An Act for the admission of the State of California into the Union, September 9, 1850

Whereas the people of California have presented a constitution and asked admission into the Union, which constitution was submitted to Congress by the President of the United States, by message dated February thirteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty, and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That, until the representatives in Congress shall be apportioned according to an actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States, the State of California shall be entitled to two representatives in Congress.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned; and that they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain of the United States, and in no case shall non-resident proprietors, who are citizens of the United States, be taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters within the said State shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor; Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinance adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that State.

APPROVED, September 9, 1850.

SOURCE: William H. R. Wood, Editor, Digest of the Laws of California: Containing All Laws of a General Character Which Were in Force on the First Day of January, 1858, p. 43

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

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: June 30, 1863

Dispatches from the West show that we still held Vicksburg at the last dates; and, moreover, Gen. Taylor (son of Zachary Taylor) had stormed and taken the enemy's fortifications at Berwick's Bay, with the bayonet. We took 1000 prisoners, 10 large cannon, and many stores. Also that we had taken Thibbodauxville, and have thus cut off Banks from New Orleans.

5 O'clock P.m.—The city is now in good humor, but not wild with exultation. We have what seems pretty authentic intelligence of the taking of Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, the City of York, etc. etc. This comes on the flag of truce boat, and is derived from the enemy themselves. Lee will not descend to the retaliation instigated by petty malice; but proclaim to the inhabitants that all we desire is Peace, not conquest.

From Vicksburg we have further information that, in springing his mine, Grant destroyed hundreds of his own men, and did us no injury. Also that a battery we have above Vicksburg had fired into some passing transports, doing great damage to life and boats. The troops landed, and failed to take the battery by assault, losing hundreds in addition.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 365-6

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, July 11, 1848

Cincinnati, November 27, 1848.

My Dear Sir: Thanks for your welcome and cheering letter. It is truly grateful to me to feel how responsive to each other are our judgments and sympathies. Our struggle is ended — only for the present, I would say rather, it is just begun, did not the recollections of eight years of effort, amid difficulties and discouragement far formidable than any which now encompass us, carry me back to a much earlier date of the beginning of the Contest than many assign. The Buffalo Convention of 1848, and the movements which immediately issued in that, I would call the beginning of the end. I think that now, through the twilight of the present and the mist of the future, the end may be discovered — at least by eyes annointed with faith.

You have fought a glorious battle in old Massachusetts. Young Wisconsin, alone, can claim equal honors with you. You have had to contend with long-seated prejudices arrayed against our Presidential nominee and against the overbearing money power of the Lords of the Loom. Under the circumstances, you have, I suppose, equalled if not exceeded your own most sanguine expectations. We are looking now, with great anxiety for the result of the second trial in the District of Judge Allen and our noble Palfrey. Most earnestly do I hope that Massachusetts will honor herself by sending those true sons to represent her in the next Congress. She and Liberty will need them there.

Here in Ohio we did not do near so well as we expected — not near so well as we should have done had the vote been taken immediately after the Buffalo Convention. Many causes conspired to diminish our vote. The principal were the general impression, that the contest was between Taylor and Cass, and the idea, unceasingly disseminated, that General Taylor would not veto, would, in fact, favor the Wilmot Proviso. No man labored harder to produce these impressions than Mr. Corwin. He traversed the whole state, speaking to large assemblies and to small, at the principal points and obscure villages, saying every where, “I know Gen. Taylor will not veto the Proviso”, and endeavoring to convince the people, by his stories of Gen. Taylor's action in reference to the Seminole negroes, that he was, in fact, a man of antislavery opinions and sympathies. Whether he succeeded in convincing himself I don't know; but certain it is that he exerted a mighty influence in checking the development of anti-Taylor sentiment, and in persuading many who had resolved to oppose the Philadelphia nomination, to come out in favor of it. All this operated against us in two ways. While Mr. Corwin succeeded in detaching two or three votes here and two or three there from the Free Soil Cause, securing them for Taylor, the very fact of the defection of these votes induced more or less of those who had resolved to with-hold their votes from Cass and give them to Van Buren, to forego their determination and to fall back into their old ranks. This process, placing us between the upper and the nether millstone and diminishing our force by every turn of the wheel, was carried on very actively for several weeks preceding the election; and though we did all we could to counterwork it, yet, being scattered over a large territory with hardly any pecuniary resources and a very imperfect organization and little or no mutual concert or cooperation among our Committees or speeches, all our efforts did not avail much. The battle is now over and Senator Corwin and his co-workers have the satisfaction of having quietly reduced the Free Soil vote, without any other result than that, (which the Free Soilers have predicted ever since the nomination of Taylor), of giving the electoral suffrage of Ohio to General Cass. Whether Senator Corwin has shared in the impression he has endeavored to make upon the people I do not know. One thing is certain; he has lost entirely the confidence of the sincere and earnest antislavery men of the State. The very men, who eight months ago were his warmest friends — in fact his only reliable and fast friends in the State — are now converted into his most decided and stern opposers. They still admire his talents and esteem his social qualities, but they no longer respect his principles.

The results of the contest leave us here in Ohio, in a peculiar position. The election of Taylor makes his supporters anxious that their promises to the people in his behalf shall be, in some degree, kept. Should he veto the Wilmot Proviso or conduct his administration so as to indicate disfavor to it, we may look for another revolt among the Whigs. On the other hand the defeat of Cass has secured the last link that bound a large number of Democrats — in fact a great body of them in this State to the Slave Power. They have no longer any bond of union in their old organization. The spoils are gone — and the South is gone. Under these circumstances many of them are turning a wistful eye toward the Buffalo Platform, and I should not be greatly surprised if the coming winter should witness a union between the old Democracy and the Free Democracy in our Legislature upon the principles of our Platform. Already such a union is foreshadowed by the tone of the newspapers, and the course of events in the northern part of the State. Should it take place in any considerable section of the State it must pervade the whole. In the Legislature the Free Democrats together have the majority; and they may unite in the election of a senator; though this is more doubtful than their union in future contests. Whether this union takes place or not — and it can only take place through the adhesion of the old Democracy to one principle — the course of the Free Democracy it seems to me lies clear before them. Their path, no less of safety than of honor is straightforward. They have no choice, except shameful dereliction of principle, or bold and resolute perseverance.

This is true of every other State as it is of Ohio; and I am glad to see that the choice of our friends everywhere seems to be already made. Nowhere do I observe adjudications of wavering or retreat.

I agree with you that it is of great importance that an address should be issued to the People of the union embracing the topics and indicating our future course as suggested by you. It will be difficult to get any delegation appointed by the State Committee to prepare such an address. It seems to me that your suggestion that it should be issued by the Free Democrats in Congress is a good one; or possibly, it might come, with as much effect, from the Free Soil association of the District of Columbia, having been prepared with the advice and concurrence of our friends in Congress and out of Congress who may be gathered in Washington at the commencement of the session.

Our own State Convention will be held on the 29th, June, when we shall doubtless issue an address to the People of Ohio, and define our position on questions of State policy.

I shall be very glad to hear from you frequently. Our former correspondence and your published writings had taught me greatly to esteem you; and our limited intercourse last August was sufficient to make me feel towards you the strongest sentiments of friendship. Is it not Cicero who tells us that the strong ligament of friendship is “idem velle et idem nolle”? And is not this the tie between us! At any rate I claim your friendship by this title and shall hope that you will manifest your allowance of the claim, by writing me as often as your engagements will allow.

Faithfully and cordially yours,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 141-5

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

July 11 [1848].

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

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

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

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

_______________

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

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

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, June 20, 1848

Columbus, June 20, 1848.

My Dear Sir: I thank you for the few words of cheer you sent me on the 12th. I rejoice greatly that Massachusetts is moving. But you will need firmness and courage Taylorism is furious, and would crush all dissent if it had the power.  ———¹ few Independent Whigs met together to express their dissent from the nominations were fairly yelled out of their room of meeting. At Cincinnati drunken Taylorites from Kentucky tried their best to break up our meeting, and failed only because the mass was so large that they could not move it. Taylorism is conscious of treason to the Free States, and those who have bowed the knee are enraged at the prospect of losing their reward. But I verily believe that the tocsin which is now gathering the Freemen of the North to the battle of Liberty, rings also the knell of Slavery.

Our Convention has just commenced its session. A large delegation from almost every Congressional District is in attendance. Great enthusiasm and fixedness of purpose are manifested. The delegates from the Reserve say that if a suitable free State candidate is named, the Reserve will give him 13,000 majority over Cass or Taylor and will try hard to roll it up to twenty thousand.

I have no knowledge of Judge M'Lean's position. I hardly think he will feel at liberty to accept an Independent Nomination, having suffered his name to go before the Whig Convention. But he may. He is now at Detroit, but will return to Cincinnati soon.

I suppose the New York Democracy will nominate candidates of their own; but possibly they may yield to the representations which have been made to them and invite a General Conference or Convention.

As things stand I think our Convention will nominate an electoral ticket, and invite a National Convention to assemble at Buffalo, say on the 1st of August. By that time we shall know who are for us and who are against us, and be prepared for advised (?) nominations. For myself I am well content with Hale and content also to take any fit man who will represent our views and concentrate a larger suffrage, if any care for Freedom, Free Territories, and Free Labor.

Corwin, as I feared he would, has bent the knee and received the yoke and goes for Taylor.

Yours faithfully,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

I will advise by letter to Boston tomorrow of the further action of our Convention. I hope Massachusetts will be well represented at Buffalo.

_______________

¹Torn in MS.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 137-8

Salmon P. Chase to Senator John P. Hale,* June 15, 1848

June 15, [1848.]

My Dear Sir: 1 have recd. several letters from you lately for which I feel greatly obliged to you. I can appreciate Mrs. Hales unwillingness to trust you out here in the west: for if we once get you among us you will find it very difficult to get away. Still I hope that you will come & bring her with you also. Mrs. Chase, whose grandfather was one of the original proprietors of Cincinnati & who herself was born in Missouri, & has never been east of Columbus, will be very glad to make proof to her of the qualities of western hospitality.

In reference to Slavery in the District of Columbia I have made up my mind after being somewhat troubled, in a legal way, with the difficulty you refer to. I found it impossible to resist the conviction that the general rule that the laws of ceded or conquered territories remain in force after coercion or conquest must be qualified with the limitation that such laws be not incompatible with the fundamental law or policy of the acquiring state, in other words, that such laws be not such as the legislature of the acquiring state is itself incompetent to enact. I send herewith an article of mine on the subject which states my views with tolerable clearness.

The signs of the times seem to me auspicious. The N. Y. Democracy will certainly remain firm. We had a tremendous gathering of the people here last night in opposition to the nominations of Cass & Taylor old & tried Whigs & young & enthusiastic Whigs & firm & consistent democrats, with Liberty men took part in the proceedings. If a popular candidate with any fair prospect of success could be brought out on the Free Territory platform we would have a fair chance of carrying Ohio.

I recd. a letter to day from Mr. Hamlin of Cleveland, who says that nineteen out of twenty of the Whigs of Cuyahoga refuse to support the nomination. Our meeting last night sent a delegate to the Utica convention & we shall endeavor to cooperate with the New Yorkers. I shall never cease to regret that the Liberty Convention at Buffalo last fall nominated when it did, or that you deemed it your duty to accept the nomination. I remonstrated ag^t it in the Convention & out of it, for I thought I could foresee something of what has actually taken place, & I wished you to go into the senate as an Independent Democratic Senator, occupying very nearly the same relation to the Democratic Party, on the Antislavery side of it, as Calhoun on the proslavery side. I felt certain that in that event the growing opposition to slavery would naturally find its exponent in you and that antislavery men of all parties, in case both parties should prove false to freedom would concentrate public sentiment to nominate a non slave holder favorable to Anti Slavery principles: but I wanted to be prepared for the contingency which has actually occurred. Your nomination by the Liberty Party, although in yr. letter of acceptance you stated very frankly your real position, has identified you with us & compelled you to share the undeserved opprobrium, which has attached to many of the noblest names of the land, & which, I fear, may not be dispelled until death shall remove all inducements to Slander. It is very true that your senatorial career has attracted the general admiration of all true hearted [patriots] men, and, I verily believe, that if N. Y. democracy would now place you in nomination all objections would disappear and this state could be carried for you.

But they are afraid to do so, on account of the advantage which would be taken of this movement by the Hunkers, advantages which could not be taken had you not recd. the Liberty nominnation. Perhaps I am wrong in my estimate of the influence which the fact of yr. nomination, as our Candidate will have upon the action (of) Free Territory men coming from other parties. I shall be very glad if they will meet in General Convention and nominate you. I hope at all events they will meet in General Convention, and agree if possible. But suppose they meet. Suppose the N. Y. democracy, about to assemble at Utica, calls a National Convention of all who are willing to go into the Battle for Free Territory under the Democratic Banner — what then? Would it not be expedient for you to write a letter to Mr. Lewis the President of the State Liberty Convention,—state your original position as a Democrat — that fidelity to your democratic faith compelled you to assume, with your Democratic friends in New Hampshire the position now occupied so gloriously by the New York Democracy,—that you desire most earnestly the union of Freemen for the sake of Freedom, withdraw your name & urge those who put you in nomination to attend the convention there called & govern their action by its decisions? Then if that convention should nominate you all will be well; if not, you will be still in the Senate, where you can do good service to the cause and await events, — and after the adjournment, by your eloquence before the people, [you will] be a most important auxiliary in the near at hand campaign:

Our Free Territory Convention will, I think, nominate an electoral ticket to support the nominees of the Convention called under the auspices of the New York Democracy, if such a convention be called — otherwise to vote for you. I shall send you a paper containing last nights proceedings.

I have conversed with Mr. Lewis this afternoon. He has had an interview with Judge King who is very anxious for such an union as I mention. I have also a letter from him to the same effect, which I send herewith for your perusal asking you to return it. You observed I suppose, Judge K's name among the signers to our Free Territory call.

_______________

* Letter-book 6, pp. 89. John Parker Hale, 1806-1873, member of Congress from New Hampshire 1843-1845; United States Senator 1847-1853; candidate for President of the Free-soil Party 1852; United States Senator 1855-1865; minister to Spain 1865-1869. In connection with the contents of this letter see Hart's Chase, 94ff.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 134-6

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

William Schouler to James S. Pike, May 17, 1850

Boston, May 17, 1850.

My Dear Pike: I owe you two or three apologies for not having answered your last letter, but I have been so busy and had so many calls to receive and calls to make that my time has slipped by without counting it. I read all your letters in the Tribune, and they are number one, prime. They talk just as everybody talks here, and just as we want to have everybody talk in Washington.

Old Zach is at this moment the popular man in the country, and heaps of Freesoilers are going for him. They are (I mean the honest old Whig portion) delighted with him. If we act with wisdom we shall be like that man who takes

“the tide in his affairs

Which leads to fortune.”

If we were to follow the lead of the old Hunkerdom of Clay we should be led, as Byron says of the tide in the affairs of women, “God knows where.”

Why cannot you resume your correspondence with the Atlas? Dr. Brewer has left Washington, and we now have no one there. The Atlas will welcome you and give you verge and scope to your heart's content, and never once try to clip your plumage. You may call Locofocos Democrats, or vice versa. So, my dear fellow, spread yourself, and if there be any thing in my power to aid or assist you in accomplishing, draw upon me. Greely says so too; so do write — won't you? I shall not insist upon a too frequent correspondence; daily I should like, but tri, semi, or weekly will be gratifying. As the old fellow at the prayer-meeting, upon being asked if he would not make a short prayer, said, “He had no objection to making the prayer, but he'd be d if

he would be limited as to time.”

Every thing political is quiet just now. We hope to send you by the first week in June the Hon. Benjamin Thompson to take his seat in Congress from the Fourth District. Things look mighty nice there just now. I feel confident that Thompson will be chosen; and if he is chosen, you may rest assured that the popularity of old Zach will have done much towards it. Thompson is a very respectable man — “a human man;” not a great man, but a man of sense, and goes old Zach to the death.

I shall write you again next week. In the meantime I remain, yours very truly,

Wm. Schouler

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. 70

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

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

Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, April 24, 1847

Cincinnati, Apr. 24, 1847.

C. Sumner, Esq., Boston.

My Dear Sir: I am much indebted to you for your very kind letter of March 12th, to which I should have replied earlier had I not been prevented by the fear of burdening you with an unprofitable correspondence. Your approbation of my argument for poor old Vanzandt¹ is very grateful to me. I gave to the effort the best exertion of my ability, in the short time allowed me for preparation, and I had collected the material for the most part previously with a view to an oral discussion. I do not suppose that the judges of the Supreme Court regarded the argument as worth much attention. I have reason to believe that the case was decided before they received it; and that the opinion was designed for no more than a cursory notice of the points in the case, under the impression that it was not worth while to consider the views presented by the ––– on Vanzandt. I trust, however, and believe that the discussion will not be without a salutary effect upon the professional mind of the country, and if so, even though my poor old client be sacrificed, the great cause of humanity will be a gainer by it. I send you a notice of the decision which I prepared for the Morning Herald in this city. It is hurried and imperfect, but will serve perhaps to suggest something better to others. I hope you will give the argument of the court a review in the Reporter. It is, it seems to me, amazingly weak at all points. A worse decision, supported by feebler reasons, can hardly be found.

I was surprised by what you said of Judge Story. How could he regard the Prigg² decision as a triumph of Freedom? The decision contains, indeed, a dictum in favor of the doctrine that slavery is local; just as the decision in the Mississippi case went upon the ground, so far as it related to the interstate slave trade, that under the Constitution all men are persons. But who, that knows anything of slaveholding aggression, will believe that, when the question of the locality of slavery comes directly in issue, there will be more regard paid to the dictum of the Prigg case, opposed as it is to the whole spirit of that most unfortunate decision, than was paid in the Vanzandt case to the doctrine of Groves and Slaughter³ that slaves are persons. The Supreme Court is, doubtless, composed of men of humanity—who in particular cases, involving no general principle touching what I may call the corporate interests of slaveholding, would willingly decide in favor of the liberty of individuals: — but they cannot be trusted at all when that great corporate interest is in question: and all attempts to compromise the matter by getting the court committed on such matters as the locality of slavery, in decisions of leading questions in favor of the slaveholders, will be found as unavailing as the efforts of the Philistines with their green withs upon Samson. It has been too much the fashion, both among politicians and among judges of the Free States to endeavor to get the best of the bargain in compromises. They have never succeeded and they never will. Despotism admits of no such compromises. The Devil cannot be cheated. “Resist the Devil and he will flee.” We have the highest authority for this: but there is no warrant for expecting success in an effort to circumvent him.

I saw poor Vanzandt a day or two ago. He came into town in his wagon, and sent up his son to ask me to come down to him, as he was unable to get up stairs to my office. He was very weak. Pulmonary disease had made sad work with his hardy frame. The probability is strong that before the mandate of the Supreme Court can be carried into a judgment of the Circuit Court the old man will have gone to another bar, where aid to the weak and suffering will not be imputed as a crime. I said to him that I could hardly suppose that, in view of his approaching end, he could feel any regret for having aided the fugitives, whose appeals to his compassion had brought him into his present troubles. The old man's eye lighted up, as he answered “No; if a single word could restore the man who escaped and save me from all sacrifice I would not utter it.” And such I believe is the universal spirit of those who have aided the oppressed in regaining their freedom.

You have noticed no doubt the case of Habeas Corpus before Judge Downie, of the District Court at Pittsburgh. The applicants for the Writ had arrested a fugitive slave, alleged to be such, and were about to carry him off by force. His cries attracted attention, and he was rescued from them. They were then arrested under the late law of Pennsylvania, which makes it a penal offence to retake slaves with violence, and were brought before Judge Downie by the Habeas Corpus. He, like Mr. Justice Woodbury held that slaves were property under the Constitution, and that the recaptors, having used no more force or violence than was necessary, were entitled to their discharge. Thus the detestable doctrine of property in man is spreading, having received the Countenance of the Supreme Court. Is it not the duty of every lover of Liberty in the profession, to do all that he can to counteract its vices?

I wish with you that Judge M’Lean had a “stronger backbone of Constitutional Antislavery.” He is a good man and an honest man, and his sympathies are with the enslaved. He emancipated one or more when he left Washington, leaving himself in debt beyond his then ability to pay. His opinions, however, are in favor of the construction of the Constitution, which he has put forth in the Vanzandt case; a very different construction indeed from that which the Supreme Court has given in the same case, but which allows, in that case at all events, the same practical results. I suppose, however, that the military fever will carry all before it in the Whig party, and that Mr. Taylor will be the Whig candidate. He is a large slaveholder, — has a sugar and cotton plantation — entertains the Calhoun opinion of slavery— would be an inflexible enemy of the Wilmot Proviso — would favor a high tariff, for the benefit of sugar, and probably, would regard with approbation the establishment of a Bank of the U. States. There is nothing in this character, which would make him unacceptable I presume to the “Whig party of the United States,” though the large and highly respectable antislavery portion of that Party would doubtless be not well pleased. Even of that portion, however, some, would, I fear, be willing to take the Slaveholder for the sake of the Whig, and vote for Slavery to keep out Locofocoism.

In my humble judgment, however, in the contingency indicated if the Democrats should be willing to take the Constitutional ground of opposition to Slavery, and nominate a Wilmot Proviso man who may be confidently relied on, it would be the duty of every friend of freedom to support the nomination. If the Democracy can now be brought onto antislavery ground, they will be sure to keep there until they clear the field.

With the greatest regard,

Yours most truly,

[Salmon P. Chase]

P. S. — I have sent some copies of my argument to some friends in England. It has struck me that as you are personally acquainted with many professional gentlemen there, you might think it useful to send some copies to them. If so, 1 shall take pleasure in sending to you as many as you may name.

_______________

¹ On the Van Zandt case, see Schuckers' Chase, 53 ff.

² Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.

³ The Case of Groves vs. Slaughter, 1841, 15 Peters, 449. Cf. Hurd Law of Freedom and Bondage, I, 147, n. 2.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 113

Fitz Henry Warren to James S. Pike, December 16, 1860

Burlington, Iowa, December 16, 1860.

James Pike: I am fructified in spirit to see “J. S. P.” again at the foot of a Washington letter. How are you, and where have you been? I should have written to you a long time ago, but I have been busy all the season “crying in the wilderness,” and to some purpose, too, for we have done a large business in Iowa as well as in the “inductive” State of Maine.

Being at a safe distance from South Carolina and Georgia, I look on very calmly. Several gentlemen are to be killed before my turn comes. Oh for an hour of Old Hickory or Old Zach! Are we to have turbulent times? I do not exactly see the end, for I am ignorant what the new Administration is to be. Let Abraham put in Corwin for Secretary of Treasury; Pennington, Secretary of the Interior ; and Colfax, Postmaster-General, and we shall have a lovely time. That committee, with C. for chairman, will have an illustrious labor and parturiate a generation of mice.

Give me a letter occasionally, with a history of the green-room rehearsals and other items.

Who is to be senator from Maine?

Very truly, your friend,

Fitz-henry Warren.

James S. Pike, Esq.

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. 526

Diary of Gideon Welles: Sunday, August 17, 1862

Called this morning on General Halleck, who had forgotten or was not aware there was a naval force in the James River cooperating with the army. He said the army was withdrawn and there was no necessity for the naval vessels to remain. I remarked that I took a different view of the question, and, had I been consulted, I should have advised that the naval and some army forces should hold on and menace Richmond, in order to compel the Rebels to retain part of their army there while our forces in front of Washington were getting in position. He began to rub his elbows, and, without thanking me or acknowledgment of any kind, said he wished the vessels could remain. Telegraphed Wilkes to that effect. Strange that this change of military operations should have been made without Cabinet consultation, and especially without communicating the fact to the Secretary of the Navy, who had established a naval flotilla on the James River by special request to cooperate with and assist the army. But Stanton is so absorbed in his scheme to get rid of McClellan that other and more important matters are neglected.

A difficulty has existed from the beginning in the military, and I may say general, management of the War. At a very early day, before even the firing on Sumter and the abandonment of Norfolk, I made repeated applications to General Scott for one or two regiments to be stationed there. Anticipating the trouble that subsequently took place, and confident that, with one regiment well commanded and a good engineer to construct batteries, with the cooperation of the frigate Cumberland and such small additional naval force as we could collect, the place might be held at least until the public property and ships could be removed, I urged the importance of such aid. The reply on each occasion was that he not only had no troops to spare from Washington or Fortress Monroe, both of which places he considered in great danger, but that if he had, he would not send a detachment in what he considered enemy's country, especially as there were no intrenchments. I deferred to his military character and position, but remonstrated against this view of the case, for I was assured, and, I believe, truly, that a majority of the people in the navy yard and in the vicinity of Norfolk were loyal, friends of the Union and opposed to Secession. He said that might be the political, but was not the military, aspect, and he must be governed by military considerations in disposing of his troops.

There was but one way of overcoming these objections and that was by peremptory orders, which I could not, and the President would not, give, in opposition to the opinions of General Scott. The consequence was the loss of the navy yard and of Norfolk, and the almost total extinguishment of the Union sentiment in that quarter. Our friends there became cool and were soon alienated by our abandonment. While I received no assistance from the military in that emergency, I was thwarted and embarrassed by the secret interference of the Secretary of State in my operations. General Scott was for a defensive policy, and the same causes which influenced him in that matter, and the line of policy which he marked out, have governed the educated officers of the army and to a great extent shaped the war measures of the Government. “We must erect our batteries on the eminences in the vicinity of Washington,” said General Mansfield to me, “and establish our military lines; frontiers between the belligerents, as between the countries of Continental Europe, are requisite.” They were necessary in order to adapt and reconcile the theory and instruction of West Point to the war that was being prosecuted. We should, however, by this process become rapidly two hostile nations. All beyond the frontiers must be considered and treated as enemies, although large sections, and in some instances whole States, have a Union majority, occasionally in some sections approximating unanimity.

Instead of halting on the borders, building intrenchments, and repelling indiscriminately and treating as Rebels — enemies — all, Union as well as disunion, men in the insurrectionary region, we should, I thought, penetrate their territory, nourish and protect the Union sentiment, and create and strengthen a national feeling counter to Secession. This we might have done in North Carolina, western Virginia, northern Alabama and Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, and in fact in large sections of nearly every seceding State. Instead of holding back, we should be aggressive and enter their territory. Our generals act on the defensive. It is not and has not been the policy of the country to be aggressive towards others, therefore defensive tactics, rather than offensive have been taught, and the effect upon our educated commanders in this civil war is perceptible. The best material for commanders in this civil strife may have never seen West Point. There is something in the remark that a good general is “born to command.” We have experienced that some of our best-educated officers have no faculty to govern, control, and direct an army in offensive warfare. We have many talented and capable engineers, good officers in some respects, but without audacity, desire for fierce encounter, and in that respect almost utterly deficient as commanders. Courage and learning are essential, but something more is wanted for a good general, — talent, intuition, magnetic power, which West Point cannot give. Men who would have made the best generals and who possess innately the best and highest qualities to command may not have been so fortunate as to be selected by a Member of Congress to be a cadet. Jackson and Taylor were excellent generals, but they were not educated engineers, nor were they what would be considered in these days accomplished and educated military men. They detailed and availed themselves of engineers, and searched out and found the needed qualities in others.

We were unused to war when these present difficulties commenced, and have often permitted men of the army to decide questions that were more political than military. There is still the same misfortune, — for I deem it such.

From the beginning there was a persistent determination to treat the Rebels as alien belligerents, — as a hostile and distinct people, — to blockade, instead of closing, their ports. The men “duly accredited by the Confederate States of America” held back-door intercourse with the Secretary of State, and lived and moved in ostentatious style in Washington for some weeks. Thus commencing, other governments had reason to claim that we had initiated them into the belief that the Federal Government and its opponents were two nations; and the Union people of the South were, by this policy of our Government and that of the army, driven, compelled against their wishes, to be our antagonists.

No man in the South could avow himself a friend of the Union without forfeiting his estate, his liberty, and perhaps his life under State laws of the Confederates. The Federal Government not only afforded him no protection, but under the military system of frontiers he was treated as a public enemy because he resided in his own home at the South.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 83-6