to be made to yrs., is that it makes the Government of the State a Banker. I have been accustomed, myself, greatly to distrust Government Banking: but I have neither time nor place to state my reasons now. When we meet at Columbus we will talk the matter over. I am much obliged to Governor Shannon for his kind opinion of me, & cordially reciprocate his good will. I think, however, the times require, — and such I am assured is the opinion of the friends of our movement in our own & other states, — in the Senate of the United States, from Ohio, a man, who thoroughly understands & will steadfastly maintain the whole platform of the Free Democracy. I do not know but Governor Shannon is such a man. If so, I shall witness his elevation to any station which the Legislature or the People may confer upon him, with unfeigned pleasure. For myself, I have no aspirations for the office of Supreme Judge. I have devoted eight of the best years of my life to one great object — the overthrow of the Slave power and slavery by Constitutional Action: and I desire no position in which I cannot efficiently promote this leading purpose. On the bench I could do little for it:— not so much, I think, as I can in my present position.

Nor do I desire to be considered as a candidate for any other place. Some of our friends have been pleased to think I can be of use to our cause in the Senate: and men of other parties have said that, in the contingency that their strength in the Legislature shall prove insufficient to elect a candidate of their own, they will be satisfied with my election to that body. I am not weak enough to found any serious expectations or aspirations upon these views and expressions. I look upon the election of myself or any other Free Soiler as a contingent possibility — nothing more.

I trust that the Representatives of the Free Democracy in the General assembly, will act when they meet at Columbus, with the patriotic wisdom & independent firmness which the crisis will require. Upon all the questions which they will be called upon to decide, as virtual arbiters, between the other parties, I hope they will manifest strict impartiality, and decide then, without bias, as their own conscientious convictions demand. In selecting their own candidates, for whatever public stations, they should inquire not “Whence is he ?” — nor “With what party, did he act?” but “Will he, if elected, promote most efficiently the interests of our cause?” and “For whom can the suffrages of our fellow members be most certainly obtained?” It would be affectation in me to say, that I should not be highly gratified if the choice of the Free Soil members in the Legislature should fall on me, and that choice should be approved by a majority of their fellow members:— for I do believe that I understand the history, principles & practical workings of the Free Soil movement as thoroughly as most men, & nobody, I presume, will question my fidelity to it. If, however, that choice made on those principles should fall on another than myself — upon Giddings, Root, Swan, Hitchcock, Brinkerhoff, or any other of those true-hearted & able men who have so nobly sustained our cause during the recent struggle — no man will be more prompt than I to concur cordially in it or more desirous than I to see it confirmed by the Legislature. What I wish to have understood is this, — I do not seek any office:— much less do I claim any. I do not even desire any, however elevated or honorable, in which, while discharging faithfully its general duties, I cannot efficiently promote the cause of Free Democracy:— but should our friends have the power & feel the disposition to place me in a position, in which, while so discharging its duties, I can so serve our cause, the reproach of “sinister motives” —the cheap missile of malignant detraction — would have as little influence in deterring me from accepting it, as similar attacks have had on my past action against slavery. No man, I trust, is more sensitive to just blame than I:— few I am sure are more indifferent to censure felt to be undeserved.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 160. Eli Nichols was a worker for Chase in the Ohio Senatorial election, which resulted, after a contest of nearly three months, in Chase's election, Feb. 22, 1849. See Hart's Chase, 103-112, and T. C. Smith's History of the Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 160-175.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 139-41

Salmon P. Chase to Joshua R. Giddings,* October 20, 1846

Oct. 20, 1846.

my Dear Sir My engagements have been such since I received your last letter with the resolutions that I have had no time to write or think as I could wish, — I saw by a letter from Mr. Atkins published in the Cleveland American that you read my letter to you at a meeting in Hartford and I have thought it a duty to those with whom I have acted for several years past to write to that paper stating my true position so as to prevent the dissemination among liberty men of misapprehensions under which Mr. Atkins labored and which it was natural enough he should receive from the letter unconnected with the whole correspondence.—I have faild. in expressing myself with as much clearness as I wish^d, if I have convey^d, the idea to yr. mind that I am prepar^d. to accede to any political union, wch. is not based upon the substantial principles & measures of the Liberty men. What I am willing to give up is names, separate organizations, what I am not willing to give up is Principle & Consistent action both with reference to men & measures in accordance with principle. — I have no objectⁿ, to the reading of my letter — no complaint to make on that score — for I do not wish to conceal any sentiments w^h. it contain^d, but I fear that it was not sufficiently explicit in its terms to be free from the risk of misapprehension, when read separate from the correspondence of w^h. it was a part. In relation to your resolutions I will say that in my judgm^t. they are good, so far as they go; but they do not go far enough if intended as a basis of a political organization separate from existing parties. If intended merely as resolutions to guide the action of those who adopt them in their existing political relations, they are certainly a great way in advance of any positions heretofore takⁿ by bodies of men in the old parties & it is very desirable to augment the number of adherents to them in those parties. I would except only to one of them, viz. the resolution relating to new states, & to this only so far as its phraseology is concern^d. It seems by implication to deny the right of Congress to admit new states if foreign at the time into the union. I have no doubt that this may be done constitutionally, perhaps not by joint resolution but certainly by the concurrent action of the treaty making & legislative powers of the government. My objection to the introduction of such states is founded entirely in other considerations than defect of power, indeed so far as any such introduction has yet taken place exclusively on the consideration of slavery. I enclose you a liberty creed w^h. was drawn up by me & has been widely circulated & everywhere endorsed by the Liberty presses. May I ask of you to consider the several articles of it attentively & give me your assent or dissent to them, severally with a brief statement of the reasons of your dissent why you do dissent — Let me state to you briefly my idea of the grounds w^h. in my judgm^t. sh^d. determine the course of an honest man in political action in reference to the subject of slavery. If I were a whig in the whig party & believed that by the action of that party the extinction of slavery & the overthrow of the slave power could be most speedily achieved I would act with & in that party supporting however for office only anti slavery men. If I were a Democrat in the democrtic party, & entertained the same belief as to that party as above stated in regard to the whig party I would act with & in the democratic party supporting however for office only anti slavery men.

If I were persuaded (as I am) that there is now no reasonable prospect that either the whig or democratic party constituted as both are of slaveholders & nonslaveholders & as national parties admitting no anti slavery article into their creed & much less any avowed anti slavery measures into their action can at present be relied on for cordial, inflexible, & uncompromising hostilities to slavery & the slave power, I could (& of course do) abstain from cooperation with either of those parties & act with & in the only party with w^h. I agree as to principle & action in relation to the paramount, political question before the country.—What is y^r. objection to this. — Recurring to your resolutions let me ask if you do not perceive a great practical difficulty growing out of the terms “satisfactory evidence” &c? You on the Reserve, Whigs, Liberty men, & democrats thought there was satisfactory evidence that Mr. Bebb was hostile to whole the black code.¹ The Cleveland American gave him full credit for such hostility & yet in Mercer Co. where of all places on earth Mr. Bebb should have been outspoken in denunciation of the cruel outrages on the blacks & of the laws which lead to such outrages we find him most materially changing his ground, stating as a ground for the repeal of the testimony clause the expectation of a slaveholder that he could then get at abolitionists who aided the escape of fugitive slaves by means of their testimony when recaptured, & actually proposing a law to prevent colonization of colored people in Ohio, & to that end, suggesting a law to prevent them from holding real estate! He reiterated these views at Dayton with additions. Would these speeches have been satisfactory evidence on the reserve of opposition to the Black laws?

Could he have been elected had he avowed these sentiments on the Reserve or in such time that authentic reports could have reached the Reserve? The effect of such a course as this upon the confidence of Liberty men &. others in Anti-Slavery men acting with the whigs, however honestly cannot fail to be appreciated by you.

_______________

* From letter book 6, pp. 42. Extracts from this letter were printed by Schuckers, p. 100.

¹ For an account of the Ohio black laws and the struggle for their repeal, see The Negro in Ohio, 1802-1872, by C. J. Hickok, A. M. Published by Western Reserve University, Cleveland, 1896.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 108-11