"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER AND
CHASE'S BID FOR THE
PRESIDENCY IN 1860
by EARL W. WILEY
Professor of Speech, Ohio State
University
"Old Abe.--Hon. Abraham Lincoln will address the people
of Columbus either at the State House or
City Hall, today, (Friday.)
Mr. Lincoln has the reputation of being
one of the ablest stumpers
of the day."--Columbus Gazette, September
16, 1859.
This was all there was to the
announcement made by the Colum-
bus Gazette, a conservative opposition weekly, concerning Lincoln's
scheduled visit to Columbus in 1859. Why
the brevity? John
Greiner, editor of the Gazette, did
not hesitate to give a full and
lively report of Stephan A. Douglas'
speech in Columbus on Sep-
tember 7.1 Furthermore, he was a Whig of
long and distinguished
standing. It might be presumed from this
that he would extend
a warm editorial greeting to the old
Springfield Whig. The latter
was in Columbus as the guest of the Ohio
Republican state central
committee.2 He came by
special invitation to lend a hand in the
state political campaign then entering
its warmest stages. Why the
Gazette's apparent indifference to the event?
Greiner did not even take the trouble to
find out where Lincoln
was to make his remarks in Columbus. And
he failed to attend
the rally in point, as we shall see. Nor
did he report the affair
in his paper after Lincoln had made his
speech and departed the
city, and this in face of the fact that
the Ohio State Journal, the
local Republican organ, and the Ohio
Statesman, the local Demo-
cratic organ, gave it liberal coverage.
Even the Capital City Fact,
politically independent at the moment
after years of Know-Nothing
service, paid the incident some small
attention. How account for
Greiner's aloofness in the matter?
1 Columbus Gazette, September 9, 1859.
2 Gilbert A. Tracy, ed., Uncollected
Letters of Abraham Lincoln (New York,
1917), 116.
245
246 OHIO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Greiner was the legendary minstrel of
the early Whig cam-
paigns in Ohio. Aggressively active in
the electioneering of 1840,
he gained a wide and unique reputation
for the authorship of
many of the parodies of that delirious,
bobby-sox commotion. He
was generally regarded as the poet
laureate of the Tippecanoe cam-
paign 3 and the compiler of the Harrison
Log Cabin Song Book.4
At the climax of the three-day program
of the Franklin County
Agricultural Fair, September 16, 1859,
Greiner enlivened the occa-
sion with one of his rollicking jingles,
the last stanza of which read:
O, these Franklin County Fair girls are
tidy, neat and trim,
If there's a premium beau next year,
won't they be after him?
So set your caps for next year, girls,
and won't the people stare,
To see you jump the broomstick at the
Franklin County Fair.5
The sprightly doggerel was in the best
tradition of the singer;
and so was the accent on the distaff
side, for Greiner conducted
a "Matrimonial Column" in the Gazette.
Nor was it surprising
that Greiner attended the local county
fair on the pleasant afternoon
of September 16, 1859, despite the fact
that on that same afternoon
down the National Pike a piece Abraham
Lincoln was making one
of the important speeches of his career
at a Republican rally staged
on the east terrace of the state house
in Columbus. For behind the
incident lies a story that hints the
motives prompting Greiner's
indifference to the Lincoln rally and
reveals a lost chapter of Sal-
mon P. Chase's abortive bid for the
Republican nomination for
president in 1860.6
This incident first came to public
attention on April 22, 1859,
when Greiner published the first
installment of a series of four
3 Ohio Statesman, February 22, 1860.
4 The Tippecanoe Song Book was
issued from the printing office of the Straight-
Out-Harrisonian at Columbus early in June. It was a volume of some sixty-odd
pages comprising about fifty songs,
according to the announcement, "among which
are the most popular ones that have
appeared in the newspapers or been sung from
the stump." Straight-Out-Harrisonian,
June 5, 1840. I have been unable to locate a
copy of this collection.
The Harrison Hard Cider and Log Cabin
Song Book, published by I. N. Whiting
at Columbus in 1840, was a neatly bound
volume of 105 pages with an index. Grein-
er's name is not mentioned in it. The
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society
owns a copy of this volume.
Greiner's name does not appear in any of
the several other collections of Tippe-
canoe songs published variously over the
country in 1840, in so far as I have exam-
ined them, nor in A. B. Norton's Reminiscences
of the Log Cabin and Hard Cider
Campaign (Mt. Vernon, Ohio, and Dallas, Texas, 1888).
5 Ohio Statesman, September 17, 1859.
6 Chase's major biographers--Schuckers,
Warden, and Hart--make no reference
to John Greiner or to his part in
Chase's presidential campaign of 1860. Historians
and the writers of special articles on
Chase also pass Greiner by without mention.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 247
articles in the Columbus Gazette, proposing
as the Republican ticket
in 1860, Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, for
president, and Edward Bates,
of Missouri, for vice president. In the
three numbers of the paper
to follow, namely April 29, May 6, and
May 13, Greiner contributed
additional arguments to round out his
thesis that Chase and Bates
should be nominated. Finally, in a
single supplement of approxi-
mately 7,500 words, May 20, 1859, he
reprinted in the Gazette the
entire series in response to popular
demand, so he explained. The
series was captioned "The
Mississippi Valley-The Next Presi-
dency."
The burden of these papers was that the
next occupant of the
White House should come from the valley
of the Mississippi, defined
as "that broad and magnificent
domain, which stretches from the
Alleghanies to the Rocky
Mountains." Greiner set forth Chase's
qualifications for the presidency in
true panegyric style. This he
balanced with a statement of the
shortcomings of competitive aspir-
ants for the high office. But
essentially he rested his case for Chase
on the premise that a western man should
succeed Buchanan.
The idea was not new. Writing to Charles
Sumner from Co-
lumbus on June 20, 1859, Chase stated
that there was "a very
general disposition in Ohio and several
other States to press my
nomination for the Presidency as a
Western man and on the whole
the most available candidate."7
There was more of Chase's strange
optimism where his own fortunes were
concerned than fact in these
words. Men like Thomas Ewing, Samuel F.
Vinton, and Thomas
Corwin, "whose stools have been
pushed from under them by the
unceasing labor, management and intrigue
of Gov. Chase and his
adherents,"8 were
unlikely to forget these personal slights on the
vague ground of sectionalism. Greiner
intimates this in his articles.
He constantly is imploring that Ohio
stand as a unit for Chase on
the basis of loyalty to the home state.
John Geary hit the appeal
hard by pointing out that if a
Republican candidate were to be
chosen on the score of westernism,
Edward Bates and Abraham
Lincoln would be equally eligible with
Chase for the honor.9
7 Edward G. Bourne, ed., Diary and
Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Ameri-
can Historical Association, Annual Report, 1902,
II (Washington, 1903), 281.
8 Ohio Statesman, February 29, 1860.
9 Capital City Fact, February 29, 1860.
248
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
However, there was something more than
sectionalism in the
appeal. Carl Schurz, speaking in Faneuil
Hall, Boston, April 18,
1859, summed up the quintessence of
western Republicanism in the
words, "Liberty and equal rights,
common to all as the air of
Heaven-Liberty and equal rights, one and
inseparable."10
It was on the material fruits of the
doctrine that all men are
created free and equal that Greiner
sought to push Chase's candi-
dacy for the presidency in his
Mississippi Valley papers. He de-
scribed handsomely the vast economic
development of the West, and
predicted that the census of 1860 would
reveal a record of social
achievements in the teeming valley that
would stagger the world.
Manifest destiny was on the march
westward. Was it not the part
of wisdom to put in the White House a
man imbued with the native
genius of the valley to supervise the
development?
No longer was the basin of the
Mississippi the crude and
unwashed hinterland of the republic. It
had the wealth. It had
the population. And it had the location.
This latter circumstance
was significant. It constituted a
natural adhesive force that would
serve to bind the sprawling outposts of
the Far West with the older
eastern states; and in the thickening
quarrel between North and
South, the valley stood as a benign and
neutral arbiter.
But one obstacle stood between a western
man and the White
House. That was the possibility that the
losers in the contest for
the Republican nomination for president
might sulk in defeat. And
how avoid such a contingency? The way
was for the opposition
to select its nominees in the cold,
unharassed light of reason. This
was no time for partisanship. Buchanan
and his associates had
done the country almost to death with
partisanship. And in the
spirit of one who wore his party badge
lightly in the manner of
Chase, Greiner analyzed the
qualifications of a number of notables
mentioned at the time with greater or
less frequency as contenders
for the presidency in 1860.
Disqualifying these rivals to Chase
one by one, he went on to press his own
case for the Chase-Bates
ticket.
10 Frederic Bancroft, ed., Speeches,
Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl
Schurz (6 vols., New York and London, 1913), I, 71.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 249
Chase deserved the Republican nomination
as the representa-
tive man of the opposition, Greiner
declared; and as a resident of
the valley, Chase reinforced that claim.
Too long had the valley
been by-passed by the nation in its
choice of president, Greiner
again protested; and somewhat
plaintively he noted how in all the
history of the great Northwest Territory
since its political organiza-
tion, only William Henry Harrison of its citizens had been
elevated
to the chief magistracy of the republic,
and he for a period of
but thirty days.
Greiner's eulogium of Chase was as
tempered a piece of praise
and blame as could be expected from a
propagandist, especially
from one sincerely devoted to his
subject. Greiner perceived in
Chase every qualification required of a
great president. A gentle-
man by instinct, Chase was represented
as well educated, an
eminent lawyer, able in debate, and
skilled in verbal expression;
and he was described as a superior
administrator, as proved by his
efficient record as governor of Ohio.
Furthermore, he was in his
physical prime,11 constitutionally
rugged, and a man of Christian
faith. "To do right, is
always his first impulse, and his sober sec-
ond thought; the power of his will, and
the energy of his character,
ever enable him to consummate his
purpose."12
Moreover, Greiner continued, the
governor was a zealous ex-
ponent of free labor and free
territories. From the vantage ground
of a westerner he had seen how Ohio grew
prosperous under a
system of free labor and how,
conversely, the slave states declined
11 George Hoadly, in his address at
Music Hall, in Cincinnati, October 14,
1886, on the occasion of the removal of
the remains of Salmon P. Chase to Spring
Grove Cemetery, remarked of Chase's
appearance and manners: "Tall, dignified, of
commanding presence, benign in
expression, gentle in speech, sweet voiced, thinking
kindly and never speaking harshly of men or motives,
manly in seeming and in fact,
brave, truthful and just in word and work, winning in
manners, this man seemed
called by nature to great personal
popularity."- Address at Music Hall, Cincinnati,
Ohio, on the Occasion of the Removal
of the Remains of Salmon P. Chase, to Spring
Grove Cemetery, Thursday, October 14, 1886 (Cincinnati, 1887), 4.
In contrast to this, Henry B. Stanton
asserted of Chase: "I do not rely on
rumors or inferences or information from
the newspapers or other outside sources when
I say that Chase was stubborn, jealous,
and always intriguing against some of his
associates, especially Seward." Random
Recollections (New York, 1887), 222.
Hoadly was speaking of the Chase he knew
as a young man, long prior to
the time when Chase was warped by
ambition.
12 Donn Piatt, who like Hoadly was one
of Chase's youthful proteges, wrote:
"Chase was truly of a deeply
religious nature. He believed with the trusting faith
of a child in the truths of revelation,
not as an abstract thing separate and apart from
his daily life, but this faith colored
all his character, and entered into the most
minute details of his life. We have to
remember, in this connection, that he amended
the Proclamation of Emancipation by that
closing invocation to the Supreme Being
which President Lincoln had forgotten,
or probably never thought of." Memories of
the Men Who Saved the Union (New York and Chicago, 1887), 99.
250
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
economically and morally under a
contrary system. Ever equal
to a ringing period, in this connection
Greiner declared, "Ohio-
the empire State, of the Central
Valley-presents a noble monument
in her history and resources of the
principles which she illus-
trates."13 Yet, Greiner
qualified, seeking to shield his candidate
from the blasting charge of Black
Republicanism, Chase recognized
the rights of the slave states to
administer slavery in their own
way, "and that without the
interference of the general government."
This was a startling concession
regarding a man possessed of
Chase's unequivocal antislavery
antecedents.
Greiner further diluted Chase's record
on perverse points.
Admitting that Chase opposed the
acquisition of Cuba at a cost of
two hundred million dollars, or by
robbing Spain, he hastened to
explain that the governor was not
unalterably opposed to the ac-
quisition of additional federal domain
whenever new parcels were
procured under legitimate procedures.
And then, trying to do the
impossible, Greiner represented Chase as
a genial, cordial type of
person, practical-minded, easily
approached, and always open to
suggestions on political matters. This
was in open contradiction
to the popular belief that Chase was
obdurate in his political views,
although flexible enough in his party
affiliations, and inclined to
be stiff-necked and aristocratic in his
public relations.
Greiner was among the first to publicize
Chase's somersault on
the touchy tariff issue. In this case
one suspects that the editor
of the Gazette was standing close
to the governor. The man nom-
inated by the Republicans in 1860 had to
stand right in the eyes
of the tariff states, and Chase's record
was definitely that of a
free-trader. This he implied by saying
frequently that his only
clash with the Democrats was on
slavery.14
Chase squirmed to strengthen his
position on this issue. So
Greiner obliged by unblushingly stating
that Chase was not a free-
trader, but a man who would protect the
interests of the American
manufacturer and the American laborer
from the ravages of cheap
13 It would seem at this point that Greiner borrowed a page from Hinton
Rowan
Helper's The Impending Crisis of the
South (New York, 1860), 281-330. Helper
sought to show by the census tables how
the slave states had been outstripped by the
free states in commerce, manufacturing,
internal improvements, education, and religion.
14 Donnal V. Smith, Chase and Civil War Politics (Columbus,
1931), 8.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 251
foreign goods by the imposition of a
duty on foreign goods. Money
so collected would be used to pay the
expenses of the general gov-
ernment. This sentiment conformed to
that expressed by Chase
in a public letter released in January
1860.15
There remained only Greiner's appraisal
of Edward Bates to
complete the prima facie case for the
Chase-Bates ticket. Above
all else, Bates was a westerner in the
full acceptation of that word.
This distinction he had earned as
president of the monumental
internal improvement convention at
Chicago of a decade earlier.
The speech he made on that occasion gave
him place and prestige
among the best minds in the country and
served to exalt him as a
symbol of the unharnessed energy
rumbling through the great valley
Highly respected nationally, he came
from an important state, and
he stood close to those who looked upon
slavery as an important
but not grave issue in the nation's
economy.
In closing, Greiner pleaded for a united
Ohio in Chase's behalf.
He lamented that Ohio lacked an
integrated state spirit. Governor
Wood, for example, while chief
magistrate, resigned his post to
become consul in a fourth rate city in
South America, and Governor
Medill, in the traditional practice of
selling Ohio short, descended
from the Ohio statehouse to accept a
puny appointment in Washing-
ton. Let Ohio close ranks! Greiner
urged. Actually this was
Greiner's way of pleading that the Ohio
delegation to the Repub-
lican national convention in 1860 should
go as a unit pledged to
Chase.16 And so Greiner rested his case for the Chase-Bates ticket
in 1860.
But what of the response that greeted
Greiner's effort? The
Ohio State Journal, generally regarded as Chase's chief news organ,
ignored the articles in their entirety.
Why the Journal's strange
silence to them? Could it imply that the
inner circle of Chase's
political friends felt that it was a bit
presumptuous of the old "song
singer" to "jump the gun"
a full year before the Republican
15 Reinhard H. Luthin, The First
Lincoln Campaign (Cambridge, Mass., 1944),
47.
16 Chase's unhappy experience with
recalcitrant Buckeye delegates was something
of a precedent among Ohio Republicans.
Wade, Dennison, John Sherman, Taft, Hard-
ing, among later Ohio "favorite
son" candidates, likewise had difficulty in holding
their own delegations in line at
subsequent Republican National Conventions. See
Charles A. Jones, "Ohio in the
Republican National Conventions," Ohio State Archaeo-
logical and Historical Quarterly, XXXVIII (1929), 1-46.
252
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
national convention met, and to dictate
both the policies and nom-
inees of the opposition in a spirit so
reactionary as likely to offend
the abolitionists?
Or was there something dark and
insidious about the articles?
Could it be, indeed, that the project
was in the nature of a trial
balloon sent up covertly with Chase's
full knowledge and consent
in order to publicize the Ohio governor
as a presidential prospect,
possibly to feel out his prospects? Was
it merely a gesture to woo
Missouri delegates to Chase? Or was it
something more subtle than
that? Might it not be an attempt of the
Chase strategists to take
up something of the shock of the Bates
candidacy, then being agi-
tated by Frank P. Blair? Bates appeared
to be Chase's main western
rival at the moment. Greiner's ticket
would absorb Bates's candi-
dacy by making it the tail of Chase's
kite. Was it so planned?17
Colonel George W. Manypenny, editor of
the Ohio Statesman,
doubted from the first that the articles
represented Greiner's inde-
pendent and unsolicited action. He
suspected that no other than
Chase himself was the true inspirer of
the series and held that the
entire project was hatched under the very
dome of the capitol in
Columbus.18 Going beyond
this, he alleged that Greiner wantonly
assumed the role of independent in the
newspaper field after a life-
time of rabid Whig partisanship in order
to put himself into an
advantageous position to pull the stops
for Chase once the time
became opportune. Manypenny maintained
his skepticism in the
matter to the end. "The Columbus Gazette
is the special organ
of Gov. Chase," he wrote in the Statesman
on January 22, 1860.
"It leaves the small work for the Journal,
but in all matters of
moment, it is in fact the organ of the
Governor, par excellence."
Declaring that he espoused the
governor's candidacy for presi-
17 Bates's candidacy for the Republican
nomination for president, sparked by
Francis P. Blair, Jr., and his cousin, B. Gratz Brown,
editor of the St. Louis Mis-
souri Democrat, was
being brought into the open about the time of the Valley
articles. A Chase-Bates ticket would
have been a neat straddle as the latter was a
conservative Whig in the Clay tradition.
He had no truck with Seward's Higher Law
transcendentalism. He was much nearer to Greiner than
to Chase. Like the former,
Bates believed that slavery was an extraneous issue
drawn into the discussion by
power-drunk politicians.
It was the hope of Blair and Brown that
Bates had the personal appeal to unite
the several factions amalgamating under the term
Opposition in 1859, to wit, the
old time Whigs, the remnants of the
American party, and the Free Democracy. See
Luthin, The First Lincoln Campaign, 51-68, for a
study of Bates's relative place in
the 1860 campaign.
18 Ohio Statesman, April 30, 1859.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 253
dent solely on his faith in the sterling
qualities of the governor as
a statesman, Greiner fervently crossed
his heart and flatly denied
the existence of connivance between
himself and Chase on the
authorship of the Valley articles. He
took particular umbrage at
the charge that his paper was the
cat's-paw of anyone. The Gazette,
he asseverated, was "no man's
organ, the organ of no party, sect
or clique, but the organ of the people
of Franklin county."19 Here
was a hometown paper, in short, coming
out loyally for the aspira-
tions of a local son, in keeping with
the traditions of the founders
of that paper.
Bates's suprising advent into the field
of top presidential possi-
bilities in the spring of 1859 doubtless
upset the calculations of the
Chase tacticians considerably. Their
strategy had been that only a
westerner was eligible for the
nomination in 1860, and that Chase
was the only qualified westerner.
Greiner disposed of Douglas and
Crittenden, possible rivals to Chase on
the score of location, with a
wave of the hand. He made no mention of
Lincoln, and in the
spring of 1859 he doubtless felt not the
slightest concern over Lin-
coln's candidacy. By the same token he
by-passed Lane of Indiana
who also had western support for the
Republican nomination in
1860. But with the rise of Bates, a
trans-Mississippi westerner, the
picture began to change.
At first Chase dared to hope that the
Blairs might look kindly
upon his own candidacy, and to that end
he wrote a letter of intro-
duction for Colonel Richard C. Parsons
to discuss the matter with
them.20 Whether or not
Parsons completed the mission is not
known. Certainly the Blairs never turned
a hand in his behalf.
Chase next proposed that Bates share the
ticket with him, granting
Bates the tail position in the best
approved Greiner manner.21
Nothing came of the effort.
19 Columbus Gazette, May 11,
1860. According to Greiner, the Gazette was es-
tablished as a home paper for Columbus
and Franklin County. Enterprising local
citizens including Messrs. Goodale,
Swan, Parsons, Ridgway, and Kelley, feeling the
need of a paper that would specialize in
local news (early Ohio newspapers featured
out-of-state news) advanced the capital
necessary to pay for the original equipment
to set up a practical printer in the new
project. In a few years the printer was
enabled to buy out the original
investors and put the paper on a substantial basis.
Ibid., October 19, 1860.
20 Smith, Chase and Civil War
Politics, 15.
21 Ibid. Smith sees in
Chase's proposal a bid for Missouri's delegates to the
coming Republican national convention.
254
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
This correspondence makes clear that
Chase was toying with
the idea of a Chase-Bates ticket about
the time Greiner was advanc-
ing the idea in the Valley papers. But
it does not make clear
whether Greiner or Chase originated the
idea. It does lend credence
to Manypenny's suspicion that Chase was
a party to the Gazette's
presentation of the idea.
Regardless of the Manypenny-Greiner
bickerings on the mat-
ter, as the spring of 1859 came in it was
becoming evident to all
informed politicians that the Chase boom
was getting off to a
languishing start. Not a single
top-flight editor or politician had
come out openly for the governor's
nomination. The Cincinnati
Gazette, "accounted a Chase paper at that time, soon
refrained
from mentioning his name in its
columns,-to save its influence
in the state, said one of its
editors."22
Whitelaw Reid, youthful editor of the Xenia
News and pres-
ently made secretary of the Greene
County Republican Committee,
was a Chase-for-President man only in a
technical sense. At heart
he leaned strongly toward Lincoln, and
when the latter was nomi-
nated in 1860 his joy knew no bounds. To
the end of his days he
took pride in being among the first, if
not the first Republican
editor in Ohio to come out for Lincoln's
nomination for president
that year.23 It is
interesting to note that A. Hivling, delegate to
the Republican national convention from
Greene County, voted for
Lincoln from the first ballot in 1860.24
Jonathan Renick, Samuel Galloway,
Llewellyan Baber, Colonel
N. H. Swayne, like Reid, favored
Lincoln, but like Reid they were
more pro-Lincoln than anti-Chase. John
Geary, editor of the Capital
City Fact, was harshly anti-Chase. He spent more than a column
of his paper on March 1, 1860, probing
Chase's antislavery back-
ground and emphasizing Chase's attempts
to abolitionize both the
Democratic and Republican parties. He
made a similar attack on
Chase's antislavery record 25 in reply
to Greiner's attempt to make
it appear that Seward was rashly
negrophile, whereas Chase was
22 Ibid., 12.
23 Royal Cortissoz, The Life of
Whitelaw Reid (New York, 1921), I, 51-52.
24 Joseph P. Smith, History of the
Republican Party in Ohio (2 vols., Chicago,
1898), I, 116-118.
25 Capital City Fact, May 11, 1860.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 255
not. Geary also censured the Chase
forces for alleged unfriend-
liness to the candidacy of Samuel
Galloway for delegate to the
Republican national convention from the
12th congressional dis-
trict.26
James M. Ashley looked upon Chase as
academic, and although
he worked for the governor's nomination
in 1860, there must have
been a reservation in his heart.27 Colonel
George W. Manypenny
represented the Democratic opinion on
Chase's prospects in 1860,
and he declared with a good deal of heat
that Seward was the man
picked by the inner-circle Republicans
at Chicago.28 Joshua R.
Giddings made his fight at Chicago on
principle.29
The movement for Benjamin Wade's
candidacy in 1860 that
crystalized shortly after Chase had been
named as Ohio's "favorite
son" candidate at the Republican
state convention, March 1, 1860,
revealed how inconstant were some of the
men looked upon as
Chase supporters. According to rumor,
the men implicated in the
agitation to substitute Wade for Chase
at Chicago, included Gid-
dings, Corwin, who was pushing for Judge
McLean of Cincinnati,
David K. Cartter, titular head of the
Ohio delegation, Christopher P.
Wolcott, William Dennison, recently
elected governor of Ohio, and
Columbus Delano.30 Wade and Chase always
worked together
poorly, and an eminent historian wrote
that in 1860 "Senator Wade
had his own views as to who was the
ablest Republican in Ohio."31
26 The 12th district was composed of
Franklin, Pickaway, and Licking counties.
The representatives met in the City
Hall, Columbus, February 29, 1860, to elect two
delegates to Chicago. The vote stood:
Willard Warner of Licking, 48 votes; Jonathan
Renick of Pickaway, 77 votes; Samuel
Galloway of Franklin, 46 votes.
27 John A. Sinnett of Licking, chairman,
decided there was no election or all three
candidates were elected. An appeal from
the decision of the chair was taken, and
Warner and Renick, the two having the
largest number of votes, were declared the
official delegates from the 12th
congressional district to Chicago. Ohio State Journal,
March 1, 1860.
Geary's objection in the Fact, March
2, 1860, was apparently based on the
alleged steamroller tactics of H. B.
Carrington, adjutant general of Ohio and Chase's
law partner, in the situation that
developed over the closeness of the vote. "The Chase
faction are merciless," declared
Geary, "and will give no quarter to those who do
not worship their idol."
Warner was a Chase man. The election of
Galloway, a Lincoln man, would
indeed have been embarrassing to Chase,
as Renick was a Lincoln man.
27 "Before the rebellion broke out
I came to know that Seward was a 'dreamer,'
who always lived high up in the clouds;
that Sumner was a man of 'books,' and that
Chase practically did not know men, and
might be associated in the Senate for years
with the chief conspirators and be
entirely ignorant of their movements or their plots."
Reminiscences of the Great Rebellion.
Calhoun, Seward and Lincoln. Address of
Hon. J. M. Ashley at Memorial Hall,
Toledo, Ohio, June 2, 1890 [Toledo,
1890], 33.
28 Ohio
Statesman, March 18, 1860.
29 George W. Julian, The Life of
Joshua R. Giddings (Chicago, 1892), 371-372.
30 Smith, History of the Republican
Party in Ohio, I, 105.
31 Albert Bushnell Hart, Salmon
Portland Chase (Boston and New York, 1899),
189.
256
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
The aging Judge McLean, as powerful
politically in southern Ohio
as Wade was in northern Ohio, besides
clinging to his own slender
presidential hopes nursed his own
bitterness for Chase for the lat-
ter's part against him in the Free Soil
campaign of 1848.32
In the nation at large Chase's
presidential prospects were as
uncertain as those in his own state. Not
that he lacked supporters.
Anti-Seward New Yorkers, including Hiram
Barney, David Dudley
Field, James A. Briggs, and George
Opdyke, worked for his cause
to the end.33 Amos Nourse
pledged that in event of Chase's nomi-
nation in 1860 he would "write for
him, speak for him, and work
for him with all my might and
main." 34 Edward L. Pierce, one
of the young students who sat at Chase's
feet in Cincinnati, one of
the most devoted New Englanders to his
cause in 1860, found him-
self trapped by the Seward men and
finally taken over by them.35
So it went. The Chase forces lacked the
political finesse, or-
ganization, and funds to cope
successfully with the waves of re-
sistance and indifference that met their
efforts. Horace Greeley
considered Chase as radical as Seward
and feared that neither could
carry Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
Illinois.36 The Bates candidacy
intrigued him, and he thought that the
election of Bates would not
only serve the cause of emancipation in
Missouri but would tend
to calm the slave states into accepting
"Republican ascendancy."37
Carl Schurz accepted Seward on the basis
of "disinterested
motives."38
The young Wisconsin apostle of freedom
told Chase in Colum-
bus in March 1860, only two weeks after
the Ohio governor had
been chosen as Ohio's "favorite
son" candidate at the state conven-
tion held in Columbus, that in case the
Republican national conven-
tion did "nominate an advanced
anti-slavery man," it would be
Seward; but in event of Seward's defeat,
the convention would not
turn to Chase.39 This was
indeed distressing news to Chase, who
32 Ibid.
33 Luthin,
The First Lincoln Campaign, 138-139.
34 James S. Pike, First Blows of the Civil War (New
York, 1879), 430.
35 Hart, Salmon Portland Chase, 24, 180, 191.
36 Jeter A. Isely, Horace Greeley and
the Republican Party (Princeton, 1947),
273.
37 Ibid., 286.
38 Speeches, Correspondence and
Political Papers, I, 116.
39 Carl Schurz, Reminiscences (3
vols., New York, 1907-8), II, 171.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 257
long had hoped that he would become the
beneficiary of Seward's
delegates after the New Yorker had been
borne down by the weight
of Weed, of the
"irrepressibles," and of his negrophile record.40
Serene in the justice of his own cause,
or naive in his own lack
of political acumen as General Ashley
believed, Chase maintained
a brave optimism despite one setback
after another to his aspira-
tions and plodded on toward Chicago. Not
a single strong man in
the nation or in his own state rallied
enthusiastically to his stand-
ard. A few devoted souls stood by him to
the very end-Barney
and Briggs in New York, Pierce in
Massachusetts, and Frederick
Hassaurek and John Greiner in Ohio. From
Dennison, Cartter,
Eggleston, and Wolcott, however, he
received harsher treatment than
he deserved.41
Meanwhile, the Blairs pushed hard for
Bates, Thurlow Weed
projected the Seward campaign with
characteristic cunning, and
Abraham Lincoln shrewdly sought only
second choice votes in his
own personally conducted operations in
1859. It remained for
Greiner to publicize the governor's
campaign openly and unafraid.
This he did ably and eloquently. But his
best efforts prevailed little,
and when the acid test of
availability came at Chicago, Chase
failed.42
It was not until February 28, 1860, that
the Ohio State Journal
40 "Our
friend Seward will also be urged strongly from New York, and I pre-
sume that my friends, if they find that
my nomination cannot be carried, will gen-
erally go for him as a second choice.
His friends will probably make me, also, their
second choice if he cannot be
nominated." Chase to Charles Sumner, June 29, 1859, in
Bourne, ed., Diary and Correspondence
of Salmon P. Chase, 281.
41 Smith, Chase and Civil War
Politics, 16-21.
42 The
following references analyze the antecedents, personalities, and forces
inherent in the Republican national
convention in 1860 that led to Chase's defeat
and Lincoln's nomination:
Murat Halstead, Caucuses of 1860, A
History of the National Political Conven-
tions of the Current Presidential
Campaign (Columbus, Ohio, 1860),
120-154.
Thornton Kirkland Lothrop, William
Henry Seward (Boston and New York,
1896), 209-219.
Smith, History of the Republican
Party in Ohio, I, 100-121.
Hart, Salmon Portland Chase 178-196.
Emerson David Fite, The Presidential
Campaign of 1860 (New York, 1911),
117-131.
Daniel J. Ryan, Lincoln and Ohio (Columbus,
1923), 102-133.
Lee F. Crippen, Simon Cameron:
Ante-Bellum Years (Oxford, Ohio,
1942),
204-221.
Luthin, The First Lincoln Campaign, 36-50,
136-167, in particular.
J. G. Randall, Lincoln the President: Springfield to
Gettysburg (New York, 1945),
154-177.
Glyndon G. Van Duesen, Thurlow Weed,
Wizard of the Lobby (Boston, 1947),
231-254.
Isely, Horace Greeley and the
Republican Party, 255-286.
258
OHIO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
saw fit to declare itself positively for
Chase's candidacy for presi-
dent in 1860. That was twenty-four hours
before the representa-
tives from Franklin, Pickaway, and
Licking counties met in Colum-
bus to elect two delegates to the
Republican national convention
from the 12th congressional district.43
It was forty-eight hours be-
fore the Republican state convention met
in Columbus to name and
perhaps to instruct the four
delegates-at-large, or senatorial dele-
gates, to the Chicago convention in May.44
Pressed by these events
the Journal's policy of delayed
action on the announcement for
Chase was abruptly ended.
The time "for a frank disclosure of
preferences" had come, the
editorial stated. "It has never
been our policy to conceal our
preferences," continued the Journal,
in a protesting spirit. Indeed,
the time had come for a frank avowal of
preferences if Chase's
case was to get a hearing at all. If
ever there was an eleventh hour
announcement this was one. Not that the Journal left any doubt
as to where it stood on the matter.
"Chase was of course our man
for the 1860 nomination," wrote
William Dean Howells, "and the
political relations between him and our
chief were close."45 But
with Seward apparently far ahead of the
field, with Bates showing
signs of strength, and with Lincoln
drawing close to the front of
the pack, the moment had come for Chase
to move up in the race.
But even this belated announcement was
incidental to a com-
munication appended to it. The letter in
question related "to the
nomination of Gov. Chase for the
Presidency" written by "a gentle-
man of high political standing, well
known to the Republicans of
Ohio, and well informed as to the views
and wishes that prevail
among them." Then followed a
lengthy appeal to have Governor
Chase designated as Ohio's choice for
president in 1860. There
was no mention of Bates or of the rival
candidates opposed to Chase
in the appeal; otherwise the letter
followed almost point for point
the argument found in Greiner's
Mississippi Valley articles.
43 See fn. 25.
44 The Republican national committee, meeting at the Astor House in New
York
City, December 22, 1859, designated
Chicago as the host city of the national con-
vention. The original date for the
meeting in June was later changed to May.
45 Years of My Youth (New York, 1916), 156. Henry D. Cooke was the pro-
prietor of the Journal, to which
young Howells was attached at the time.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 259
"As an Ohioan we urge his
claims," declared the letter, "but
more especially do we present him as a
fit representative of the
West." This was identical with
Greiner's Valley appeal. "In this
controversy the Great West acts as a
sort of arbiter," continued
the letter, following hard the pattern
in the Valley papers. The
eulogy of Chase was also similar to that
in the original articles.
The appeal to support Chase on the
ground that he hailed from
Ohio was repeated, and the hope was
expressed in closing that
when the Republican state delegates
gathered in Columbus to elect
delegates-at-large to Chicago,
"Ohio will show her patriotism and
good sense by presenting an undivided
front for her distinguished
statesman."
The Journal approved the
sentiments of the communication de-
murely. But John Geary disagreed with
them point by point, in-
timating that no other than Governor
Chase himself wrote the
letter.46 If Geary were
correct in this, it is a fair conclusion that
Governor Chase prescribed the original
articles proposing the
Chase-Bates ticket.
It was editorial rhetoric when the Ohio
State Journal declared,
following the action of the Ohio
Republican state delegates in
naming Chase "as their first
choice" to Chicago, that it had long
been its practice to express "in
the columns of the Journal, that
Gov. Chase was their first choice as a
candidate for the Presi-
dency."47 It had been
the practice of the Journal to do no such
thing. Prior to February 28 the Journal
had failed to introduce a
single warm and confident appeal for
Chase's nomination. Greiner's
Mississippi Valley articles were the
single forthright and formal
appeal for Chase made prior to the eve
of the Republican state con-
vention. The attitude of the Journal was
best expressed in the words,
"Ohio can do no less for Governor
Chase than Pennsylvania will do
for Cameron, New York for Seward,
Massachusetts for Banks,
Illinois for Lincoln, and Missouri for
Bates." 48
The policy of the Ohio State Journal in
promoting Chase's
candidacy for president in 1860 was wary
and indirect to the point
46 Capital City Fact, February
29, 1860.
47 March 2, 1860.
48 March
1, 1860.
260
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
of negation. For one thing it was
generous in giving full publicity
in its columns to every activity in
which Chase engaged at the time.
This kept his name prominently and
favorably before the public.
Complementally to this device, it played
down with a fine hand the
activities of possible rivals to Chase's
cherished ambitions. The
Journal's handling of the correspondence relating to the
publication
of Lincoln's Ohio speeches is in point.
Under date of December 7, 1859, George
M. Parsons, chair-
man, and the members of the Ohio
Republican central committee,
among others, addressed a letter to
Lincoln not only thanking him
for his brilliant handling of Douglas in
the forensic tilt of the
Ohio state political campaign that ended
so favorably to the Re-
publican cause, but proposing that he
assemble for publication
copies of his Columbus and Cincinnati
speeches,49 along with those
of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858,
"as a document that will
be of essential service to the cause in
the approaching Presidential
campaign."50 In reply,
Lincoln submitted copies of the speeches,
as requested. That was on December 19,
1859.51 However, it was
not until January 23 that the Ohio
State Journal published the
correspondence in question
inconspicuously on the front page.
Why the delay? Local gossip had it that
the Chase people
delayed the announcement wilfully.
Taking advantage of the in-
cident again to crack down on Chase,
John Geary wondered if the
Journal would have displayed the belated correspondence on the
obscure first page of the paper in case
the matter had concerned
Chase, and if the delay had not been
intentional.52 Moreover, it
was not until January 19, four days
prior to the publication of the
Lincoln-Parsons correspondence, that the
Journal finally got round
to expressing its gratitude to Lincoln
for his Ohio effort in 1859.
49
Besides speaking at Columbus and Cincinnati in 1859, Lincoln made a long
and unscheduled address at Dayton on the
afternoon of September 17 and a shorter
talk at Hamilton later on the same day.
50 Ryan, Lincoln and Ohio, 107-109.
5l
Ibid., 109.
52 Capital City Fact, January 23,
1860.
As if in corroboration of Geary's
suspicions, the Ohio State Journal, February 22,
1860, took editorial pains to correct
the apparent "misapprehension" of the Berks
(Pa.) Journal, which had
interpreted the printing of the Lincoln-Parsons correspond-
ence and the plan to publish some of
Lincoln's speeches as indicative of a strong
Buckeye leaning toward Lincoln. The Journal
was quick to declare that Chase stood
first as Ohio's preferred candidate.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 261
And this in spite of the Journal's repeated
protestations that Repub-
lican victory was what counted in 1860,
and not the matter of
personalities.
As another way of propagandizing Chase's
bid for president
in 1860, the Journal would
reprint in its columns, without comment,
selected paragraphs favorable to Chase
clipped from outside
sources. April 21, 1859, for example, it
quoted that portion of an
article originally appearing in the New
York Tribune, absolving
Chase from the accusation of free-trade
predilections plaguing him
at the time. Again, it quoted the Oxford
(Maine) Democrat, Feb-
ruary 20, 1860, as proposing Senator
William Pitt Fessenden of
Maine for president, but in case of an
outside choice, "we believe
Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, is the
man."
More subtly, the Journal backed
Chase's candidacy in 1860 by
holding rigidly to a radical antislavery
editorial line. In most
political matters touching on
antislavery it stuck close to Giddings,
going so far as to endorse the Higher
Law doctrine sanctioned by
the Western Reserve covenanters.
Although the Journal was sin-
cerely liberal on antislavery, the
exploitation of this position,
editorially, tended to promote cordial
relations between Chase and
the radical opposition factions.
Indirection of this sort, however,
proved futile. At Chicago in 1860,
Giddings voted for Chase on
all three ballots taken, but his support
was not aggressive. Wade
actively opposed him. Cartter, Dennison,
and Wolcott turned on
him in the crisis, and in southern Ohio,
Judge John McLean retained
the loyalty of a bloc of conservatives
at Chase's expense.
In addition to the knowing silence of
the Journal toward the
Valley essays, two other reactions to
them might be noted. Writ-
ing to Greiner from St. Louis, Missouri,
May 2, 1859, an unnamed
correspondent advised that the
Republican party steer clear of all
extreme views on slavery in 1860 and
thereby escape the sorry fate
of the Whig party, which had been
liquidated for rashly introduc-
ing "Sambo" into its platform
and speaking tenderly of him.53
Evading the extremes of slavery was
precisely the kind of tactics
Greiner recommended for the opposition
in 1860. But he took
53 Columbus Gazette, May 20, 1859.
262
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
issue with his correspondent that
"a tender regard for Sambo" lay
at the bottom of the opposition movement
and the development of
the Republican party.54 As in his Valley
proposals, he contended
that the motivation for the Republican
upsurge centered in the
demand of the free white people to do
something positive for the
free white laborers of the nation. It
was on this ground that he
cast Douglas aside. "Let Sambo stay
where he is," Greiner urged.
"We don't want him in Ohio, or in
the territories. . . . We decline
the task of looking after his
welfare."
"The 'negro question,' as we
understand it . . . is a white man's
question, the question of the right of free white laborers to the
soil
of the territories. It is not to be
crushed or retarded by shouting
'Sambo' at us. We have no Sambo in our
platform. . . . We object
to Sambo. We don't want him about. We
insist that he shall not
be forced upon us."55
The Ohio Statesman56 pounced on these words to muse that
Joshua R. Giddings and his "Sons of
Liberty" would likely have
something pertinent to say concerning
Greiner's abject repudiation
of slavery as the bone and sinew of
Republicanism. The Demo-
cratic organ then interposed that the
Chase-Bates articles reflected
the reactionary analysis of the pestilent
question as set forth by no
other than Bates. Colonel Manypenny then
made a significant
charge. He charged that Greiner wilfully
directed the editorial
thinking of the Columbus Gazette to
the voters south of the
National Road, and that he did this to
complement the left-of-
center editorials of the Ohio State
Journal, prepared assiduously
for eyes in the Western Reserve. It was
in this article that the
Statesman referred to the Gazette as "the new organ
of Governor
Chase."
It remained for Professor H. E. Peck of
Oberlin, however, to
take Greiner publicly to task on the
matter. Speaking before
the Christian Anti-Slavery Convention at
Columbus in August
1859, Peck blasted the Valley proposals
for setting up "a white
man's platform" that ignored
"the sufferings and claims of the
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid.
56 May 22, 1859.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 263
oppressed."57 He doubted
that Chase and Bates themselves would
stoop to condone any such miserable
program as Greiner advised.
In the past, Peck continued, he had done
much for Chase; however,
his hand would "palsy and wither
beside him" before he would lift
it again in the governor's behalf if
Chase countenanced any such
iniquity as that proposed by Greiner.58 There are strong hints
here that to the extent Greiner spoke
for Chase in the Valley
articles, liberals of the Cartter-Wade
persuasion would line up
against Chase.
In spite of the rebuffs and slights
showered on the Valley pro-
posals, Greiner persisted in his
thankless task of making Chase the
Republican standard-bearer in 1860. As
befit an editor "standing
aloof from the recognized political
organizations of the day," he
kept his hands off the gubernatorial
campaign that blew warm
over Ohio during the summer and fall of
1859; but no sooner had
that campaign ended in favor of the
Republican ticket than he
contributed a series of three lengthy
editorials renewing the theme
of the Valley articles.59 The
series was captioned "The Late
Elections--The Presidency."
In these leaders Greiner added little
that was new to his propa-
ganda for Chase. He rejoiced in the
recent Republican victories
in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Iowa,
and Minnesota as further
evidence of the determination of
"the great and mighty West" to
restore the government to the noble purposes
that marked the
republic in its earlier years. To this
end, of course, the Chase-Bates
ticket was available. In the second
article he again exploited the
merits of political independence,
predicting that the ever rising
ranks of the nonpartisan voter would
sweep the country for Chase
and Bates in 1860. In the final article,
Greiner urged that Ohio
get behind Chase's candidacy for
president on the plea of local
pride and Buckeye loyalty.
Although his appeals continued to fall
on deaf ears, Greiner
persisted in his efforts for Chase.
Priming his readers for the
crucial Republican state convention on
March 1, 1860, he urged
57 Columbus Gazette, August 26,
1859.
58 Ibid.
59 Columbus Gazette, October 21,
28, and November 1, 1859.
264
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
that only Chase delegates be chosen on
that occasion.60 This was
his final admonition. Then an amusing
incident of purely local
interest occurred: no other than Greiner
himself, scorner of all
politicians, contemptuous of political
chicanery regardless of party,
was elected a delegate to the Columbus
convention. This struck
some of the sedate citizens of the
capital city as a strange fall from
grace of the man who in recent months
had been excoriating all
politicians as brothers of the devil in
the Gazette. A few days
later the city council of Columbus
elected Greiner a member of the
local board of education. At this final
lapse in Greiner's ortho-
doxy the Ohio State Journal quipped
jauntily that the editor of the
Gazette must be headed straight for the perdition of congress,
so
progressive was his current political
degeneration.61
Would the state convention on March 1,
1860, "instruct the
Ohio delegates to Chicago to vote as a
unit for Chase"?62 That
question was uppermost in the
speculation and maneuvering of the
delegates as the hour came to convene.63
This was the essence of
the Valley articles and the core of
Chase's strategy for Chicago.64
Cross-currents of opinion swept the
convention floor. Some
delegates thought it best to avoid
making resolutions of any kind;
others thought that instructions of any
kind would be superfluous.
Some went so far as to suggest that
Chase's name should not be
presented at all until the Chicago
convention met, while still others
opposed Chase in favor of Seward, or
Lincoln, or Banks, or Cam-
eron, or Fessenden, or others.65 There
was a positive show of
resistance to Chase's cherished plan to
have the Ohio delegates vote
for him as a unit. When the final word
was spoken, "the Reserve
lion lay down with the conservative
lamb, and the Chase child led
them!"66 The following resolution
resulted:
"Resolved, That while the Republicans of Ohio will give their
united and earnest support to the
nominee of the Chicago Conven-
60 Ibid., February 10, 1860.
61 February 28, 1860.
62 Capital City Fact, March 2,
1860.
63 Ibid., March 1, 1860.
64 Smith, Chase and Civil War
Politics, 17-18.
65 Ohio State Journal, March 5, 1860.
66 Cincinnati Gazette, March 3,
1860. In report of the Columbus correspondent
to the Gazette.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 265
tion, they would indicate as their first
choice, and recommend to
said Convention the name of Salmon P.
Chase, of Ohio."67
Sixty-four of eighty-eight counties
voted unanimously for the
resolution, seventeen counties were
divided, and only Tuscarawas,
Madison, Highland, and Darke counties
voted against it; three
counties were not represented in the
convention.68 The Chase organ
construed the resolution to mean that
"Ohio can, and will give the
candidate of the Chicago Convention her
electoral vote," and that
in Chase Ohio had a candidate who could
"unite the hosts of free-
dom, as a true representative of their
principles."69
The Cincinnati Gazette and the Cincinnati
Commercial ignored
the convention, editorially. The latter,
however, on March 2, paid
Lincoln a pretty compliment by giving an
ample report of his
Cooper Union speech, and the Gazette on
March 8, condescended to
print a translation of an article taken
from the Cincinnati Volks-
blatt, titled "The Voice of Ohio," in which Chase
was praised hand-
somely and recommended to the Chicago
convention for president;
however, should Chase be defeated in
Chicago, the article suggested
John C. Fremont as the next man in line
for the Ohio delegates.
John Geary was much more critical of the
convention. He
pointed out how the joint nature of the
resolution made it necessary
for a delegate accepting only one
provision of the measure to forego
voting for it altogether, or to approve
of it in its entirety.70 He
further protested that the vote on the
resolution by counties pre-
cluded any individual choice in the
matter, although each delegate
was polled in arriving at the consensus
of his county. Geary not
only predicted Chase's defeat at
Chicago, but declared that in case
of Chase's nomination Ohio would be lost
to the Republican ticket
and the creation of a third party
insured.71 Colonel Manypenny
reported of the convention that the
Republicans labored and in the
tradition of the fable "produced an
exceedingly small vermine
[sic] of the mouse species."72 He was especially vexed
that the
67 Ohio State Journal, March 2,
1860. The Journal declared that 381 votes
were cast for the resolution and 69
against it.
68 Ibid., March 2, 1860.
69 Ibid., March 5, 1860.
70 Capital City Fact, March 2, 1860.
71 Geary's allusion apparently was to
the current agitation "to extend the
organization of the so-called
'Constitutional Union Party' into all the Northern States."
Ohio State Journal, February 27, 1860.
72 Ohio
Statesman, March 2, 1860.
266
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
Republicans had failed to draft a
platform of resolutions and con-
tended that the affair was not intended
to reflect the sentiments of
the honest and conservative portion of
the party but "to promote
the interests of the corrupt junto who
now control that organization,
and of which Gov. Chase is the
head."73 He also noted
that Greiner
failed to mention the subject of the
convention in the Columbus
Gazette and wondered if "the deep indignation of the
people
silenced the organ."
David K. Cartter of Cuyahoga County was
elected a delegate-at-
large on the first ballot. He received 281 votes of a total of 456.
Only 229 votes were necessary for a
choice. On the next roll call
Thomas Spooner of Hamilton County
received 272 votes, Conrad
Brodbeck of Montgomery County received
348 votes, and Valentine
B. Horton of Meigs County received 287
votes, thereby completing
the slate of senatorial delegates.74
The Ohio Statesman's partisan
description of these men 75 is
particularly interesting in light of the
fact that they gave their
hands and votes76 to Chase at
Chicago even though they withheld
something of their hearts. Wrote
Manypenny: "Cartter is an ultra
out-and-out anti-slavery man of the
'higher law' school, in favor of
free trade and hard money.77 Spooner is
the Grand High Priest of
the Ohio Plug Uglies, and chief of the
Know Nothing order in the
days of its supremacy.78 Horton
is a conservative man constitu-
tionally, but a decided anti-slavery
man, and is a thorough Protec-
tionist and High Tariff man, and
Brodbeck is a German Socialist,
entertaining the peculiar views of that
peculiar class."
Each of Ohio's twenty-one congressional
districts would elect
two delegates to Chicago to join with
the four Chase delegates-at-
73 Ibid., March 3, 1860.
74 Ohio State Journal, March 2,
1860.
75 March 2, 1860.
76 Ryan, Lincoln and Ohio, 124-125.
77 James S. Pike writing of Cartter in
1852 said: "Cartter is one of the most
democratic of men. He believes in
universal freedom and no hindrance to human
development any way. He has that love of
the largest liberty which will have no
patience with oppression anywhere, and
thinks as much of universal suffrage as of
the trial by jury." First Blows
of the Civil War, 101-102.
78 "It is said that Tom Spooner,
the Chief of the Plug Uglies, who was elected
a Chase delegate at large on Thursday
last, and who was busy for Chase on that day,
some three months ago, in a fit of rage
at the Ex-Governor, took a hatchet and knocked
in the head of one of Jones' busts of
Chase which he had in his office. If this be
the fact, and we are told it is true,
how was Spooner appeased?" Ohio Statesman,
March 3, 1860.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 267
large chosen at Columbus. Would these
forty-two delegates stand
united for Chase? It was too much to
expect that they would.
"By this arrangement," wrote
Jacob W. Schuckers, referring to the
local convention procedure,
"opportunity was given for the friends
of other candidates to excite divisions,
and to secure in some of the
districts delegates unfriendly to Mr.
Chase.79
Before the smoke of the Columbus
convention had cleared, the
newly elected delegates-at-large met
with the congressional dele-
gates, in so far as the latter were
present in Columbus on March 1,
and began clearing the decks for
Chicago. Cartter was elected
chairman of the body. At an adjourned
meeting held later in the
same day at the Neil House, Benjamin
Eggleston was named record-
ing secretary and authorized to visit
Chicago and arrange suitable
accommodations for the Ohio delegation
while in Chicago. At the
same time Cartter was invested with
authority to summon the Ohio
delegates together for a special meeting
"at any time prior to the
Convention, should he deem it expedient
to do so."80
While these events were taking place in
Columbus, Chase, now
senator-elect,81 was in the
East pushing his own claims for the presi-
dency. Abraham Lincoln likewise was in
the East building his own
political fences. The latter made his
sterling Cooper Union address
in New York City, February 27, in the
presence of Republican
potentates, probably including Salmon P.
Chase.82 The relative
positions of the two men at that rally
became symbolic of their
relative standing at Chicago a few weeks
later.
Speaking in the United States Senate,
February 29, 1860, Wil-
liam H. Seward softened his position on
slavery to one of modera-
tion, indicating the drift of
Republicanism toward conservative
levels. In his treatment slave states
were regarded as capital states
and free states as labor states. The
talk received tremendous na-
tional publicity and sounded the caution
that the Republican con-
79 The Life and Public Services of
Salmon P. Chase (New York, 1874), 197-
198. At Chicago, Chase received 84 votes
from the Ohio delegates on the first ballot,
29 on the second, and 15 on the third, when Lincoln
received the nomination. Ryan,
Lincoln and Ohio, 124-125. Chase's highest total was 49 out of 465 votes cast,
received on the first ballot.
80 Ohio State Journal, March 2, 1860.
81 Chase received his appointment on
February 3, 1860.
82 Ohio State Journal, February
29, 1860.
268
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
vention of 1860 was going to be a milder
assemblage than that
which met in 1856.
While Lincoln and Seward both maintained
the headlines, Chase
rested in relative obscurity. But
Greiner continued his efforts for
Chase. Ten days prior to the Republican
national convention at
Chicago, he made his final and most
effectual contribution to
Chase's candidacy.83 It took
the form of an attack on Seward's
availability for the Republican
nomination for president in 1860.
The point of attack was the New Yorker's
recognized advocacy "of
that odious doctrine of negro
suffrage," Greiner postulating that no
man "having an authentic and
undeniable record in favor of negro
suffrage, could be elected President of
the United States."84
Going to Seward's published works,
Greiner cited page and line
to show how in 1853 the New Yorker
demanded that the large num-
ber of citizens who had been
disfranchised on account of color in
some of the free states, "must
be invested with the right of suffrage!"
and that Seward expressed the following
sentiment at Cleveland in
1848: "We, in New York, are
guilty of slavery still, by withhold-
ing the right of suffrage from the
race we have emancipated. You,
in Ohio, are guilty in the same way,
by a system of black laws, still
more aristocratic and odious."85 This onslaught came at a time
when the vanguard of the Republican
delegates was already moving
toward Chicago. It was in sharp contrast
to the mildness mani-
fested by Seward in the United States
Senate on February 29.
The Cincinnati Gazette, one of
the most widely read Republican
newspapers then published in the
Mississippi basin and by no means
a Chase organ, gave broad coverage to
Greiner's article by reprint-
ing it in its columns, May 5, 1860,
adding the comment that to the
voters of southern Ohio and parallel
points of latitude Seward's
stand on Negro suffrage would be wholly
unacceptable. Practical-
minded Republicans south of the Western
Reserve viewed the
development silently. John Geary cited
Chase's record to show that
the governor was as crassly negrophile
as Seward.86 To this Greiner
83 Columbus Gazette, May 4, 1860.
84 Ibid., May 11, 1860.
85 The italics are Greiner's. The
quotations are correct except for a few changes
in punctuation.
86 Capital City Fact, May 11, 1860.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 269
retorted with finality that Chase
"was arraigned, tried and acquitted
of the charge of being in favor of
universal suffrage when he was
unanimously elected by the Democratic
party to the United States
Senate, in 1848."87
At this point in the wrangling the
harassed editor of the Co-
lumbus Gazette wearily rested his case, packed his hand satchel,
and entrained for Chicago. As a lobby
delegate his immediate
purpose was to join the "Stop
Seward!" movement then forming at
the Republican national convention. The
New Yorker disposed of,
he hoped that Chase's nomination would
follow as a matter of
course.
The Ohio State Journal88 made its
final appeal for a united
delegation for Chase. The Ohio
Statesman, like the Capital City
Fact, as we have shown, declared that the Seward men
controlled
the Republican convention and that
Chase's prospects for the nomi-
nation were pathetically week.89 Colonel
Manypenny had already
declared with partisan emphasis that two
of the four delegates-at-
large cared nothing about Chase and that
eighteen of the state's
forty-six delegates opposed him.90 Meanwhile,
there were rumors
of secret meetings being held at
Washington in opposition to
Chase.91 This opposition
supported Wade.
When the blow fell and Chase failed
miserably, Greiner's
spirits buckled. Yet he was happy in
contributing to Seward's
defeat.92 But he lacked the
heart to turn his gifted pen to a descrip-
tion of the astounding events that shook
the Wigwam and swept
Lincoln and Hamlin to the top of the
Republican slate while Chase,
Seward, Bates, and Cameron looked on in
stark bewilderment. "His
harp is hung on the willow," chided
the Ohio Statesman,93 referring
to Greiner, "and he goes about the
streets with his head bowed down.
He does not fail to condemn severely the
course of the Ohio Delega-
tion at Chicago. In this he shows more
spunk than the Journal."
87 Columbus Gazette, May 11, 1860.
88 May 10, 1860.
89 March 18, 1860.
90 Ohio Statesman, March
6, 1860.
91 George H. Porter, Ohio Politics
During the Civil War Period (New York,
1911), 44.
92 Capital City Fact, May 19,
1860.
93 May
26, 1860.
270
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Greiner expressed himself fully on the
matter in reporting the
"Wide Awake" rally staged in
Capitol Square at Columbus, May
22, 1860, in salute to the
Lincoln-Hamlin ticket.94 He was pained
and disgusted at the double-talk vented
at Chicago by the Western
Reserve delegates, who while shouting
and demonstrating piously
for Chase gave their blessing to Wade.
He was shocked at the
sorry judgment of the die-hards from
southern Ohio who frittered
away their strength on the palpably
losing cause of Judge John
McLean. This duplicity was in shameful
contrast, Greiner scolded,
to the thrilling display of loyalty the
Lincoln and Seward delegates
accorded their candidates. This
sentiment was identical with that
expressed by Chase over the conduct of
the Ohio delegation at
Chicago.95
"The friends of Mr. Chase have
great reason to complain of
their milk and water representative [sic]
at Chicago, as a body,"
Greiner concluded. "But we do not
intend to send up any whang-
doodle lamentation. Ohio has never been
gifted with much State
pride any how."96 Since
Greiner rounded off his Valley series of a
year earlier by predicting that Chase
stood to lose the Republican
nomination by virtue of Ohio's singular
lack of state pride, this
remark may be construed as a comforting
"I-told-you-so."
Willard Warner of Newark, at the rally
in question, submitted
a frank analysis of the Chase debacle at
Chicago, as he viewed it.
A delegate to the convention, Warner
voted for Chase on the first
two ballots and went over to Lincoln on
the third ballot.97 Accord-
ing to his appraisal, Chase failed of
nomination at Chicago for
general insufficiency among the Ohio
delegates.98 "Greiner says,"
reviewed the Capital City Fact,99 "there
was no unity of action, no
determination of purpose, not even a
positive avowal that they
expected the success of the candidate
proclaimed by the State Con-
vention to be the first choice of
Ohio." This explanation of the
94 Columbus Gazette, May 25, 1860.
95 Smith, Chase and Civil War
Politics, 21.
96 Columbus Gazette, May 25, 1860.
97 Ryan, Lincoln and Ohio, 124-125.
Jonathan Renick, teamed with Warner from
the metropolitan district including
Columbus, voted for Lincoln on every ballot. Ibid.
98 Columbus Gazette, May 25, 1860.
99 May 25, 1860.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 271
Chase fortunes at Chicago was pretty
generally accepted at the
time.100
One Columbus business man in particular,
Julius J. Wood,101
must have felt Seward's defeat with
unusual acuteness. Wood came
to Ohio from Syracuse, New York, where
he had become acquainted
with William H. Seward.102 He kept his ear to the ground for
Seward, and early in 1860 he visited
Thurlow Weed at the Astor
House in New York. Well acquainted with
Weed, Wood advised
him that the apparent policy of the
opposition was to accumulate
so many candidates at Chicago that
Seward would be overwhelmed
by sheer numbers. Weed replied that he
thought such a danger
slight.103
In March 1860, Wood met Seward in
Washington and expressed
his fear that the strategy of the rival
contenders was to bury Seward
under the weight of numbers. Wood then
declared, "Mr. Lincoln
was brought to New York to divide your
strength."104 The remark
did not seem to disturb Seward. But if
Wood feared that Lincoln's
visit to Cooper Union militated against
Seward's prospects in 1860,
it is a fair presumption that he
disapproved of Lincoln's visit to
Columbus in 1859 and, like Greiner,
failed to attend the Republican
rally at the statehouse grounds in
September.
True to promise Greiner sent up no
"whang-doodle" lamenta-
tion over Chase's defeat in Chicago. He
contributed a song to the
important Lincoln-Hamlin rally in
Columbus, June 1, when Jona-
than Renick, Samuel Galloway, and
Colonel N. H. Swayne spoke
100 Murat Halstead, for example, writing
at the close of the first day of the con-
vention, said: "The Ohio delegation
continues so divided as to be without influence.
If united it would have a formidable
influence, and might throw the casting votes
between candidates, holding the balance
of power between the East and the West."
Caucuses of 1860, 131.
"The reason that Chase was so soon
dropped," declared Joshua R. Giddings,
"was that his leading friends
appointed by his request wanted to substitute Wade for
him, and gave notice as soon as we
reached Chicago that we were to give Chase only
a complimentary vote and then go for
Wade." Giddings to George W. Julian, May
25, 1860, quoted in James L. Sellers,
"The Makeup of the Early Republican Party,"
Illinois State Historical Society, Transactions,
1930, 50.
101 The Columbus Business Directory
for the Year 1855 (Columbus, 1855), 125,
lists Wood as a manufacturer of pearl
starch, with offices at the Capitol House.
Lathrop's Columbus Directory (Columbus, [1862]), 99, lists Wood similarly to
the 1855 reference but gives his plant
location as two miles from the city on the south
side and his offices at the Goodale
House.
102 Frederick W. Seward, Seward at
Washington as Senator and Secretary of
State: 1846-1861 (New York, 1891), 63.
103 Life of Thurlow Weed Including His Autobiography and a Memoir (2
vols.,
Boston and New York, 1883-84), II (Memoir
of Thurlow Weed, by Thurlow Weed
Barnes), 268.
104 Ibid., 269.
272
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
for the newly formed Republican
ticket.105 But he proved himself
a lackadaisical and somewhat sullen
advocate of the Lincoln-Hamlin
cause in the campaign that followed. It
made no difference to him
that Lincoln was a Valley man in the
truest meaning of the word
and thereby met the fundamental
prerequisite of the Valley series,
nor that he had made a special plea in
his articles for harmony
among the losing candidates once the
convention had spoken. All
these commitments Greiner blinked at,
writing not a single line
friendly to the Lincoln ticket during
the long, anxious months prior
to the election.
As election day approached, Greiner
mellowed a bit. He
reflected on the aggressive part his
paper had played in the pre-
liminary days of the campaign with
expansive satisfaction and in
a moment of enthusiasm pointed out the
contributions his paper had
made to influence the great contest of
1860 now coming to a climax.
The Columbus Gazette,106 he
boasted, was the first journal to
call public attention to the superior
claims of the Mississippi Valley
on the next presidency. By advocating
the "peculiar qualifications"
of the Chase-Bates ticket, the Gazette
"gave tone to the Chicago
Convention, and caused the leaders to
cast around for a Western
man combining the popular qualities of
both, and happily to find
them in the person of Abraham
Lincoln." For its temerity in
publicizing Seward's extreme views on
negro suffrage prior to the
convention, the Gazette was
charged by some with the responsibility
for Seward's defeat at Chicago; however,
for this timely revelation
the Republican party was under lasting
obligation to the Gazette,
for had the exposure of this information
been delayed until after
Seward's nomination, Republican defeat
in the current election
would have been certain. Finally,
Greiner observed, in the spirit
of a man free of party restraints, the
destruction of the Democratic
party would have been averted if the
Baltimore convention had
nominated Samuel Medary, another
Columbus citizen, as a compro-
mise candidate, as originally proposed
by the Columbus Gazette.107
105 Capital
City Fact, June 2, 1860.
106 October 19, 1860.
107 "Let the Baltimore Convention
nominate Governor Medary, and the old wheel
horse will haul more rails into the
Democratic camp than old Abe can split from now
until the election." June 8, 1860.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER 273
With this epilogue the story of
Greiner's crusade, inspired or
directed as the case may be, for Chase's
nomination for president
in 1860 ended. It was a happy ending.
For the old gray minstrel
had come to think that by pressing
vigorously for a western man
for president in 1860, he unwittingly
set the stage for the nomina-
tion of another Valley man. That man
turned out to be no other
than Abraham Lincoln, in whose gaunt
frame were combined "the
popular qualities" of both Chase
and Bates. It was a gracious
compliment coming from the one who on
the sunny afternoon of
September 16, 1859, preferred to chant
his own homespun rimes at
the Franklin County Fair rather than
listen to Abraham Lincoln
speak on the issues of the day to a
small and uninspired audience
at the statehouse grounds in
Columbus.108
108 The most complete biographic
account of Greiner was his obituary notice
appearing in the Toledo Blade, May
13, 1871, and reprinted in the Ohio State Jour-
nal, May 15, 1871. Osman C. Hooper briefly sketched
Greiner's public career in
Alfred E. Lee's History of the City
of Columbus (2 vols., New York and Chicago,
1892), I, 478.
Born in Philadelphia in 1810, John
Greiner settled in Marietta, Ohio, in the
late thirties. A sign and house painter
by trade, he early became active in the
Washingtonian Temperance movement and in
the Marietta Mechanics' Lyceum, which
he helped to organize. A Whig in
politics, he was active in the Harrison and Clay
campaigns, winning wide fame for both
his song writing and singing leadership at Whig
rallies.
Greiner served as Ohio state librarian,
1845-51, and then became secretary
of the Territory of New Mexico,
1852-1853. It was in connection with this service,
probably, that he acquired the title of
"Governor," although the facts of this service
are not documented.
Clarence Edwin Carter, in The
Territorial Papers of the United States (13 vols.,
Washington, 1934-48) I, 23, lists
Greiner as secretary of the Territory of New Mexico
from June 28, 1852, to April 8, 1853. He
does not list him as governor.
Immediately following the expiration of
Greiner's term as secretary, however,
some delay was experienced before the
newly appointed governor of the territory,
David Meriwether of Kentucky, arrived in
New Mexico to take office. It is conceivable
that Greiner served in this brief ad
interim period as governor of the territory, pend-
ing Meriwether's arrival. Thereafter the
title of "Governor" clung to him.
In the spring of 1854 Greiner joined the
editorial staff of the Ohio State Journal,
under the direction of Oran Follett. In 1856 he became
a partner of Gamaliel Scott
and editor-in-charge of the Columbus
Elevator when the name of that publication was
changed to the Columbus Gazette. He
remained as editor of the Gazette until the
middle of June 1861, when he returned to New Mexico as
receiver of public moneys
for that territory by appointment of
President Lincoln.
Returning to Ohio following the Civil
War, Greiner settled in Zanesville and
became owner and editor of the City Times. Shortly
thereafter he retired from the
newspaper business and established a
partnership with a Mr. Bailey in the mer-
chandising of paint. About this time he
re-established his residence in Columbus.
Greiner died at Toledo, May 13, 1871,
and was buried in Green Lawn Cemetery,
Columbus. Services at the grave were
conducted by the high officers of the I.O.O.F.
in which order Greiner had a long and
distinguished career.
"GOVERNOR" JOHN GREINER AND
CHASE'S BID FOR THE
PRESIDENCY IN 1860
by EARL W. WILEY
Professor of Speech, Ohio State
University
"Old Abe.--Hon. Abraham Lincoln will address the people
of Columbus either at the State House or
City Hall, today, (Friday.)
Mr. Lincoln has the reputation of being
one of the ablest stumpers
of the day."--Columbus Gazette, September
16, 1859.
This was all there was to the
announcement made by the Colum-
bus Gazette, a conservative opposition weekly, concerning Lincoln's
scheduled visit to Columbus in 1859. Why
the brevity? John
Greiner, editor of the Gazette, did
not hesitate to give a full and
lively report of Stephan A. Douglas'
speech in Columbus on Sep-
tember 7.1 Furthermore, he was a Whig of
long and distinguished
standing. It might be presumed from this
that he would extend
a warm editorial greeting to the old
Springfield Whig. The latter
was in Columbus as the guest of the Ohio
Republican state central
committee.2 He came by
special invitation to lend a hand in the
state political campaign then entering
its warmest stages. Why the
Gazette's apparent indifference to the event?
Greiner did not even take the trouble to
find out where Lincoln
was to make his remarks in Columbus. And
he failed to attend
the rally in point, as we shall see. Nor
did he report the affair
in his paper after Lincoln had made his
speech and departed the
city, and this in face of the fact that
the Ohio State Journal, the
local Republican organ, and the Ohio
Statesman, the local Demo-
cratic organ, gave it liberal coverage.
Even the Capital City Fact,
politically independent at the moment
after years of Know-Nothing
service, paid the incident some small
attention. How account for
Greiner's aloofness in the matter?
1 Columbus Gazette, September 9, 1859.
2 Gilbert A. Tracy, ed., Uncollected
Letters of Abraham Lincoln (New York,
1917), 116.
245