Salmon P. Chase to James H. Smith,* Cincinnati, Ohio, May 8, 1849

May 8th [1849.]

My Dear Sir: On my return from Georgetown last Saturday I found on my table yours of the 3d. inst. I regretted overmuch that I did not see you when I was up, for I wished very much to talk with you on some of the topics embraced in your letter. — I thought I could discover, when in your town some amelioration of feeling on the part of those who have been so fierce in their denunciations of the repeal of the Black laws and Spalding told them plainly, I understand that they were taking different ground from that of the Democracy in other parts of the State. They would feel awkward, would they not, if they should wake up some morning and find themselves turned over to the Whigs. To avoid this they had better pause before they set themselves against the united decision and action of the Democratic members of the Legislature. — I thought I saw some indications that this view of matters was beginning to commend itself to them. For my part I care very little about their talk against me: I shall survive it, I think. I have long held as unreservedly as any of them the Democratic faith. If I have not acted with the Democratic party it has been because I was not willing to dishonor that faith by subordinating its claims to the demands of the Slave Power. Let the party honor its faith by steady hostility to oppression in every form and by inflexible allowance to its great cardinal doctrine of equal rights under all circumstances and it shall not want the best of my humble services. I rejoice in the multiplying indications that the old Democracy is casting off the bonds of the Slave Power, and will, ere long, occupy the lofty position of consistency with its own principles to which I have long desired to see it advance. May God speed the day of consummation. — You enquire as to my position in relation to the late war with Mexico, and I will answer your enquiry frankly, though I do not think that any differences as to the war ought to divide now the Friends of freedom; and surely, the Democracy, defeated by a combination of the opponents of the war with the special friends often of its successful generals, can have no interest in reviving or perpetuating these differences. I was never able to persuade myself that the claim of Texas to the Territory between the Neuces and the Rio Grande was any thing more than one of their bold pretensions by which the slaveholders have so often imposed on the acquiescent spirit of the North and extended their own dominion. I never believed therefore that the marching of our troops to the Rio Grande was a wise or rightful exercise of executive Authority. I have ever thought that had Mr. Benton or any Statesman of like character been at the head of affairs in 1845-6 the war would have been avoided. Of course I never justified the commencement of the war; but after the war was actually commenced & had recd. the sanction of congress, I did not think it my duty to persevere in opposition to it. I had friends and relations in the army for whom I felt & with whom I sympathized. The officers & men in the field were in the service of the country & entitled to the regard and support of the country they served. The range of my historical reading made me acquainted with no instance in which war had been waged with so much regard, on the whole, to the dictates of humanity and with so little injury to non combatants. There were some deplorable exceptions to this general observation, it is true, but they exceptions only, lamented and condemned as such in the army as out of it. I never, therefore opposed the vigorous prosecution of the war for that seemed to me the surest if not the only way to a permanent & beneficial peace. When our army had taken possession of Mexico it seemed to me that the true line of duty and policy for our Government was to maintain the ascendancy which had been acquired and by encouraging the establishment of a Mexican Government under our auspices and protection to prepare the way for the gradual incorporation into our American Union, and thus extend our Boundary to the Isthmus. I was not however, so anxious for the whole of Mexico as to be dissatisfied with the treaty of Peace which was actually made.

The immense acquisitions of Territory which that treaty secured to us, giving to us the command of the Pacific and the control in great measure of the commerce between the east & the west of the old world cannot be too highly valued. If secured for Freedom by timely effort now the settlement of these territories and their organization into States, under the auspices of the American Republic will probably attract other Mexican States into voluntary union¹ with us and exert an influence upon the destinies of both hemispheres which can hardly be exaggerated. I am conscious that the foregoing statement of my views is rather crude & imperfect, but it will be sufficient to show that you have rightly judged as to my position. You may safely challenge the production of a single remark ever made by me against the prosecution of the war after it was commenced, or in derogation or disparagement of our officers & men or their just claims, or in opposition to the grant of any necessary supplies. I dont wish you to understand, however, that I join in any impeachment of those who conscientiously opposed the war from first to last. Among the opponents of the war were many doubtless who were governed mainly by party considerations: but others were men of the purest & most elevated character, who were controlled throughout by conscientious convictions of Christian duty, unmingled with any wish or purpose, factiously and unnecessarily to embarrass the Government. God forbid, that I should join in any cry against such men, because I find myself unable to agree with them. It is enough for me to hold and act upon my own opinions — not with absolute certainty that I am right, but honestly endeavoring to avoid error, without impeaching those who hold contrary views. Of course this rough letter is not for the public but simply for your own satisfaction.

Notwithstanding all the abuse heaped upon me, I have as yet kept out of the Newspapers, preferring to let my acts define my position in due season. I am very sorry to observe remark that you are embarrassed in maintaining your position by want of pecuniary means. My own resources by the heavy drafts made on them of late are completely exhausted, but we have friends in Brown County who are able & I trust willing to come promptly to your aid. You do the work & bear the brunt of the contest, and they should unhesitatingly furnish the munitions of war. I have taken the liberty of writing to my friend Mr. Coyne (?) on this subject. Was this wrong? If not, will you not speak to him yourself?

Let me hear from you soon, & meantime believe me

[Salmon P. Chase.]

____________________

* From letter book 6, pp. 172-173.

¹ This idea bad been elaborated in the National Era for Aug. 19, 1847. ef. E. G. Bourne, “The Proposed Absorption of Mexico,”     Essays in Historical Criticism, p. 236.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 171-4

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

April 4, [1849.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With very great regard,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

_______________

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

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

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

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

Cincinnati, January 24, 1849

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cincinnati, Jan’y 20, 1849

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, Columbus, Ohio, January 19, 1849

Cincinnati, January 19, 1848 [1849].

My Dear Hamlin: Thanks for your two letters, both which I recd. today. If you can contrive to let me have future letters mailed on the day you write, so much the better.

Vaughan will go to Clinton on Monday. The Democrats at Columbus ought to use their influence with the Clinton People to unite on a true Free Democrat. If they do not, but persist in encouraging Trimble to run, I fear Vaughan's mission will prove unavailing. If anything occurs at Columbus, important to be known by him in Clinton, a letter directed to me, & reaching me on Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday, can be forwarded to him on Wednesday, Friday & Monday. But, perhaps, the communication direct from Columbus to Wilmington may be more prompt.

I am glad to hear of your meeting with Dimmock & others. I suppose good must come of it. I hope Morses bill will be made to go along with the bill to repeal the division clauses of the apportionment law. Let the Black Laws & those clauses perish together. They will be fit tenants of a common sepulchre.

As to the Standard, it must not be suffered to stop. Its failure will injure the cause immensely, as well as be extremely injurious to Garrard & yourself, having recd. advance subscriptions for a year. I would cheerfully advance further myself if I were able, but I am not; and it would be unjust to me, after I have subscribed $200 to allow the paper to stop without exhausting every effort to induce the Free Soilers of the State to come forward to its support. I have paid today $100, being the note for the first instalment of my subscription. I cannot think that Mr. Garrard will hesitate to use his credit to the extent necessary to carry the paper beyond the elections in the Legislature, when you will be disengaged and I shall be able to cooperate efficiently with you. Every letter I send out now contains an appeal & is accompanied by a prospectus for the Standard. I sent one to Dr. Paul of Williams County today, & I shall send one to Hoffman of Trumbull tomorrow.

I do hope that Randall will vote for the repeal of the division clauses. It can do him no hurt but rather great good, and will be exceedingly beneficial to the cause. Vaughan says if there is any danger of Hitchcock's election he will come up & oppose it with all his power. I wish Giddings knew the true state of things.

I feel confident Morse will be firm. He is in earnest in the cause of Free Democracy, and he sees clearly the true position in which things are. He knows too that the only safe course is the straight forward one — that to falter or look back, or turn aside is to be lost.

How stands Van Doren now? Watson said that if it were necessary he would come down. If you think best write to him at Upper Sandusky. Upper I believe, but Van Doren can tell. Do you have any conference with Nickols? I have had several letters from him, in the best spirit. He may be fully relied on I think in any matter you may wish to confide to him. How far do you & Matthews understand each other? He is a true man, every inch.

I dont think the McClure &c Circular will effect much in Clinton. The old Liberty Guard constitutes there more than half the Free Soil strength. If any man can do anything there it is Vaughan backed by the Liberty men. Is there any possibility that Johnson of Medina can lose his seat? From his statements to me I supposed his rights clear. It must be, if these were true. If there be any such possibility it is more important that the democrats in Clinton should unite with us on a Free Soiler, who is a Free Democrat in reality. We should risk too much by uniting with him unless it is certain that Johnson must go out. They would risk nothing by uniting with us; but would gain much especially by refuting the notion that the Whigs are the more favorable party.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 150-2

Salmon P. Chase to Seabury Ford,* Burton, Geauga County, Ohio, July 11, 1848

July 11 [1848].

Dear Sir: You are well aware that in political action & opinion I have differed widely from you; but I have given you the same credit for sincerity of conviction & honesty of purpose which I desire for myself. There is a question on which we do agree — or rather one class of questions. I refer to those connected with slavery. I am sure that you are sincerely opposed to slavery and to its domination and extention & to the injustice of the Black Laws. On the ground of this agreement between us, I desire to support you for the office of Governor: laying out of view for the present three questions on which we differ. There are thousands who share this desire with me. But yr. present anomalous position in regard to Genl. Taylor, if nominated will compel us not only merely to withhold our suffrages from you: but to nominate a Candidate who not only agrees with us in opposition to Slavery & its Extention, but also in opposition to candidates nominated under the dictation of the friends of Slavery & its extention. Such a candidate we believe Genl. Taylor to be, and cannot consent to give our suffrages for any Gentⁿ., however worthy in other respects, who does not take a distinct position in opposition to his election to the Presidency.

Should you come out in opposition to Genl. Taylor as thousands of the truest whigs in the State have done, you will receive a more enthusiastic support I believe, than any candidate for the Gubernatorial office has ever recd. in Ohio, and I shall be greatly disappointed if you be not triumphantly elected. If you come out for Taylor, you will recd. the support of hardly any except Taylor men. If you preserve a neutral position you will lose votes from both sides, and cannot in my judgment, be elected. It seems to me that the path of duty coincides with the path of safety.

I trust you will pardon my frankness, I am really desirous to know your position. I am even more desirous that you may take a position which will warrant me in giving you a cordial and zealous support.

If you have prescribed no rule of conduct to yourself which forbids an answer to a communication like this, I shall be greatly indebted to you for a reply, directed to Columbus, where I shall be next week in attendance on the Circuit Court. You may rest assured that no use shall be made of it, other than such as you may yourself permit.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 149. Seabury Ford, 1801-1855; elected governor of Ohio in 1848 and served 1849-50.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 138-9

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

Oct. 20, 1846.

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

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

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

_______________

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

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

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