George S. Denison to Salmon P. Chase, October 16, 1862

(Private and Unofficial)

New Orleans, October 16th, 1862.

Dear Sir: My last letter was in reference to trade with the enemy.

After Gen. Butler's return from Pensacola — for the purpose of discussing the matter, Gen. B. asked me to his house, where I met also Gov. Shepley. In a long conversation, I stated to them fully my own views, and it was understood that there should be no more trade with the enemy — that no supplies of any kind or in any quantity, should pass into insurrectionary districts not even supplies for loyal residents of such locality, because Guerillas would in most cases, take away such supplies for their own use.

Gen. Butler and Gen. Shepley each said, however, that he had given one permit to cross the Lake, not yet carried into effect. The goods were bought and vessels loaded, but that I had stopped them. It was insisted that these vessels should be allowed to proceed. I said that the permission of the Secretary of Treasury ought first to be obtained.

The next morning Gen. Butler sent me the list of cargo for the vessel, on the second leaf of which was endorsed his request that she be allowed to proceed. Gen. Shepley sent me a note to the same effect in regard to the other. A copy of the list of cargo, with Gen. Butler's original endorsement on second leaf, is herewith enclosed, marked A. A copy of the list of cargo of second vessel, with Gen. Shepley's note, is herewith enclosed, marked B.

It is inexpedient that I should have a controversy with the military authorities, and I let these two vessels go, with the distinct understanding however, that nothing more was to go out.

Gen. Butler's permit was to Judge Morgan, a good Union man, who has lost much by the Rebellion.

Gen. Shepley's was to one Montgomery, who has previously taken over, among other things, 1,200 sacks salt. Gen. S. says he granted this permit at the earnest solicitation of Mr. Bouligny — formerly in Congress from this state, but now in Washington — and that Montgomery told him Bouligny was part owner of the cargo with him (Montgomery).

I think there will be no more of this trade. Gen. B. has always carried out (so far as I know) the wishes of the Gov't. when distinctly made known, and I believe he will fully carry out (in future) your views respecting this matter.

Gen. B. has more brains and energy than any other three men in New Orleans. He does an immense amount of work, and does it well. He knows and controls everything in this Department. I regret that it was necessary to write my last letter — or rather, that the statements therein made were facts. Besides, no other officer appreciates, like Gen. Butler, the importance of freeing and arming the colored people — and he is not afraid to do it. All the pro-slavery influence in this State cannot change him in this matter.

When Weitzel's expedition (spoken of in a late letter) goes out, Gen. B will send the 1st. Colored Regiment right into the heart of the section of the country to be taken. They will move nearly west from here, on the line of the Opelousas Railroad. I think they will do a great work. The expedition is expected to start in about two weeks. Late New York papers indicate the adoption of some plan for getting out cotton from Rebeldom. I hope it will not be done by means of trade with the enemy, which is objectionable for many reasons.

It will benefit the enemy ten times as much as the Government — it demoralizes the army, who imagine themselves fighting for speculators — officers will be interested, directly or indirectly, in the trade, and they and other speculators, will wish the war prolonged for the sake of great profits — the Rebels will not keep their engagements nine cases out of ten — the rebels are terribly in want, and now is the time to deprive them of supplies. There are other objections besides those enumerated.

The greatest distress prevails in insurrectionary districts all around us. The Guerilla system injures Rebels more than the Government, and the people are becoming heartily tired of it.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 326-7

John Brown to Rebecca Buffum Spring, November 24, 1859

Charlestown, Jefferson County, Va., Nov. 24, 1859.

My Dear Mrs. Spring, —Your ever welcome letter of the 19th inst., together with the one now enclosed, were received by me last night too late for any reply. I am always grateful for anything you either do or write. I would most gladly express my gratitude to you and yours by something more than words; but it has come to that, I now have but little else to deal in, and sometimes they are not so kind as they should be. You have laid me and my family under many and great obligations. I hope they may not soon be forgotten. The same is also true of a vast many others, that I shall never be able even to thank. I feel disposed to leave the education of my dear children to their mother, and to those dear friends who bear the burden of it; only expressing my earnest hope that they may all become strong, intelligent, expert, industrious, Christian housekeepers. I would wish that, together with other studies, they may thoroughly study Dr. Franklin's “Poor Richard.” I want them to become matter-of-fact women. Perhaps I have said too much about this already; I would not allude to this subject now but for the fact that you had most kindly expressed your generous feelings with regard to it.

I sent the letter to my wife to your care, because the address she sent me from Philadelphia was not sufficiently plain, and left me quite at a loss. I am still in the same predicament, and were I not ashamed to trouble you further, would ask you either to send this to her or a copy of it, in order that she may see something from me often.

I have very many interesting visits from proslavery persons almost daily, and I endeavor to improve them faithfully, plainly, and kindly. I do not think that I ever enjoyed life better than since my confinement here. For this I am indebted to Infinite Grace, and the kind letters of friends from different quarters. I wish I could only know that all my poor family were as much composed and as happy as I. I think that nothing but the Christian religion can ever make any one so much composed.

“My willing soul would stay

In such a frame as this.”

There are objections to my writing many things while here that I might be disposed to write were I under different circumstances. I do not know that my wife yet understands that prison rules require that all I write or receive should first be examined by the sheriff or State's attorney, and that all company I see should be attended by the jailer or some of his assistants. Yet such is the case; and did she know this, it might influence her mind somewhat about the opportunity she would have on coming here. We cannot expect the jailer to devote very much time to us, as he has now a very hard task on his hands. I have just learned how to send letters to my wife near Philadelphia.

I have a son at Akron, Ohio, that I greatly desire to have located in such a neighborhood as yours; and you will pardon me for giving you some account of him, making all needful allowance for the source the account comes from. His name is Jason; he is about thirty-six years old; has a wife and one little boy. He is a very laborious, ingenious, temperate, honest, and truthful man. He is very expert as a gardener, vine-dresser, and manager of fruit-trees, but does not pride himself on account of his skill in anything; always has underrated himself; is bashful and retiring in his habits; is not (like his father) too much inclined to assume and dictate; is too conscientious in his dealings and too tender of people's feelings to get from them his just deserts, and is very poor. He suffered almost everything on the way to and while in Kansas but death, and returned to Ohio not a spoiled but next to a ruined man. He never quarrels, and yet I know that he is both morally and physically brave. He will not deny his principles to save his life, and he “turned not back in the day of battle.” At the battle of Osawatomie he fought by my side. He is a most tender, loving, and steadfast friend, and on the right side of things in general, a practical Samaritan (if not Christian); and could I know that he was located with a population who were disposed to encourage him, without expecting him to pay too dearly in the end for it, I should feel greatly relieved. His wife is a very neat, industrious, prudent woman, who has undergone a severe trial in " the school of affliction."

You make one request of me that I shall not be able to comply with. Am sorry that I cannot at least explain. Your own account of my plans is very well. The son I mentioned has now a small stock of choice vines and fruit-trees, and in them consists his worldly store mostly. I would give you some account of others, but I suppose my wife may have done so.

Your friend,

John Brown.

SOURCES: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 599-601

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, February 6, 1851

Boston, Feb'y 6th, 1851.

My Dear Mann: — The telegraph will tell you the result of to-morrow's fight before this reaches you.

Adams, and the shrewdest men I meet, say it is impossible to foretell what will be the result. The knowing Whigs say they will be beaten; whether they say so to gammon us, I know not. For myself I have little hope. It looks to me as if the Democrats meant to let Sumner get within one or two votes, and yet not get in; it is however a dangerous game.

This I know, things look better than they ever have before. The Coalition has certainly gained three votes, the Whigs have certainly lost two; and unless some of the Democrats who voted for Sumner before bolt the track, he goes in. I fear they will.

There has certainly been much hard work done, and much drilling and coaxing resorted to to bring the waverers into line. I have done what I could in conscience, — but oh! Mann! it goes against the grain. I have a right to boost Sumner all I can, and I will do so, but not as a Coalitionist, not by working with pro-slavery men. Think of Free-soilers voting to put Rantoul into the Senate; he is no more a Free-soil man than R. C. Winthrop, not a whit! the Free-soilers should have declined all State offices, and claimed the long and short term.

However, let that go.

Mr. W— is a very pig-headed, impracticable man, all the more so because he means to be liberal and thinks he is so. Others have yielded to the great outside pressure upon them.

We have one more card, and that we must play if Sumner fails to-morrow: we must bring pressure enough to bear on Wilson and every Free-soiler in office, to make them go to Boutwell and tell him to put Sumner straight through, or they will all throw up office, leave the responsibility with the Democrats, and go before the people and make war with them. Boutwell is a timid, cunning, time-serving trimmer. He can elect Sumner if bullied into it: he has only to send for half a dozen men to his closet and tell them that Sumner must and shall be elected, and he will be. He won't do it unless he is forced to do so, and Wilson will not force him unless he is forced by outside pressure. We can manufacture that pressure, and by the Jingoes we'll squeeze him tight but he shall do it.

You complain of the paper; bless you, Mann, you do not know under what difficulties we have laboured: I say we have done well to start a new daily paper at four days' notice, commence it without an editor, and carry it on thus far as well as it has been carried on. A daily paper is no joke — you know well enough. . . .

I have been hoping for something from you that we could publish — but in vain. I am going to Albany as soon as this fight is over to address the Legislature on the subject of idiocy.

Our friends are in high spirits here — I am not, but am

Ever yours,

S. G. Howe.

I have used your letter, but it has not been out of my hands.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 337-9

Salmon P. Chase to John Denison Baldwin, Esq,* Worcester Mass., August 20, 1860

Columbus, Aug 20^h [1860]

Dear Sir, Yours of the 11th reached me yesterday on my return from Michigan; & I hasten to thank you for the expressions of regard & confidence which it contains.

It would be a vain attempt were I to try to correct all or a very small part of the misrepresentations or misconceptions of my views which find their way into the Press: & I do not think it worth while to make the effort in respect to these to which you call my attention.

Fortunately I have no new opinions to express on any question connected with Nationalized Slavery. In my speech on Mr. Clay's compromise Resolutions in 1850, I distinctly stated my views in respect to legislative prohibition of Slavery in Territories. You will find this speech in the Congressional Globe Appendix, 1849-50, and this particular question discussed on page 478. I reaffirmed the same views in the Nebraska-Kansas Debate; & I have seen no occasion to change them. They are now substantially embodied in the Republican National Platform.

In respect to the organization of Territorial Governments I think Mr. Jefferson's plan of 1784 the better plan. It contemplated the prohibition of Slavery, as did the plan subsequently adopted, but it left more both in Organization & Administration to the people. The great objections to the “Territorial bills” of last winter, to which you refer, were in my judgment that they did not contain so distinct and explicit prohibition of Slavery, & that they did provide for the appointment of Territorial Officers by the Administration; which was equivalent to giving them pro-slavery Governors, Judges &c. To these bills I certainly preferred Mr. Thayer's Land District Bills: & I should have preferred bills framed on the plan of Jefferson, but with larger freedom of Legislation, to either.

I regret very much to hear of the feeling which exists in the Worcester District in regard to Mr. Thayer. I have but a slight personal acquaintance with him, but that acquaintance impressed me with a belief that he is sincere, earnest, & able. He has certainly rendered great service to the cause of Freedom. His plan of Organized Emigration contributed largely to save Kansas from Slavery. And if he now pushes his ideas too far in the direction of absolutely unlimited control by the settlers of a territory over every matter within their own limits whether national in its reach & consequences or not, it should be remembered that nothing is more certain than that the ripening convictions of the people favor — not the substitution of Presidential Intervention for Slavery, in place of Congressional Intervention against Slavery, which is the sole achievement of the Douglas Nebraska Scheme — but the admission of a far larger measure of true Popular Sovereignty, — fully harmonized with the fundamental principles of Human Rights, in the organization of Territorial Governments.

I write this for your own satisfaction, & because your kind letter calls for a frank response; I do not write for publication: because no opinions of individuals at this time are important enough to be thrust before the public. We are engaged in a great struggle upon a great issue fairly joined through our National Convention. God forbid that any personal strifes should endanger the Cause! Let us gain the victory; & I am sure that there will be then no difficulty in so harmonizing views, by honest endeavors to satisfy each others reasonable demands, as to secure that after success without which the preliminary success at the November Polls will be of little value.

_______________

* From letter-book 7, pp. 68-70. John Denison Baldwin 1809-1883; journalist at this time, owner and editor of the Worcester Spy; member of Congress 1863-1869.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 289-90

Governor Salmon P. Chase to Senator Charles Sumner, February 14, 1860

Columbus, Feb. 14, I860.

Dear Sumner, Your congratulations, if not among the first, were by no means the least welcome; for I know the sincere & noble heart from which they came.

But I feel no pleasure in the thought of returning to the Senate. If circumstances warrant me in so doing I shall prefer to resign without taking my seat. These are days of too much concession to suit me.

We all remember you with love and admiration. Your picture hangs alone in my library over a framed autograph of Charles Carroll. It hangs with others, all of earnest men, in my dining room. I put them all up when I first opened my house, as a defiance to the proslavery men who would resist or debase republicanism — as symbols of my faith and my purposes.

Why should Seward retire from the Senate? Is he certain of the nomination at Chicago? I do not so read the signs exactly; but I shall not be disappointed, if such shall be the event. I look upon him as a great man, faithful to the cause of freedom & humanity, & worthy of any honor which can be conferred upon him. We don't agree in some views, but I should be ashamed of myself, if I could be moved to undervalue or decry him. On the contrary I heartily honor, & cheerfully praise &, if the Republicans choose him as their standard bearer, shall zealously support him.

Cordially 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. 285-6

Gerrit Smith’s Resolutions Presented at the Convention of the New York Liberty Party, July 3, 1849

Cazenovia, July 3, 1849

1. Resolved, That we recognize the broadest principles of democracy and the right, irrespective of sex, or color, or character, to participate in the selection of civil rulers.

Passed unanimously.

2. Resolved, That when we admit that our hope of the establishment of righteous civil governments on the earth is in the prevalence of Christianity, we, of course, do not mean that spurious, or that mistaken Christianity, which upholds unrighteous civil governments, and which votes civil offices into the hands of anti-abolitionists, and land-monopolists, and other enemies of human rights.

Passed unanimously.

3. Resolved, That by our love of righteous civil government, of God and of man, we are bound to frown upon the public missionary associations of the world; — nearly all their politically voting members voting on the side of the diabolical conspiracies which have, in all nations, usurped the place and name of civil government—and such conspiracies being the preeminent hindrance to the establishment of righteous civil government, and to the spread of human salvation and blessedness.

Passed with but one dissenting voice.

4. Resolved, That the government which will not, or cannot, protect the lives and property of its subjects from the traffic in intoxicating drinks, is utterly unworthy of the name of civil government.

Passed unanimously.

5. Resolved, That it may be better to resort to revolution, than to submit to a government which compels its subjects to pay the debts of their ancestors.

Passed unanimously.

6. Resolved, That while we allow government to draw on posterity for the expense of wars, it is idle to hope that there will not be wars.

Passed unanimously.

7. Resolved, That no just nation need lay its account with being ever involved in war; and, hence, that no just nation can have any excuse or plea, whatever, for wasting the earnings of its subjects upon fortifications and standing armies and navies.

Passed unanimously.

8. Resolved, That the Federal Constitution clearly requires the abolition of every part of American slavery; and that the Phillipses, and Quinceys, and Garrisons, and Douglasses, who throw away this staff of anti-slavery accomplishment, and chime in with the popular cry, that the constitution is pro-slavery, do, thereby, notwithstanding their anti-slavery hearts, make themselves practically and effectively pro-slavery.

Passed unanimously.

9. Resolved, That law is for the protection, not for the destruction of rights; and that slavery, therefore, inasmuch as it is the preeminent destroyer of right, is (constitutions, statutes, and judicial decisions to the contrary notwithstanding) utterly incapable of legalization.

10. Resolved, That whether men cry “no political union with slaveholders,” or “no political union with gamblers,” or “no political union with drunkards,” they do, in each case, proceed upon the absurd supposition, that, instead of being necessarily identified with the whole body politic in which their lot is cast, they are at liberty to choose their partners in it, and to dissolve their national or state tie with this slaveholder in Massachusetts, or that gambler in Pennsylvania, or that drunkard in Virginia.

Passed unanimously.

11. Resolved, That land-monopoly is to be warred against, not only because it is the most wide-spread of all oppressions, but because it is preeminently fruitful of other forms of oppression.

Passed unanimously.

12. Resolved, That the governments which deny to their subjects the liberty to buy and sell freely in all the markets of the world, are guilty of invading a natural and a precious right.

Passed unanimously.

13. Resolved, That government will never be administered honestly and economically, until its expenses are defrayed by direct taxes; and that said taxes, to be justly assessed, must be assessed according to the ability of the payers, rather than according to their property.

Passed unanimously.

14. Resolved, That not only is it true, that the member of a proslavery church is untrusty on the subject of slavery, but that, (considering how, with rare exceptions, sectarians yield to their strong temptations to sacrifice truth and humanity on the altar of sect) it is also true, that the member of a sectarian church is not to be fully relied on for unswerving fidelity to the cause of righteousness.

Passed unanimously.

15. Resolved, That the genius both of Republicanism and Christianity forbids concealment, and that secret societies, therefore, do not only not promote either, but do hinder and endanger both.

Passed unanimously.

16. Resolved, That our only hope of the Whig and Democratic parties — parties so long wedded to slavery and other stupendous wrongs — is in their breaking up and ruin.

Passed unanimously.

17. Resolved, That, whilst we rejoice in the faithful testimonies and efficient labors of the Free Soil Party, against the extension of slavery, it must, nevertheless, be a poor, unnatural, absurd, inhuman, anti-republican, unchristian party, until it array itself against the existence as well as against the extension of slavery.

Passed unanimously.

18. Resolved, That the Liberty Party, though reduced in numbers, is not reduced in principles or usefulness — nor in the confidence, that its honest and earnest endeavors for a righteous civil government, will yet be crowned with triumph.

Passed unanimously.

19. Resolved, That, whilst we respect the motives of those who propose to supply the slaves with the Bible, we, nevertheless, can have no sympathy with an undertaking which, inasmuch as it implies the pernicious falsehood that the slave enjoys the right of property and the right to read, goes to relieve slavery, in the public mind, of more than half its horrors and more than half its odium.

Passed, but not unanimously.

20. Resolved, That, instead of sending Bibles among the slaves, we had infinitely better adopt the suggestion in the memorable Liberty-Party Address to the slaves, and supply them with pocket-compasses, and, moreover, if individual or private self-defence be ever justifiable, and on their part ever expedient, with pocket-pistols also — to the end, that, by such helps, they may reach a land where they can both own the Bible and learn to read it.

Passed, but not unanimously.

21. Resolved, That we welcome the appearance of the book, entitled, “The Democracy of Christianity;” and that we should rejoice to see every member of the Liberty Party supplying himself with a copy of it.

Whereas, Lysander Spooner, of Massachusetts, that man of honest heart and acute and profound intellect, has published a perfectly conclusive legal argument against the constitutionality of slavery:

22. Resolved, therefore, that we warmly recommend to the friends of freedom, in this and other States, to supply, within the coming six months, each lawyer in their respective counties with a copy of said argument.

Passed unanimously.

23. Resolved, That we recommend that a National Liberty Party Convention be held in the city of Syracuse, on the 3d and 4th days of July, 1850, for the purpose of nominating candidates for President and Vice President, and of adopting other measures in behalf of the cause of righteous civil government.

Passed unanimously.

24. Resolved, That a State Liberty Party Convention be held in the village of Cortland, on the first Wednesday of next September, for nominating State officers, and for other business.

Passed unanimously.

25. Resolved, That, not only with our Irish brother and our Italian brother, under their heavy and galling loads of civil and ecclesiastical despotism, do we sympathize, but, also, with our fellow-men everywhere — for, everywhere, in our priest, and demagogue, and despot ridden world, are our fellow-men suffering under civil or ecclesiastical despotism, or both; and nowhere in it is enjoyed the priceless and two-fold blessing of Christian democracy in the State, and Democratic Christianity in the Church.

Passed unanimously.

26. Resolved, That unwillingness to use the products of slave labor is a beautiful and effective testimony against slavery.

Passed unanimously.

Whereas, we rejoice to see the first number of the “Liberty Party Paper”—a paper which, we doubt not, will faithfully represent, and ably inculcate the principles of the Liberty Party:

27. Resolved, therefore, that we call on all the members of the Liberty Party to regard it as their first duty to that party, to subscribe for, and endeavor to induce others to subscribe for, this paper.

Passed unanimously.

28. Resolved, That we hear with profound sorrow, of the very severe, if not indeed entirely hopeless, sickness of our honored and beloved James G. Birney — a man who, for his wisdom, integrity, high and heroic bearing, deserves a distinguished place in the regards of his fellow-men.

Passed by a unanimous standing vote.

29. Resolved, That we honor the memory of Alvan Stewart, who, for so many years employed his remarkably original and vigorous powers in promoting the cause of liberty and the cause of temperance.

Passed unanimously by a standing vote.

Samuel Wells, Pres.

		A. KINGSBURY	}
			} V. Pres.
		J. C. HARRINGTON	}
S. R. Ward	}
	} Sec’s
W. W. Chapman	}

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 187-91

Senator Salmon P. Chase to A. M. G.,* February 15, 1855

Washington, Feb. 15, 1855.

Dear Friend, It is impossible for me to change my ground. I went into the Peoples Movement last year heartily and in earnest. I am for going on with it, proscribing nobody who does not manifest a disposition to proscribe us. I shall not complain, if not elected as a candidate for Governor, on any personal ground. To leave me off the ticket would be rather a favor personally than otherwise. If it be done and done honestly for the good of the cause, & not with a view to convert the People's Movement into a simple Know nothing organization, neither I nor any of my friends could object to it. If, however, it should be done merely to satisfy a proscriptive spirit the case would be different. If it should be attempted to impose the K. N. Shibboleth upon all the candidates for public suffrage in the People's Convention; — there might be & would be a duty to perform by those who cannot accept it. For myself I shall be, come what may, true to my antecedents & my democratic faith. I do not seek any position on the ticket. I could not accept a nomination for a Judgeship. Whether I would take any other would depend on the character of the nomination and the platform.

It seems to me that no such other movement as you suggest is likely to occur. Of course I could not participate in any such, unless the course of events should show that those who think & feel as I do are to be rejected by the People's Movement, which I do not anticipate. If that movement should be so perverted from its original objects that we could not net with it, then we should be obliged to shape an independent course for ourselves. It is too early yet to determine what that course should be.

If you would abate something of your tone against the Kns I think it would be wise. Indeed if I were editing the paper I should say little about them. What there is objectionable in their organization will be most likely to cure itself; if you only keep up an intelligent, animated war against slavery, and insist that in the People's Movement there must be the most liberal toleration of differences of opinion & oposition, with a view to the denationalization of slavery & the overthrow of the Slave Power. Keep your own democratic ideas prominent. Claim toleration & give it.

There in a great struggle going on in the Kn organization between the Anti Slavery & the proslavery element. At present the antislavery clement has the advantage. But the elements cannot dwell together. Be patient and time will separate the progressive from the conservative.

Would it answer for you to assume the sole editorial care of the Columbian? I suppose Mr. Hamlin would be glad to be released, and in that event you could have the benefit of my contribution to the support of the paper, so far as it should be necessary. I merely suggest this.

A few days ago I received a letter from a prominent Whig in Ohio who asked if Mr. Hamlin was my organ & said that his course in the Columbian was injuring me. I replied that Mr. H. was not my organ in any sense, but edited the Colⁿ, so far as he edited it at all on his own responsibility and in his own way, I added that I regretted the tone & tenor of the articles in reply to the Sandusky Register and on the Knownothings. I said nothing about his course injuring me. I saw no evidence of it.

I just mention this because I thought it best you & Mr. Hamlin should be apprized of whatever I do. But do not think that I desire to control you in anything. I will give you my ideas frankly: but you must allow them no weight beyond that which your judgment sanctions — none at all merely because they are mine.

Wilson is true as steel on the Slavery question: so are others here. They will break up the order sooner than see it used for the purposes of slavery. You must take the action of these men and the current of opinion in the free states in estimating the probable action of the Kn organization. I do not myself believe that it can be made as proslavery as either of the old parties. Still it occupies dangerous ground in this respect: and we must keep a look out. If they are liberal in Ohio this year I think we may be pretty confident that the movement will liberalize itself ultimately so as to do little harm to anybody.

In haste,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From the Hamlin collection.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 271-2

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 22, 1855

Washington, Jan’y 22, 1855.

My Dear Sir, I am in fault as usual about my correspondence. My only excuse is that I have more to read, write & talk than one man can do.

Your article in the Columbian was very bold: bolder than I should have ventured to write. I refer of course to the one in reply to the Sandusky Register. It is not, however, at all clear to me that your policy is not the wisest and most safe. At any rate I am disposed to confide entirely in your judgment, so far as the interest of the Ind’. Dem^c. wing of the Peoples Movement is concerned.

It is disagreeable to me to have the battle for a decided recognition of Antislavery principles & movement by the new organization carried on over my person. The Governorship is only desirable so far as I am concerned as a simple endorsement of my course in the Senate, & especially on the Slavery question, by the People. In other respects the reasons against being a candidate rather over balance the reasons for being one: and I am by no means persuaded that I ought to accept a nomination even if one should be tendered me. Certain it is that I do not wish my name to be the cause of division among the sincere & earnest well wishers of the Peoples Movement. Taking their ideas as my guides I shall patiently await the course of events for a few months before I determine positively what I ought to do.

Houston is going to Boston. He will probably lecture there on the [last of] this month. He is the favorite of the Massachusetts Kns¹ for the Presidency: and I think he will have a chance for the nomination of the order if he does not injure himself in Boston.

It is now certain almost that Wilson will be chosen Senator from Massachusetts. He cannot back out on the Slavery question and his election will be a decided triumph of the Antislavery element in the K. N. organization. It may lead to disruption. It guarantees, I think, against the order being converted into as mere a tool of the Slave Power as the old organizations have been. This, however, is a future event.

I am assured by reliable men in Ohio that there is no possibility of the order there being made proslavery. They may be deceived, but I am sure they don't mean to deceive. Those who write me feel somewhat sore about your course & Bailey's. They think that the tone of your editorials and his is calculated to weaken the hold & influence of Antislavery men, & to make the members of the sides less disposed than they would be otherwise to cooperate with outsiders on the Slavery issue. They think it would be better if you admitted that there was some ground for the [union] of the people against papal influences & organized foreignism, while you might condemn the secret organization & indiscriminate proscription on account of origin or creed. You know best how much weight to give to these suggestions. To me they seem to indicate about the wisest course; but I repeat I am disposed on these matters to confide more in your judgment than in my own.

I saw Judge Myers here. He seemed to think the prospect of election on the Convention Platform rather blue. He said Medill talked of resigning the nomination, but had concluded to hold on, and he seemed to have had the same idea & to have come to the same conclusion. The ticket must be [illegible] unless the Kns determine to claim all the nominations for members of the sides: in which event the result would be more doubtful. Certainly we ought to do nothing & say nothing calculated to prevent entire harmony of cooperation among all opponents of Sly. & the Slave Power upon fair & honorable principles & terms. So far as I can see there is nothing to be expected from the Old Line Democracy in its present position. It will be time enough to consider whether we ought to act with them when they place themselves in a position which renders such action possible & compatible with our consistency and honor. I want to write you often & to hear from you often, but I am much pressed for time & constantly interrupted.

_______________

¹ Knownothings.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 267-9

Gerrit Smith to Senator Charles Sumner, December 5, 1864 [Extract]

An amendment implying that without it, the constitution would authorize or even tolerate slavery, would do great injustice to those who adopted the constitution. It would be wickedly blotting their memory. So much stress has been laid on the history of the constitution, it may well be said that there are two constitutions, the one the historical, and the other the literal. The former is that which has ruled the country. Terrible, all the way, has been its rule. The cry of many millions to an avenging God has come of it. The soaking of our land with blood has also come of it. That the history of the constitution has so cursed us is because it is so almost universally held to be a pro-slavery history. In other words, that this historical constitution has so cursed us is because of the ever urged and almost universally accepted claim that the literal constitution was made in the interest of slavery. Alas for the people to whom the angel of the Apocalypse cried “woe, woe, woe,” if they suffered more than America has suffered from this historical constitution! That there is much for slavery in the history of the constitution I admit. But that there is also much in it against slavery I affirm. Pro-slavery interests however have succeeded in keeping the latter out of sight. The rejection in the convention, which framed the constitution, of the motion to require “fugitive slaves” to be delivered up, and the unanimous adoption the next day of the motion to deliver up, no “fugitive slaves,” but persons from whom labor or service is due, is a historical fact against slavery. So too is Mr. Madison's unopposed declaration in the convention, that it would be “wrong to admit in the constitution the idea that there could be property in man.” And so also is that convention's unanimous substitution of the word “service” for “servitude” for the avowed reason that servitude expresses the condition of slaves and service that of freemen. Nothing however of all this did I need to say. What this thing is, which is called the history of the constitution — what is this historical constitution as I have termed that history — is really of no moment. What it is in the light of the records of the convention referred to, or of the records of the “Virginia Convention” or any other convention, or what it is on the pages of the “Federalist,” or of any other book, or of any newspaper, should not be made the least account of. The aggregate of all those whose words contributed to make up this historical constitution, is but a comparative handful. The one question is — What is the literal constitution? For it is that and that only, which the people adopted, and which is therefore the constitution. They did not adopt the discussions of the convention which framed it. These were secret. They did not adopt what the newspapers said of the constitution. Newspapers in that day were emphatically “few and far between.” But even had they been familiar with the newspapers and with the discussions, their one duty would nevertheless have been to pass upon the simple letter of the constitution. As Judge Story so well says: “Nothing but the text itself was adopted by the people.” And I add that what the people intended by the constitution is to be gathered solely from its text; and that what the people intended by it and not what its framers or the commentators upon it intended, is the constitution. So we will take up the text of the constitution to learn what and what alone is the constitution. Its very preamble tells us that it is made to “secure the blessings of liberty.” Thus, even in the porch of her temple doth Liberty deign to meet us. Strange indeed would it be were she to desert us in its apartments! She does not. In our progress through the constitution we find it pleading the power of the whole nation to maintain in every State “a republican form of government.” Pro-slavery men tell us that this was no more than a republican government of the aristocratic Greek and Roman type; and that therefore men can consistently be bought and sold under it. But when the fathers gave us the constitution the political heavens were all ablaze with a new light — the light of the truth “that all men are created equal,” and that the great end of government is to maintain that equality. Ere we get through the constitution — ere Liberty has led us all the way through her temple — we meet with the slavery-forbidding declaration that: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law!”

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

What an argument it is in favor of the anti-slavery character of the constitution, that not so much as one line, no, nor one word of it, need be changed in order to bring it into perfect harmony with the most radical and sweeping anti-slavery amendment. And how strongly is this character argued from the fact, that were constitutional phrases, as innocent and inapplicable as these which are relied on to rob the noblest black man of his liberty, to be made the ground for robbing the meanest white man of his, or even the meanest white man of his meanest dog, such use of them would be instantly and indignantly scouted by all! And how strongly is it also argued from the fact, that a stranger to America and to her practice of making church and State and all things minister to slavery, could see absolutely nothing, could suspect absolutely nothing in the constitution, which might be seized on to turn that also to the foul and diabolical service?

But why should we stop with an anti-slavery amendment? Immeasurably more needed is an amendment to the effect that race or origin shall not work a forfeiture of any civil or political rights. Even an anti-slavery amendment may not be permanent. A race, whilst deprived of rights which other races enjoy, can have no reasonable assurance that it will be protected against even slavery. But make it equal with them, in rights, and it will be able to protect itself.

SOURCE: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 177-9

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* April 25, 1854

Wash. Ap. 25, 1854.

My Dear Sir: Your letter reached me yesterday. I wish you would write me oftener.

I feel no great anxiety as to the particular course which events may take in Ohio. If a genuine Democracy can be formed out of the Liberals of the old parties and the Ind. Democrats and nominate a ticket for Judge and Bureau of Public Works I should be glad. If the old Democrats who are resolved to make war on the Baltimore Platform and support in the future no National Candidates committed to its anti-democratic doctrines, can hold a good convention and make good nominations I shall have no objection to support their candidate. If neither of these things can be done, I am for co-operation with the Whigs and giving them the members Bureau of Public Works, and taking the Judge. The Whigs are now where the old Dems. were four years ago, opposed to a Pro-slavery National Administration therefore disposed to be antislavery. As we co-operated with the old Dems, then we ought to co-operate with the Whigs now.

I don't fear their getting the Members Bureau of Public Works this year. Next year we must have the member, and the three parties will then be represented in the Board, which is probably best for the State.

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. 260

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 23, 1854

Washington, Jany 23, 1854.

My Dear Sir: Wrote you a day or two since. Today the Nebraska Bill was called up, but was postponed till Monday. It is designed to press it through the Senate for fear of the awakening of popular indignation. I send you the Bill as now proposed to be amended. I send you, also, the original Report [of the] Bill from which you will see how material the attraction is. I also enclose with this an appeal in the Era. The signs all indicate Storms ahead.

I am fully advised that the amend'ts as they now stand were [made after] consultation with Pierce and that the Administration with a good deal of trepidation has resolved to risk its fortunes upon the bill as it now stands. Many of its warm friends say they are sure to go down upon it. There is certainly great alarm & misgiving. Cass told me today that he was not consulted, & was decidedly against the renewal of the agitation: but he will vote with the proslavery side. A personal & near friend of the Presidents called on me tonight & told me that Cass was excluded from consultations. They meant to drag him along. Even New Hampshire wavers about supporting the Bill. Maine is in a rebellion, all Rhode Island except perhaps Jones is against it. Every northern Whig Senator without exception is against it; Houston & Benton are against it

I hope the Columbian will [get the] slips of the Appeal and circulate it through the Legislature. You [don't] need to be told who wrote it. Please see to having the slips struck off & circulated.

I suppose the Senatorial [question] decided in this time. Feeling no interest in it, since no man can be elected who is not proslavery I only desire to call the attention of the people to a much greater matter. I am sorry to hear that you have electioneered for Manypenny. I like him personally, but I would cut off my right hand sooner than aid him or any other man to reach a position in which he will make Ohio the vassal of the Slave Power.

I shall soon return among the people and I mean to see whether shams will rule forever. I know that the advocates must bite the dust and they shall

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 256-7

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 Charles Sumner, March 15, 1850

Senate Chamber, Mar. 15, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: Thanks for your note. I wish I could have the advantage of your presence here and its consolation also.

We are in the midst of sad times, but I hope in God. He, I trust, has not yet abandoned us to the madness or meanness of politicians.

We have had an exciting debate this morning. Calhoun on the one side, supported by Davis of Miss, and Butler, in everything except his personal charges, came to an open rupture with Cass and Foote. I hope, in this, he will persevere.

Petitions, also, on the subject of slavery were received and referred of such a character that King of Ala. and Butler of S. C. declared that they would no longer object to the reception of any petitions whatever.

There is evidently disorder in the pro-slavery camp; I have great hope for the best.

Yours most cordially,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

I mean to speak and speak fully — but when I can't say. A junior Senator, especially of my stamp, has hardly a fair chance. I have not the readiness and self-consciousness of Hale.

What is to be done next election in the 4th district?

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 203-4

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

Philadelphia, Jany 2, 1850

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

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

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

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

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

Salmon P. Chase to Benjamin F. Butler,* July 26, 1849

Cincinnati, July 26, 1849.

My Dear Sir — The Free democracy of Ohio naturally regard with a good deal of solicitude the movement now made in New York with a view to Union between the Free democracy and supporters of General Cass: and as one of their number I have thought it best to state frankly to you the light in which the matter appears to me, and to ask in return an equally frank expression of your own thoughts upon it. Union between the different sections of the Democratic party is undoubtedly much to be desired: but it must be a union upon principle. The Buffalo Convention promulgated a Platform of Democratic Doctrines & Measures which those who composed that body pledged themselves in the most solemn manner to maintain and defend, until victory should crown the efforts of the free Democracy. That platform we adopted, as the National Platform of Freedom in opposition to the sectional Platform of Slavery. I have never met a Democrat of the Free States who did not admit that every resolution adopted by the Convention embodied sound democratic opinion. The resolution least likely to meet such general approval was that in relation to the Tariff and this resolution, as you are well aware, was the least palatable to me. Still it is unquestionable that this resolution expresses quite as distinctly the doctrine of a Tariff for Revenue, in contradistinction from a tariff for Protection, as the resolutions generally adopted on that subject in Democratic Conventions. The Buffalo Platform then is the Democratic Platform on which we are pledged to stand, at least until in National Convention the Free Democracy shall see fit to modify it, in harmony with the progress of Opinion. I see that the Pennsylvanian suggests as the basis of Union in New York general forgiveness on the part of the Cass Democrats to the Barnburners for the crime of supporting Martin Van Buren, and, in consideration thereof, the abandonment on the part of the Barnburners of the Buffalo Platform. I have no fear that any terms so degrading will be acceeded to by the generous spirits with whom you & I fought last year the most important political battle which this country has ever witnessed. But I have feared that a desire for union and the hope of a speedy triumph over their ancient antagonists the Whigs might lead them to take somewhat lower grounds on the subject of slavery than was taken at Buffalo. I should regard this as a deplorable mistake, to say no worse. I do not think that the Democracy could be reunited by such a step. You would leave out of the party formed by such a compromise, the entire body of the old liberty men and nearly all the Progressive Whigs who united with us last fall mainly on the Anti Slavery grounds: but those principles and views on political questions generally are so little whiggish, in the conservative sense of that term, that we may fairly assert them to be as Democratic in the main as our own. Besides this loss of numerical force, there would be the loss, still more to be deprecated, of moral power. The surrender or modification of Anti Slavery principle for the sake of Hunker affiliation and support would provoke and justify the contemptuous sarcasm of the entire Whig press, giving it a vantage of attack, which it would be prompt to avail itself of: Under these circumstances where would the Democracy be in future struggles, in nearly every one of the Free States? Borne down, I think, by a tide of opinion setting against it as untrue to its own principles & retrograded from its own position, much better it seems to me, will it be for the Free Democracy to maintain its own organization firmly and resolutely, and trust for growth for individual accessions and the junctions of small bodies in counties and towns, than to form any union upon the ground of compromised principle. There is no occasion for haste. The campaign of 1852 will not be opened for more than a year. The Free Democracy is daily gaining strength. The people approve our views and measures. The Old hunkers cannot go into the Battle of '52, without uniting with us on our own platform, except to meet inevitable and disastrous defeat. Not many of them have any such love for the maxims of Hunkerism as will make them covet political martyrdom. They must therefore advance to our platform however reluctantly or gradually. Better wait for them where we are than in our haste to rush to their embraces, leave our principles behind us.

I was much pleased by the remarks of John Van Buren at Cleveland.¹ He took the true ground “No more Slave States: No Slave Territory No encouragement But rather discouragement of Slavery by the General Government, and no support of any candidate for the Presidency who is not with us upon the platform” of course I don't give his language, but his views only. The last is the test clause. There are enough who will shout forth the three first propositions: but shrink from their practical application by the fourth, and agreement in the application must necessarily be the only secure basis of Union: for no other union will stand the trial of a nomination for the Presidency if that nomination would fall on a candidate of proslavery or doubtful principles. I hope that John Van Buren's sentiments truly reflect the opinions of the Free Democracy of New York. If they do whatever may become of the proposed union between the Free Democrats and hunkers in your state, the union of the Free Democracy of the union — far more important to the country and the cause of human freedom & Progress in general — is safe and its ultimate triumph as certain as the truth of its glorious principles. I enclose to you a communication to the Toledo Republican written, I suppose, by Mr. Hamlin the President of our Board of Public Works, which will still further shew you the views which prevail among us — I shall be glad to hear from you as soon as your leisure will permit and meanwhile remain

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 113 and 194-195. Benjamin Franklin Butler, 1795-1858; Attorney General of the United States 1833-1838; Acting Secretary of War October, 1836-March, 1837. Mr. Butler had presented Van Buren's name at the Buffalo convention in 1848.

¹ Probably at the Northwest Ordinance Convention, July 12. Cf. T. C.Smith Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 177.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 180-2

John Brown's Parallels, January 1859

Trading Post, Kansas, January, 1859.

Gentlemen, — You will greatly oblige a humble friend by allowing the use of your columns while I briefly state two parallels, in my poor way.

Not one year ago eleven quiet citizens of this neighborhood, — William Robertson, William Colpetzer, Amos Hall, Austin Hall, John Campbell, Asa Snyder, Thomas Stilwell, William Hairgrove, Asa Hairgrove, Patrick Ross, and B. L. Reed, — were gathered up from their work and their homes by an armed force under one Hamilton, and without trial or opportunity to speak in their own defence were formed into line, and all but one shot, — five killed and five wounded. One fell unharmed, pretending to be dead. All were left for dead. The only crime charged against them was that of being Free-State men. Now, I inquire what action has ever, since the occurrence in May last, been taken by either the President of the United States, the Governor of Missouri, the Governor of Kansas, or any of their tools, or by any proslavery or Administration man, to ferret out and punish the perpetrators of this crime?

Now for the other parallel.¹ On Sunday, December 19, a negro man called Jim came over to the Osage settlement, from Missouri, and stated that he, together with his wife, two children, and another negro man, was to be sold within a day or two, and begged for help to get away. On Monday (the following) night, two small companies were made up to go to Missouri and forcibly liberate the live slaves, together with other slaves. One of these companies I assumed to direct. We proceeded to the place, surrounded the buildings, liberated the slaves, and also took certain property supposed to belong to the estate. We however learned before leaving that a portion of the articles we had taken belonged to a man living on the plantation as a tenant, and who was supposed to have no interest in the estate. We promptly returned to him all we had taken. We then went to another plantation, where we found five more slaves, took some property and two white men. We moved all slowly away into the Territory for some distance, and then sent the white men back, telling them to follow us as soon as they chose to do so. The other company freed one female slave, took some property, and, as I am informed, killed one white man (the master), who fought against the liberation.

Now for a comparison. Eleven persons are forcibly restored to their natural and inalienable rights, with but one man killed, and all “hell is stirred from beneath.” It is currently reported that the Governor of Missouri has made a requisition upon the Governor of Kansas for the delivery of all such as were concerned in the last named “dreadful outrage.” The Marshal of Kansas is said to be collecting a posse of Missouri (not Kansas) men at West Point, in Missouri, a little town about ten miles distant, to “enforce the laws.” All proslavery, conservative, Free-State, and dough-face men and Administration tools are filled with holy horror.

Consider the two cases, and the action of the Administration party.

Respectfully yours,

John Brown.

_______________

¹ On the back of the original draft of “Old Brown’s Parallels,” in Brown’s handwriting, is the following indorsement by him in pencil of stations on the “Underground Railroad” through Kansas:—

Raynard, Holton, Nemaha City.

Dr. Fuller, six miles. On River Road,

Martin Stowell, Mount Vernon

Smith, Walnut Creek, fifteen.

Mills and Graham (attorneys), Albany, twenty-five.

Dr. Whitenger and Sibley, Nebraska City.

Mr. Vincent, Ira Reed, Mr. Gardner.

Besides these entries appear the following: —

Teamsters, Dr. To cash each, $1.00	$2.00
Linsley, Dr. at Smith's	1.00

On the other end of the same page, —

Cash received by J. Brown on his private account, of J. H. Painter on note	$100.00
Cash received by J. Brown on his private account, of J H. Painter for saddle	10.00
Cash received by J. Brown on his private account, of J. H. Painter for wagon	38.10

“J. Brown paid for company: For G. Gill, $5.70; to Penree, $39.00; to Painter, $8.00; to Townsend for shoes, $1.65; to Pearce, $3.00; to Carpenter, $10.00; to Kagi, $8.00; to Carpenter for making shirts, $2.00.”

These are part of the cost of the journey, no doubt.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 481-3