Congressman Horace Mann, April 6 1850

APRIL 6, 1850.

Public affairs are looking worse here,―more dangerous for the cause of liberty than ever. The defection of Mr. Webster is dreadful! The Whigs and Free-soilers in Massachusetts are so hostile to each other, that, though the great body of them think alike on the most important subjects, they cannot act together. They fly from each other with hard words, instead of laboring together for the cause of the country.

Since Mr. Webster's speech, the tide of things is changed. The South have taken courage, and are pressing their schemes with renewed energy. Their old skill can hardly be improved.

Being the last bid for the Presidency, this speech of Mr. Webster's was the heaviest; but the other aspirants for the same object do not wish to be outdone or outbid, and so they are taking a strong Southern ground. I fear the cause will be lost. God grant that I may be mistaken!

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 299

Governor John A. Andrew to Caleb Cushing, April 27, 1861

April 27, 1861.

Hon. Caleb Cushing.

Sir, — Under the responsibilities of this hour, — remitted both as a man and a magistrate to the solemn judgment of conscience and honor, — I must remember only that great cause of constitutional liberty and of civilization itself referred to the dread arbitrament of arms. And I am bound to say that although our personal relations have always been agreeable to myself, and notwithstanding your many great qualities fitting you for usefulness; yet your relation to public affairs, your frequently avowed opinions touching the ideas and sentiments of Massachusetts; your intimacy of social, political and sympathetic intercourse with the leading secessionists of the Rebel States, maintained for years, and never (unless at this moment) discontinued, — forbid my finding you any place in the council or the camp. I am compelled sadly to declare that, were I to accept your offer, I should dishearten numerous good and loyal men, and tend to demoralize our military service. How gladly I would have made another reply to your note of the 25th inst., which I had the honor to receive yesterday, I need not declare, nor attempt to express the painful reluctance with which this is written.

Faithfully your obedient servant,

John A. Andrew, Governor.

SOURCE: Henry Greenleaf Pearson, The Life of John A. Andrew: Governor of Massachusetts, 1861-1865, Volume 1, p. 197-8

Gerrit Smith to Stephen C. Phillips, October 13, 1846

Peterboro, October 23,1846.

Hon. Stephen C. Phillips, of Salem, Mass.:

Dear Sir — This day's mail brings me the speech which you delivered at the meeting recently assembled at Faneuil Hall to consider the outrage of kidnapping a man in the streets of Boston.

I am not insensible to the ability, eloquence, beauty, of this speech: — and yet it fails of pleasing me. The meeting, after I saw its proceedings, was no longer an object of my pleasant contemplations. Indeed, Massachusetts herself has ceased to be such an object. There was a time, when, among all commonwealths, she was my beau ideal. Her wisdom, integrity, bravery — in short, her whole history, from her bud in the Mayflower to the blossoms and fruits with which a ripe civilization has adorned and enriched her — made her the object of my warm and unmeasured admiration. But, a change has come over her. Alas, how great and sad a one! She has sunk her ancient worth and glory in her base devotion to Mammon and Party.

When, in the year 1835, one of her sons — that son to whom she, not to say this whole nation, owes more than to any other person, was, for his honest, just, and fearless assaults on slavery, driven by infuriate thousands through the streets of her metropolis with a halter round his neck, Massachusetts looked on, applauding. So far was she from disclaiming the mob that she boasted, that her “gentlemen of property and standing” composed it. Indeed, one of her first acts after the mob, was to choose for her governor the man who promptly rewarded her for this choice by his official recommendation to treat abolitionists as criminals.

Massachusetts was not, however, lost to shame. It was not in vain that the finger of scorn was pointed at her for this mob and for other demonstrations of her pro-slavery. For very decency's sake, she began to adjust her dress, and put on better appearances. Indeed, anti-slavery sentiment became the order of the day with her: and, from her chief statesman down to her lowest demagogue, all tried their skill in uttering big words against slavery. But, the hollowest sentiment and the merest prating constituted the whole warp and woof of this pretended and unsubstantial opposition to slavery. Massachusetts still remained the slave of Party and Mammon. She would still vote for slaveholders, rather than break up the national parties to which she was wedded. She would still make every concession to the slave power to induce it to spare her manufactures.

A fine occasion was afforded Massachusetts, a few years ago, to talk her anti-slavery words, and display her anti-slavery sentiment, and right well did she improve it. I refer to the casting of the fugitive slave George Latimer into one of her jails. Instantly did she show anti-slavery colors. She was anti-slavery all over, and to the very core also, as a stranger to her ways would have thought. But beneath all her manifestations of generous regard for the oppressed, she continued to be none the less bound up in avarice— none the less servile to the South. The first opportunity she had to do so, she again voted for slaveholders.

Then came the project to annex Texas. The slaveholders demanded more territory to soak with the sweat and tears and blood of the poor African. This was another occasion for Massachusetts to make another anti-slavery bluster. She made it: — and then voted for Clay — for the very man who had done unspeakably more than any other man to extend and perpetuate the dominion of American slavery. As a specimen of her heartlessness, in this instance of her anti-slavery parade, her present Whig Governor, who was among the foremost and loudest to condemn this scheme of annexation, is now calling, in the name of patriotism, on his fellow-citizens to consummate it by murdering the unoffending Mexicans.

Next came the expulsion of her commissioners from Charleston and New Orleans. Again she blustered for a moment. She denounced slavery and the South. She boasted of herself, as if she still were what she had been; as if “modern degeneracy had not reached” her. But, the sequel proved her hypocrisy and baseness. After a little time, she quietly pocketed the insult, and was as ready as ever to vote for slaveholders.

I will refer to but one more of the many opportunities which Massachusetts has had to prove herself worthy of her former history. It is that which called out your present speech. This was emphatically an opportunity for Massachusetts to show herself to be an anti-slavery State. But she had not a heart to improve it. Her own citizens in the very streets of her own gloried-in city, had chased down a man, and bound him, and plunged him into the pit of perpetual slavery. The voice of such a deed, sufficient to rend her rocks, and move her mountains, could not startle the dead soul of her people. They are the fast bound slaves of Mammon and Party. True, a very great meeting was gathered in Faneuil Hall. Eloquent speeches were made; and a committee of vigilance was appointed. But nothing was done to redeem herself from her degeneracy: nothing to recall to her loathsome carcass the great and glorious spirit which had departed from it; nothing was done for the slave. When the year 1848 shall come round, Massachusetts, if still impenitent, will be as ready to vote for the slaveholders whom the South shall then bid her vote for, as she was to do so in 1844.

Your great meeting was a farce; — and will you pardon me, if I cite your own speech to prove it? That speech, which denounces your fellow-citizen for stealing one man, was delivered by a gentleman, who (risum teneatis?) contends, that a person who steals hundreds of men is fit to be President of the United States! It is ludicrous, beyond all parallel, that he, who would crown with the highest honors the very prince of kidnappers, should, with a grave face, hold up to the public abhorrence the poor man, who has only just begun to try his hand at kidnapping. Then, your contemptuous bearing towards Captain Hannum and his employers! — how affected! If you shall not be utterly insensible to the claims of consistency, who, when you shall have Henry Clay to dine with you, will you allow to be better entitled than this same Captain Hannum and his employers to seats at your table? Cease, my dear sir, from your outrages on consistency. You glory in Mr. Clay. How can you then despise and reproach those who, with however much of the awkwardness of beginners, are, nevertheless, doing their best to step forward in the tracks of their “illustrious predecessor?”

It would be very absurd — would it not? — for you to denounce the stealing of a single sheep, at the same time that you are counting as worthy of all honor the man who steals a whole flock of sheep. But, I put it to your candor, whether it would be a whit more absurd than is your deep loathing and unutterable contempt of Captain Hannum and his employers for a crime, which, though incessantly repeated and infinitely aggravated in the case of Mr. Clay, does not disqualify him, in your esteem, to be the chief ruler of this nation— to be, what the civil ruler is required to be — “the minister of God.”

You intimate, that the State Prison is the proper place for Captain Hannum and his employers. And do you not think it the proper place for Henry Clay also? Out upon partiality, if, because he is your candidate for the presidency, you would not have this old and practical man-thief punished, as well as those who are but in their first lessons of his horrid piracy!

To be serious, Mr. Phillips — you are not the man to have to do with Captain Hannum and his employers, unless it is to set them an example of repentance. It becomes you not to look down upon them —but to take your seat by their side, and to bow your head as low as shame and sorrow should bow theirs. No—if Captain Hannum and his employers should steal a man every remaining day of their lives, they could not do as much to sanction and perpetuate the crime of man-stealing, as the honored and influential Stephen C. Phillips has done by laboring to elect to the highest civil office the very man stealer, who has contributed far more than any other living person to make man-stealing reputable, and to widen the theatre of its horrors.

Alas, what a pity to lose such an occasion for good as was afforded by this instance of kidnapping. That was the occasion for you and other distinguished voters for slaveholders to employ the power of your own repentance in bringing other pro-slavery voters to repentance. That was the occasion for your eyes to stream with contrite sorrow, and your lips to exclaim: “We have sinned: — we have sinned against God and the slave: — we have not sought to have Civil Government look after the poor, and weak, and oppressed, and crushed: — but we have perverted and degraded it from this high, and holy, and heaven-intended use, to the low purposes of money-making and to the furtherance of the selfish schemes of ambition: we have not chosen for rulers men who, in their civil office, as Josiah in his, “judged the cause of the poor and needy'—men who, in their civil office, could say, as did Job in his, ‘I was a father to the poor’ — ‘I brake the jaws of the wicked and plucked the spoil out of his teeth’ — but we have chosen our Clays and our Polks — pirates, who rob, and buy and sell, the poor — monsters, who, with their sharks' teeth devour the poor.” Deny, doubt, evade it, as you will — you may, nevertheless, my dear sir, depend upon it, that it is for your repentance and the repentance of all the voters for slaveholders, that God calls. He calls, also, for the repentance of the American ministry, that so wickedly and basely refuses to preach Bible politics, and to insist on the true and heaven-impressed character of Civil Government. Depend upon it, my dear sir, that your disease and theirs is one which can be cured by no medicine short of the medicine of repentance. I am not unaware that this is a most offensive and humbling medicine — especially to persons in the higher walks of life; — nevertheless, you and they must take it or remain uncured. No clamor against Captain Hannum and his employers — no attempt to make scape-goats of them — will avail to cure you.

Alas, what a pity that a mere farce should have taken the place of the great and solemn measure which was due from your meeting! Had your meeting felt, that the time for trifling on the subject of slavery is gone by; and had it passed, honestly and heartily, the Resolution: “No voting for slaveholders, nor for those who are in political fellowship with slaveholders,” it would have had the honor of giving the death-blow to American slavery. This resolution, passed by such a meeting, would have electrified the whole nation. Within all its limits every true heart would have responded to it, and every false one been filled with shame.

When the glorious Missionary, William Knibb, had seen the slaveholders tear down and burn a large share of the chapels in Jamaica, he set sail for Great Britain. Scarcely had he landed, ere he began the cry, “Slavery is incompatible with Christianity.” He went over his native land, uttering this cry. A mighty cry it was. The walls of British slavery felt its power as certainly as did the walls of Jericho the shout by which it was prostrated.

The power of the cry: “No voting for slaveholders, nor for those who are in political fellowship with slaveholders,” would, were it to proceed from the right lips, be as effective against the walls of American slavery, as was the cry of William Knibb against the walls of British slavery. You, and Charles Sumner, (I know and love him,) and Charles Francis Adams, and John G. Palfrey, are the men to utter this cry. Go, without delay, over the whole length and breadth of your State, pouring these talismanic words into the ears of the thousands and tens of thousands who shall flock to hear you; and Massachusetts will, even at the approaching election, reject all her pro-slavery candidates. Such is the power of truth, when proceeding from honored and welcome lips!

Be in earnest, ye Phillipses and Sumners and Adamses and Palfreys — be entirely in earnest, in your endeavors to overthrow slavery. You desire its overthrow, and are doing something to promote it. But you lack the deep and indispensable earnestness; and, therefore, do you shrink from employing the bold and revolutionary means which the case demands. No inferior means however, will accomplish the object. As well set your babies to catch Leviathans with pin-hooks, as attempt to overthrow American slavery by means which fall below the stern and steadfast purpose: “Not to vote for slaveholders, nor for those who are in political fellowship with slaveholders.” But, only press the hearts of your fellow-men with this, the solemn and immovable purpose of your own hearts—and fallen Massachusetts rises again — and American slavery dies—and your names are written in everduring letters among the names of the saviors of your country.

Very respectfully yours,

Gerrit Smith.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 196-200

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

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

Proclamation of Governor John A. Andrew, Sunday, May 25, 1862 – 11 p.m.

Men of Massachusetts! — The wily and barbarous horde of traitors to the people, to the Government, to our country, and to liberty, menace again the national capital. They have attacked and routed Maj.-Gen. Banks, are advancing on Harper's Ferry, and are marching on Washington. The President calls on Massachusetts to rise once more for its rescue and defence.

The whole active militia will be summoned by a general order, issued from the office of the Adjutant-General, to report on Boston Common to-morrow; they will march to relieve and avenge their brethren and friends, and to oppose with fierce zeal and courageous patriotism the progress of the foe.

May God encourage their hearts and strengthen their arms, and may lie inspire the Government and all the people!

Given at Headquarters, Boston, 11 o'clock, this (Sunday) evening, May 25, 1862.

JOHN A. ANDREW.

SOURCE: Appletons’ Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1862, Volume 2, p. 108

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, September 8, 1850

Washington, Sept. 8, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: Clouds and darkness are upon us at present. The slaveholders have succeeded beyond their wildest hopes twelve months ago. True some have demanded even more than they have obtained; but their extreme demand was necessary to secure the immense concession which has been made to them. Without it Executive Influence and Bribery would, perhaps availed nothing.

Well what now! I say with blind Milton, glorious child of Freedom, though blind,

“‘Bate no jot

Of heart or hope but still bear up and steer

Right onward.”

Rouse up in Massachusetts and quit you like men. God's providence has devolved political duties and responsibilities upon you, my friend, from which you must not shrink. Would that it might be so ordered that you could be placed in the Senate! It is your place and you ought to be in it. If the democrats would place you there, they might have the Governor and welcome — doubly welcome.

You talk of the humiliation of a small vote. The humiliation was not for you, but for those who preferred barbarism to Freedom. I had like experience once, being a candidate, under like circumstances in Cincinnati; with the difference that I was as far behind both candidates of the Hunkers as you were behind the foe — and farther — but I did not feel humbled at all.

I see Mr. Sewall is nominated in the Salem District. I am sorry that Pierpont declined. I hardly know a man whom I would go farther to support, and I should think him just the man to call out the enthusiasm of the people. I hope Sewall will be sustained by the strongest possible vote. “No more doubtful men”, should be added to our war-cry of “No more Slave States and no Slave Territory”.

Let me know how things go on in Massachusetts.

Yours ever,

[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. 219-20

Senator Charles Sumner to Governor John A. Andrew, January 28, 1861

Senate Chamber, January 28, 1861.

My Dear Andrew, — I did not unite with the delegation yesterday in recommending commissioners, and I think they signed without much reflection, certainly without any general conference.

My disposition in any matter not involving principle is to keep the delegation a Unit, and I certainly would not stand in the way now. Two things have been pressed, both entitled to consideration: first, in the absence of commissioners duly appointed, certain “Union-savers” from Massachusetts, accidentally here, will work into the Convention, and undertake to represent Massachusetts; and, secondly, it is important that Massachusetts should not be kept insulated. Both you can judge, and I shall defer to your judgment.

Preston King concurred with me as to the true policy of our States; but he did not think it worth while to interfere positively by writing to the Governor of New York.

Should you conclude to move, let two things be guarded: first, the principles, by having it known that Massachusetts has taken no step towards any acceptance of the resolutions which are made the implied basis of the proposed Convention; and, secondly, the men, by designating only the firmest, in whom there is no possibility of concession or compromise, like —, —, —, —, —, —; but you know the men better than I do.

Last evening the Attorney-General was with me for a long time, till after midnight. I know from him what I cannot communicate. Suffice it to say, he does not think it probable — hardly possible — that we shall be here on the 4th of March. The President has been wrong again, and a scene has taken place which will be historic, but which I know in sacred confidence. General Scott is very anxious. It is feared that the department will be seized and occupied as forts. What then can be done by the General, surgeons, and flying artillery?

Ever yours,

Charles Sumner.

SOURCE: Charles Sumner; His Complete Works, Volume 7, p. 193-4

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, June 22, 1850

Northampton, June 22, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: I came here on Thursday evening, having left the Federal City the evening before at 5 P. M. I thought of notifying you of my coming but fearing my expectation might be disappointed and having the slenderest possible hope that you could meet here if I did, I omitted it.

This is a beautiful place and the Round Hill establishment is a delightful retreat for invalids. Mrs. Chase's health, however, I am grieved to say is not improved. She has been worse since she came than she was when she left Washington, though she is now mending again.

I was glad to hear from C. F. Adams that you intend having in Boston an earnest, efficient and well-established Democratic paper. I do hope you will. The cause of freedom in Massachusetts suffers greatly from the want of it, and the heart of the cause in this State is felt over the whole country. It seems to me that with a paper of the right stamp in Boston not only might Palfrey's re-election be secured but such a revolution wrought as would secure the election of the right sort of a Senator in place of Webster. How glad I should be to greet you as a Senator of Massachusetts!

I wish someone of your poets would give us a ballad of the Omnibus.¹ John Gilpin would serve as a model in part. Clay might be coachman, whip in hand — Webster on the box with him — Cass, footman or doortender; Bright, Whitcomb, Foote, Downs etc. etc. the team of twenty-four horses; — the passengers, California, New Mexico, Texas, Deseret. Could not a very effective piece be got up, on this idea by Hosea Bigelow, and well illustrated. Would it not have a run? I incline to wish so.

After the most careful scrutiny those of us who are opposed to the Omnibus Bill believe that it will be defeated by a majority of four votes at least. But those who favor it seem equally sanguine that it will pass by the same majority. Who is right will not be seen for several weeks, I fear — as the discussion moves on slowly.

I return to Washington on Monday, and hope to be in my seat on Tuesday morning.

Faithfully your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

Did you notice the strange blunder in Webster's Maine letter in regard to the geography of New Mexico? He says New Mexico extends from the mouth of the Rio Grande to El Paso and northwards etc. There is not a foot of New Mexico below the Paso; but there is an extensive district, 70,000 square miles as stated by Col. Preston now occupied by Mexicans, where no Texan ever was until this last winter. Strangely enough not one of Mr. Webster's authorities for desolation and barrenness cover this vast district at all. Maj. Gaines and the rest only traversed the State of Tamaulipas from the Nueces to the Rio Grande. How strangely Webster shifts and wavers and into what remarkable blunders he perpetually falls!

_______________

¹ The "Omnibus" Bill, the name popularly given to Clay's proposed measures of Compromise in 1850.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 213-4

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

Philadelphia, Sep. 19, 1849.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affectionately and faithfully yours,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

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

_______________

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

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

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Speech on Affairs in Kansas, at the Kansas Relief Meeting in Cambridge Massachusetts, Wednesday Evening, September 10, 1856

I regret, with all this company, the absence of Mr. Whitman of Kansas, whose narrative was to constitute the interest of this meeting. Mr. Whitman is not here; but knowing, as we all do, why he is not, what duties kept him at home, he is more than present. His vacant chair speaks for him. For quite other reasons, I had been wiser to have stayed at home, unskilled as I am to address a political meeting, but it is impossible for the most recluse to extricate himself from the questions of the times.

There is this peculiarity about the case of Kansas, that all the right is on one side. We hear the screams of hunted wives and children answered by the howl of the butchers. The testimony of the telegraphs from St. Louis and the border confirm the worst details. The printed letters of the border ruffians avow the facts. When pressed to look at the cause of the mischief in the Kansas laws, the President falters and declines the discussion; but his supporters in the Senate, Mr. Cass, Mr. Geyer, Mr. Hunter, speak out, and declare the intolerable atrocity of the code. It is a maxim that all party spirit produces the incapacity to receive natural impressions from facts; and our recent political history has abundantly borne out the maxim. But these details that have come from Kansas are so horrible, that the hostile press have but one word in reply, namely, that it is all exaggeration, It is an Abolition lie. Do the Committee of Investigation say that the outrages have been overstated? Does their dismal catalogue of private tragedies show it? Do the private letters? Is it an exaggeration, that Mr. Hopps of Somerville, Mr. Hoyt of Deerfield, Mr. Jennison of Groton, Mr. Phillips of Berkshire, have been murdered? That Mr. Robinson of Fitchburg has been imprisoned? Rev. Mr. Nute of Springfield seized, and up to this time we have no tidings of his fate?

In these calamities under which they suffer, and the worse which threaten them, the people of Kansas ask for bread, clothes, arms and men, to save them alive, and enable them to stand against these enemies of the human race. They have a right to be helped, for they have helped themselves.

This aid must be sent, and this is not to be doled out as an ordinary charity; but bestowed up to the magnitude of the want, and, as has been elsewhere said, “on the scale of a national action.” I think we are to give largely, lavishly, to these men. And we must prepare to do it. We must learn to do with less, live in a smaller tenement, sell our apple-trees, our acres, our pleasant houses. I know people who are making haste to reduce their expenses and pay their debts, not with a view to new accumulations, but in preparation to save and earn for the benefit of the Kansas emigrants.

We must have aid from individuals, — we must also have aid from the State. I know that the last Legislature refused that aid. I know that lawyers hesitate on technical grounds, and wonder what method of relief the Legislature will apply. But I submit that, in a case like this, where citizens of Massachusetts, legal voters here, have emigrated to national territory under the sanction of every law, and are then set on by highwaymen, driven from their new homes, pillaged, and numbers of them killed and scalped, and the whole world knows that this is no accidental brawl, but a systematic war to the knife, and in defiance of all laws and liberties, I submit that the Governor and Legislature should neither slumber nor sleep till they have found out how to send effectual aid and comfort to these poor farmers, or else should resign their seats to those who can. But first let them hang the halls of the State House with black crape, and order funeral service to be said there for the citizens whom they were unable to defend.

We stick at the technical difficulties. I think there never was a people so choked and stultified by forms. We adore the forms of law, instead of making them vehicles of wisdom and justice. I like the primary assembly. I own I have little esteem for governments. I esteem them only good in the moment when they are established. I set the private man first. He only who is able to stand alone is qualified to be a citizen. Next to the private man, I value the primary assembly, met to watch the government and to correct it. That is the theory of the American State, that it exists to execute the will of the citizens, is always responsible to them, and is always to be changed when it does not. First, the private citizen, then the primary assembly, and the government last.

In this country for the last few years the government has been the chief obstruction to the common weal. Who doubts that Kansas would have been very well settled, if the United States had let it alone? The government armed and led the ruffians against the poor farmers. I do not know any story so gloomy as the politics of this country for the last twenty years, centralizing ever more manifestly round one spring, and that a vast crime, and ever more plainly, until it is notorious that all promotion, power and policy are dictated from one source, — illustrating the fatal effects of a false position to demoralize legislation and put the best people always at a disadvantage; — one crime always present, always to be varnished over, to find fine names for; and we free-statesmen, as accomplices to the guilt, ever in the power of the grand offender.

Language has lost its meaning in the universal cant. Representative Government is really misrepresentative; Union is a conspiracy against the Northern States which the Northern States are to have the privilege of paying for; the adding of Cuba and Central America to the slave marts is enlarging the area of Freedom. Manifest Destiny, Democracy, Freedom, fine names for an ugly thing. They call it otto of rose and lavender, — I call it bilge water. They call it Chivalry and Freedom; I call it the stealing all the earnings of a poor man and the earnings of his little girl and boy, and the earnings of all that shall come from him, his children's children forever.

But this is Union, and this is Democracy; and our poor people, led by the nose by these fine words, dance and sing, ring bells and fire cannon, with every new link of the chain which is forged for their limbs by the plotters in the Capitol.

What are the results of law and union? There is no Union. Can any citizen of Massachusetts travel in honor through Kentucky and Alabama and speak his mind? Or can any citizen of the Southern country who happens to think kidnapping a bad thing, say so? Let Mr. Underwood of Virginia answer. Is it to be supposed that there are no men in Carolina who dissent from the popular sentiment now reigning there? It must happen, in the variety of human opinions, that there are dissenters. They are silent as the grave. Are there no women in that country, — women, who always carry the conscience of a people? Yet we have not heard one discordant whisper.

In the free States, we give a snivelling support to slavery. The judges give cowardly interpretations to the law, in direct opposition to the known foundation of all law, that every immoral statute is void. And here of Kansas, the President says: “Let the complainants go to the courts;” though he knows that when the poor plundered farmer comes to the court, he finds the ringleader who has robbed him, dismounting from his own horse, and unbuckling his knife to sit as his judge.

The President told the Kansas Committee that the whole difficulty grew from “the factions spirit of the Kansas people, respecting institutions which they need not have concerned themselves about.” A very remarkable speech from a Democratic President to his fellow citizens, that they are not to concern themselves with institutions which they alone are to create and determine. The President is a lawyer, and should know the statutes of the land. But I borrow the language of an eminent man, used long since, with far less occasion: “If that be law, let the ploughshare be run under the foundations of the Capitol;” — and if that be Government, extirpation is the only cure.

I am glad to see that the terror at disunion and anarchy is disappearing. Massachusetts, in its heroic day, had no government — was an anarchy. Every man stood on his own feet, was his own governor; and there was no breach of peace from Cape Cod to Mount Hoosac. California, a few years ago, by the testimony of all people at that time in the country, had the best government that ever existed. Pans of gold lay drying outside of every man’s tent, in perfect security. The land was measured into little strips of a few feet wide, all side by side. A bit of ground that your hand could cover was worth one or two hundred dollars, on the edge of your strip; and there was no dispute. Every man throughout the country was armed with knife and revolver, and it was known that instant justice would be administered to each offence, and perfect peace reigned. For the Saxon man, when he is well awake, is not a pirate but a citizen, all made of hooks and eyes, and links himself naturally to his brothers, as bees hook themselves to one another and to their queen in a loyal swarm.

But the hour is coming when the strongest will not be strong enough. A harder task will the new revolution of the nineteenth century be, than was the revolution of the eighteenth century. I think the American Revolution bought its glory cheap. If the problem was new, it was simple. If there were few people, they were united, and the enemy 3,000 miles off. But now, vast property, gigantic interests, family connections, webs of party, cover the land with a network that immensely multiplies the dangers of war.

Fellow Citizens, in these times full of the fate of the Republic, I think the towns should hold town meetings, and resolve themselves into Committees of Safety, go into permanent sessions, adjourning from week to week, from month to month. I wish we could send the Sergeant-at-arms to stop every American who is about to leave the country. Send home every one who is abroad, lest they should find no country to return to. Come home and stay at home, while there is a country to save. When it is lost it will be time enough then for any who are luckless enough to remain alive to gather up their clothes and depart to some land where freedom exists.

SOURCE: The Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Volume 11: Miscellanies, p. 241-7; Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 500

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, April 30, 1863

To-day has been designated for a National Fast. I listened to a patriotic Christian discourse from my pastor, Mr. Pyne.

Had a long, studied, complaining letter from Admiral Du Pont, of some twenty pages, in explanation and refutation of a letter in the Baltimore American, which criticizes and censures his conduct at Charleston. The dispatch is no credit to Du Pont, who could be better employed. He is evidently thinking much more of Du Pont than of the service or the country. I fear he can be no longer useful in his present command, and am mortified and vexed that I did not earlier detect his vanity and weakness. They have lost us the opportunity to take Charleston, which a man of more daring energy and who had not a distinguished name to nurse and take care of would have improved. All Du Pont's letters since the 8th show that he had no heart, no confidence, no zeal in his work; that he went into the fight with a predetermined conviction it would not be a success. He is prejudiced against the monitor class of vessels, and would attribute his failure to them, but it is evident he has no taste for rough, close fighting.

Senator Sumner called on me this P.M. in relation to the coast defense of Massachusetts. I received a letter from Governor Andrew this A.M. on the same subject. The President had also been to see me in regard to it.

After disposing of that question, Sumner related an interesting conversation which he had last evening with Lord Lyons at Tassara's, the Spanish Minister. I was an hour or two at Tassara's party, in the early part of the evening, and observed S. and Lord L. in earnest conversation. Sumner says their whole talk was on the subject of the mails on captured vessels. He opened the subject by regretting that in the peculiar condition of our affairs, Lord Lyons should have made a demand that could not be yielded without national dishonor; said that the question was one of judicature rather than diplomacy. Lord Lyons disavowed ever having made a demand; said he was cautious and careful in all his transactions with Mr. Seward, that he made it a point to reduce all matters with Seward of a public nature to writing, that he had done so in regard to the mail of the Peterhoff, and studiously avoided any demand. He authorized Sumner, who is Chairman of Foreign Relations, to see all his letters in relation to the mails, etc., etc.

To-day Sumner saw the President and repeated to him this conversation, Lord Lyons having authorized him to do so. The President, he says, seemed astounded, and after some general conversation on the subject, said in his emphatic way, “I shall have to cut this knot.”

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 288-9

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

John L. Motley to Mary Lothrop Motley, December 1862

Vienna, December, 1862.

My Dearest Little Mary: Your last letter was very pleasant to us — I have so high a respect for General Wadsworth. I hardly know a man in the whole country by whose course I have been so electrified as I was by his. Nothing can be nobler or more heroic than his career ever since the breaking out of the war. Certainly these are times that prove the mettle men are made of, and not only does his character, but his intellect, shine forth most brightly since the great events in which he has been taking part have revealed what was in him. The few speeches which he made in the late canvass seemed to me of the highest order of eloquence.

It is some good fruit at least of these unhappy times that we learn to know our contemporaries. In piping times of peace I should not have thought of James Wadsworth other than the agreeable man of the world, the liberal man of fortune, the thriving landlord, and now he turns out a hero and a statesman.

We were inexpressibly shocked and grieved to hear of the death of sweet, dear, and beautiful Mrs. d'Hauteville. How much of loveliness and grace and gentle, intelligent, virtuous womanhood is buried in that grave! What a loss to her family who adored her, to so many friends who admired her and loved her, to her son far away on the field of danger! Certainly we live in tragic days. You may live to see tranquil and happy ones, but it is not probable that we of this generation will do so. The great slave revolution will, I think, take almost the span of one generation to accomplish itself thoroughly. This partial pro-slavery reaction in the North has, I fear, protracted the contest. I say partial, because on taking a wide view of the field I find really that the antislavery party has made enormous progress this year. The States of Pennsylvania and Ohio were almost evenly balanced on a general election taken immediately after the President's Emancipation Proclamation. Massachusetts gave 20,000 majority to the antislavery party; and although the city of New York was pro-slavery, as it always has been, yet the State, the really American part of the four millions of the inhabitants, voted by a great majority for Wadsworth. Then, the result of the Missouri election outweighs all the pro-slavery triumphs in any other State. If I had been told five years ago that that great slave State would, in the year 1862, elect five emancipationists out of the nine members of Congress, and that emancipation would have a strong majority in each house of the Missouri Legislature, I could not have believed in such a vision. . . . This is one of the revolutions that does not go backward. “Die Welt ist rund und muss sich drehen.” I suppose the din about McClellan's removal goes on around you. I take little interest in the matter. It is in vain to try to make a hero of him. But there is so much that is noble and generous and magnanimous in his nature, so much dignity and forbearance, and he is really so good a soldier, that it seems a pity he could not have been a great man and a great commander.

We are humdrumming on as usual. Yesterday we dined at our colleague's, the Dutch minister, Baron Heeckeren. This is our only festivity for the present. I am glad the Hoopers have been so kind as to invite you to Washington again. It is a great privilege for you, and I am very grateful to them. Always remember me most kindly when you see them. I owe Mr. Hooper a letter, which I shall immediately answer.

Ever your most affectionate

Papagei.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 301-3

Diary of John Hay: April 20, 1861

Colonel Washington called this morning but could not see the President.

It would seem like a happy chance to have a General Washington living and fighting among us at this time.

The streets were full of the talk of Baltimore. It seems to be generally thought that a mere handful of men has raised this storm that now threatens the loyalty of a State.

I went up with Nicolay, Pangborn and Whitley to see the Massachusetts troops quartered in the Capitol. The scene was very novel. The contrast was very painful between the grey-haired dignity that filled the Senate Chamber when I saw it last, and the present throng of bright-looking Yankee boys, the most of them bearing the signs of New England rusticity in voice and manner, scattered over the desks, chairs and galleries, some loafing, many writing letters slowly and with plough-hardened hands, or with rapid-glancing clerkly fingers, while Grow stood patient by the desk and franked for everybody. The Hall of Representatives is as yet empty. Lying on a sofa and looking upward, the magnificence of the barracks made me envy the soldiers who should be quartered there. The wide-spreading sky-lights overarching the vast hall like heaven, blushed and blazed with gold and the heraldic devices of the married States, while, all around it, the eye was rested by the massive simple splendor of the stalagmitic bronze reliefs. The spirit of our institutions seemed visibly present to inspire and nerve the acolyte, sleeping in her temple beside his unfleshed sword . . . .

The town is full to-night of feverish rumors about a meditated assault upon the town, and one, which seems to me more probable, on Fort McHenry. The garrison there, is weak and inadequate, and in spite of the acknowledged bravery of Robinson and Hazard, it must fall if attacked.

Ellsworth telegraphs that his regiment has been raised, accepted, and that he wants them sent to Fort Hamilton for preliminary drill. Cameron authorised the answer that the commander there should have orders to that effect. Much is hoped from the gallant Colonel's Bloodtubs. They would be worth their weight in Virginia currency in Fort McHenry to-night.

The Massachusetts men drilled to-night on the Avenue. They afford a happy contrast to the unlicked patriotism that has poured ragged and unarmed out of Pennsylvania. They step together well, and look as if they meant business.

Jim Lane wrote a note to the President to-day, offering to bring any assignable number of northern fighting men over the border at the shortest possible notice. Gen. Scott seems to think that four or five thousand men will be a sufficient garrison to hold this town against any force that may be brought out from Maryland or Virginia woods.

SOURCES: Clara B. Hay, Letters of John Hay and Extracts from Diary, Volume 1, p. 13; Tyler Dennett, Editor, Lincoln and the Civil War in the Diaries and Letters of John Hay, Da Cappo Press, 1988 (Paperback), p. 4-6

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, 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

Mark W. Delahay to Abraham Lincoln, May 13, 1860

Tremont House,

Gage, Bro. & Drake, Proprietors

Chicago, 10 P M May 13^th 1860

Hon A Lincoln

My Dear Sir

Since your Springfield friends have been fairly located matters have been looking up. I have taken to their quarters a number of the Iowa Delegates, some of the Minnesota and all the Kansas. I have taken “Cottenwood” into my Room, he is sound. Ross & Proctor of Kansas I think can be managed their prefference is Chase. But even with the Seward Delegates you are their 2nd Choice – Greely is here as a Proxie for Origon, and is telling a Crowd now around him that NY can be carried for Bates I think he is Calculated rather to injure Seward – Some of the N. J. men talk very well as I just learned from Col Ross – and so do some of the Mass men – they say they are for a success – I have induced the Penna Delegates to stop talking about their man as an ultum attim. They have mooted one thing, that would Kill them off and I have admonished them to abandon it, which was to call Ills Ind Penna & N. J. Delegates together to harmonize between you & Cameron, such a move would appear like a “Slate” and Seward is too potent here to attempt such a meeting, his friends would probably Slate us, if it were done – I have been up late & Early and am perfectly cool & hopeful –

Delahay

SOURCE: Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

William Schouler* to James S. Pike, April 25, 1850

House Of Representatives,

Boston, April 25, 1850.

My Dear Pike: You don't know how glad I was to receive your letter of the 20th inst. The spirit of the letter was in unison with my own feelings and with the feelings of all good Whigs in this quarter. The ways of Congress to some are “past finding out,” but they are now being discovered. I know that I do not overstate the fact when I tell you that our good old President is daily increasing in popular favor and regard, and Clay and Webster are decreasing in a like ratio.

We are determined here to stand by the administration, and no longer pay court to Hunkerdom anyhow. I have taken an unequivocal position, and I shall sink or swim with it. I find, however, that very little nerve is required to sustain this ground, for the people here are all of one accord. Even those who signed the letter to Mr. Webster, and were recalled by a certain speech to a “true sense of their constitutional duties,” do not find fault with me, with one or two exceptions, and they are the “born thralls of Cedric,” the Wambas and Gurths, for whom I care nothing, and who have little or no influence upon the popular mind because they are known, known even without the brass collar.

The Whig party in our State stand firm as a rock, and I have no doubt that we shall draw in a large part of the Freesoil party to the support of the administration. I don't know what we shall do in the Fourth District. The election takes place on the 29th of May. I think, however, that whoever the Whig Convention nominates will be elected. The Whig candidate, you know, has declined. He may be renominated again. His letter of declension was first-rate, and has added to his popularity, and may cause him to be put on the track again. It is possible that Hon. Samuel Hoar will receive the nomination; if so, he will certainly be elected, as the Freesoil men and Whigs can both elect him. I have known him for twenty years, and there is no better Whig living. He was opposed to General Taylor, but he has been satisfied with the old man, and he told me this forenoon that every thing which the administration had done since it came into power met with his hearty concurrence. He has had a seat alongside of me in the House for nearly four months, and I know of no better Whig anywhere. Still it is doubtful whether he will be nominated, or, if nominated, that he would accept to run against Palfrey. Nous verrons.

Your letters to the Courier are just the fodder, and I read them with great delight; they will do good.

I really hope that you will write me often. I like your letters hugely. Give my respects to the “honorable Truman,” and all other good and true Taylor men.

Yours truly,

Wm. Schoulbr.

_______________

* Editor of the Boston Atlas.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 42-3

Speech of Colonel William F. Bartlett, March 17, 1864

Mr. Chairman And Fellow Citizens, — I could wish that it had been your fortune to present this testimonial to one who would have done more justice to it in words more befitting the occasion and the gift. Had I your own command of language I could hardly do justice to it. If in the performance of my duties as a soldier I have met your approbation, I am truly grateful for it. The consciousness of duty performed is in itself a sufficient reward, but to this to-day is added the knowledge of the approval and applause of others, and the assurance that those at home appreciate our sacrifices, and that it is to keep a desolating war from their hearthstones that we take the field. You in this quiet Northern town know little of the misery of war, and the desolation that follows in the track of an army. If some fine day you should see an army file into your fields, and destroy your growing harvests, and dig a rifle pit in your garden, or cut down your choicest trees because they obstructed the view, you would see that the misery that the South is now suffering is but the just reward of her treachery and rebellion. His Excellency has just assured me of his confidence by placing under my command another Massachusetts regiment. The last one I had the honor to command was enlisted for only nine months, but served nearly twelve, and I believe during that term had its full share of danger, and I never knew of its disgracing the service or the State. Massachusetts soldiers never do. The regiment I now command will serve three years, and it is proposed to end the war in a much shorter time; but if we should be needed for three times three years, we have enlisted for the war. I see around me here the names of places which I cannot soon forget — places where I have known the saddest and the proudest moments of my life. I see the tattered flags of the brave old Twentieth, under which my earliest duties as a soldier were done on the field of battle. If the names of all the gallant men who have fought and fallen around you in your defense could be inscribed in characters of gold within your folds, it would be a fitting tribute of their devotion to the cause of which you are to us the hallowed symbol. You at home hope that this war will soon be over, and we hope so too, but we will have no peace but an honorable one. If we would have a lasting peace, we must realize that our honor, our safety, our very existence as a nation, depend upon our self-sacrifice and our valor. You must put forth every exertion, you must give every dollar, and if need be send every man, until we can win a victorious peace. I go to the field in a few weeks and shall carry this beautiful gift. I shall bring it back, if I come, bruised and disfigured perhaps, but with no stain of dishonor. For it, and for this flattering ovation, for the presence here of so many friends, and among them one whom the State and country loves and honors — for this day never to be forgotten by me, I thank you.

SOURCE: Francis Winthrop Palfrey, Memoir of William Francis Bartlett, p. 94-6