Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* July 21, 1854

Washington, July 21, 1854,.

My Dear Hamlin: It was good to see your handwriting again. You had been so long silent that I almost began to think you had forgotten me, and did not know where to address a letter to jog your remembrance.

I share your disappointment in regard to the outcome of the Columbus Convention,¹ and thousands upon thousands throughout the country partake it also. But then, the question is, Can anything better be done than make the best of that? One thing is clear, the Convention have made an issue with the Slave Power, and the people will not let the politicians shirk it hereafter. The determination to restore the Mo. Restriction and the declared opposition to New Slave States will make it impossible to avoid it. We shall thus have free access to the people and all we have to do is to urge our larger and sounder views, and get the intelligent assent of the masses to them. Starting from the Anti-slavery point I do not fear that the new party will not be ultimately essentially democratic. But should it be otherwise one thing is clear—the Old Line Democracy will go beyond it, whenever once whipped into its traces (?) in respect to consistency, in Anti-slavery declarations; and thus furnish to Antislavery democrats a party to their kind. It shall not be my fault if the new party does not become essentially democratic; and you must help me. The day may come when I shall have it in my power to prove my sincere appreciation of your merits; or you may, which I would greatly prefer, be placed by the appreciation of the people, in a position where you can confer easier than receive favors.

It is true as alleged by some that the Antislavery Resolution of the Old Line Democracy is more comprehensively antislavery than the People's Platform at Columbus, but, then it has been neutralized by the endorsement of the Baltimore Platform and nullified by the acts of the Party which put it forth in electing such a President as Pierce and such a Senator as Pugh² and in sustaining such Covenant Breakers as Douglas. There is a good hope that the People's Platform will be stuck to, and a little truth honestly received and lived up to, is better than a great deal of disregarded profession.

You see that I mean to go along with the Antislavery movement, in the phase which it has now assumed; keeping a watchful eye upon it that the strength which our votes give it be not abused.

We have confirmed the Japan Treaty. It is a great thing for our reputation to have made the first Treaty with that isolated Empire. Its provisions are important to our Pacific Commerce.

The Reciprocity Treaty is under discussion. I think it will be confirmed.

What do you think of Hunter's substitute for the Homestead bill? I voted for it finally, after the Senate had abandoned the House Homestead Bill, as the best bill there was any hope of securing at this session. Keep me advised me where to write you.

Yours faithfully,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From the Pierce-Sumner Papers.

¹ The first State Convention of the Anti-Nebraska men, July 13,1854. Cf. note in Schuckers's Chase, p. 165.

² George E. Pugh succeeded Chase as Senator from Ohio. Chase's term expired March 3,1855.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 262-3

Francis Lieber to Senator Charles Sumner, December 29, 1864

New York, December 29, 1864.

I must write to you, my friend, even from my sick-bed. Some time ago you wrote to me what topics were before you in the Committee of Foreign Affairs, on all of which you invited my say. . . . I merely single out the Reciprocity Treaty. I have not studied the details of the objections. You know I am a free-trader, which means nothing more than a non-obstructionist, one that considers it rebellion in the puny creature to dare interfering with his Maker's material elementary law of civilization — that of exchange. But apart from this, I see the very worst consequences which would naturally result from establishing the harsh, and I think semi-barbarous, line of prohibition between us and Canada; the harsher, the less feasible the thing will be. All will suffer from it, except the smuggler — the armed smuggler en gros, such as he was known under Napoleon. . . .

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 354-5