Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: January 30, 1864

The Senate has passed a new Conscription Act, putting all residents between the ages of eighteen and fifty-live in the military service for the war. Those over forty-five to be detailed by the President as commissary quartermasters, Nitre Bureau agents, provost guards, clerks, etc. This would make up the enormous number of 1,500,000 men! The express companies are to have no detail of men fit for the field, but the President may exempt a certain class for agricultural purposes, which, of course, can be revoked whenever a farmer refuses to sell at schedule prices, or engages in speculation or extortion. Thus the President becomes almost absolute, and the Confederacy a military nation. The House will pass it with some modifications. Already the Examiner denounces it, for it allows only one owner or editor to a paper, and just sufficient printers,— no assistant editors, no reporters, no clerks, etc. This will save us, and hasten a peace.

Mr. G. A. Myers, the little old lawyer, always potential with the successive Secretaries of War, proposes, in a long letter, that the Department allows 30 to 40 foreigners (Jews) to leave the Confederate States, via Maryland, every week!

Mr. Goodman, President of the Mississippi Railroad, proposes to send cotton to the Yankees in exchange for implements, etc., to repair the road, and Lieut.-Gen. (Bishop) Polk favors the scheme.

Commissary-General Northrop likewise sent in a proposal from an agent of his in Mississippi, to barter cotton with the Yankees for subsistence, and he indorses an approval on it. I trust we shall be independent this summer.

To-day it is cool and cloudy, but Custis has had no use for fire in his school-room of nights for a week—and that in January. The warm weather saved us a dollar per day in coal. Custis's scholars are paying him $95 the first month.

I shall hope for better times now. We shall have men enough, if the Secretary and conscription officers do not strain the meshes of the seine too much, and the currency will be reduced. The speculators and extortioners, in great measure, will be circumvented, for the new conscription will take them from their occupations, and they will not find transportation for their wares.

The 2000 barrels of corn destroyed by the enemy on the Peninsula, a few days ago, belonged to a relative of Col Ruffin, Assistant Commissary-General! He would not impress that—and lo! it is gone! Many here are glad of it.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2, p. 138-9

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* November 11, 1854

Cin. Nov. 11, 1854..

My Dear Sir, It is too bad that the failure of the Banks should add to your other troubles; and too bad that, at a time when the principles we have advocated appear to be in the ascendant, there should be difficulty about sustaining the papers whose devotion to them is sure and permanent.

My own services and contributions to the extent of my abilities and means have never been denied and will never be denied to the cause of Freedom or to the papers which sustain it; but I do not see how I can do anything more for the Columbian than I promised to when I saw you last. The claims on me, at this time, are many and unusually pressing; but I can let you have the $250 in December, as I said I would, and if necessary, can give a note at thirty days; but should prefer to avoid that if possible.

As to the Governorship you know my sentiments. I have declared them to you unaffectedly. An endorsement of my Senatorial course by the people of the State would gratify me, but as my actions in the Senate has the approval of my own conscience I can do very well without any other endorsement. If the people desire our friend Brinkerhoff or any other such worthy and well qualified man rather than myself I shall be the last to object to it.

Yours sincerely.

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From the Pierce-Sumner Papers.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 265

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* November 2, 1854

Cincinnati, Nov. 2, 1854.

My Dear Sir: Your enquiry whether I am “aware that the 26th of October is past,” must refer to something I have either forgotten or do not understand.

When we parted it was with the understanding that if you would go into the Columbian I would contribute to its support $1,000 during the year either directly from my own means, or with the aid of other friends of our cause. — I expected, of course, as has been the case hitherto to take upon myself nearly if not the whole sum thus pledged.

But I did not then know that the paper would be continued without temporary suspension. I remember saying I wished it could be, but I hardly expected it, as Mr. Rice said he should be and must be absent for some time. I rather anticipated a suspension for some four weeks.

When I returned to the State as far as Toledo I learned for the first time that you had actually gone into the paper. I then expected to be at Columbus before this time; but finding it unnecessary for me to go up when I got home, busied myself with the matter here.

I heard nothing from you when in Illinois, nor did I find any letter here from you, nor did I know where to address you, or I should have written.

Probably your reference to the 26th of October alludes to my expectation, inferred perhaps to you before I went away, of being at Columbus in attendance on the Circuit Court at that time.

I am ready to fulfil my pledge. It is very hard to raise money here and it can't be done except at extravagant rates. I can however pay $250 in December and $250 every three months after, if that will answer, or if it is undesirable I must raise the first installment before.

I wish I could see you, but I cannot come to Columbus at this time without serious inconvenience. I have lecture to prepare for Boston — a foolish engagement but which must be fulfilled — and it demands all my time.

Yours faithfully,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From the Pierce-Sumner Papers.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 264

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward L. Pierce, March 12, 1854

Washington, Mar. 12, 1854.

My Dear Mr. Pierce. Your letter is very cheering and consolatory. Here “where Satan's net is”, the nearest sounds are those of denunciation and abuse. With these harsh tones it is very agreeable to hear intermingled the voices of friendship and sympathy.

Sumner was much pleased with your last letter to him, which he showed me. You did not compliment him too strongly on his speech. It was a splendid effort in clearness of historical statement; in beauty of style; and in force of expression unsurpassed by any previous utterance of his; though I must say as I told him that it did not equal, as an argument, his speech against the Fugitive Slave Law.

It gave me real pleasure to read Reemelin's remarks. He is a man of genius, force and knowledge. If he and Molitor side with the Independent Democracy we may hope for great things. If in addition to this [illegible] Day would Start a paper!

Thanks for your kind opinion of my speech. It was delivered from notes, written the morning I spoke — though I had given all the time I could command for two or three days to reading up and writing down. My preparation was very inadequate and I was surprised to get off so well as I did in the actual delivery. Perhaps I was indebted, in fact, for my success to the audience which was very brilliant. For the only time this session the ladies were admitted on the floor. It was corrected from the Reporter's notes on the jump on the Evening after the delivery and the next morning; for I had to dine at the French Minister's that next day and I wanted to have it out Monday. This will account for some defects of style which you must have noticed.

It is rather pleasant to feel that I have done some service in the battle; and to know that the service is appreciated. It is rather strange to me, however, to receive much commendation, having, almost my whole life, been laboring for an unpopular though just cause — unpopular perhaps because misunderstood.

I shall place Mr. Mann's name on my list and send him as well as yourself a copy of a new edition.

We Senators have no copies of the Census Report. I will endeavor to procure you one however.

I regret, very much, to have you say that you are not contented in the office. I hope your discontent is not with the office and that your longings for distant fields will be abated by time. Having acquired you, we must not lose you.

I think of coming to Cincinnati before long.

Faithfully your friend,

[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. 258-60

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward L. Pierce, February 23, 1854

Washington, Feb. 23,1854.

My Dear Pierce:— Your article had already attracted my attention and I had cut it out for Bailey to print if he could find room, before receiving the Columbian with your autograph which revealed to me the author. It is a capital article well conceived and admirably expressed. It makes me regret that you propose to devote yourself to the law rather than to the wider and widening field of journalism. If you would devote yourself to the establishment of a paper in Cincinnati, such as the N. York Times in New York, you would in ten or fifteen years have a fortune in it besides wielding an almost uncomputable influence.

Sumner acquitted himself nobly — grandly. His speech satisfied every expectation.¹

We hope to kill the monster; but we want the voice of a great meeting at Cincinnati.

Yours truly,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ Sumner’s speech of February 21, 1854.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 258

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* February 10, 1854

Washington, Feb. 10, 1854.

Dear Hamlin: Pardon me for my expression of regret. I am glad to learn that you have taken no part in the contest going on at Columbus among the aspirants for my place.

As we have no power to do anything which will give our side advantages, we had best do absolutely nothing. If the election could be postponed we could do much — but I have never expected that — never even imagined it possible until the result of the late attempts to nominate — and do not now believe it at all probable, though [illegible] of Cleveland told me some days since that it would be done.

I did better than I anticipated in my reply to Douglas. I knew I could break down his position; but I did not expect to come so near satisfying myself and much less did I foresee the profund [sic] attention or the immense audience with and by which I was listened to. I have compliments from all sides in abundance, and am gratified in believing that I have worthily upheld the honor of our noble State.

I would cheerfully add $2,000 to your $2,000 for a paper in Cincinnati, or would be one of six to pledge $5,000 each to be drawn up if necessary.

But if I was about to establish such a paper I would begin with a Weekly — make it first Class — get, say, 113,000 subscribers and then make a daily of that. $1,000 would suffice to pay the agencies necessary to get $3,000 subs, and to start the paper,        and

You ought to be in Cincinnati; and you ought to be in the Press.

Yours truly,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From the Pierce-Sumner Papers.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 257-8

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward L. Pierce, July 4, 1853

Chicago, July 4, 1853.

My Dear Sir: I have just returned from Missouri. Your letter reached me I think at St. Louis. I regret not seeing your brother, or yourself. You have seen that I did not speak at St. Louis and why it was best that I could not; I believe the correspondence will do more than a speech would have done.

Chicago is a flourishing place but the total ensemble did not please me. I should prefer Cincinnati or St. Louis to live in.

What would you think of the life editorial and taking charge of a paper here" or at Chicago? [sic] 1 am pretty certain you could succeed, and win reputation and fortune as well as at the bar.

Yours truly,

[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. 251-2

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, March 10, 1852

Washington City, Mar. 10, 1852.

My Dear Sir, I am very sorry that anything occurred to prevent your purchase of the three shares of the Nonpareil. I feel confident that such an opportunity does not often occur: and yet I cannot say that I should have submitted to the advanced price. I regret that Mr. Abbot thinks of retiring from the paper. I should regard with you his services as very valuable.

There is a Mr. Spofford in Cincinnati of the firm of Truman & Spofford, booksellers, a gentleman of talent, principle, and business qualities, who might perhaps feel inclined to embark in the Nonpareil either alone or in association with you. If you still think of the enterprize perhaps it would be well to consult him. I do not know him personally, but have formed a high opinion of him from the reports of others.

Of course, I feel still bound by my promise to contribute $400 to your expenses for the first year, if necessary.

I think the times very auspicious to the establishment of a democratic paper, which will advocate the doctrines of the Ohio Democratic Platform, and at the same time be a readable sheet in other respects.

The indications are that Cass or Buchanan will be the Baltimore nominee & that the Compromises will be endorsed at Baltimore. In that event, there must be, 1 apprehend, a rupture in the democratic ranks on the question of the Presidency at least. It should not in Ohio extend beyond the Presidency, if possible to avoid it. A paper which should maintain a firm opposition to a man standing on a Platform opposite to that of the Ohio Democracy, but laboring to preserve harmony in the democratic ranks in relation to state elections, could not fail to exert, if conducted with ability, great influence.

I long to see you again in the Editorial field for which you are so eminently qualified.

We look anxiously towards New Hampshire. Rantoul made a great speech on our side yesterday. I will send you a copy soon. He echoed on Slavery my Toledo speech.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 240-1

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 25, 1852

Washington City, Feb. 25, 1852.

My Dear Sir, What are you about? I supposed that before this time you would have been established in the Editorial chair of the Nonpareil. What is the matter? Please let me know.

Politics here are in chaos. The slaveholding democrats are at swords points—and the non-slaveholding democrats not much more amicable, though they shew less on the surface. The Compromise Measures are the apples of discord. It turns out as I predicted, that these measures have brought a sword and not peace. I still think that Buchanan will receive the nomination of the Bait^o Convention. The Platform, probably, will remain unchanged: but this will depend on the question whether the Secessionists or Unionists are admitted into the Baltimore Convention. If the Unionists get in, the Compromises will be endorsed.

The Whigs are looking up. It is pretty certain, I think that Scott & Jones of Tennessee will be the nominees; though Fillmore's chances are far from desperate. Scott & Jones will make a strong ticket. I think the Whigs north & south with inconsiderable exceptions would support it.

We have had a fierce discussion today on the vastly important question whether Jere Clemens of Alabama is the same Jere Clemens he was in 1850 or not. It is yet undecided, Jere having the floor for tomorrow.

Have you seen Webster's New York address? It is great.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 240

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, December 5, 1851

Washington City, Dec. 5, 1851.

My Dear Sir, I have just sent that letter to you to the Post Office as there was but just time to save the mail. Fearing you may not come on, I have thought it best to write you a little more at large in explanation of my views.

It was supposed, before the session, commenced that the Democratic Caucuses of the Senate and the House might be induced to adopt the Compromises as parts of the Democratic Platform and thus exclude the Antislavery men. It was the anxious wish of Foote, Cobb & Co, including the Whigs of the South, that they should do so, and thus open the door for the admission of the Constitutional Union Party into the bosom of the democracy. But when Congress assembled and the Antislavery Representatives (Democrats) such as King, Cleveland & Rantoul went into Caucus declaring that if any such test as adherence to the Compromises was imposed they must withdraw, light suddenly shone into the understandings of the Hunkers and they became suddenly convinced that Resolutions endorsing the Compromises were inexpedient. The rationale of the matter was that they feared the loss of the Progressive Democrats more than they desired the gain of the Constitutional Union Men. So the resolution was laid on the table in the House Caucus and the idea of introducing it into the Senate Caucus was abandoned. Foote has brought into the Senate, on his own responsibility, the resolution which was rejected in the House Caucus. It may pass, but I think it doubtful. I know its introduction is condemned by the most prominent democrats. If it passes it must be by a combined vote of whigs & democrats. It cannot receive democratic votes enough to pass it.

Under these circumstances I feel pretty sure that there will be no attempts to engraft any approval of the Compromise measures upon the Baltimore Platform. On the contrary, I think it more probable—though I do not think it absolutely probable—that the Pro Slavery Resolution now constituting part of that Platform may be dropped.

It seems to me, then, that there never was so fair an opportunity for Antislavery democrats to work as now. It is certain that they have the convictions of a majority of the people with them, and they are now virtually admitted to be too strong to be proscribed.

We need in Ohio and especially at Cincinnati a liberal democratic press. The Nonpareil is substantially that now, but it is edited upon no fixed plan and is without a chart. Give it an Editor, who would make it a readable paper, maintaining substantially the same position as now, until the Presidential Election shall come on and then giving a hearty support to the candidates of the Democracy or, if the Democracy shall be divided then to the candidates of the Progressive Wing, and I do not see how it can fail to be a profitable concern. If I had charge of it, I would not perceptibly change its present position; but would, very gradually, give it an Independent Democratic character, without distinctly avowing any party bias. I believe in this way it could be made acceptable to its present readers while gaining increased circulation and influence among the democrats. Another consideration, in favor of the paper is that it has the city printing worth about $1000 per annum.

Now if you can raise the means to pay for the paper— say 1800 cash to meet immediate payments, I will provide in 6 month, or less time if necessary, $1000 to complete the purchase. Then means could be raised to carry on the paper, until the subscription & advertising should furnish, themselves, the means. I believe you could make the paper profitable and useful and I shall be extremely glad if you see your way clear to take hold of it.

I do not abandon the hope of seeing you here, but I thought it safest to write at all events.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 238-40

Edwin M. Stanton to Alexander K. McClure, July 22, 1863

War Department

Washington City

July 22d, 1863

Dear Sir,

I have received your note of the 20th, but not the papers referred to therein.  I doubt not that you will be able to render in the Editorial Chair efficient service to the government, and also to give sensible advice to some of your friends that very much need it.

As long as General Meade remains in command he will receive the cordial support of the department but since the world began no man ever missed so great an opportunity of serving his country as was lost by his neglecting to strike his adversary at Williamsport.

I shall take occasion to furnish such patronage to your paper as the service will admit.  It has always been my opinion that the advertising should not be confined to the newspaper press of cities, but ought to be diffused in such rural districts as produce the materials required for the support of the service and directions have been given to the Chiefs of Bureaus in accordance with this view.

Yours truly,

Edwin M S[tanton]

Secretary of War

Hon. A. K. McClure

Chambersburg Pa

SOURCES: Stanton, E. M. (1863) Edwin McMasters Stanton Papers: Letterbooks, 1863 to 1865; 1863; 1863, June 4-Sept. 9. June 4. [Manuscript/Mixed Material] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/mss41202040/, images 46 & 47.  This letter was among a lot of 4 letters that were listed for auction on Sotheby’s, December 2, 2014.

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

Cincinnati, Feb. 27, 1849.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write me at Washington.

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

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

Feby 26 ['49.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________

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

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

Joshua Reed Giddings to Oran Follett, June 2, 1845

Jefferson June 2, 1845

My Dear Sir

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

Very respectfully

J R Giddings

O Follett Esq

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

Horace Greeley to James S. Pike, May 1, 1850

New York, May 1, 1850.

Dear Sir: There are serious objections to murder; some people are so fastidious as to object to burglary and arson, and my impression is that rape and highway robbery, however pleasant in the concrete, are not in the abstract strictly justifiable. I would not be positive, on these points, knowing how widely opinions differ on almost every phase of human conduct; but when you come to writing on both sides of a half sheet of paper, intended as copy in a daily newspaper office, there can be no mistake as to the atrocity of a crime whereat outraged human nature stands aghast with horror. I pray you think of this evermore, and write only on one side. Also, indorse your letters “Editor's Mail,” for fear they should somehow lie over at Washington or Baltimore till the morning mail, and so miss us by arriving here at midnight and remaining undistributed. These are small matters, but their consequence to us is not small.

Can't you guess out for us somebody who can fish out executive session and committee secrets like Harriman, Harvey, and Kingman? If you can, set him to telegraphing. Everybody, from Mother Eve's time down, has been especially anxious to know what ought not to be known, and we must get some of it into the Tribune or be voted dull, indolent, and behind the times. We have had it, but just now our channels of transmission are choked up.

Yours,

Horace Greeley.

J. S. Pike, Esq.

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. 49-50

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner,* November 26, 1846

Cincinnati, Nov. 26, 1846.

My Dear Sir: I promised Mr. Vaughan, sometime ago, to write you in reference to the True American, but have been prevented by various circumstances from fulfilling the promise. I have little leisure now, but possibly a few words may be offered.

You are aware, doubtless, of all the circumstances relating to C. M. Clay’s¹ connection with the paper. I was well aware of that gentleman's aversion to editorial duty, and the last letter I rec'd from him before he left Louisville with his Company advised me that he should not continue the paper under his own charge any longer than was absolutely necessary. I had, however, no idea that its publication would be abandoned during his absence, or that he had given a discretionary power over the very existence of the paper to Brutus I. Clay, his brother, an open and avowed enemy of the movement and anxious to disengage his brother C. M. from what he (B. I.) deemed a false position. I am not yet willing to believe that Mr. C. M. Clay, in giving a general power of attorney to Brutus to act for him in all his affairs (including of course the paper) had any expectation that the American would be discontinued during his absence. He made an engagement with Mr. Vaughan² to edit it; he accepted with expressions of gratitude my own offer of assistance, which assistance, however, I am bound to say Mr. Vaughan's superior ability and tact rendered totally unnecessary; and, I feel very sure that at the time of his last letter to me he relied on the American as a powerful and indispensable auxiliary to the great effort which he designed to make on behalf of emancipation immediately after his return. Whether he afterward changed his purpose or not I am unable to say. I will not believe that he did except upon evidence. I am unwilling to condemn a man who has acted nobly, until I see proofs of absolute and total dereliction.

However, the paper by the act of B. I. Clay is discontinued. But the friends of Freedom in Kentucky are determined that it shall not stay discontinued. They have organized in Louisville and elsewhere, and have resolved that the paper shall go on under the charge of Mr. Vaughan, provided the necessary assistance can be had. To see whether this assistance can be had Mr. Vaughan has this day started for the east. I beg leave to commend him and his object to your kindest consideration. Mr. V — is a South Carolinian, and might, had he been willing to identify himself with the Nullifiers, have occupied almost any position in his native State. His principles forbade this, and he afterwards removed to this city. Almost from his first arrival his sentiments on the subject of Slavery have been advancing, until he now stands on the same or nearly the same platform which you occupy. I feel sure that no man fitter for the time and place can be found. As to the importance of the paper, it cannot well be overestimated. There is a vast amount of antislavery sentiment in the Slave States, which requires to be fostered and developed. All the hill country is favorable, except so far as mere prejudice prevents, to Freedom. The paper has a very good circulation in the Slave States. It is the link between the Antislavery sentiment of the North and South. It cannot be lost without great detriment to the cause both North and South. I trust, therefore, Mr. Vaughan's efforts will be liberally rewarded by the enlightened Friends of Humanity, Freedom, and Advancement in the East.

I do not often solicit such a favor, but may I beg a copy of your Phi Beta Kappa address? I believe I have heretofore thanked you for your 4th July Oration on the True Grandeur of Nations, and expressed the admiration with which its perusal inspired me — an admiration shared, I believe, by all readers of the document except the devotees of Conservatism, falsely so called.

Why can not the Friends of Freedom stand together? Why exact from me, a Democrat, addresses to the Whigs, or from you, a Whig, addresses to the Democrats? Is not the question of Freedom paramount, and is it not great enough in itself and its connexions for a party to stand on, without dividing addresses?

I pray you to pardon the liberty I have taken in writing this to one to whom I am almost wholly unknown, and believe me, With very great respect,

Yours truly,

[Salmon P. Chase]

_______________

* All the letters from Chase to Sumner are from the Pierce-Sumner Papers in the library of Harvard University.

¹ The wellknown Cassias Marcellus Clay.

² John C. Vaughan, cf. Wilson's Slave Power, II, 143-144, 510, and Pierce's Sumner, III, 165.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 111

Samuel Kettell* to James S. Pike, April 22, 1850

Boston, April 22, 1850.

My Dear Sir: I return your letter, agreeably to your request. It went sadly against my grain to withhold it from the press, for no one can like it better than I do. If I were not hampered by business obligations in this particular matter, there should be no impediment to the swing of your broad ax in the Courier; nothing is better relished here.

I hope the matters in question will be all arranged before many days, when you shall hear from me again. At present you may have the satisfaction of knowing that what you have done will tend to great good. I should be most happy to see satisfaction of another sort added to this.

Yours truly,

S. Kettell.

J. S. Pike, Esq.

______________

* The editor of the Boston Courier.

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. 32

Samuel Kettell to James S. Pike, April 15, 1850

Boston, April 15, 1850.

My Dear Sir: I am quite as fully persuaded as yourself that political matters are in a most critical state. It's more the pity that honest men like you and me have not the power to make everybody obey us in marching straight ahead out of these troubles. I, for one, cannot have my own way in the matter, as you will see by what follows. You know the Courier has taken the side of Webster in the California and Proviso question. I have not space to tell the whole story, but the thing is done and we must stand upon it. You have spoken very freely upon all political subjects through our columns, and I wish to God things were so that nothing would lie in the way of your exertions in the same career. But what can we do? The matter has got beyond the limit of speculative opinions and assumed a practical shape. We have now a real job to do in sustaining Dan, and it is impossible to get ahead if we pull down with one hand what we build up with the other. People are quoting your letters against us, and making capital out of them for t'other side. Just look at the newspapers. Small causes we don't mind, but this is cutting our own throat.

I feel this embarrassment the more sensibly when I reflect on the obligation we are under to you for your long-continued and valuable labor in the service of the Courier. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than the ability to make you some recompense for the same, but Heaven knows I am as void of the pecuniary as of the political appliances and means to do such things. In short, there are such influences gathered round me that I must crave a very liberal forbearance from you in explaining how much I cannot do just now. I heartily wish all party politics at the devil.

In plain English, the political train of the Courier must run for the present on a single track. Don't think hard of me for saying I cannot publish your letters against old Dan. The truth is, a negotiation is now on foot for the transfer of the proprietorship of the Courier, which will place it under new management, and in this conjuncture I am restricted by business obligations from printing political matters of a certain character. This is confidential between ourselves; no one knows it but the parties concerned.

When I am free to fight on my own hook, I hope you and I may go shoulder to shoulder. Till then I must trust to your candor and good sense to put the right construction on my behavior, and, with a thousand thanks for your past services, I remain,

Yours truly,

S. Kettell.

J. S. Pike, Esq.

_______________

*Editor of The Boston Courier.

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. 26

Charles Eliot Norton to George William Curtis, January 30, 1863

Shady Hill, 30 January, 1863.

One busy day has succeeded another since you were here till I am at last reduced to a condition in which I am fit for no work, and so set about writing a note and sending my love to you.

The Hero of one hundred ungained Victories, — the conqueror in his own bulletins, is at present in Boston, and but a few people remain calm. Some are excited with enthusiastic admiration of their own imagination of McClellan; some busy with wire-pulling; some active to prevent others, “without distinction” of party, gaining any advantage out of relations with the disgraced Captain and candidate for the next Presidency; and some very much disquieted by all this folly. So you see those who keep quiet and innocent minds are in a despicable minority. . . .

We are making arrangements here to secure the circulation of good telling articles from foreign and our own newspapers, to influence and direct public opinion. We propose to secure from one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand readers for two articles per week, and perhaps more. I shall be the “editor,” so to say, with John Forbes and Sam Ward¹ as advisers. Please bear this in mind and send to me, marked, articles which you think should be thus circulated. I shall have frequent occasion to borrow from “Harper,” — or rather from you in “Harper.” . . .

_______________

¹ Samuel [Gray] Ward, later an active correspondent of Norton's.

SOURCE: Sara Norton and  M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, Volume 1, p. 259-60

George William Curtis to Charles Eliot Norton, April 26, 1865

North Shore, April 26, 1865.

My Dear Charles, — Yours of the 24th reaches me this evening. I cannot at once decide upon the proposition which you make, — for I should wish to ask several questions.

I doubt if $50,000 is capital enough to start such a paper as you contemplate, and I am far from sure that it is really needed. It seems to me always best to use existing machinery if possible, and I fear that the influence which would control the new paper would constantly tend to make it outrun the popular sympathy upon whose support it must rely, so far as to defeat its purpose, by limiting its circulation to those who need no conversion. Do not the “Atlantic,” the “North American,” the “Evening Post,” and “Harper's Weekly” — to go no further — address the various parts of the audience that are counted upon for a new paper, and are there not great advantages in having the questions presented in these different forms? The change in public sentiment upon the true democratic idea is so wide and deep, that an organ for special reform in the matter does not seem to be required. It — the reform — has now become the actual point of the political movement of the country; and the same reasoning which justifies the abandonment of the abolition societies and organs pleads against your project.

If I lay more stress upon the special object of the paper than its projectors intend, then it becomes merely a liberal Weekly of the most advanced kind, and I can see no particular reason for its success.

As for myself, I am perfectly free to say what I think upon all public questions in “Harper's Weekly” without the least trouble or responsibility for the details of the paper, and with no necessity of even being at the office. The audience is immense. The regular circulation is about one hundred thousand, and on remarkable occasions, as now, more than two hundred thousand. This circulation is among that class which needs exactly the enlightenment you propose, and access is secured to it by the character of the paper as an illustrated sheet. I should want some very persuasive inducement to relinquish the hold I already have upon this audience, for I could not hope to regain it in a paper of a different kind. Of course, “Harper's Weekly” is not altogether such a paper as I should prefer for my own taste; but it does seem to me as if I could do with it the very work you propose, and upon a much greater scale than in the form you suggest; nor is the pecuniary advantage of your offer such as to shake this conviction.

Now from what I say you will see how I feel. The offer you make is so handsome and honorable that I do not decline it, unless you must have an immediate answer. If the affair can still remain open, will you tell me if the capital is secured — if the paper is to be started anyhow, — if there is any person selected for the business editor — whether it is to be a joint-stock association — and what the size, etc., of the paper is intended to be.

If you have the time to inform me upon these and such points, I will not delay long in giving you a final answer.

Always your affectionate,

G. W. Curtis.

SOURCE: Edward Cary, George William Curtis, p. 189-92