THOMAS CORWIN AND THE CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICAN
REACTION, 1858-1861
by DARYL
PENDERGRAFT
Assistant Professor of History, Iowa
State Teachers College
By the year 1858, it had become apparent
to many of the
leaders of the young Republican party
that the party's future success
required a stronger appeal to the
conservative elements of the
North. The taint of radicalism that was
attached to the new party
was plainly frightening many of the
property-owning class and
others with more moderate views into the
Douglas camp. Unless
this trend could be stopped, there was
real danger that the election
of 1860 might be thrown into the house
of representatives and con-
ceivably result in the election to the
presidency of an undesirable
candidate. A widespread campaign to
soothe the fears of the north-
ern conservatives was clearly in order.
Furthermore, in due time,
the cumulative effect of such incidents
as John Brown's raid and
of the publication of Helper's Impending
Crisis, both of which the
Republicans were accused of having
endorsed, led more and more
people to brand that party as an
organization of extremists and
made more necessary a conservative
appeal. Even after the election
of 1860 many in the party felt the need
of continuing the denial of
radicalism in the hope of arranging a
compromise between the
extremists of both North and South.1
As a spokesman to the conservatives,
Thomas Corwin was the
logical choice of the Ohio Republicans.
Throughout his long career
as a congressman, governor of Ohio,
United States Senator, and
secretary of the treasury, he had been
known as a Henry Clay Whig.
During the Jacksonian administration he
had been one of the lead-
ing champions of the Bank of the United
States and had become a
well-known advocate of a high protective
tariff and internal im-
provements at federal expense. As an
antislavery leader he opposed
the annexation of Texas and received so
much notoriety for his
efforts to end the Mexican War that he
was frequently mentioned
1 William E. Dodd, "The Fight for
the Northwest," in American Historical
Review, XVI (1911), 774-789.
2
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
by the antislavery Whigs as a
presidential possibility in 1848. Yet,
he was not an abolitionist as was shown
by his advocacy of concilia-
tion and concession in 1850.2 He was
widely known as a wit and
as a stump-speaker without a peer. From
his long experience as a
politician and orator he had learned to
be persuasive yet tactful,
and in the rousing Whig campaigns of the
1840's he had shown
himself to be an indefatigable
campaigner. The fact that Corwin
was already in his sixties and had been
a friend of Daniel Webster
and Henry Clay would further tend to
make him a good choice for
the Republicans' appeal to the
conservatives.3
Thomas Corwin, like many of the more
moderate Whigs with
antislavery views, had taken no part in
the early activities of the
Republican party. Apparently Corwin's
attitude toward the Re-
publican party went through three stages
in the period 1854 to
1858. In the beginning, he seems to have
felt that the new organiza-
tion was something of a parvenu, and
merely another abolitionist
group like the old Liberty and Free Soil
parties. By 1856, Corwin
had decided that any party that could
defeat the Democrats would
receive his vote, but he believed that a
victory for the Native Ameri-
can ("Know-Nothing")
candidate, Millard Fillmore, was more
desirable than the election of John C.
Fremont.4 By 1858, however,
he had convinced himself and was trying
to convince the voters that
the Republican party was the great
conservative party, the same
old party of Clay and Webster and of
Hamilton and Washington.5
When Corwin left the treasury at the end
of the Fillmore adminis-
tration he had announced his intention
to retire from politics, and
he seems to have centered his attention
on his law business and on
his duties as the president of a
contemplated railroad company.
However, he was still much interested in
political affairs and par-
2 James
G. Blaine had been aware of Corwin's growing conservatism in the
debate of 1850. Blaine declared:
"Mr. Corwin with a strong anti-slavery record, has
been recently drifting in the opposite
direction. . . . Mr. Corwin to the surprise of
his friends had passed over from the
most radical to the ultra-conservative side on
the slavery question. . . . Mr. Corwin
was irretrievably injured by a course so flatly
in contradiction of his previous action.
He lost the support and largely forfeited the
confidence of the Ohio Whigs, who in
1848 had looked upon him as a possible if not
probable candidate for the
Presidency." James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress
From Lincoln to Garfield, I, 96-98.
3 Corwin was born in 1794. The Dictionary
of American Biography gives a
good sketch of Corwin's career, IV,
457-458.
4 Ohio State Journal (Columbus), November 1, 1856, quoting a letter from
Corwin to the Young Men's Christian
Association of Cincinnati, dated October 31,
1856.
5 For example, see Corwin's speech at
Morrow, Ohio, in the Cincinnati Com-
mercial, August 7, 1858.
THOMAS CORWIN 3
ticularly in the continuation of the
Clay tradition of moderation.
He wrote to John J. Crittenden in 1854
suggesting that, if the
Kentuckian would come out in favor of
the Compromise of 1850
and in strong opposition to the Nebraska
Act and any attempt to
dissolve the Missouri Compromise, the
conservative and peace-
loving elements of the North and South
would unite behind Critten-
den as their presidential choice in
1856.6
Not until the eve of the presidential
election in 1856 did Cor-
win make a political address. Somewhat
reluctantly he then agreed
to speak to a Cincinnati gathering on
the coming election.7 At this
time he advised his audience to vote for
John C. Fremont, as only
the Republican candidate had a chance of
defeating Buchanan in
Ohio. Corwin, however, asserted that he
was still a Whig and that
his choice for president was Millard
Fillmore, but, as he knew a
vote for Fillmore in Ohio would merely
increase the chances of a
Democratic victory, he was intending to
vote for Fremont. If he
had been making this speech to an
audience in Kentucky, Corwin
declared, he would have advised his
listeners to vote for Fillmore,
because in that state this candidate had
a better chance than did
Fremont. The election of Fillmore,
according to Corwin, would do
more toward "quieting the unnatural
and perhaps dangerous agita-
tion of the public mind" than
either that of Fremont or Buchanan.
While he admitted that he could not give
his assent "to all the
doctrines professed by the Republicans
of Ohio," Corwin felt cer-
tain that "the great interests of
the Republic may be more safely
confided to a party who opposed the
repeal of the Missouri Compro-
mise, and who have been and are still
anxious to put an end to all
the unhappy consequences flowing from
the ill-judged measure
than from such as advocated the adoption
of that policy and still
approve it." Aside from the one
speech, Thomas Corwin seems not
to have taken any part in the campaign
of 1856. Apparently he
was unwilling to return to politics if
he could not do so as a con-
servative Whig.
It is logical to assume that Thomas
Corwin's decision to enter
the campaign of 1858 for a seat in the
United States House of
6 Corwin to John J. Crittenden, March
10, 1854, in Mrs. Chapman Coleman,
Crittenden's Life and Correspondence,
II, 104.
7 Ohio State Journal, November 1, 1856, quoting a letter from Corwin to the
Young Men's Christian Association of
Cincinnati, dated October 31, 1856.
4 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Representatives was made at the instigation of the leaders of the
Republican party in Ohio. The Republican state central committee
was accused of having induced Corwin to run for congress as a
means of gaining the favor of the old Fillmore Whigs throughout
the nation. As each of the counties in the congressional district
was preponderantly Republican, it would have been carried by
almost any candidate that the party selected. The incumbent was
a Republican, anxious for reelection, and had just reason to expect
another term. Apparently as the result of a bargain, the party
organization agreed to support Corwin for congress if he would
make an extended speaking tour. The Corwin candidacy was de-
sired by the party leaders as a means of gaining the favor of the
Fillmore Whigs throughout the nation.8 As a Democratic editor
declared, Corwin was nominated for congress to nationalize the
Republican party.9
The opposition papers scoffed at Corwin's return to politics.
One editor declared: "A good many of Corwin's 'admirers' admire
him as much in retirement as they will anywhere else."10 The old
charges of disloyalty in the Mexican War and corruption in regard
to the Gardiner Claims were reiterated.11 Efforts were made to
show that he was not a Republican in principles.12 W. H. P. Denny,
the Republican editor of Corwin's home-town paper, the Lebanon
Western Star, who had supported Corwin for many years, was
quoted as having said that the party organization had broken its
promise in making him its congressional choice and accused Corwin
of being ungrateful "if not positively mean" to enter into such a
bargain with the central committee.13
Corwin launched his campaign for the Republican nomination
for congress at Morrow, in his own district, the first week in August.
In this address he began by making a strong denial that he was a
8 Ohio Statesman (Columbus), August 7, 1858, quoting a letter from W. H. P.
Denny, the editor of the Western Star (Lebanon, Ohio).
9 Ohio Statesman, October 3, 1858.
10 Ohio Statesman, July 31, 1858.
11 As secretary of the treasury, Corwin had been investigated by a house com-
mittee to determine his connection with the fraudulent (Gardiner) claims in connec-
tion with the Mexican claims commission. Corwin, who had been one of Gardiner's
attorneys and had purchased a partial interest in the claims, was exonerated by the
congressional committee, but it seems probable that he never returned the approxi-
mately $80,000 that came to him as a result of the sale of his fees and partial interest
in this claim to a third party before the claim was paid. See "Gardiner Mexican
Claims Investigation," House Reports, 1, 32 cong., 2 sess.
12 Ohio Statesman, July 31, 1858.
13 Cincinnati Commercial, August 7, 1858.
THOMAS CORWIN 5
Republican, saying that he belonged to
no party. He declared that
he would vote the Republican ticket and
would permit his name
to be used under that party's banner
because he liked their anti-
slavery principles "which is all
there is in their creed." In general
he refused either to endorse or to
condemn the Republican platform,
as drawn by the Ohio central committee,
but steadfastly advocated
the election of that party's nominees
"because its candidates are
the best men." He maintained the
right of congress to legislate for
the territories and demanded that that
body should pass laws pro-
hibiting slavery in all territory where
it did not exist. He took the
same stand that he had taken in 1846 by
declaring his opposition
to the acquisition of more territory by
the United States. He advo-
cated a general retrenchment in
governmental expenditures and
spoke at length in favor of an increase
in the tariff.14 Such ex-
pressions would appeal to the conservatives.
In his speech at Morrow, Corwin tried to
convince his audience
that the Republican party was not the
party of radicalism but that
its main tenets were conservative and
its spirit conciliatory. This
was to be his theme in numerous speeches
for the next three years.
At Morrow, he urged the people to cease
agitating the Kansas
question and to turn their attention to
other matters. "Why not
harmonize the North and South?" he
asked, and then showed that
both sections were harassed more by
their own suspicions than they
were by any actual injury from the other
section. By their rejection
of the Lecompton Constitution under the
terms of the English Bill,
Corwin argued, an attempt at fraud had
been defeated by the people
of Kansas, and the whole question would
not need to arise again.
He denounced Buchanan for having
permitted himself to be made
the cat's paw of the southern
extremists, but he warned that the
people of the North had no more right to
interfere in Kansas than
did the "Border Ruffians" of
Missouri. He declared:
If the people . . . have had a fair vote
upon the Lecompton Constitution,
what have you or I to do with it?
Nothing. They have the right to form their
own Constitution with or without
Slavery, and we have no right to reject
their application for admission into
this Union. . . .
Every State has the right to make its
own domestic institutions, and frame
its own laws. If you have the right to
reject slavery, you have the right to
make it part of your laws.
14 Ibid. See also Ohio State Journal, August 7, 1858.
6
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
If the Republican party did not agree
with such sentiments then he
was not a Republican, declared Corwin.
The Ohioan wanted the whole world to
know that the Re-
publican party did not believe in
slavery and that he concurred in
this view. He stated:
I am for the white man. I hold that if
you bring slave labor into compe-
tition with the whites it degrades the
latter. I believe the nigger will destroy
the white man in his home if let alone.
That is, if you permit the negro to
work and the white man to grow indolent,
for it is one of the unalterable
laws of God, that the laborer shall
possess the country where he labors....
I believe there should be no slave labor
where the white man can work.
He said, however, even though one
strongly opposed the institution
of slavery, he felt that considering the
nature of federalism, one
would have to admit the right of a
prospective state to permit
slavery in its constitution and to agree
that congress had no right
to prevent the admittance of a state
into the Union merely because
of that feature of its constitution.
Corwin asked if his audience
believed that congress would have the
right to expel Pennsylvania
from the Union if she altered her
constitution to permit slavery.
"If you can't turn out, you can't
keep out!" he argued.15 A Demo-
cratic paper asserted that it was
foolish of Corwin to campaign
under the Republican banner and, at the
same time, to utter such
purely Democratic sentiments.16
The distinction between "popular
sovereignty" and "squatter
sovereignty" was very important
according to Corwin. The Re-
publican party accepted the first
doctrine but denied the second.
"Popular sovereignty," he
said, was merely the right of a people
of any territory to be admitted to the
Union with the constitution
they had adopted. On the other hand, he
ridiculed the theory of
"squatter sovereignty," saying
that "nothing but insanity dictated
it; nothing but anarchy resulted!"
chiefly because it denied the
right of congress to make laws for a
territory and was therefore
contrary to the intentions of the men
who wrote the United States
Constitution. Congress should
immediately pass an act forbidding
the extension of slavery into any
territory where that institution
did not already exist and should put
itself on record as unalterably
opposed to the acquisition of any region
where slavery already
15 Cincinnati Commercial, August 7, 1858.
16 Ohio Statesman, August 13, 1858.
THOMAS CORWIN
7
existed. This should be done in spite of
the "impious decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Dred
Scott." He advised, "Do
not let the territory become slave .. .
and the people will not be apt
to apply for admission into the Union
with a slave constitution."
There was no other way of keeping more
slave states from entering
the Union, in his opinion, than
"for the people to back out of the
slough of 'squatter sovereignty' and
into the beaten turnpike of your
revolutionary fathers, and for Congress
to pass laws prohibiting
slavery in the territories." There
had been, he felt, far too much
bickering over the slavery issue. The
people were letting the
country "go to the dogs,
economically," he declared, while they
argued the Negro question. He maintained
that the whole thing had
been settled for all practical purposes
for a generation by the
defeat of the Lecompton Constitution and
that it was a miscon-
ception to feel that there were more
than a very few in the Re-
publican party who believed that that
party should stand for
immediate emancipation.17
Tom Corwin realized that his nomination
as the Republican
candidate was not assured. He was
opposed by three candidates,
and all three of these men had belonged
to the Republican party
almost since its origin, and all three
accused Corwin of being a
Republican merely in name and not in
principle. To overcome
this handicap he toured his
congressional district, speaking nearly
every day in the two-week period
preceding the Republican con-
vention. Large crowds listened to Corwin
at Chillicothe and Wil-
mington. Just before the caucus a
primary election was held in
Warren County to determine which of the
four candidates the county
delegation should support at the
meeting. As a result of this
election Corwin received nearly 300
votes more than the combined
total of his three opponents.18
At the convention which met in Morrow
August 15, the dele-
gates resolved that no candidate would
be supported who was not
a Republican and who would not pledge to
support the platform
as drawn by the Ohio Republicans the
preceding spring. This
program included the following:
(1) A reaffirmation of the
"Republican platform of Philadelphia in 1776,"
17 Ohio
State Journal, August 7, 1858.
18 Ohio Statesman, August 10,
1858; Cincinnati Commercial, August 12, 1858;
Ohio State Journal, August 15, 1858.
8
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
which had been reiterated by the
Republicans in 1856.
(2) A protest against the arrest and
"vexatious persecution" of state
officials and private citizens by the
federal commissioners that had been ap-
pointed in accordance with the Fugitive
Slave Act of 1850.
(3) Non-interference with state courts
by federal officials in the prosecu-
tion and punishment of any crime
committed within Ohio.
(4) A denial of the right of the federal
government to suspend the writ
of habeas corpus.
(5) A condemnation of the Dred Scott
decision.
(6) Opposition to the extension of
slavery.
(7) Opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska
Act and criticism of the violation
of the Missouri Compromise.
(8) Adherence to "Popular
Sovereignty as taught in the Declaration of
Independence" but condemnation of
"squatter sovereignty."
(9) Advocacy of the homestead idea.
The spokesman of the Corwin group
announced that their candidate
"placed himself without
reservation" on this platform.19 As a Re-
publican editor expressed it, if
"Mr. Corwin occupied any position
heretofore at variance with our creed,
he has abandoned it, and
as he has now made himself one of us, we
welcome him into the
Republican ranks.20
After trailing on the first four votes,
Corwin finally obtained
the required majority on the eighteenth
ballot, but a subsequent
motion to make his nomination unanimous
was not accepted.21 The
five years that he had been out of
public office, his slowness in
joining the Republican ranks, his
failure to oppose the Compromise
of 1850, and probably a remembrance of
his connection with the
fraudulent Gardiner Claims, apparently
combined to make his
return to political life rather
difficult. In later years Corwin is
said to have declared that he had been
more gratified "when his
old friends summoned him to accept the
Republican nomination
for Congress in 1858 than he had by any
political success in his
life."22 The party reaction to the
nomination was in general favor-
able. The abolitionist element was very
bitter, however, and the
editor of the Democratic Ohio
Statesman declared that the "Black
Republicans" had "stultified
themselves" by the nomination of such
an avowed conservative. The same paper
regretted the "personal
19 Ohio Statesman, August 19, 1858.
20 Xenia Torchlight, quoted by the Ohio State Journal, August 19,
1858.
21 Ibid.
22 Alexander K. McClure, Recollections
of Half a Century (Salem, Mass., 1902),
189.
THOMAS CORWIN 9
humiliation that Corwin was obliged to
undergo" in order to re-
ceive the nomination.23 One editor
wrote:
His [Corwin's] strong grip made the
Black reptile bite itself, but never-
theless the clammy folds of the serpent
are wound surely around him. It was
found necessary for his friends to take
TOM CORWIN by the nape of the neck
and lift him bodily on to Mr. CHASE'S platform, despite his struggles and pro-
testations, before he could be
nominated.24
There were several Republican papers in
Corwin's own district that
refused to support him saying that he
was no different from a
Douglas Democrat and suggesting that he
won his nomination by
fraud.25 An anonymous letter in a New
York paper stated that
"Old Whiggery had hoped for a warm
reception from the masses"
to the nomination of Corwin but it had
found "no echo in the public
breast."26 "Why rummage the
political graveyard for leaders?" this
same letter demanded. According to S. S.
Cox, Democratic congress-
man, the Republicans aimed to use Corwin
"to haul in all the
suckers ... to the mouth of their
net" and then "to cut him adrift."27
Though the Republican nomination
practically assured his elec-
tion, Corwin entered into an extensive
campaign, speaking in many
Ohio cities far from his own district
and making a short tour in
Indiana. This was done possibly to
fulfill his probable agreement
with the Republican central committee in
Ohio. On September 1 he
shared the speakers' platform in
Columbus with Salmon P. Chase
with whom he appeared to have been quite
friendly. Corwin is
said to have remarked that "Chase
could not say a word on any
subject contained in the Republican
platform which he could not
heartily endorse, or which he might not
have said himself." In his
Columbus speech Corwin argued that the
tariff issue was really
behind the slavery controversy.
According to him much of the
South's desire to make Kansas a slave
state came from its desire
to prevent an increase in the tariff. He
advised that people should
not be unduly excited over the threats
of a dissolution of the
Union, declaring that in his own
lifetime he had seen the Union
all but dissolved three times in one
session of congress. If it should
be clearly understood, he said,
"that the man who wants to dissolve
23 Ohio Statesman, August
18, 1858.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., September 4, 1858, quoting several Republican papers.
26 New York Evening Post, letter signed "Sigma" quoted by
the Ohio Statesman,
September 5, 1858.
27 Ohio Statesman, September
5, 1858.
10
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
the Union wants a rope around his neck,
we will have no more of
this." Furthermore, Corwin warned
the extremists of both North
and South that it should be clearly
understood that peaceful
secession was impossible. In the event
of an attempt at secession
a war would result; out of this war the
South would emerge as a
mere colony of the North.28 With such
arguments, Corwin hoped to
convince his listeners that the
Republican party was the party of
conservatism.
Corwin's efforts to make the tariff the
main plank in the Re-
publican platform was obviously not too
well received by the
radical element of the Republican party.
In the opinion of the
radicals the issue of the extension of
slavery should be the sole
question and the election should not be
complicated by stressing
other points.29 But the Ohio Democrats
seem to have been pleased
over Corwin's efforts to popularize the
tariff issue. To them it was
indicative of a growing conservatism
within the Republican ranks
which would result in the "dwarfing
down of the slavery question."30
Corwin's former friend Joshua R.
Giddings now became his most
bitter critic. The differences between
the two men had started over
the Compromise of 1850, but when Corwin
asserted that congress
had no right to keep a state from
entering the Union merely because
its constitution provided for slavery,
and when he was endeavoring
to sidetrack the slavery issue, Giddings
attacked him in a series of
open letters, which were widely
published.31
In his speech at Xenia, Ohio, September
25, 1858, Corwin de-
voted most of his time to the Dred Scott
decision. This decision
had not been made five minutes, he
declared, until it had been over-
ruled by God. He asserted that he would
never vote for any state's
admittance into the Union that had been
"inoculated with slavery"
under the unfair influence of Taney's
decision.32 The Democratic
press accepted this statement as a
change of attitude on Corwin's
part. Only a month earlier he had
declared that congress had no
legal right to refuse admission to any
territory merely on the
grounds of slavery. He was accused of
having been frightened by
the "Giddings' lash," but it
seems clear that his attitude had not
28 Ohio State Journal,
September 2, 1858.
29 Cincinnati Commercial, October 1, 1858.
30 Ohio Statesman, September
9, 1858.
31 Ohio Statesman, September 4,
1858; Ohio State Journal, October 14, 1858.
32 Xenia Torchlight, September
29, 1858.
THOMAS CORWIN 11
changed and that his words at Xenia were
meant to show his utter
refusal to accept the Dred Scott
decision as final.33
Through September and October, Corwin
continued his speak-
ing tour, adjusting his emphasis of
issues to the locality in which
he was speaking. Generally his arguments
were obviously directed
to the older and more conservative
people-people who may have
heard him in the stirring Whig campaigns
of the 1840's. There is
not much doubt that he materially aided
the Republican cause in
Ohio, and there is some indication that
he accompanied Chase to
Illinois in the latter part of October
to bolster their party and aid
in the election of Lincoln as United
States Senator.34 In his own
district, normally a Republican region,
he was elected by a majority
of 4,000, the fourth largest of the 21
Ohio congressmen; in only
the three districts of the Western
Reserve did any candidate's victory
surpass his own.
In the year following his election to
congress, Corwin worked
consistently to draw the conservatives
of the old Whig party into
the Republican camp. He tried to
convince such people that the
principles of the new organization were
substantially the same as
those advocated by Henry Clay. Again and
again, he tried to show
that the Republican party did not
advocate radical ideas and that
the real leaders of the organization
were not abolitionists. Addi-
tional appeals to the conservatives were
made by his demand for
federal prosecution of such
filibusterers as William Walker. He
refused to be frightened by the severe
criticisms of men of his own
party and continued to advocate
obedience to all federal laws.35
During the summer and fall of 1859
Corwin spoke an average
of three or four times a week in a half
dozen states. In Ohio alone
he spoke more than fifty times between
June and November and
was said to have done "effective
work for the success of Republican-
ism." According to a Corwin organ,
many doubtful districts were
carried "by his powerful appeals to
the old Whig element." On
July 4, he spoke to a large audience in
Lafayette, Indiana, and on
July 19 he was the main speaker at
Indianapolis. Frequently Corwin
33 Ohio Statesman, September 28,
1858.
34 Scattered references in such papers
as the Cincinnati Commercial, October 15
to November 5, 1858, refer to Corwin's
being in Illinois with Chase. A search of
Illinois newspapers, however, revealed
no reference of a Corwin visit.
35 Portsmouth (Ohio) Times, August 30, 1859; Xenia
Torchlight, July 20, 1859;
Dayton (Ohio) Journal, quoted by Western Star,
July 21, 1859; see also Xenia Torch-
light, September 13, 1859.
12
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
shared the platform with Chase or Edwin
M. Stanton. Late October
and early November saw Corwin on a
stumping tour in New York
City and nearby places. Though no two
addresses were identical,
they all had the same theme. Sometimes
he would stress the need
for every qualified person to exercise
his right of voting (a favorite
theme of Corwin's); another time he
would concentrate on the
tariff, the spoils system, the Fugitive
Slave Act of 1850, a homestead
law, polygamy, or John Brown's raid.
Always, however, he argued
that congress had the right to forbid
slavery in any territory, and
he demanded that no time should be lost
in exercising this right.
Always, too, he made a stirring appeal
for the people to forget
their sectional quarrels and to think
only in terms of the good of
the United States.36
At Lamartine Hall in New York City on
October 31, he de-
precated the excitement caused by John
Brown's capture of Harper's
Ferry, saying that he considered John
Brown and all of his follow-
ers as mere lunatics and advised that
they should be placed in an
asylum. This small group of fanatics,
Corwin declared, had
plunged the entire nation into such a
state of excitement and con-
sternation that nothing less than an
armed invasion of 400,000
Italians could have equalled. He blamed
"squatter sovereignty"
for "Brown's insanity,"
saying: "Kansas-the boy Kansas-was
left to do as he pleased; to take his
own way. Hence he was not
put to school, and being without
parental control, he cut up capers.
For amusement he took to cutting
throats."37
At Musical Hall in Brooklyn, November 2,
before an audience
of 2,000, the need for a higher tariff
was the central theme. The
following day before an even larger
crowd in Cooper Union, after
observing that he understood the large
crowd had been attracted
because it was their last chance to see
"the only living representative
of the old Whig party," he pled for
the Republican congressmen to
be less sectional in their views. A
member of congress, said Corwin,
should not be the representative of a
single section but should vote
36
Western Star, October 13, 1859. See
also Adams County Democrat (West
Union, Ohio), September 2, 1859, and
Warren L. Strausbaugh, The Speaking Tech-
nique of Thomas Corwin in the Campaigns of
1858-1859, unpublished M. A. Thesis,
1933, State University of Iowa.
37 Cincinnati Gazette, November 3, 1859, an
article from its New York corre-
spondent.
THOMAS CORWIN 13
for those laws that would be beneficial
to the whole people of the
United States. Corwin advised the
voters:
Elect a representative who can stand
upon both a Northern and a Southern
ground; a man who will adopt the
principles that are good for the North-for
the universal good of the United States.
To the followers of Beecher, Garrison,
and Phillips, he offered an
admonition:
If you of the North carry your
Anti-Slavery notions to the extreme, and
you violate one word or undertake to
disturb the harmony by tearing in
pieces the Constitution of the United
States, there are 8,000,000 in the West
who will raise their hands and say Peace
be still. We are not susceptible of
this great political epidemic that you
seem to have raised in the extreme
North.38
In his opinion, grand ideas of such men
as Henry Ward Beecher
and Wendell Phillips would be fine for
some place between heaven
and earth but very poor for the United
States.
The Ohio orator spoke to Republican
gatherings in Newburgh
and Poughkeepsie, New York; in Newark,
New Jersey; and alto-
gether made more than a dozen addresses
in the neighborhood of
New York City between October 31 and
November 8, 1859. Then,
after returning to Ohio, he accepted
Henry Ward Beecher's invita-
tion to speak at his church on November
28. This was more of a
formal lecture than it was a stump
speech and was entitled: "The
American Citizen and His Duties" or
"John Brown's Countenance
Through Another Pair of
Spectacles." This lecture was divided into
two main parts: (1) the citizen's duty
to obey the law, and (2) the
citizen's responsibility as a voter.
Corwin declared that it was not
the true policy of the Republican party
to make John Brown a
martyr. According to him, Brown's
actions should not be excused
in any degree. "Why is it,"
Corwin inquired, "that John Brown
because he tells the truth and faces his
coming doom with com-
posure shall be canonized? Many a
highway robber is just as brave
as John Brown. Many a highway robber is
just as free from lying
as John Brown." It was only those
people "who perjured them-
selves to aid the evasion of the
Fugitive Slave Law" that were ac-
claiming the "heroism" of John
Brown. Wendell Phillips spoke on
the same program, and Corwin condemned
Phillips before the
audience for his statements about the
United States Constitution
38 New York Tribune, November 4, 1859.
14
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
and his censure of Webster and Clay. The
address in Beecher's
church appears to have been the last
that Corwin made before going
to Washington for the first session of
the 36th congress.39
Tremendous excitement prevailed when
congress convened in
December 1859. Only three days earlier,
John Brown had been
executed, and nearly everyone had
something to say about the raid
or the slavery issue. Though few of the
Republican congressmen
expressed any sympathy for Brown, they
were in no mood to make
bargains with the proslavery forces.
Similarly the southerners were
unwilling to listen to antislavery
arguments. So loathe was either
group to concede anything, it took
nearly two months to organize
the house of representatives. Throughout
December and January
the lower house was in a turmoil with no
speaker elected, com-
mittees appointed, or legislation
passed. Hundreds of pages of the
Congressional Globe were filled with the bitter denunciations of the
angry congressmen. Again and again, it
appeared that the opposing
forces would resort to violence, and a
number of congressmen were
said to have carried weapons to the
daily sessions.40
Endeavoring to wear the mantle of Henry
Clay, his mentor for
nearly thirty years, Corwin sought to
bring an end to the legislative
chaos in the house. He declared that if
the 36th congress would
summon back the spirit that had actuated
the men of 1832 and
1850, all unruliness would stop and the
house of representatives
could function in a parliamentary
manner. He tried to calm the
fears of the southerners, many of whom
felt that the Republican
party sought the ruination of the South.
He denied that William
Seward was an abolitionist and asserted
that Seward should not
be regarded as the real leader of the
party. In any case, he argued,
one should not blame the whole
Republican organization for the
regrettable words or acts of a few of
its members. He admitted that
there was little difference between the
nullification of the tariff by
South Carolina in 1832 and the practical
nullification of the Fugi-
tive Slave Act of 1850 by certain
northern states. Nine-tenths of
the Republican party, said Corwin,
repudiated the sentiments of
most so-called Republican newspapers. As
he saw it, the bulk of
39 New York Tribune, November 30, 1859; see also Western Star, November
24,
1859 and December 1, 1859.
40 Senator Hammond wrote in 1860
that he believed "every man in both Houses
is armed with a revolver-some with two-and a bowie
knife." David S. Muzzey and
John A. Krout, American History for
Colleges (Rev. edn. Boston, 1943), 357.
THOMAS CORWIN 15
the nation both North and South wanted
peace in political affairs
and cherished a fraternal feeling for
their fellow Americans, but
this element, which was a majority in
both sections, was temporarily
submerged by the vociferous minority.
Again and again he declared
that the Republicans did not intend to
interfere with slavery in the
states where it existed, and that the
mass of the people of the North
agreed that the South was entitled to a
federal law to aid them in
returning their fugitives. Even the most
ultra-Republicans, Corwin
declared, never had a thought or
expressed an opinion which could
not be found among the opinions of the
great men of the South.
Such Republicans may be all wrong, he
said, but if they were they
should be pardoned as "they have
been led astray by Southern
gentlemen on the subject." After
this speech, which was favorably
received by the Democratic press, Samuel
S. Cox stated that Corwin
had been making Democratic addresses
ever since 1858 and that
he was convinced that the elderly Whig
had emerged from retire-
ment solely to attempt to nationalize
the Republican party.41
As the contest for the speakership
continued, Corwin felt called
upon to defend the man that he had
nominated for that office-John
Sherman. Primarily to relieve the
tension among the members of
the house and also because it was his
natural and most effective
manner of speaking, this entire speech
of Corwin's was sprinkled
with wit and humor. Many of his
arguments were merely a rehash-
ing of those that he had been hearing
and using for years, but he
gave to them the "Corwin
touch" so that they would not produce
anger and bitterness even if they did
not convince. The chief
criticism of Sherman was that he had
endorsed Helper's book, The
Impending Crisis. Corwin showed that Sherman's endorsement had
been made without ever having read the
book and simply because
it was recommended by Seward, Chase, and
dozens of others. This
had been a mistake, Corwin admitted, but
he pointed out that
everyone had done something foolish, and
many things that were
to be regretted. If the institution of
slavery could not endure under
such an attack as that of Helper's, it
deserved to fall, Corwin stated.
In his opinion the endorsement by
Sherman and the other fifty
Republicans had not secured a hundred
readers of the book, but
41 Congressional Globe, 36 cong.,1
sess., 67, 72-74; Washington Globe, December
9 to 10, 1859; Ohio Statesman, December
13 to 19, 1859; Congressional Globe, 36
cong., 1
sess., 76-79.
16
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
the southerner's blatant denunciation of
the volume had increased
its circulation a hundred fold. But the
quarrel over the choice of
a speaker continued, and five weeks
later, January 23 and 24, 1860,
Corwin spoke for nearly six hours,
pleading for the congressmen
"to end this gigantic fraud upon
the people" and to start acting
like a lawmaking body. Corwin asserted
that he was willing to
vote for any man to preside over the
house that could be elected
and advised his fellow congressmen
"to stop this nonsense and get
down to business." If they did not
like the candidate that he had
nominated, he told them to choose
another. "One would suppose,"
he said, "that we really believed
the happiness of all the world, and
certainly of untold generations,
depended upon the election of A or
B to stand up there in that chair like a
woodpecker tapping a hollow
beech tree."42
All through the bitter contest for the
speakership, Corwin pled
for both sides to listen to the
arguments of the opposition with
calmness. "We are not rivals,"
he said, "but brothers. . . . You
think you have diverse and competing
interests. This is all a mis-
take .... Every state is interested in
the prosperity and happiness
of every other." He would argue
first against the ardent proslavery
views and then in opposition to the
ideas of the extremists of the
North.
He endeavored to calm the fears that
were being expressed by
many that the Union would be dissolved,
by saying, "I am not
afraid for the Union; I see that I can
save it in the last extremity
just by letting a Democrat be elected
President." From every past
threat of dissolution he contended the
Union had emerged stronger
than before and every year saw the ties
that bound the states to-
gether become more indestructible. He
declared that a state could
no more secede than the moon could
depart from its orbit. Seces-
sion might be attempted, but, sooner or
later, by their own accord
the discontented states would return to
the fold. His peroration was
a stirring appeal for the
representatives to cooperate for the good
of the nation. In words that Carl
Sandburg has called a psalm
for the people to hear, Corwin pleaded:
Let us hear no more of this angry talk
about disunion, but . . . like
brethren . . . let us work earnestly and
happily together for the common
42 Congressional Globe, 36 cong., 1 sess., Appendix, 134-141.
THOMAS CORWIN 17
good of all.... Whether we consider this
ever-recurring question of slavery
as resting within our unrestricted
discretion, or whether we regard it as fixed
and limited by constitutional law-in
either aspect, with good sense, guided
by true patriotism, there is nothing to
be feared. The way through the future
is, in my judgment, open, clear, and
plain. We cannot be so weak as to give
way to childish fears, or sink into
lethargy and despair. On the contrary, let
us "gird up our loins" to the
work before us; for upon us this duty is de-
volved. We cannot escape from it if we
would. Let us, above all, preserve
our Constitution inviolate, and the
Union which it created, unbroken. By the
lights they give us, with the aids of an
enlightened religion, and an ever-
improving Christian philosophy, let us
march onward and upward in the great
highway of social progress.43
Both Republican and Democratic papers
hailed the January 24
speech by Corwin. Horace Greeley
acclaimed it as the most states-
manlike vindication of the principles of
the Republican party yet
heard, while the Washington Globe (Democratic)
praised the speech
and devoted 22 columns to carry the
entire speech. Several pro-
slavery members of congress complimented
him on the fairness of
his views and declared that they wished
they could accept them as
the principles of the Republican party.
One group of Pennsylvania
conservatives endeavored to start a move
to make Corwin the Re-
publican presidential nominee in 1860
declaring that such a ticket
would carry all before it. On the other
hand numerous abolitionists
criticized him severely for his
conciliatory efforts.44
Thomas Corwin was made the chairman of
the committee on
foreign affairs in the house after that
body was finally organized.
He does not seem, however, to have
devoted much time to the affairs
of the committee. The engrossing topic
to him was the coming
presidential election. The house was not
organized until mid-
February and less than a month later
Corwin left congress for an
extended speaking tour in Connecticut.
On his return to Washing-
ton he resumed his conciliatory efforts
and on April 25 made a
two-hour speech centering his attention
on the Fugitive Slave Act
of 1850. Corwin pointed out that the
North certainly did not want
to increase their Negro population and
that Indiana had already
passed an act forbidding the entrance of
all Negroes, and, in his
opinion, Massachusetts and Illinois were
on the verge of similar
43 Congressional Globe, 36 cong.,
1 sess., Appendix, 145-150.
44 New York Tribune, January 25, 1860;
Washington Globe, January 25, 1860;
Congressional Globe, 36 cong., 1 sess., 581-582; National Intelligencer, March
21,
1860; Wendell Phillips Garrison and
Frances Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison,
III, 8.
18
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
action. He accused the northern radicals
of unreasonableness in
their defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act
and challenged them to
point out a single instance where a free
man had been reduced to
slavery as a result of this act or to
show any practical evil that
had grown out of it.
In the year 1860 Corwin was much in
demand by political
conventions throughout the North.
Starting in March he advocated
his view of the conservative nature of
the Republican party in at
least seven states. He started his
campaigning in Connecticut where
he spoke in a dozen or more cities. At
Hartford, where special
trains brought part of his large
audience, he protested over the
South's infringement on the freedom of
the press. At Waterbury,
he discussed the need of a homestead
act. In the same city he
endeavored to prove that if the South
should secede the traffic on
the Underground Railroad would be vastly
increased. Always, he
urged his audience to exercise their
privilege of voting.45
Corwin was a member of the Ohio
delegation at the Republican
convention in Chicago and was known as
an anti-Seward man. In
the choosing of the Republican nominee
Corwin nominated Justice
John McLean of Ohio and voted for this
candidate on the first
three ballots. But after the third
ballot, when Lincoln needed only
one and a half votes to win the
nomination, Corwin apparently
became one of the two Ohioans who
switched their votes from
McLean to make "Honest Abe"
the candidate.46
Though there is some evidence to the
contrary, Thomas Corwin
was probably well pleased with the
Republican choice.47 The two
men were, in many respects, quite
similar. Both were children of
the frontier and nearly self-educated.
Both were noted for their
droll stories and their love of
conversation. Lincoln, like Corwin,
had been a Whig and a follower of Henry
Clay; both opposed the
Mexican War on the floor of congress,
and both supported the
Wilmot Proviso. As Carl Sandburg
remarked, Lincoln was joined
to Tom Corwin "by some common touch
that ran back to a feeling
45 National Intelligencer, April 26, 1860; New York Tribune, March 29,
1860;
Western Star, April 5, 1860.
46 Murat
Halstead, Caucuses of 1860-A History of the National Political Conven-
tions of the Current Campaign, 144-146.
47 Corwin is reputed to have received
Lincoln's nomination with the slur: "It is
a damned shame that no statesman can get
nominated, but they must nominate some
man who can hardly read or write."
George Fort Milton, The Eve of Conflict (Boston,
1934), 458, quoting K. W. Perring of
Toledo, Ohio, who is said to have heard the
remark.
THOMAS CORWIN 19
about masses of people, the many against
the few, the ruled-over
against the rulers."48 Above
all Corwin probably welcomed the
nomination because Lincoln was really a
conservative and felt as
he did about slavery, the Fugitive Slave
Act of 1850, squatter
sovereignty, the Pacific railroad, the
homestead act, and John
Brown's raid. The Ohio orator spoke very
highly of Lincoln in
many campaign speeches and predicted
freely that his administra-
tion would convince the southerners that
they had nothing to fear
from a Republican administration.49
Following the Republican convention,
Corwin spoke several
times in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and In-
diana. He spent the last two weeks of
October (1860) in Illinois
speaking in numerous cities. At
Springfield, Abraham Lincoln
listened to his two-hour address.50 He
spoke extensively in his home
state but made only a half dozen stump
appearances in his own
congressional district. The theme of his
various addresses was the
same as it had been in 1858 and 1859: an
effort to persuade the
conservatives that there was not a
single principle in the Republican
creed to which every old Whig could not
subscribe.51 One Re-
publican editor wrote that Corwin never
appeared as a partisan
orator who endeavored to "excite
prejudice, or stir up ill blood, or
to attempt to impose on the confidence
or mislead the judgment of
men. His object is rather to still the
troubled waters, to appeal to
the reason and conscience of
men."52 Corwin had an
overwhelming
victory at the polls in 1860. He
received over 10,000 votes to his
two opponents' combined total of less
than 5,000.53
When congress met in December 1860, the
nation was facing
the danger of immediate secession. The
election of Lincoln, in the
view of some proslavery men, made it
necessary for their states to
withdraw from the Union. In spite of the
fact that Lincoln's state-
ments were of a conciliatory nature, and
overlooking the fact that
the Republicans would lack a majority in
the senate, the Deep South
moved toward secession. Many leaders,
however, refused to
abandon the hope that a settlement would
be reached.
48 Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln-The
War Years, I, 285.
49 Dayton Journal, June 7, 1860.
50 Illinois Daily State Journal (Springfield), October 15, 1860.
51 New York Tribune, July 14, 1860, quoting a letter from Corwin to
a New
York City Republican mass meeting, held
July 13, 1860.
52 Dayton Journal, June 7, 1860.
53 Cincinnati Gazette, October
26, 1860.
20
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
While John J. Crittenden (Corwin's
friend of many years)
worked for an acceptable compromise in
the senate, Thomas Corwin
was appointed to head a committee in the
house to labor to the
same end. This committee of thirty-three
was composed of one
member from each state, and the
selection of Corwin as its chairman
was certainly the logical choice. The
Ohioan had probably been
more friendly with proslavery men than
any other Republican in
congress.54 From the beginning it was
evident that the task of the
committee was nearly insurmountable.
From the time that Corwin
called the first meeting to order until
it adjourned for the final
time, he was faced with the task of
keeping the opposing forces
from flying at each other's throats. The
work of the committee was
made more hopeless by the precipitate
action of South Carolina in
adopting an ordinance of secession. On
nearly all issues there was
wide disagreement. Corwin worked with
all his powers of per-
suasion to wring concessions from both
the proslavery and the
antislavery forces. Eventually he became
discouraged, saying in a
confidential note to Lincoln in
February:
If the States are no more harmonious in
their feelings and opinions
than these thirty-three representative
men, then, appalling as the idea is, we
must dissolve, and a long and bloody
civil war must follow. I cannot com-
prehend the madness of the times.
Southern men are theoretically crazy.
Extreme Northern men are practically
fools. The latter are quite as mad
as the former. Treason is in the air
around us everywhere. It goes by the
name of patriotism. Men in Congress
boldly avow it, and the public offices
are full of acknowledged secessionists.
God alone, I fear can help us. Four
or five states are gone, others driving
before the gale. I have looked on this
horrid picture till I have been able to
gaze on it with perfect calmness. I
think, if you live, you may take the
oath.55
Most of the debates in the committee
concerned conciliatory
suggestions proposed by Corwin himself,
and the final report of
the group was largely made from his
proposals. Corwin was ac-
cused of having yielded everything for
which the Republican party
had contended, and Carl Schurz declared
that Corwin's proposals
were "an act of degradation, a slur
upon the moral sense of the
54 Carl Sandburg told of Corwin's
"laughing hours of fellowship with Virginians
and Georgians who smoked, took toddy,
and told stories." Lincoln-The War Years,
I, 102-103.
55 Sandburg, Lincoln-The War Years, I,
26-27, quoting a letter from Corwin to
Lincoln dated January 16, 1861.
THOMAS CORWIN 21
people."56 According to Schurz the
main duty of the Republicans
on the committee of thirty-three was not
to make concessions but
merely to delay secession until after
Lincoln's inaugural.
The report that was finally adopted had
the support of only
a bare majority of the committee. Only
five representatives of the
slave states voted for the report, and
several New Englanders with-
held their approval. The report
consisted of several resolutions,
two bills, and a proposed constitutional
amendment, all having for
their object the appeasement of the
South. The resolutions were
mainly aimed to discredit the personal
liberty laws, while the first
of the two bills proposed that New
Mexico be admitted to the Union
as a slave state. The second of the two
bills was in two parts:
(1) A new federal fugitive slave act
which retained the federal com-
missioner idea but provided that if this
official found that the evidence
indicated a Negro to be an escaped
slave, he still could not be returned to his
master without a jury trial in a federal
court and at federal expense;
(2) The return of fugitives from one
state to the place where they
were accused of having committed a crime
was to be taken out of state hands
and made a federal concern.57
As many of the escaped slaves were
accused of crimes, this last
part of the bill was a definite
concession to the proslavery interests.
The suggested amendment (commonly known
as the Corwin
amendment) was a specific guarantee
against any interference with
the institution of slavery in any state
where it was legalized. After
being accepted, rejected, and
reconsidered, this amendment passed
the house of representatives, February
28, 1861, by a vote of 133
to 65. In the senate after many changes
had been refused, it re-
ceived the necessary two-thirds vote,
24-12, on March 2, 1861.
Buchanan showed his approval of the
proposal by signing it, though
such action was unnecessary and not
customary. Ohio ratified the
proposed amendment on May 13, 1861, and
Maryland on January
12, 1862. A constitutional convention in
Illinois ratified it on
February 14, 1862, but this action was
not legal because congress
had specified that the proposal should
be ratified by the legislatures.
Corwin worked strenuously to get the
various proposals of the
committee of thirty-three accepted by
congress. Even before the
56 Frederick Bancroft, ed., Speeches,
Correspondence, and Political Papers of Carl
Schurz, I, 168, quoting a letter from Schurz to J. F. Potter,
dated December 17, 1860.
57 The complete report of the committee
of thirty-three, with minutes of meet-
ings and minority reports is found in House Reports No.
31, 36 cong., 1 sess.
22
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
report had been placed before congress,
three more states had
seceded, and by the end of January a
total of seven states had left
the Union. Notwithstanding the apparent
uselessness of his efforts,
Corwin spoke for more than an hour on
one occasion and nearly
two hours on another in the latter part
of January in a last ditch
effort to bring an acceptance of the
resolutions and bills. It was
a final effort to keep the Union from
falling apart. He declared that
he would do everything in his power
"to redress wrong; soothe
anger; to remove prejudices; to explain
unhappy misunderstand-
ings; and . . if danger is apprehended to the rights of any people,
I am ready to shield them by fortifying
their rights with further
constitutional guarantees."58
He condemned the northern press for
having circulated publi-
cations in the South that were intended
to incite slave uprisings.
There is a difference between freedom of
the press and licentious-
ness of the press, he asserted. He
pointed out that the South was
being offered a new slave state and
said, "You want New Mexico....
You say she belongs to you. Take
it!" Debate on the committee's
report continued through the month of
February although the
representatives of the seceded states
were leaving congress every
week. Finally on March 1, the
resolutions were accepted by a vote
of 92 to 82, but on the same date the
two bills were defeated by
decisive margins.
Of the various conciliatory proposals it
seems that only those
suggested by the committee of
thirty-three might have been ap-
proved by Lincoln. Both the Crittenden
proposals and those of the
Virginia "Peace Convention"
favored the application of the Mis-
souri Compromise line to any future
territory acquired by the
United States as well as that already
within the country, and Lincoln
was on record as being emphatically
opposed to such a solution.
There seems nothing in the Corwin
proposals that was contrary to
Lincoln's expressed views.59
Though Corwin's efforts to pacify the
nation were not approved
by the extremists of both North and
South, yet the great mass of
the people, those who loved the Union
more than they desired or
58 Congressional Globe, 36 cong., 1 sess., Appendix, 75.
59 The famous letter from Lincoln to Seward, dated February 1, 1861,
expressed
Lincoln's willingness to accept
compromise suggestions such as Corwin proposed.
Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of
Lincoln, I, 668-669.
THOMAS CORWIN 23
opposed slavery, applauded his
proposals. When the "Corwin
Amendment" received the necessary
two-thirds vote of the house of
representatives, even the Charleston (South
Carolina) Mercury ad-
mitted that there was tumultuous
applause. On the day that the
proposed thirteenth amendment passed the
house, February 2, 1861,
Corwin was visited at his Washington
rooming house by a large
crowd accompanied by the United States
Marine Band which sere-
naded him. When he made his appearance
he was wildly cheered.
Corwin had had his hopes renewed by the
congressional acceptance
of the proposed amendment and the
various resolutions. He told
his motley audience that he had begun to
see a beam of sunshine
through the black clouds that were
threatening civil war.60
So it was that Thomas Corwin's political
career came to an end
in a sincere effort to prevent disunion,
and a mass demonstration
was held in his honor. He was not aware
that Abraham Lincoln
had him slated to be the new minister to
Mexico. If someone had
suggested such a thing, Corwin would
have considered it a jest. He
was 67 years of age, had never been
outside the United States, and
knew little of diplomacy, and he likely
felt he was too old to learn.
When the 36th congress came to an end,
Corwin was planning to
continue his conciliatory efforts.
One is led to believe that Thomas Corwin
had done consider-
able good for the Republican party.
Tirelessly, he had urged the
conservative classes to accept the
doctrines of the Republicans, and
it is probable that his words lessened
the influence of the radical
elements of that organization. By thus aiding the election of
Lincoln and by his sincere efforts to
evoke the spirit of concession
and avert the Civil War, Thomas Corwin
had served both his party
and his country very well indeed.
60 Charleston Mercury, March 1, 1861; National Intelligencer, March
2, 1861.
THOMAS CORWIN AND THE CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICAN
REACTION, 1858-1861
by DARYL
PENDERGRAFT
Assistant Professor of History, Iowa
State Teachers College
By the year 1858, it had become apparent
to many of the
leaders of the young Republican party
that the party's future success
required a stronger appeal to the
conservative elements of the
North. The taint of radicalism that was
attached to the new party
was plainly frightening many of the
property-owning class and
others with more moderate views into the
Douglas camp. Unless
this trend could be stopped, there was
real danger that the election
of 1860 might be thrown into the house
of representatives and con-
ceivably result in the election to the
presidency of an undesirable
candidate. A widespread campaign to
soothe the fears of the north-
ern conservatives was clearly in order.
Furthermore, in due time,
the cumulative effect of such incidents
as John Brown's raid and
of the publication of Helper's Impending
Crisis, both of which the
Republicans were accused of having
endorsed, led more and more
people to brand that party as an
organization of extremists and
made more necessary a conservative
appeal. Even after the election
of 1860 many in the party felt the need
of continuing the denial of
radicalism in the hope of arranging a
compromise between the
extremists of both North and South.1
As a spokesman to the conservatives,
Thomas Corwin was the
logical choice of the Ohio Republicans.
Throughout his long career
as a congressman, governor of Ohio,
United States Senator, and
secretary of the treasury, he had been
known as a Henry Clay Whig.
During the Jacksonian administration he
had been one of the lead-
ing champions of the Bank of the United
States and had become a
well-known advocate of a high protective
tariff and internal im-
provements at federal expense. As an
antislavery leader he opposed
the annexation of Texas and received so
much notoriety for his
efforts to end the Mexican War that he
was frequently mentioned
1 William E. Dodd, "The Fight for
the Northwest," in American Historical
Review, XVI (1911), 774-789.