Salmon P. Chase to Judge Milton Sutliff,* May 1, 1861

Private.

Treasury Department,         

May 1, 1861.

My Dear Judge: I thank you for your letter. The response of the States to the appeal of the Government is, indeed, most gratifying. Maryland, you will see, is rapidly returning to her loyalty. Kentucky and Missouri, I hope, will not be far behind her. You may be very sure there will be no negotiation with the Disunionists, though the return of the States which have been precipitated into disunion to their loyalty will be hailed, of course, with pleasure. The most energetic measures our means allow will be taken, and I think all impartial men will in the end be satisfied with the course of the Administration.

I thank you personally for your kind expressions towards me, and I hope you will never have occasion to withdraw your confidence.

My despatches to the Western Collectors, I see, have produced their intended effect, though they were not exactly what they ought to have been, in as much as no clearances are required on Western waters. Instructions will be forwarded immediately to all Collectors to prevent, by all proper means, shipments of arms, munitions, provisions and other commodities to States now in hostility to the Union.

_______________

* 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. 295-6

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Milton Sutliff,* January 16, 1851

Washington City, Jany. 16, 1851.

My Dear Sir, Mr. Hoadly, of Cincinnatti, has requested me to write you in relation to his election as Judge of the Superior Court, and it gives me real pleasure, — except so far as his election would deprive the office in which I am interested of his services — to comply with his request. He is a gentlemen, of very rare abilities, and in my judgment, peculiarly qualified to fill a judicial station with honor to himself and credit to his appointers. His energy and industry give assurances that the business of the Court, which is terribly in arrear, would be brought up and expedited to the great advantage of suitors and lawyers. These qualifications are first worthy of consideration, in some respects but not in all. I rank even before these a generous devotion to human liberty and a disposition to make law answer the ends of justice instead of the purposes of oppression. His views, I believe, of the Constitution and Law as bearing on the question of Human Rights are, I believe, the same as my own. What they are you know. It is something to be added to these considerations that Mr. Hoadly was one of that — it is not too much to say he was the leader — of that band of democrats, who forsook Cass when he forsook Democracy by writing the Nicholson letter, & stood with us on the Buffalo Platform. I hope, if your views of public duty permit it, that you will not, if it be possible to elect Hoadly, concur in the election of any other man, not as amply qualified, and especially not in the election of a Whig with the cooperation or under any arrangement with the friends of this administration.

Sumner is, I suppose, defeated at Boston. Websterism and Cassism coalesced against him, and every nerve was strained to defeat him by every appliance. The Hunkers have probably succeeded.

I enclose an article from the Toledo Republican, which seems to me to take right views of the course proper to be pursued in the Legislature by Free Democrats, if they cannot elect a man, [sic] out and out, of themselves. But I do not yet despair of such an election. Morse gave me a gleam of hope that you might yet be elected. I should be more than delighted to welcome you to a share of my toils. If it be impossible, however, to elect a radical free democrat, and the democrats should tender a man whose course of action has inspired his friends with the assurance that he is as good a freesoiler as I am a democrat it would be wisdom in my judgment, under present circumstances, to [sic] make arrangments with the old line for his election to the Senate & of an equitable proportion of Free Democrats to other offices. But I do not anticipate that the freesoilers can be satisfied in this way, for I do not suppose that men who refuse to vote for Medary could be brought to vote for any man who would be satisfactory to Freesoilers, even though taken from the old line ranks.

I do not myself anticipate any election. It has been said that the Whigs will elect Hitchcock. If they will, without any arrangment as to other offices, I take it for granted the Free Democrats would not refuse their votes to a man who has shewn his fidelity to our cause as he did during the campaign of '48, and has abided in the Free Democratic organization ever since. True his views are not radical like yours or mine; but that difference would not excuse such as you and I from his support, any more than it excused such as he is from my support in 1849. I would not imitate their bad example. But I would enter into no arrangement with the supporters of this Administration in relation to elections upon any terms. It would be, I verily believe, fatal to our organization and our progress. If they choose to vote for one of our men without consideration, except a preference for his character & capacity over opposing candidates, well & good. Our Natural allies are the old line democrats. If, under evil influences, they refuse the alliance, and you cannot elect independently, I say, for one, let the election go over and let us appeal to the people. I have no fears as to the result.

Nothing new here. The Hunker Leaders of the old Line are down hearted. It becomes daily more and more apparent that no one of them can unite the democratic party. One of them remarked to me the other day that the democratic party was broken up for ten years to come. I told I thought we should be able to unite on true principles in two or three years: but he didn't seem desirous of that.

Shew this to Pardee and give my best regards to him.

_______________

* 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. 230-2

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 15, 1851

Washington City, Jany 15, 1851.

My Dear Sir, Why have you not written me these many days? I believe you are my debtor, but I shall stand on no formality.

It seems to me that there never was more pressing need of vigilant and decided action on the part of the friends of freedom. I am exceedingly anxious for the adoption of Sutliff's resolutions or their equivalents. We need the voice of Ohio here. If I were a free democrat in the Legislature I would not take a step, in cooperation with either of the old parties until I had obtained a clear expression either by legislation or resolution on the great questions of freedom — I mean of course after organization.

It is well understood here that a combined effort has been made to defeat the resolution [reelection] of Fremont in California. It seems that in the election of members of the Legislature men of southern proslavery sympathies [were nominated]. This would, had Fremont drawn the long term, secure Gwin's reelection, if he should take sides as he seems to have done with the proslavery men, or of someone who would take such side in his place. Some anticipate that the California Legislature will sanction slavery or propose amendments of the Constitution with that view. Col. Benton thinks, however, they will hardly dare to venture on this. Fremont is to be defeated, however, if possible, on account of his opposition to slavery, and the probability is that his defeat will be achieved. This is not very encouraging from California, and does not look much like a settlement of the slavery question.

Col. Benton's election will probably be determined one way or the other before this reaches you. To enable you to judge, however, what influences are at work to defeat him I will barely mention that I accidentally heard today one slaveholding democrat expressing to another, who was supposed to have much influence with the Missouri members, a strong wish that they would vote for the Whig candidate, if sound on the slavery question. The gentleman addressed appeared to acquiesce in this view.

Gen Cass has never denied Foote's statement in New York that he would willingly see Clay elected if such should be the result of the action of the Compromise Committee, and never will. He now however, it is understood, takes ground against the Union organization. There has been an attempt to get up a meeting of members of Congress independent of old party lines to denounce the Free Democracy. But as yet it is a failure.

I received a letter from Santa Fe today from an intelligent man. It is dated Nov. 29th. The writer says great efforts are made to create a proslavery sentiment and that the question of slavery or freedom in New Mexico hangs suspended upon the action of this administration.

Slaves are held in the territory now, and more will be introduced, if the organization of the Territorial Government encourages the hope that the holders will be undisturbed.

Under these circumstances let no friend of freedom fold his arms or think his work done. Especially let our friends in the Legislature be firm, vigilant & wary.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 228-30

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

Resolutions of Milton Sutliff, Introduced in the Ohio Senate on December 11, 1850

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States established a General Government of limited powers, expressly reserving all powers, not thereby delegated, to the States and to the People.

Resolved, That among the powers delegated to the General Government by the Constitution, that of legislating upon the subject of fugitives from service is not to be found; while that of depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law is expressly denied.

Resolved That in the judgment of this General Assembly, the Act of Congress in relation to fugitives from service, approved Sept. 18th, 1850 is unconstitutional not merely for want of power to Congress to legislate on the subject, but because the provisions of the act are in several important particulars repugnant to the express provision of the Constitution.

Resolved, That it is the duty of the Judges of the Several Courts of this State to allow the Writ of Habeas Corpus to all persons applying for the same in conformity with the laws of this State, and to conform in all respects to subsequent proceedings to the provisions of the same.

Resolved, That while the Constitution of the United States confers on Congress no power to interfere with the internal legislation of the Several States and consequently no power to act within State limits on the subject of slavery it does require that Congress, whenever, beyond the limits of any State, it has exclusive legislative power, shall provide, efficient securities for the personal liberty of every person unconvicted of Crime.

Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress to repeal all acts by which any person is deprived of liberty without due process of law and especially all acts by which any person is held in slavery in any place subject to exclusive national jurisdiction.

SOURCES: Journal of the Senate of the State of Ohio, Volume 49, For the First Session of the Forty-ninth General Assembly, Commencing on Monday December 2, 1850, p. 47; Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 222-3.

Senator Salmon P. Chase to [Milton Sutliff?], November 17, 1850

Private.

Cincinnati, Nov. 17, 1850.

My Dear Sir, Your letter, like the “royal Charlie” of the Cannie Scots “was long in coming.” It was dated Nov. 7 and I only recd. it yesterday.

I am much obliged to you for it; and like your general views. I do not believe that the Free Democrats, if they act prudently, will be put to the necessity of voting for any man such as Wade or any counterpart in the Old Line Democracy for Senator for the full term. I should dislike greatly to see them descend so far from the position which Morse, Townshend, Smart & Swift maintained under worse circumstances in 1848-9. I would almost say that I would prefer a Coalition between the Hunkers of both sides, to such a descent. But our friends in the Legislature must judge for themselves The responsibility is upon them. I am assured by Capt Radter, who was one of the Chief Engineers of the “Peoples Line” last winter that he went into it with great reluctance, and that if he & his fellow democrats had been met with the liberality and openness, which Townshend & Morse displayed the winter before it would never have been organized. Cooperation between Free Democrats & Old Line Democrats is more natural than Cooperation between either & Whigs because there is more agreement of principle; and I have so great confidence in the power of principles, that I do not doubt that a union, on right ground & honorable terms for both sides, can be had, if our friends go to work in the right spirit, and in a liberal temper, maintaining their principles firmly, & letting it be seen distinctly that their action is governed by a paramount regard to them.

I suppose the most important first step will be to determine who shall compose the Free Democratic Caucus. The rule, proposed by Dr. Townshend, two years ago is I think the true one: that all who claim to participate in its proceedings shall subscribe a declaration that they hold, as of paramount importance, the political principles of the Buffalo & Columbus Platforms, and will support no candidates for the Presidency or Vice Presidency who are not able & avowed opponents of the Extension of Slavery into New Mexico & Utah, but will act with the Party which holds these principles and whose Candidates occupy that position, namely the Free Democracy; and that they will act together as members of the Legislature so far as they conscientiously can after mutual consultation. This seems to me now and seemed to me then as far as honest men can go, and no farther than any sincere free democrat would cheerfully go.

I suppose that the Senate Caucus constituted on this principle will embrace yourself, Pardee, Randall & I suppose Lyman: and that the House Caucus will embrace Morse, Plumb, Pore, Bradley, Kent Johnson, of Medina, Thompson of Lorain & Williamson. You will find Pardee I suppose agreeing fully with you, and Randall will probably agree with you generally. I hope Mr. Lyman may also do so, but I do not know him & have heard that he may feel himself under obligation to the Whigs. I wish you could see Randall, and converse with him. A great deal will depend on his course. He has done much mischief heretofore, I fear, by his action under bad advice & influence. But I trust Beaver & Blake being out he may do well, follow in the convictions of his own judgment, which, if he will trust it fully & boldly will, I believe, guide him safely. In the House the Free Democrats of radical sympathies will have a clear majority in Caucus. They will only need to act cautiously but firmly, looking before them carefully and not fearfully.

The French say “it is the first step that costs.” This is true. The beginning is full brother to the end generally.

If the session begins right, in mutual good will & cooperation between the Free Democrats & Old Line, I shall hope the best results. One side having the Speaker and the other the Clerk in each House, & the subordinate officers of the organization being fairly distributed, and the Committees fairly arranged every thing will, I trust, go well.

I have no personal interest in the result; but a very deep concern in the ascendancy of free democratic principles. May God grant that truth and reason and justice may govern: and that if 1 am mistaken I may be overruled.

I enclose some resolutions which it seems to me the Free Dems & Old Liners can agree on. Without the use of any violence of language they cover the entire ground.

I expect to be in Cleveland by noon Thursday & stay till Friday morn I wish I could meet you and some other friends there.

[Enclosure.]

Resolved  That the Constitution of the United States established a General Government of limited powers, expressly reserving all powers, not thereby delegated, to the States and to the People.

Resolved, That among the powers delegated to the General Government by the Constitution, that of legislating upon the subject of fugitives from service is not to be found; while that of depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law is expressly denied.

Resolved That in the judgment of this General Assembly, the Act of Congress in relation to fugitives from service, approved Septr. 18, 1850 is unconstitutional not merely for want of power to Congress to legislate on the subject, but because the provisions of the act are in several important particulars repugnant to the express provision of the Constitution.

Resolved That it is the duty of the Judges of the Several Courts of this State to allow the Writ of Habeas Corpus to all persons applying for the same in conformity with the laws of this State, and to [sic] conform in all respects to subsequent proceedings to the provisions of the same.

Resolved, That while the Constitution of the United States confers on Congress no power to interfere with the internal legislation of the Several States and consequently no power to act within State limits on the subject of slavery it does require that Congress, whenever, beyond the limits of any State, it has exclusive legislative power, [sic] shall provide, efficient securities for the personal liberty of every person unconvicted of Crime.

Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress to repeal all acts by which any person is deprived of liberty without due process of law and especially all acts by which any person is held in Slavery in any place subject to exclusive national jurisdiction.

_______________

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

SOURCES: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 220-3; Journal of the Senate of the State of Ohio, Volume 49, For the First Session of the Forty-ninth General Assembly, Commencing on Monday December 2, 1850, p. 47.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The recipient of this letter is not stated, however, Ohio Senator Milton Sutliff introduced to above resolutions in the Ohio Senate on December 11, 1850, making it highly likely this letter was addressed to Mr. Sutliff,

Salmon P. Chase to Messrs Milton and C. E. Sutliff,* Warren, Trumbull County, Ohio, April 30, 1849

Cin. Apl. 30, 1849.

Gent. Your note by your nephew Saml. was recd. this morning. As I know nobody in California, the best I could do for him was to give him a letter of general introduction, which I did in such terms as I thought would do him most service.

The Whig Papers keep up their attacks on me and my friends, and I keep on never minding. I am satisfied that what was done last winter in the way of martial cooperation between Freesoilers and Democrats was right, and will be attended by the happiest consequences to the great cause, to which eight of the last years of my life have been devoted. I care little therefore for the railing of the Taylorites, or even of the Beaver & Chaffee Freesoilers, so called. The worst that I wish to these last, or even indeed to the first, is that their eyes may be opened, and their hearts purged of the old leaven of Whigism, that they may sec the truth of Free Democracy & love it.

I have sometimes thought of writing an exposition of my position and action, but have been withheld by considerations akin to those which influenced Dr. Beecher under similar circumstances. You know the story, perhaps; but lest you may not have heard it I will tell it to you. On one occasion the Doctor was going home to Walnut Hills and saw a suspicious looking animal by the roadside. The Dr. is a little abstracted, and, the sight of the animal stirring up his combative propensities, he, at once, launched at it a quarto volume which he was carrying under his arm. The skunk returned the salutation with compound interest, and the Doctor was glad to beat a hasty retreat. Soap and water did their best for him and his garments, but some time elapsed before either he or they were tolerable again. Years, afterwards, the Doctor was asked why he did not reply to some scurrilous pamphlet put forth against him. “I have learned better,” was his pithy reply: “I once issued a whole quarto against a skunk and got the worst of it.”

Give my best regards to our friends in Warren, particularly, Judge King & Hoffman & Hutchins & believe me

_______________

* Original lent by Mr. Homer E. Stewart, of Warren, Ohio. These brothers, Milton and C. E. Sutliff, were among the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society,

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 170-1