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 Edward S. Hamlin, August 22, 1850

Washington City, August 22, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, I recd. yours of the 14th this morning. Doubtless you have, also, just recd. my last to you, which answers in part the enquiries you make.

I have no faith at all in this administration. It has pursued the Whig policy of Evasion thus far. The resolute face towards Texas was assumed for the North. The appeal for a settlement of the boundary question, when they well knew that settlement by Congress, except by millions for nothing, was out of the question was for the south. It was as if our Fathers had said to Tripoli, you have no right to hold our fellow citizens in bondage and we will wage war with you if you do, and at the same time had said if you will release half of them we will pay you so many millions & say nothing about the rest. I hate oppression, but I despise truckling. I abhor the doctrines of the extreme South, but I contemn Whig policy. I am not for any union with any body who will not in good faith adopt and uphold the principles of the Buffalo & Columbus platforms. I do not believe the Whigs can adopt them for on other questions than that of Slavery they are democratic. I do not believe the National! democratic party will adopt them; for they hope more from treason to freedom than from union with radical democrats. Let both these gang their gaits. I am for maintaining our independent organization as a Jeffersonian Democratic Party & let who will desert or give back maintaining it firmly.

I hoped that Judge Wood would put such an exposition of the Columbus old Line Antislavery Resolution as would make his election an antislavery democratic triumph. 1 wished to support him. I yet wish to do so. But, at present, I wait for future developments. I look for the action of the Free Dem. Convention held today with great interest. If it is really democratic it will do much good.

I am anxious for the election of the free democratic candidate in the 21st district. I suppose from the information I receive that Dr. Townshend will be the man. I think his election of far greater importance to Freedom than any success of one candidate for Governor over another. The Freesoil Whigs, I suppose, will oppose him as they did me — I trust, with as little success.

As to the withdrawal of Judge McLean's name, that lie can do no harm. I have the Judge's own letters in my possession, which, if necessary, will speak for themselves. Besides I am not in the least sorry that the Judge was not our candidate. He could not have been elected: and the chances are three to one that he would have declined it or withdrawn. If he could have been elected who can say that he would have stood the test better than Webster or Fillmore. He is quoted now as authority for Webster's Fugitive Slave bill. And his decision in Indiana is such as I, though reposing the greatest confidence in his personal integrity, cannot sanction.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 217-9

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, May 27, 1850

Washington, May 27, 1850.

My Dear Hamlin, * * * What a singular political conjunction is that of Cass, Clay & Webster? What a curious spike team they make with Foote for a driver! Where will he drive them to? Political perdition, I imagine you to answer. And really I think you are more than half right. The signs are ominous of evil to the compromisors. Their patch work hardly seems to please anybody. The southern men will go against it, unless they can obtain amendments, which Clay himself dare not vote for — dare not simply because he would by so doing merely transfer himself to their ranks without followers. The break between Clay and the Administration seems to be complete and final. His course reminds every body of his action when Tyler came in. But the difference in circumstances between now and then is very remarkable. Taylor was elected President and is the head of the Whig Party by choice. Tyler became President by a dispensation of Providence and was never the head of the Whig Party at all. Clay now holds a faction — then he lead a Party. The difference is great. He is in danger of being treated as a rebel. The article in the Republic this morning is significant of more to come. On the other hand the Southern extremists regard Clay with little favor — rather I might say with jealous dislike. He has never been with him, [them] and his attempt to head them now — to put himself in their van and dictate to them their course excites no very amiable feelings among them. You may look with great confidence for the failure of the Compromise.

Great interest is felt here in regard to the result in Palfrey's District. The democrats there have acted with great liberality, and we expect, with great solicitude the news of Palfrey's election. The result is decided by this time, and the wires are perhaps even now carrying tidings of it to every section of the country.

Corwin, I understand, is to speak soon. He intends I believe to take ground against Clay. He says he feels a little awkward, having escaped from Clay's service, in which he has been held so long, and is a little apprehensive of reclamation under the fugitive law — but he don't want to go back — he don't like the service. I think he will make a telling speech.

I learn, but am not certain as to the accuracy of my intelligence, that Taylor desired to keep the Texans out of New Mexico, but was overruled by his cabinet.

Write soon & often.

Mrs C. is better, but the disease, I fear, not vanquished.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 212-3

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, April 13, 1850

Washington, Apl. 13, 1850.

My Dear Sumner: I am surprised that you have not received a copy of my speech — It was printed here on the 4th of April in the Intelligencer, and by the mail of the 5th I sent you a copy. The Union and the Globe were dilatory; but the Era had it in full on Thursday, and I suppose on that morning you must have rec'd it in that paper. The Intelligencer I sent doubtless miscarried. To-day the Union commences the publication of it headed, “Union and Freedom, without Compromise”. It seems almost ludicrous to me to see such an old-fashioned Liberty document, by the side of the Patent Democracy of the Union. Last evening I sent you a pamphlet copy which you rec'd today or will receive tomorrow (or Monday) I suppose. I am obliged to you for speaking to Punchard. I hope he will publish; though I confess that the speech is too long. Tell him, however, it was necessary to be full at the outset, and hereafter I shall study limits.

I am glad the speech pleased you on a cursory glance, and, I hope, you will not feel obliged to change your judgment on a more deliberate perusal. I think there is some diffuseness which could have been corrected with a little more pains. But I designed it for the masses, and hoped to render a permanent service to the cause by furnishing a tolerably unexceptionable document for circulation. Hence the fullness of authorities and citations, which I should have avoided if I had aimed at reputation solely.

It would be really gratifying to me if our friends in Massachusetts should think fit to publish a handsome edition; and I feel much obliged to you for your effort in the matter. The fact — if it should become a fact — made known here would have a good effect and stimulate the circulation of them from this place and in other places. Should the publication be made I would esteem it an additional mark of kindness if you would correct the proof. The Copy used should be the Era, Intelligencer, Globe or Union, where the speech was printed in full. It should be corrected by the pamphlet copy which is most correct in type — though somewhat abridged in order to bring it in 16 pages. The pamphlet copy, however, is not more correct than the Globe or Union where it appeared in full.

I do not think it certain yet, though highly probable, that the Cabinet will break up. In that event, it is although doubtful who will succeed. I believe the Seward influence will be, if not predominant, influential. You mistake when you say, “Seward is with us”. He holds many of our antislavery opinions, and will never, I believe, abandon them. But he means to give his support to the Taylor Platform of non-action. He tells me he thinks this as far as we can get at present. He will vote for California, as a Free State. He would have voted, he says, for California as a Slave State. He will vote for the Proviso in the Territories. He knows it cannot pass, and he knows that it could pass if the Administration were favorable. He will not make his support of the Administration, conditional upon the Administration's support of the Proviso. But he will support the Administration and vote for the Proviso. The Proviso being rejected and he will make no great effort to secure its adoption — perhaps would prefer not to see the Administration embarassed with it — he will fall back upon the Administration plan of non-action. I tell you this that you may not be disappointed and that you may understand why Seward will be likely to have considerable influence in the organization of the new Cabinet if one should be organized. Non-action is General Taylor's own plan. It suits him. Neither Webster nor Clay, I imagine, are agreeable to him. They are both for the Cass plan of non-intervention. Seward is against the Webster, Clay and Cass plan and for the Taylor.

As for the Democracy, I have more hope from it than you have. It is probable, however, that the Hunkers will require another defeat to bring them to their senses. Cass is full of hope just now, a few weeks ago he thought himself used up. The Buchanan star was in the ascendant. Already I have reason to believe the Hunkers are parcelling out the offices in anticipation. But they are deceiving themselves. A leading gentleman of Ohio was written to to the effect that he had best relax his zeal for slavery restriction, and that he might look to a certain high office. His answer was that “Ohio must not be regarded as a party to any such arrangement — that his vote would never be obtained except for a reliable antislavery Democrat, — if for a democrat at all.” I learn from Connecticut that the Free Soil democrats hold the balance of power and that no man can be sent to the Senate of the United States (unless by a union of Hunkers, Whigs and Democrats) except a true and known opponent of Slavery and the Slave Power. So also from Ohio I learn that the signal democratic victory there as it is called is only a triumph of Free Soil. The Free Democrats hold a reliable balance of power. And a large number at least six of those claimed as Democrats will not support the Democratic nominee for Governor unless he will openly take Free Democratic ground. Here the outside appearance of Democracy is bad. But the fire of regeneration is burning within, and the party is sure to become antislavery—reliably antislavery I mean — long before the Whig party will — unless indeed the Slaveholders propose emancipation and Compensation, which would convert the Capitalists into Emancipationalists at once. In the mean time the Free Democracy must maintain its organization and maintain too (which I deem very important) its democratic principles in relation to other subjects than Slavery. This will constitute a powerful pressure on the Democracy — depose Hunkerism from its ascendancy — and finally bring about the result we all desire.

I have written tediously, and have left myself neither time nor space for much that I wish to say about current events here. Boston is doing nobly. I hope we shall have the Committee and secure the admission of California at all events.

Give my best regards to Palfrey when you see him. Is there any foundation for the story that he thinks of withdrawing and that a Compromise Candidate is to be selected? I trust not. Remember me also to Adams, Parker, Wilson and other friends. Has Burlingame returned from Europe yet?

Ever faithfully yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

P. S. What has become of that edition of your writings?

P. S. 2d. If Palfrey should withdraw would there be any possibility of putting Leavitt (Joshua) on the track and inducing the democrats to go for him? He would be a most important accession to our strength and perhaps his prominence in the Cheap Postage might secure votes for him.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 206-9

Salmon P. Chase to Messrs Milton and C. E. Sutliff,* Warren, Trumbull County, Ohio, April 30, 1849

Cin. Apl. 30, 1849.

Gent. Your note by your nephew Saml. was recd. this morning. As I know nobody in California, the best I could do for him was to give him a letter of general introduction, which I did in such terms as I thought would do him most service.

The Whig Papers keep up their attacks on me and my friends, and I keep on never minding. I am satisfied that what was done last winter in the way of martial cooperation between Freesoilers and Democrats was right, and will be attended by the happiest consequences to the great cause, to which eight of the last years of my life have been devoted. I care little therefore for the railing of the Taylorites, or even of the Beaver & Chaffee Freesoilers, so called. The worst that I wish to these last, or even indeed to the first, is that their eyes may be opened, and their hearts purged of the old leaven of Whigism, that they may sec the truth of Free Democracy & love it.

I have sometimes thought of writing an exposition of my position and action, but have been withheld by considerations akin to those which influenced Dr. Beecher under similar circumstances. You know the story, perhaps; but lest you may not have heard it I will tell it to you. On one occasion the Doctor was going home to Walnut Hills and saw a suspicious looking animal by the roadside. The Dr. is a little abstracted, and, the sight of the animal stirring up his combative propensities, he, at once, launched at it a quarto volume which he was carrying under his arm. The skunk returned the salutation with compound interest, and the Doctor was glad to beat a hasty retreat. Soap and water did their best for him and his garments, but some time elapsed before either he or they were tolerable again. Years, afterwards, the Doctor was asked why he did not reply to some scurrilous pamphlet put forth against him. “I have learned better,” was his pithy reply: “I once issued a whole quarto against a skunk and got the worst of it.”

Give my best regards to our friends in Warren, particularly, Judge King & Hoffman & Hutchins & believe me

_______________

* Original lent by Mr. Homer E. Stewart, of Warren, Ohio. These brothers, Milton and C. E. Sutliff, were among the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society,

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 170-1

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

April 4, [1849.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With very great regard,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

_______________

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

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

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

Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, Columbus, Ohio, January 17, 1849

Cincinnati, January 17, 1848 [1849?]

My Dear Hamlin: I wrote you yesterday a few words in reply to yours of the 13th.

Vaughan has written to Briggs. He takes up my defence quite in earnest and very generously. You will see Matthews defence of Morse & Townshend in the Globe, made upon my suggestion. The Era of this week will I expect contain another. While I am thus active in having these gentlemen defended, it does seem to me that a little might be done in the same way for me. But, perhaps, it is thought silence is my best defence, and that my character will take care of itself. Perhaps this idea is correct; but, I confess, it galls me a little to see such insinuations as that of Briggs & others on the Reserve, go without any antidote whatever. I do not know what to say in reference to the paper. I do not think it advisable for you to leave until after the Senatorial Election, unless you have given up all expectation of such an issue of that as we have desired; and, with my limited means of information I see no reason as yet to despond. It strikes me that, if the printing of the House cannot be secured, the most advisable course would be for Mr. Garrard to borrow enough to carry on the paper till spring, when you could go out and raise means, with what aid I and others could give, to pay off the debt and make everything straight. Just at present I am in the most awkward position possible to act for the paper. After the Senatorial Election, whether the choice falls on me or another, I can act more efficiently, and you may rely on me, in every event, to the extent of my ability.

I will ascertain the state of things with the Cincinnati Globe and let you know. I should be delighted to have you here, but do not see how you could be spared from Columbus. Perhaps however we could find some one to fill that post, and you could be there in the winter: especially if you can be elected to the Pres. of the B^d of P. W.

1 am not certain that Whitman occupies the attitude you think he does. Would it not be well for you to call on him, and ascertain his views. He will, I am confident, meet you frankly and fairly.

How do Beaver, Johnson, Lee & Chaffee feel towards me now? They were very savage after the election of Speaker; and, perhaps, they had some reason in as much as they had no warning of the purpose of Col. Morse & Dr. Townshend to vote for Breslin, and supposed I was instrumental in keeping that purpose from them. They were quite mistaken in this. I approved the intention of Messrs. M. & Townshend, because I thought it was the only way to save the Free Democracy from identification with Whigism, but I never thought of making any secret of it. Had they held such a conference as I proposed, eschewing dictation and yet using perfect frankness one towards another, the whole matter would doubtless have been explained by the gentlemen concerned. Had Mr. Beaver, or Mr. Chaffee, or Mr. Johnson or Mr. Lee chanced to call on me after I became apprized of the intention of Messrs. T. & M. to vote as they did, I should, most probably, have mentioned it to them. But it so happened that I was just then,—the Court in Banc being about to adjourn — engaged night & day upon my arguments, and did not go over to the State House or to the Capitol House for some days. So far as I was concerned, therefore, the non-communication to them of the intention of Messrs. M. &T. was entirely accidental. So far as those gentlemen were concerned, I think they will admit, if they will candidly & generously review all that occurred, that their own course towards them had not been such as to invite the most entire freedom of communication.

I am looking anxiously for the introduction of the bill to repeal the Ham. Co. division clauses of the apportionment law. I hope Mr. Riddle will introduce it; and the sooner it is done the better. It is very plain to me that the Free Democracy will never espouse the Whig side of this controversy.

What has become of the bill to establish Separate Schools for Cold persons, &c., which Morse was to introduce? I hope you will give some attention to this. It is really important, and if it can be got through with the help of Democratic votes, will do a great deal of good to the cause generally & our friend Morse especially. I am glad to hear that he stands firm. I think he need not be afraid but that the people will stand by him. It is evident to my mind that before the Legislature rises the Freesoilers in it will be compelled to take his ground, or give up their claims to the title altogether.

Ask Dr. Townshend & Mr. Morse why they don't write to me. I am very desirous to hear from them. Do write me as often as you can, and believe me,

Please hand the enclosed to Stanley Matthews forthwith.

P. S. Has anything been done to secure the cooperation of the democrats in returning a Free Soiler of the right stamp from Clinton? This could certainly be done, if proper exertions were made, and you cannot fail to see its great importance. Nichols intended to go down, but writes me that he has not done so. If you think best, however, I do not doubt that he will go. Had you not better see him. Vaughan will go, if it is desired; or possibly you might kill two birds with one stone by going yourself & presenting also the claims of the paper. I have written to Thos. Hibben of Wilmington & enclosed a Standard Prospectus &c.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 148-51

John Hay to John G. Nicolay, August 25, 1864

Warsaw, Illinois, August 25, 1864.

. . . . We are waiting with the greatest interest for the hatching of the big peace-snake at Chicago. There is throughout the country, I mean the rural districts, a good, healthy Union feeling, and an intention to succeed in the military and the political contests; but everywhere in the towns the copperheads are exultant, and our own people either growling and despondent or sneakingly apologetic. I found among my letters here, sent by you, one from Joe Medill, inconceivably impudent, in which he informs me that on the 4th of next March, thanks to Mr. Lincoln's blunders and follies, we will be kicked out of the White House. The d----d scoundrel needs a day's hanging. I won't answer his letter till I return and let you see it. Old Uncle Jesse is talking like an ass, — says if the Chicago nominee is a good man, he don't know, etc., etc. He blackguards you and me — says we are too big for our breeches, — a fault for which it seems to me Nature or our tailors are to blame. After all your kindness to the old whelp and his cub of a son he hates you because you have not done more. I believe he thinks the Executive Mansion's somehow to blame. . . .

Land is getting up near the stars in price. It will take all I am worth to buy a tater-patch. I am after one or two small pieces in Hancock for reasonable prices, 20 to 30 dollars an acre. Logan paid $70,000 for a farm a short while ago, and everybody who has greenbacks is forcing them off like waste paper for land. I find in talking with well-informed people a sort of fear of Kansas property, as uncertain in future settlement and more than all uncertain in weather. The ghost of famine haunts those speculations.

You were wrong in thinking either Milt or Charley Hay at all copperish. They are as sound as they ever were. They of course are not quite clear about the currency, but who is?

Our people here want me to address the Union League. I believe I won't. The snakes would rattle about it a little, and it would do no good. I lose my temper sometimes talking with growling Republicans. There is a diseased restlessness about men in these times that unfits them for the steady support of an administration. It seems as if there were appearing in the Republican party the elements of disorganization that destroyed the Whigs.

If the dumb cattle are not worthy of another term of Lincoln, then let the will of God be done, and the murrain of McClellan fall on them.

SOURCES: Abstracted from Clara B. Hay, Letters of John Hay and Extracts from Diary, Volume 1, p. 219-21. See Michael Burlingame, Editor, At Lincoln’s Side: John Hay’s Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings, p. 91-2 for the full letter.

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, February 19, 1848

Cincinnati, February 19, l848.

My Dear Sir: It always gives me a great deal of pleasure to hear from you; but I was more than gratified by your last letter. I thought I saw in it an augury of approaching union, among the true and earnest lovers of freedom of all parties — a union which every patriot and philanthropist cannot but earnestly desire. For myself, I care not under what banner the rally may be, so that the banner bear blazing on its folds the inscription of Freedom; nor shall I think it of much moment by whom it may be borne, so he be, at all events, a true hearted champion of the Right. How strange it is that such an union has not already been formed — was not long since formed! How it is possible that such facts as those stated by Mr. Palfrey in his Speech — and he gave only a few by way of sample — not at all treating the monstrous bulk — can have been known to Northern men and non-slaveholders, and yet stirred up no fever of indignation, I cannot understand. Unless indeed I adopt the humorous solution of your downeast poet, Hosea Biglow, who says in one of his inimitable lyrics:—

We begin to think its nater,

To take sarse and not be riled,

Who'd expect to see a ’tater,

All on eend at bein’ biled?

Your overtrue description of the fate of honest antislavery men in the Whig Party, devoted to private assault and assassination — suspected, slandered, and traduced applies just as strongly to the antislavery democrats. I believe it was Euripides who said — as Milton translates him:—

There can be slain

No sacrifice, to the Gods more acceptable

Than an unjust and wicked king.

The converse of this is certainly true. There can be no more acceptable sacrifice to unjust power — the unscrupulous slave power — than the immolation of an earnest & defiant¹ friend of Freedom and the Right. And I have heard democrats complain [of efforts¹] made to ruin them in public esteem, and cut them off from all hopes of political advancement, with an emphasis not less strong than your own. But what remedy for such grievances, except by independent action? How can we expect that the people will sustain us, or that demagogues and serviles will fail to combine against us, defaming our characters, impairing our influence, depriving us opposition, and, what is greatly worse, thwarting our best purposes, unless we give them to understand that we can get along without them, if they choose to get along without us — that our principles are as dear to us as the loaves and fishes of office are dear to them? Once let it be understood by politicians, that no candidate for office can receive the suffrages of antislavery men, who does not, in some reasonable sense, represent antislavery principles, and parties will not dare to fly in the face of antislavery sentiment as they do at present. What a figure the Radical Democracy of New York will cut, if after resolving and resolving upon the absolute necessity of adherence to the Proviso under all circumstances, they should, after all, go into the Baltimore Convention next May and acquiesce in the nomination of Cass or Buchanan or any such man? What a figure will Antislavery Whigs cut in acquiescing in the nomination of Taylor, or Clay, or any other slaveholder, who gives no clear and unequivocal evidence, that he cherishes any antislavery sentiments?

I have thought much of the best means of concentrating antislavery effort. I confess I have not yet seen any clear line of action. The most eligible I have thought is to assemble in National Convention, in June next, say at Pittsburgh, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the country, and adopting such practical measures as may be then judged most expedient. My own judgment inclines to the opinion — strongly inclines to it — that should the Whigs nominate a candidate for the Presidency who will take decided ground against the extension of slavery into territories hereafter acquired, such a Convention should give such a candidate its support. The same measure should be applied to the Democratic nomination. Should both parties nominate men, not to be depended on for such opposition to slavery extension, then such a Convention should nominate a candidate of its own.

I have no expectation whatever that General Taylor will take any decided ground upon any question. He will certainly take no ground — unless he changes all his habits of thought, all his sentiments, and all his prejudices—against the extension of slavery. General Taylor is very strong in the South. I was at St. Louis and at Louisville a few weeks since, and had an opportunity of learning something of the feeling of the western southwestern slave States in relation to him. He will sweep them if a candidate like a tornado. But I am not able to see any convincing indications of his strength in the North and Northwest. I see rather signs which satisfy me that if he receives the nomination of the Whigs, it must be because the Whigs of the North and Northwest sacrifice their interests, their honors and their duties, to the ambition of party success. As to Mr. Clay, he might properly receive the support of antislavery men if he would come out unequivocally against the extension of slavery, and in favor of a Convention and some reasonable plan of emancipation in Kentucky. I have no faith, however, that he will do this, though I do not deem it quite impossible.

You say “if Judge M'Lean could be induced to take any practical ground against the extension of slavery he would be a popular candidate”. You may recollect something of a letter from Columbus last fall which appeared in the Era. That letter contained a statement of Judge M'Lean's position as understood by the writer, and it was this, that the Wilmot Proviso, as to all territories in which slavery does not exist at the time of acquisition, is in the Constitution already. A resolution of Congress may declare the principle and legislation by Congress may enforce its application; but neither resolution nor legislation is needed to establish the principle. It is in the Constitution. The paragraph of this letter containing this statement was shown to Judge M'Lean and approved by him. I had a conversation with Corwin² and I regretted to find that he did not sympathize with or concur in these views. So far as I could discover he had no definite, considered principle or opinions on the subject. He thought it best to avoid the question, by opposing territorial acquisition, but if it must come, then secure freedom by legislation.

Under all circumstances I cannot but think Judge M'Lean to be all together the most reliable man, on the slavery question, now prominent in either party. It is true he does not fully agree with those who are generally known as antislavery men. But on the question of extension of slavery he is with us, not only on the question of its impolicy and its criminality, but also because he believed such extension would be a clear infraction of the Constitution. Add to this the constant and familiar association with antislavery folks in his family and among his friends, and his known aversion to slavery itself — an aversion so strong that when he quitted Washington, although in debt, and comparatively poor, he emancipated his slaves, when sale would have produced the means of discharging all his obligations. I regret very much the decision of Judge M'Lean in the Vanzandt case and believe he fell into great error; still on the pressing issue — the extension of slavery, he is wholly with us, and in general sentiment on slavery questions, nearer to us than any other statesman of either of the two old parties. He is not against the Proviso — on the contrary he is in favor of it. He thinks it however is inexpedient to weaken the strength of the Constitutional position against slavery, by introducing a specific measure of legislation against it, under present circumstances, when its defeat in the legislature or its veto by the Executive is certain, and such defeat, in the general opinion, would take away every obstacle from the introduction of slavery into new territories.

I understand from Mr. Vaughan, that the Boston Whig has given a different statement of Judge M'Lean's position, from the one I have just set before you. You may depend, however, on the fact that mine is correct; and I leave you to judge whether I am wrong in thinking that the nomination of M'Lean by the Whig Convention would be the most substantial triumph of antislavery which has been achieved this century.

I thank you for your offer to circulate a few copies of the Vanzandt argument in Westminster Hall. I send you a dozen for that purpose. I read your address on Fame and Glory with very great pleasure.

Forgive this long letter, and believe me,

Faithfully your friend,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

¹ Conjectural. Torn in MS.

² First part of name torn out of MS. From the final syllable, win, Corwin is conjectured.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 128

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, December 2, 1847

Cincinnati, Dec. 2, 1847.

My Dear Sir: Several months have elapsed since I rec'd your last valued letter, and the delay of my answer has not been occasioned by an indifference to your correspondence, — far from this, — but by a consciousness that I could write nothing of particular interest to you. Within the last few months however much has occurred, of deep interest to the friends of Freedom and Progress, and it seems to be time that some beginnings should be made towards a mutual understanding in regard to the best course to be pursued during the approaching national canvass.

It was a great blow for Liberty and the Right that struck at Herkimer.¹ The Conventions of both Parties in your State, — the Old Bay State to which we were wont to look for examples of devotion to Freedom,—had repudiated the only measure, which, during the last quarter of a century, has been brought forward successfully in Congress, of an anti-slavery character. The sluggish depths of Servilism — apparently without Soundings — were stirred for the first time since the triumph of Slaveholders on the Missouri Question, by a bold and decided movement for the arrest of westward progress of the Great Cause. The Wilmot Proviso, carried in the House by an overwhelming majority, failed, in the Senate, — sad to say — through the folly or worse of a Massachusetts Senator. Ten political lives of ten John Davises, spent in earnest efforts in the best direction could not compensate for this half hour's mischief.²

The Slaveholders, startled by the sudden outburst of Free Sentiment, recovered their equanimity, when Congress had adjourned without adopting the proviso. At the next session, the Sentiment in favor of the proviso had visibly lost strength. Carried in the House, it was defeated in the Senate. Returned to the House, it was lost there. Emboldened, by these events, the Senate took more decided steps. In your State Convention the Proviso was smothered. Mr. Secretary Buchanan wrote his letter. Mr. Vice President Dallas made his speech. Who will bid highest for Southern votes? was now the question. The votes of the complaisant North were thought to be safe-secured by the bonds which Party gives to despotism. The Syracuse Convention met, and the Proviso was smothered there. A ticket of Anti-Proviso men was nominated, and the faithful were called upon to stand by the Party nomination. We felt the effect of this in Ohio. The friends of the Proviso were discouraged. Few, comparatively, — except the old Soldiers in the Antislavery warfare who with Spartan valor and in Spartan numbers have carried the Liberty banners through two election conflicts, — could be found who were willing to pledge themselves, come what might, to the Cause of Freedom. In this state of things, came the clarion call for the Herkimer Convention. I thank God that that call reached the hearts of the people of the Empire State! They rallied to the Convention. They repudiated the Syracuse Servilism. They resolved that the Wilmot Proviso — the stone which the builders rejected — should be made the head of the corner. The election followed. The Serviles were overthrown, and the Country was saved. I may be greatly in error, but I know of no event in the History of Parties in this Country, at all approaching, in sublimity and moment, the Herkimer Convention, or rather the great movement of which the Convention was the most signal, visible expression. I think there can now be no doubt that the Proviso is safe in Ohio, with both parties; nor can I believe that it can be successfully opposed in Congress.

But what next? Is there not great danger that the friends of freedom may be tricked out of the fruits of their labors by dexterous management of the Presidential Canvass? Will not a great effort be made to keep both parties together upon their old platforms? Will not attempts be made to select men who will be acceptable to the Slaveholders, and in their attempts will not love of office get the ascendancy over love of country, and secure the nomination of a devotee of Slavery or at least a worse man, — a Compromiser? Great efforts are being made I am well assured to bring Mr. Clay out as the candidate of the Whigs. His friends hope to manage the Taylor movement so as to make it contribute to this result. On the other hand the Democracy seems to be looking towards Woodbury and Cass chiefly; either of whom, would, I presume, give any desired pledges to the Slaveholders. There is, indeed, a very considerable opposition to these men; but, I fancy, it is hardly powerful enough to secure for any other person the choice of the party. I have heard, of late, indeed that Woodbury's decision in the Vanzandt case has gained for him the favor of Mr. Calhoun, while General Taylor's response to the signal³ letter has shaken the confidence of the Perpetualists in him.

In this state of things what is to be done? Cannot a great Convention of all Antislavery men be held at Pittsburgh, say next May or June, and put a ticket in nomination, which will at all events receive votes enough to carry the nominees into the House, with a reasonably fair prospect that the choice may fall on them, and, at all events, with a very good prospect of their election by the people in 1852? I have a good deal of faith in a movement of this kind. In the hope of aiding it I went to the Buffalo Convention and urged a postponement of the nomination. In that I did not succeed. I feel quite confident however that the nominees of that Convention will not stand in the way of such a movement. I declined its nomination for the Vice P'y, partly that I might be at liberty, more efficiently, to promote it, though you will readily conceive other and very sufficient reasons, why I — wholly unknown, and, out of my profession, wholly inexperienced — should decline such a nomination. Such a movement shall have, of course, my best efforts. I think there are multitudes, — I may be too sanguine — yet not active who will aid it. What do you and those friends who act with you think of it?

I send you by the mail which will convey this a number of the National Press, which contains three articles which will interest you. In your last you asked as to Judge M'Lean's position. One of these articles defines it, and, I am warranted by what I have heard from the Judge, in saying it defines it correctly. Another of them is an account of a recent slave case, tried at Columbus. The report is a good one. The verdict astonished most people. The motion for new trial is continued till next term. Will you make an abstract of the case for the “Reporter”? The other article is Mr. Gary's Speech against the War. Is it not strange that a gentleman who makes this speech is a thorough Calhoun man on the Subject of Slavery?

Very truly and faithfully your friend,

[Salmon P. Chase.]

Did I ever mention my wish that some copies of the Vanzandt argument might teach some of the legal minds of England? Will you be kind enough to aid in the accomplishment of that wish?

_______________

¹ The mass meeting of Anti-Slavery Democrats, October 26. See Shepard's Van Buren, 357-58.

² Referring to the prevalent belief that Davis's speech in favor of the Proviso at the end of the session was so long that no time was left for a vote. Cf. Von Hoist, III, 287-289; Henry Wilson, Slave Power, II, 17, seriously questions whether the Proviso could in any case have passed the Senate.

³ Written from Monterey, Mexico, May 18,1847, to the editor of the Cincinnati Signal, who had urged the nomination of General Taylor, April 13,1847. Itis printed in Niles' Register, July 3,1847, p. 288.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 124-7

James E. Harvey to Abraham Lincoln, June 5, 1860

Private

Washington City,

June 5. 1860.

My dear Sir,

Your note of the 31st May, reached me a day or two since. I think your reserve in regard to private correspondence, eminently proper under present circumstances, and no personal or political friend ought to except to it.

My information from the interior of Pennsylvania is encouraging, and in Philadelphia we have silenced the Fillmore organ of '56, through the influence of which we were then betrayed. Consequently, the third ticket has now but one paper there, – the Evening Journal – of limited influence & character, & not of American antecedents, which is really the important point in our local politics. You are aware of Course, that the political organization of Pennsylvania supporting You, is not strictly Republican. To bring in the Americans, disaffected Democrats, & general elements of Opposition, we called it the People's Party, & in that name all our victories have been achieved & the State redeemed. The largest infusion is Republican in character, & that spring from our old Whig party. Of late, there has been an attempt in Philadelphia, to get a distinctive Republican organization, in anticipation of future results. Certain patriots suppose that prominence in this way now, may be serviceable hereafter. The only effect of that movement is to embarrass us with those, who hold the balance of power, & to a great extent the result in their hands. You will at once see the hazard of such an experiment, as introducing an element of discord among men, who have hitherto acted in concert & harmoniously. Our friends have however judiciously yielded, all that good policy might concede to these parties, and it now looks, as if we would work smoothly together.

There is a pause in Pennsylvania & New Jersey, which will continue until after the Baltimore nominations. Douglass has a strong hold on his party in both. But I am persuaded not only from observation, but from close contact with all the factions at Charleston, that nothing can now happen at Baltimore, which will seriously damage us. In the first place, I cannot see how Douglass is to obtain two thirds. That will depend upon the admission of bogus delegates from the South, which the New York vote will decide, & New York put the knife to his throat at Charleston. If nominated, the Cotton States will certainly run a separate ticket, which of itself would demoralize the party. If not nominated & an obnoxious platform be adopted, such as is now proposed & intended with the aid of New York, his friends assured me at Charleston – I mean the men authorized to speak – that they would quietly retire from the Convention. In either Contingency therefore, our prospect is not impaired.

Pennsylvania after all is to be the battle ground of this Contest. New Jersey breathes the same atmosphere & sympathizes with us. In order to reach the Commercial Classes, the North American has been obliged to address their reason & intelligence gradually, commending & illustrating Your Conservative Whig character & antecedents. This will serve to explain why we have not shouted as loudly as some others. Had we done so, our influence for good, would have been much neutralized. The state of the Tariff here is likely to aid us materially. Hunter & the controlling spirits of the Senate are disinclined to touch the House bill, & intend to adjourn if possible, after passing the appropriations – say about the 25. If they do, we will raise a storm about their ears, which will echo across your prairies. Our man Cameron, has not done all that we desired, but he will be constrained to do the rest. Let me say just here, there is a rivalry springing up between him & Curtin, our Candidate for Governor, which you would do well to ignore entirely. It will be bad enough by & by when we win. Let us know neither now. Seward is much cut down & has good sense enough to avoid Chase's bad taste & folly. The real & upright men who sustained him, are in grave earnest – I mean such as Spaulding who represents Buffalo. Greely writes me, that his quarrel is about ended, which ought never to have been begun, & that henceforth Webb & Co, will be allowed to splurge in peace. Laus Deo.

Very Truly

James E. Harvey

SOURCE: Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Salmon P. Chase to Preston King,* Ogdensburgh, New York, July 15, 1847

July 15, [1847.]

I have no reason to suppose that you know anything more of me than what my argt. for Vanzandt last winter made you acquainted with, & perhaps I am unwise in writing you this letter. Still as I think it may be the means of some good to our country & the character I have heard of you induces me to believe that you will treat my communication as made in strict confidence I will proceed with what I have to say, only observ'g that I shall be glad to hear from you in reply & that you may depend on my making no other use of yr. letter than that wh. you expressly authorize.

You are not ignorant that many of the Anti slavery men who have heretofore acted with the Lib. Party are prepared to support Mr. Wright of yr. State for the Presy. upon Wilmot Pro. grd., understand by that term not merely the exclusion of Slav^y, from future territorial acquisition, but also a return to the line of policy marked out for the Nat1. Govt, by the Ord^c. of ’87, by putting the example & influence of the Gov^t, on the side of Lib^y. instead of the side of Slav^y. I am persuaded that very many Whigs of the west shall have these sentiments & that sh^d. the Whig Party commit itself to the support of any Slaveholder — even of Gen. Taylor, Mr. Wright may be elected to the Pres^y. by the votes of the Free States alone.

If there is any prob^y. that Mr. W––– may be the candidate of the Wilmot Prov. Democ^y. for the Pres^y. it is now very important to ascertain his views. The Lib. Party will hold its nominating Convention in October, and if no candidate of the other parties can be relied on for a firm though temperate & strictly constitutional opposition to Slav^y., they will doubtless nominate their own candidates & adhere to them with unanimity: whereas sh^d. Mr. Wright be likely to be a candidate upon the grounds I have indicated, a vast number of them wd. feel it to be their duty to give him their cordial support.

For myself I sympathize strongly with the Dem. Party in almost everything except its submission to slaveholding leadership & dictation. I cannot abide the crack of the whip, but if the Demo. Party takes independent ground, & follows boldly the lead of its own principles, then I am willing to give to its nominations my humble support.

I was shewn yesterday a letter written by a gentleman, represented to be an active politician of your State &claiming to be possessed of the views of “the Great Man of New York,” meaning Mr. Wright. This writer informs his correspondent Mr. Taylor, the Editor of the Signal, that Mr. W. is prepared to render important aid to the election of Gen. T. & suggests the connection of Mr. W's name as can. for the V. P^y. with that of the Gen. as can. for the P^y. I can hardly imagine that there is any ground for this representation. If Mr. W. be willing to accept such aposition, he is not, of course, the man to be the leader of the Democracy of the Country in the impending struggle with the Slaveh^g. Aris^y. & its supporters North & South. Surely such a leadership is a far more honorable position than a nomination for the V. Presidency upon any ticket whatever. I have misconceived the character of Mr. Wright if he does not so regard it. And it does seem to me that if the N. Democ^y. will but maintain the ground, which you & others marked out first last winter, its success will not be less signal than its position will be glorious.

As to Gen. T. I have reason to know him to be as honest as he is brave; but he is certainly not a democrat in our understanding of the word or in any proper understanding of it: and it seems to me that it w^d. be nothing short of suicidal vanity, to indulge the expectation that a man in his circumstances & with his connexions can ever be relied on as a friend of the Wilmot Proviso or any measure at all antislavery in its character. I shall feel much obliged by the favor of an early reply & remain

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 96-97. Preston King, 1806-1865, Member of Congress, 1843-1847,1849-1853. At this time a leader of the “Barnburner” wing of the New York Democrats. He became a Republican in 1854, and was United States Senator 1857-1863.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 120-2

Salmon P. Chase to John Thomas* of Cortlandville, New York, June 24, 1847

June 24, [1847.]

I am much obliged to you for yr. kind letter of the 11th ult. wh. I recd. yesty. It always gratifies me to hear of the condition & prospects of the great cause which engages us both & to be informed of the views & feelings of A. S. men in all parts of the Country: I wish there was more of communion between our friends. I am satisfied that it wd. greatly allay jealousy, & insure, instead, confidence & the activity wh. springs from confidence. I can echo from the heart all you say of the merits of our excellent friend Gerrit Smith. I honor him & love him as a true friend not merely of human right but of humanity. Shd. it become necessary for the Lib. Party to nom^e. candidates for the P. & V. P. in '48 & shd. he receive that nomination, he shall have my cordial & earnest support. I have not sufficy. compared the reasons wh. may be urged for his nomination, wh. may be urged for the nominⁿ. of some other equally reliable A. S. man to be able to make up my mind, whether I shd., if a memb. of a noming. convn. give my voice for him in pref. to evy other. Indeed, at this time, when we can see so little of the circums. wh. must deter^e, this choice, it seems to me the pn. of prudence, to note facts & traits of char. & reserve a final decision until the moment shall call for it.

It seems to me yet doubtful whether the Lib. P'y will have any occasion to nominate candidates for the Nat1. Elec^t. of '48: I have not a doubt that Gen. Taylor will be the Whig nominee, though he says in a letter shewn me to day & of wh. I will send you a copy to morrow that he will not accept a party nomn. If he be the candidate of the Whigs or a no party candidate, supported by the entire body of S. Whigs & the majority of N. Whigs, the N. democracy will be obliged to throw itself upon A. S. ground.

Even Gen. Taylor, cotton planter & sugar planter as he is —  slave-holder as he is — feels, as you will see, by the letter referred to, the necessity of taking if not a favorable position, at least a neutral one, in reference to the Wilmot proviso. What ground then may not the democracy be reasonably expected to take? Will they not be compelled to take, substantially, the ground of the Lib. P.? If they take it, will they not constitute in part the Lib. P.—? I am not prepared to assume the prophectic char^r. & predict the events & developments of the coming winter, but I think the signs of the times are such, that we ought to wait & observe at least until Spring: and then take that course which a wise & consistent regard to the grand paramount object of the Lib. organⁿ., viz. the overthrow of the Slave Power & the extinction of slavery in our country shall lead us to. The first political aspiration of my heart is that my country & all my countrymen may be free. This is my paramount political purpose & object. To attain this end I am content to labor & if need be to suffer. I have always regarded the Lib. organization as a means to this end I now regard it as nothing more. I feel ready therefore to give up the Lib. Organⁿ. at any time when I see that the great object can be accomplished without the sacrifice of principle in less time by another agency. I must indeed be well assured that such other agency will be more efficient & act upon honest principles, but once assured of this I shd. regard the question of duty as solved.

I acknowledge myself much gratified by the kind consideration of yrself & others. I do not think it at all probable that a contingency will arise in which the interest of the cause of Freedom will be promoted by presenting my name for the high office you refer to.

I am comparatively young, & unknown & my services to the cause have been slight in comparison with many others. For these & other reasons I do not wish to have my name spoken of for the V. P. We have worthy men enough in the West, if it be desired to have a western man. Judge King or Mr. Lewis of this State or Judge Stevens of Indiana not to mention others wd. fill the station with honor & credit. If however it shall become necessary for the Lib. Men to nominate Candidate as a distinct party, & — what seems to me very improbable — the contingency shall arise that the friends of freedom deem it wisest & best to have my name upon the ticket, I shd. hardly feel at liberty to withhold it. I shd. however, even then, consult my own sense of duty & be guided I trust by its admonitions.

I shall be very happy to hear further from you & to have the benefit of yr. suggestions as to the views I have presented as to the possible inability & inexpediency of separate Lib. nominations. I see the Macedon Lock Convention has nominated Mr. Smith & Mr. Burritt.¹ I send you the Daily Herald of to day the leading article of wh— expresses my views of the conⁿ. and its nomination. I regard this Convention & the attempts which are made to make eccl. connexion a political test in the Lib. Party, as indications that the necessities of the times will require a diff. instrumentality from that of the Lib. P. for the overthrow of sla^y.

I send you a copy of my argt. for Vanzandt — He is dead & the spoiler defeated &c.

Present to Mr. Smith when you see him the assurances of my most cordial respect & affection & believe me

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 94-95.

¹ See T. C. Smith, History of the Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the North West, 101, for this action of the “Liberty League.”

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 118-20

William Schouler* to James S. Pike, April 25, 1850

House Of Representatives,

Boston, April 25, 1850.

My Dear Pike: You don't know how glad I was to receive your letter of the 20th inst. The spirit of the letter was in unison with my own feelings and with the feelings of all good Whigs in this quarter. The ways of Congress to some are “past finding out,” but they are now being discovered. I know that I do not overstate the fact when I tell you that our good old President is daily increasing in popular favor and regard, and Clay and Webster are decreasing in a like ratio.

We are determined here to stand by the administration, and no longer pay court to Hunkerdom anyhow. I have taken an unequivocal position, and I shall sink or swim with it. I find, however, that very little nerve is required to sustain this ground, for the people here are all of one accord. Even those who signed the letter to Mr. Webster, and were recalled by a certain speech to a “true sense of their constitutional duties,” do not find fault with me, with one or two exceptions, and they are the “born thralls of Cedric,” the Wambas and Gurths, for whom I care nothing, and who have little or no influence upon the popular mind because they are known, known even without the brass collar.

The Whig party in our State stand firm as a rock, and I have no doubt that we shall draw in a large part of the Freesoil party to the support of the administration. I don't know what we shall do in the Fourth District. The election takes place on the 29th of May. I think, however, that whoever the Whig Convention nominates will be elected. The Whig candidate, you know, has declined. He may be renominated again. His letter of declension was first-rate, and has added to his popularity, and may cause him to be put on the track again. It is possible that Hon. Samuel Hoar will receive the nomination; if so, he will certainly be elected, as the Freesoil men and Whigs can both elect him. I have known him for twenty years, and there is no better Whig living. He was opposed to General Taylor, but he has been satisfied with the old man, and he told me this forenoon that every thing which the administration had done since it came into power met with his hearty concurrence. He has had a seat alongside of me in the House for nearly four months, and I know of no better Whig anywhere. Still it is doubtful whether he will be nominated, or, if nominated, that he would accept to run against Palfrey. Nous verrons.

Your letters to the Courier are just the fodder, and I read them with great delight; they will do good.

I really hope that you will write me often. I like your letters hugely. Give my respects to the “honorable Truman,” and all other good and true Taylor men.

Yours truly,

Wm. Schoulbr.

_______________

* Editor of the Boston Atlas.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 42-3

Samuel Kettell* to James S. Pike, April 25, 1850

Boston, April 25, 1850.

My Dear Sir: Nothing objectionable in your last. T’other one has made quite a fortune for itself as far as publicity goes. You will see by the accompanying Albany paper how it is relished in certain quarters. The sweetness of the praise bestowed upon you by one critic is tempered by a drop of acid from the galipot of another. On the whole, you may congratulate yourself highly on the success of that scratch; none but a sharp one could have caused so much rubbing. I could send you many other copies of the letter and the comment thereon, but suppose you have already seen abundance of them.

You and I have but one opinion of the charlatanry and egoism of Clay. It is a portentous humbug that has ridden the Whig party like a nightmare. I would as soon buy real estate in the tail of a comet as I would invest political capital in his principles.

My hope and trust is that you may never be hampered in the free expression of your thoughts through the columns of the Courier. The reputation which you have gained for it is great. I wish the independence of a public journal were a means of making it profitable, but I am ashamed for our enlightened public to say that the dullest, stupidest, most unideaed and slavish of all printed sheets are the very ones most certain of success in money matters. People are very eager to read what they will not pay for. I know that by abundant experience.

I am now awaiting with the utmost impatience the result of the negotiations which I mentioned to you, and which will decide whether I am to stay in or go out of the concern. Whatever happens, I shall always feel the great obligations we have been under to you, and always be ready to do what I can to requite them.

Yours truly,

S. Kettell.

J. S. Pike, Esq,

______________

* The editor of the Boston Courier.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 40-1

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

Oct. 20, 1846.

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

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

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

_______________

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

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

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