Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 4, 1853

Private.

Washington, Feb 4,, 1853.

Dear Hamlin, Thanks for your two letters, the last of which was received today.

I do not wonder that some of our friends of the Old Line feel uneasy in relation to our present position. It is a strong one and will be certain to deprive them of the control of the State, unless they are liberal & fair in their action. There is however nothing in it to alarm any real friend of democratic progress. All the liberals have to do is to pursue a just and conciliatory course towards us, and there will be in Ohio, in less than two years a united Democracy united upon principle and determined to maintain their principles everywhere — even in National Conventions, of which liberal men will be the natural exponents, and which will not only [be] irresistible in the State, but which will give tone to the nation. Judge Burtley in particular, has nothing to apprehend. I regard his election as certain beyond any contingency except that of a serious division in the democratic ranks or a repudiation by or in behalf of the Old Line Democrats of their present platform: neither of which events seems to me, at present, very probable.

Our present position, as Independent Democrats, is more useful to the liberals in the regular ranks than our incorporation into those ranks could be.

I was very much pleased with the results of the Free Democratic Convention. The resolutions were excellent & suited me exactly: but how happened it that those relating to myself and Giddings & Townshend were never printed.

Our position it seems to me was never so strong as now. The Dem. Convention (old line) went right and the Ind^t. Dem. Convention, also, went right, and the prospect here seems to be that the incoming administration will be liberal. Our present manifest duty and policy, it seems to me, is to strengthen our existing organization as much as possible.

Here the feeling is very good. Carter says he shall do all he can to secure my reelection. Cable, I am told, says the same thing: and Johnson, of Coshocton, told me today that in his opinion the condition of things in Ohio indicated that result. Giddings expresses himself decidedly and earnestly for me. I do not, however, permit myself to indulge any sanguine expectations. I know how precarious are all calculations of the future: and shall be content whatever event may turn up — so that our cause goes forward.

It is my duty to testify truly as to the wishes of the people of Ohio in respect to a cabinet officer: and I have no doubt that Medary is the choice of four fifths of the Democracy if not a larger portion. Nor do I doubt that he can make a competent Postmaster General. I should expect from him if appointed an energetic and able administration. Thus thinking, I speak. I know he has not given me that hearing or favor in his paper which he might have done; but I allow much for his circumstances. I am sorry to differ from you in this matter, but the difference is of no great importance, as I have no hand in making cabinet officers The most I do is to give my honest opinion when asked.

The last statement from Concord is that Gushing, Dix and Medary are certain to go into the Cabinet. The next comer may bring a different story.

I like Manypenny very much and have great confidence in his ability and honesty both. The time may come when I shall be able to serve him, when it comes, sooner or later, I shall be ready — McLean is an old friend, and a warm hearted, generous fellow. His connection with the Miami Tribe has brought on him some enemies — but more have seized this matter as a means of enabling them to gratify old grudges. Some of those who are opposed to him are, also, very friendly to me. Of course I take no part in the quarrel, but endeavor to conciliate & harmonize.

I do wish you were in the control of the Nonpariel. I hope it may be arranged, and am willing to do my full part towards it at any time.

I have received a number of a German paper at Cincinnati supporting the Free Dem. ticket. Do you know anything of it?

Would it not be an even better disposition for the present of your time and talents to go through the state every where and organize; and especially make arrangements to secure the right kind of men in the Legislature? I have mentioned this matter to Rice & wish it might be arranged through the Committee. I will bear my full proportion of the expense.

I have heard what you write about Wilson. I doubt the extent of his influence at Concord. It is hardly so great as represented.

Medary is here. He has confined himself for the most part to the Agricultural Convention; and will start on his return day after tomorrow.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 248-50

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

Washington City, Jany. 16, 1851.

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________

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

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 230-2

Senator Salmon P. Chase to 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

Samuel Medary & James H. Smith to Edwin M. Stanton, January 14, 1861

Columbus O. Jan 14th 1861

Red’d, Washington, Jan. 14th 1861,

To Hon Edwin M Stanton

If you can, take the war office for Gods sake & the Country.

S. Medary

J H Smith

SOURCE: Stanton, Edwin Mcmasters. Edwin McMasters Stanton Papers: Correspondence, 1831 to 1870; 1862; 1862, Jan. 14-Feb. 2. 1862. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/mss41202002/, Image 39. (Accessed September 20, 2017.)

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 18, 1850

Washington, Feb. 18, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, Your last letter was very interesting to me. I regret that our friends in the Legislature do not purpose to act in concert with the Democrats in the Legislature in the elections. I regret it, because I do not see any thing in our present relations so different from those which existed last winter as to call for a different line of action. But to be sure it is now more necessary to preserve union among ourselves. Then, the Freesoilers elected as Whigs & Democrats respectively could not be expected to stand together as harmoniously as those elected last fall without concert with either of the old parties, all of whom now stand in the same position in which Morse & Townshend stood last winter, and I agree with you that action with either party is not so important as harmony among the Free Democrats.

Giddings is strongly of opinion that Hutchins should be nominated for Governor. In this I fully agree, provided that Wood is determined to remain mum, as all the information I get indicates that he will.

I should be glad to have Stanley Matthews elected Secretary of State; but if he cannot be nominated I hope Taylor may get it. Taylor has edited the Mirror with great discretion & perfect fidelity to the cause of Free Democracy. He has talent enough and sagacity enough to make a leading man; but his boiler will bear more steam than he puts on, except when something rouses him pretty thoroughly. I do hope that if Matthews cannot be made Secretary of State that his services may be secured as an Editor of the Standard. I will cheerfully do my part towards paying his salary, I wish we could have an equally competent man at the head of the Nonpareil. I would gladly, also, contribute liberally to pay his expenses. As to Matthews you may assess me according to your discretion: and why cannot you make up the amount needed in this way by just assigning to leading men in different parts of the State their respective quotas and telling them they must come forward with the dust?

Speaking of newspaper projects you may be interested in knowing that the Northern Democrats are talking seriously of establishing a Democratic Paper here in opposition to the Union. Bailey is also talking of issuing his Paper as a Daily. If he does not do so, I think the project of the Northern Democratic Daily & weekly will be pushed in earnest. I have offered to be one of fifty or if necessary one of twenty to make up $10,000 for the object. I believe the whole sum could be raised in a week. There is the strongest dissatisfaction felt in regard to the course of the Union.

Are you aware that Medary's correspondent “Oche” is also the correspondent of the Charleston Mercury? I am informed that such is the fact. I wonder that Medary continues his engagement with him, when he could have the services of men here who would contribute to spread a feeling conducive to the ascendancy of the Democratic Party in Ohio, rather than, by alienating the Antislavery wing contribute to its overthrow. Cant you talk to Medary on this subject, and advise me what he says and why he continues this man Wallace as his correspondent?

The signs here are favorable to freedom. The Doughfaces who voted against Root's resolution are getting thoroughly scared. Root had the floor today, & gave them, especially, Winthrop a terrible scathing. Mann, also, gave the slaveholders a talk on the frailties of dissolution, its modus operandi and certain consequences.

In the Senate it has become certain that California will be admitted with uncurtailed boundaries, which will give the deathblow to the Missouri Compromise Project; the Kentucky Senators, the Delaware Senators & Benton will vote for it and I know of no Northern Senator who will probably vote against it except Sturgeon. We would have passed Benton's proposition to instruct the Committee on Territories to report a bill for the admission of California unconnected with any other subject today, but for the wish expressed by Benton himself seconded by Webster that opportunity might be given to all for the expression of their views.

The Admission of California will be the forerunner, I think, of the defeat of the slaveholders this winter on all their important propositions. Little Clemens has the floor for next Tuesday when we shall have blood & thunder in quantity. The California question of course, for the present suspends all action on Clay's resolutions on which I meant & still mean, if an opportunity occurs to speak, and develop fully the views & principles of the Free Democracy.

Give my kindest regards to all our friends at Columbus. I shall send them in a few days the speeches of Berrien & Davis as I want them to be aware of the extreme Southern positions, the real positions in fact of the Slave Power.

I am glad to say that Mrs. Chase's health is improving Is Mrs. Hamlin with you this winter? I see some statements about your colleagues of the Board in the Senate debates. What is meant?

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 201-3

John Brown to His Family, January 11, 1859

Osawatomie, Kansas, Jan. 11, 1859.

Dear Children, All, — I have but a moment in which to tell you that I am in middling health; but have not been able to tell you as yet where to write me. This I hope will be different soon. I suppose you get Kansas news generally through the papers.¹ May God ever bless you all!

Your affectionate father,

John Brown.

______________

¹ They would thus learn that he had made his foray, and that both Governor Medary of Kansas and President Buchanan had set a price on his head. Charles Robinson's account of this foray (published twenty years later in the “Topeka Commonwealth”) is characteristic: “Brown and his heroes went over the line into Missouri, killed an old peaceable citizen, and robbed him of all the personal effects they could drive or carry away. Such proceedings caused the Free-State men to organize to drive him from the Territory; and he went to Harper's Ferry, where he displayed his wonderful generalship in committing suicide.”

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 489-90

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