Ohio History Journal

HAL W. BOCHIN

 

Tom Corwin's Speech Against

the Mexican War: Courageous

But Misunderstood

 

 

On May 12, 1846, by votes of 174 to 14 in the House and 40 to 2 in

the Senate, Congress granted President James K. Polk's request for

permission to enroll 50,000 volunteers in a war begun "by the act of

the Republic of Mexico."¹ Despite the overwhelmingly favorable

vote, opposition to the war formed quickly, especially among Whig

abolitionists in New England who viewed the war as a southern plot

to increase slave-holding territory. Together with conservative

Whigs and anti-Administration Democrats who disputed the

alleged causes of the conflict and feared its possible consequences,

they condemned the war through resolutions, editorials, and

speeches. Perhaps the loudest voices of protest echoed in the House

of Representatives where Joshua R. Giddings of Ohio's Western Re-

serve and thirteen Whig colleagues, the "immortal fourteen," re-

fused to vote for the men and supplies requested by the president.

Giddings' forces, however, at first lacked a dependable ally in the

Senate and thus they responded enthusiastically when, on February

11, 1847, Thomas Corwin, the junior senator from Ohio, joined the

antiwar movement with a vigorous denunciation of the ongoing con-

flict with Mexico.²

 

 

Hal W. Bochin is Professor of Speech Communication at California State University-

Fresno.

 

 

1. Whigs in the House voting against the bill were John Quincy Adams, George

Ashmun, Joseph Grinnell, Charles Hudson, and Daniel King of Massachusetts; Hen-

ry Cranston of Rhode Island; Erastus Culver of New York; Luther Severance of

Maine; John Strahan of Pennsylvania; and Columbus Delano, Joseph Root, Daniel

Tilden, Joseph Vance, and Joshua Giddings of Ohio. Whig Senators opposed to the

measure were Thomas Clayton of Delaware and John Davis of Massachusetts. Con-

gressional Globe, 29th Congress, 1st Session, 795-804.

2. John H. Schroeder, Mr. Polk's War (Madison, 1973), 30-36, 80; Born October 6,

1795, in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, Joshua Reed Giddings was admitted to the

Ohio Bar in February, 1821. He served one term in the Ohio legislature before being

• 1
 

34                                                     OHIO HISTORY

 

First elected to Congress in 1830, Corwin served five terms in the

House before being elected governor of Ohio in 1840. Defeated for

reelection in 1842, he practiced law until taking a seat in the United

States Senate on March 4, 1845. Corwin's vote for the volunteer bill

and his public silence on the war issue seemed to place him with the

conservative majority of his party. Although these Whigs would

vote with their radical colleagues that the war was " ... unneces-

sarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United

States," they voted for the supply bills necessary to wage it.³ News-

paper editor John Defrees of Indianapolis explained this strategy in

a "confidential" letter: "So long as the war lasts, our flag, and those

who uphold it must be sustained, while at the same time, those who

placed that flag where it is, must be denounced ..." The Terre

Haute Wabash Express condemned the war, but added: "For the

soldiers' sake we should give the President and his Cabinet almost

anything they wish, and hold them to a strict accountability before

their masters - the people."⁴

Corwin, however, could not support such a position. Although he

"differed from all the leading Whigs in the Senate, and saw plainly

that they all were, to some extent, bound to turn, if they could, the

current of public opinion against me," Corwin used the debate on

the Three Million Bill as the scene for making his position on the

war known.⁵ Speaking in opposition to President Polk's request for

three million dollars "to bring the existing war with Mexico to a

speedy and honorable conclusion," Corwin revealed the "motives

and reasons" which impelled him to occupy a "painfully embarras-

sing" position.⁶ His address became one of the most highly publi-

cized and least understood speeches in the history of the Senate.

 

 

elected to Congress in 1838 from Ohio's twentieth district, the Western Reserve,

which he represented for twenty consecutive years. Biographical Directory of the

American Congress, 1774-1971 (Washington, D.C., 1971), 999. Giddings often refer-

red to his group as the "immortal fourteen"; See, Giddings to J. Addison Giddings,

May 30, 1846, and January 13, 1848, Joshua R. Giddings MSS, Ohio Historical

Society.

3. Born in Bourbon County, Kentucky, July 29, 1794, Thomas Corwin gained

admittance to the bar and began practice in Lebanon, Ohio, in 1817. He served in the

Ohio House of Representatives in 1821, 1823, and 1824; See, Biographical Directory,

787. For the resolution, see Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Session, 94-95.

4. John Defrees to Daniel Pratt, April 17, 1847, Daniel Pratt MSS, Indiana State

Historical Society; Terre Haute Wabash Express, April 7, 1847.

5. See Corwin's letter to the Lafayette Journal reprinted in the Niles' Register,

May 22, 1847. Morrow believed that Corwin had tried to get Daniel Webster and

John Crittenden to support his position on supplies, but failed. Josiah Morrow (ed.),

Life and Speeches of Thomas Corwin (Cincinnati, 1896), 48.

6. Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 2nd Session, 382. These and subsequent

• 2
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                          35

 

When Washington learned that the "Wagon Boy," who had gained

a national reputation as an eloquent speaker during the presiden-

tial campaigns of 1840 and 1844, was ready to discuss the war,

members of the House, visitors to the city, and housewives quickly

filled the small Senate chamber. In violation of the rules of the

Senate, women were allowed on the floor: "There was not courage

sufficient with Senators or the presiding officer to say no to the

earnest entreaties made." As Corwin began to speak, one observer

noticed that "a tremor came over him." Another reporter believed

Corwin "was embarrassed somewhat" because public expectations

were so high.⁷ For two and one-half hours, Corwin persuaded, en-

thralled, and entertained his audience; but the full meaning of what

he said escaped many auditors for some months. Many who listened

to Corwin heard exactly what they wanted to hear.

Relying primarily on historical fact, Corwin attempted to prove

that Polk had unconstitutionally begun the war on Mexican terri-

tory, that such war violated moral principles, and that the national

interest required an immediate withdrawal of American forces from

Mexico. After offering as his major premise the principle of interna-

tional law that "a revolutionary government can claim no jurisdic-

tion anywhere when it has not defined and exercised its power with

the sword," Corwin presented the circumstances surrounding the

outbreak of hostilities and two statements from prominent author-

ities to support his minor premise that because Texas had never

exercised such power in the territories disputed with Mexico, the

land was Mexican. First, he noted some significant omissions in the

report of General Zachary Taylor's advance into the territory:

What did your general find there? What did he write home? Do you hear of

any trial by jury on the east bank of the Rio Grande - of Anglo-Saxons

making cotton there with their negroes? No, you hear of Mexicans residing

peacefully there, but fleeing from their cotton fields at the approach of your

army - no slaves; for it had been a decree of the Mexican Government,

years ago, that no slaves should exist there.

 

Later he quoted directly from a letter by an unnamed officer in

Taylor's command who, while stationed between the Nueces River

and the Rio Grande, believed himself to be "right in the enemy's

country" and who described the inhabitants of the areas as "leaving

 

quotations from the speech are taken from the Congressional Globe (Appendix), 29th

Congress, 2nd Session, 211-18 (hereafter cited "Speech").

7. Cleveland Herald, February 16, 1847; Cleveland True Democrat, February 17,

1847; Ashtabula Sentinel, February 22, 1847.

• 3
 

36                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

their homes" in the face of the advancing American army.⁸ Corwin's

claim that those who lived in the region did not consider themselves

to be Texans seems to be a reasonable one, although the soldier he

quoted was not the best judge of the technical question of national

sovereignty.

To buttress his case, Corwin cited statements made by Senator

Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri and Governor Silas Wright of New

York, both of whom had declared prior to the annexation of Texas in

1845 that the land in question belonged to Mexico. Corwin

apparently reasoned that citing these Democratic spokesmen might

make his argument more appealing to Democratic listeners and

probably to audiences which were nonpartisan. Finally, and prob-

ably most persuasively, Corwin argued that a Mexican officer in a

customhouse in the territory "collected taxes of all who traded there,

and paid these duties into the Mexican Treasury."⁹ Thus, if Corwin's

major premise were accepted and his major premise given by one or

more of the circumstances he noted or by the people he cited, his

conclusion became inescapable: Texas had not exercised sovereignty

over the area and hostilities had begun on Mexican soil. Although

other speakers had offered the same arguments previously, the Cin-

cinnati Atlas, a Whig journal, found this section of the speech

"powerfully eloquent and startling."10

Corwin had less success denouncing Polk's activities which led to

the fighting as unconstitutional. He contended that the Constitu-

tion placed the war-making power in Congress. The president's duty

was "to execute, not to make the law." Corwin contended that "the

President alone, without the advice or consent of Congress, had, by a

bold usurpation, made war on a neighboring republic ... [and] you

shall search the records and the archives of both Houses of Congress

in vain for any detail of its causes, any resolve of Congress that war

shall be waged."11

Corwin's own actions, however, cast doubt on the validity of his

statement. When a war bill appropriating $10 million and authoriz-

ing the president to call out fifty thousand volunteers was presented

to Congress, a preamble declaring that "by the act of the Republic of

Mexico a state of war exists between that Government and the

 

8. "Speech," 214-15.

9. Ibid., 215.

10. Cincinnati Atlas, quoted in Terre Haute Wabash Express, February 24, 1847.

Similar arguments can be found in the May 12, 1846, speech of Joshua Giddings and

the May 14, 1846, speech of Garrett Davis, in Congressional Globe (Appendix), 29th

Congress, 1st Session 641-45, 916-20.

11. "Speech," 212.

• 4
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                        37

Government of the United States" had been added in lieu of a formal declaration of war. Attempts in the Senate first to strike out the preamble and then to separate it from the authorization failed, and thus senators were forced either to accept the president's interpreta- tion of what had happened along the Rio Grande or to vote against the money and troops necessary to support Taylor's outnumbered army. Corwin did not speak on the issue and voted for the bill, although John Crittenden of Kentucky showed his displeasure by voting "ay, except the preamble" and three other senators abstained.12 The president had naturally considered support for the bill to mean congressional acceptance of the war and its causes as expressed in his war message. Corwin, however, disagreed. He pointed out that even John C. Calhoun, a Democrat, "and therefore, as we may suppose, acquainted with his [Polk's] motive for his war with Mexico was compelled to say the other day in debate, that up to that hour the causes of this war were left to conjecture." As the Senate well knew, however, this argument rested on flimsy ground for Calhoun's knowledge of Polk's motives was as limited as Cor- win's and Calhoun had in fact opposed the war from its inception.13   12. Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 1st Session, 804. 13. Satisfied with the annexation of Texas, Calhoun feared that a successful con- flict with Mexico would lead to an undesirable clash between North and South over slavery in the conquered territories; See, Margaret L. Coit, John C. Calhoun (Boston, 1950), 440-44; "Speech," 212.

• 5
 

38                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

Undaunted, Corwin assumed that if he could show that the true

cause of the war had not been announced, he would in turn prove

that Congress had not actually supported the war. He would later

explain his own vote in compliance with the president's request for

supplies to wage the war by declaring that he had voted for the first

war measures in order to save Taylor's army, but when he realized

that Polk desired to take territory from Mexico, he reversed his

position and spoke out against the war.¹⁴

Although relying heavily on historical justification, Corwin also

based his arguments on moral principles. He claimed that a just

nation did not seek glory in wartime exploits against a weaker

neighbor, nor did it wage war for economic gain: "Who ever heard,

since Christianity was propagated amongst men of a nation taxing

its people, inlisting [sic] its young men, and marching off two

thousand miles to fight people merely to be paid for it in money."¹⁵

Corwin did not discuss the war's possible effect on the slavery

issue in terms of moral principles; instead, he saw it as a question of

national expediency. He argued against the annexation of any Mex-

ican territory for, "if further acquisition of territory is to be the

result... then I scarcely know which should be suffered, eternal war

with Mexico, or the hazards of internal commotion at home." He

pointed out that opposition to the further extension of slavery was

"a deeply-rooted determination with men of all parties in what we

call the non-slaveholding States." But, he noted, Southerners in-

sisted on the right of slavery to expand. Thus the problem: "Should

we prosecute this war another moment, or expend one dollar in the

purchase or conquest of a single acre of Mexican land, the North and

the South are brought into collision on a point where neither will

yield." To put the situation into a metaphor reminiscent of Jonathan

Edwards: "We stand this day on the crumbling brink of that gulf

["the bottomless gulf of civil strife"] - we see its bloody eddies

wheeling and boiling before us - shall we not pause before it is too

late?"16

Corwin added a second pragmatic reason for ending the conflict

when he objected to the great expenditures needed to support the

war effort: "Had this money of the people been expended in making

a railroad from your northern lakes to the Pacific . . . you would

have made a highway for the world between Asia and Europe."

 

 

 

14. Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 2nd Sessions, 543-44.

15. "Speech," 215-16.

16. Ibid., 218.

• 6
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                          39

 

Corwin long believed that commercial progress was delayed because

"our Democracy prefers to pay money for blowing out brains rather

than for blowing up and getting round rocks."17

In addition, to the arguments based on history, the Constitution,

morality, and expediency, emotional appeals appeared throughout

Corwin's speech. One of the most persuasive described the tragic

consequences of war on innocent people. He pictured the Battle of

Monterey and revealed:

 

... a lovely Mexican girl, who, with the benevolence of an angel in her

bosom, and the robust courage of a hero in her heart, was busily engaged,

during the bloody conflict - amid the crash of falling houses, the groans of

the dying, and the wild shriek of battle - in carrying water to slake the

burning thirst of the wounded of either host. While bending over a wounded

American soldier, a cannon ball struck her, and blew her to atoms! Sir, I do

not charge my brave, generous-hearted countrymen who fought that fight,

with this. No, no. We who sent them - we who know that scenes like this

... are the inevitable attendants on war - we are accountable for this ...

 

Corwin did not state how he had obtained his information, but the

Democratic press managed to find witnesses who provided a contra-

dictory version of the death of the same girl: "The returned volun-

teers from this city declare [her] from 'actual observation' to have

been a female robber, plundering the bodies of the dead and dying

when the musketball struck her."18

Corwin reached the emotional climax of the speech when he

attempted to answer the pro-war argument of Senator Lewis Cass of

Michigan that America needed room to expand. He declared in

words which captured the imagination of the public: "If I were a

Mexican, I would tell you, 'Have you not room in your own country

to bury your dead men? If you come into mine, we will greet you

with bloody hands, and welcome you to hospitable graves!' " Friends

and enemies remembered Corwin's words; and, more than a year

after his speech, the Lebanon Thought and Eagle announced the

appearance of that "most excellent and worthy Senator Tom Corwin

of 'hospitable graves' memory."19 Children, their hands stained red

with berry juice, repeated Corwin's famous sentence to their

playmates.20

 

17. Ibid.; Thomas Corwin to William Greene, June 16, 1846. in L. B. Hamilton

(ed.), "Selections from the William Greene Papers," Quarterly Publication of the

Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, XVIII (1918), 15 (hereafter referred to as

the "Greene Papers").

18. "Speech," 217; Dayton Western Empire, September 23, 1847.

19. "Speech," 217; Lebanon Thought and Eagle, October 6, 1848.

20. Morrow, Life and Speeches, 85-86.

• 7
 

40                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

Just as he had relied on history to delineate the problem facing

the country, Corwin utilized history to justify his solution. He

wanted to "call home our armies and bring them at once within our

own acknowledged limits." Congress had only to exercise its control

of military expenditures: "While the President, under the penalty of

death, can command your officers to proceed, I can tell them to come

back, or the President can supply them as he may." As Joshua

Giddings had done earlier, Corwin offered English precedents to

support his ideas: " ... in England, since 1688, it has not been in the

power of a British sovereign to do that which in your boasted repub-

lic, an American president, under what you call Democracy, has

done - make war without consent of the legislative power. In Eng-

land, supplies are at once refused if Parliament does not approve the

objects of the war."²¹ With these few words Corwin moved far ahead

of most of the Whig party. Courageously he demanded consistency of

word and action. If the war deserved condemnation, so also did the

activities which prolonged it. If troops should not have been commit-

ted in the first place, they should be withdrawn immediately. Only

sixteen Whigs (fourteen in the House and two in the Senate) had

taken such a position at the start of the war, and only acknowledged

radicals like Giddings and his friends had espoused voting against

war measures as the best position for the party. Most Whig leaders

preferred the proven popularity and political safety of supporting

the troops while condemning the war.²² In spite of the outcry he

knew would arise, Corwin wanted to stop the war and he offered the

Senate the only option available to do so - the withholding of

military funds.

Corwin seasoned his logical and emotional appeals with large

pinches of sarcasm and humor. To heighten his description of the

president's "unconstitutional" activities, he treated Polk as royalty.

References to him included: "royal will," "His Majesty," and "com-

mands which we have received from the throne." Senators Lewis

Cass and Ambrose Sevier felt the lash of Corwin's tongue in a de-

scription of a hypothetical victory march through Mexico City:

 

... in grand procession through the halls of the Montezumas! The Senator

from Michigan [Mr. Cass], red with the blood of recent slaughter, the gory

spear of Achilles in his hand, and the hoarse clarion of war in his mouth,

 

21. "Speech," 215; Giddings' House speech of December 15, 1846, in Joshua R.

Giddings, Speeches in Congress (New York, 1968), 265-88.

22. Caleb B. Smith of Indiana is a good example; see Hal W. Bochin, "Caleb B.

Smith's Opposition to the Mexican War," Indiana Magazine of History, LXIX (June

1973), 95-114.

• 8
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                          41

 

blowing a blast 'so loud and deep' that the sleeping echoes of the lofty

cordilleras start from their caverns and return the sound, till every ear from

Panama to Santa Fe is deafened with the roar. By his side, with 'modest

mien and downcast look,' comes the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Sevier],

covered from head to foot with a gorgeous robe, glittering and embossed

with three millions of shining gold ....

 

Corwin did not use humor merely to add interest to his speech; he

also made it function as support for his position. He could not be-

lieve that America's destiny required her to annex California: "We

ought to have the Bay of San Francisco. Why? Because it is the best

harbor on the Pacific! It has been my fortune, Mr. President, to have

practised a good deal in criminal courts in the course of my life, but I

have never yet heard of a thief, arraigned for stealing a horse plead

that it was the best horse he could find in the country!"²³ Corwin

entertained his listeners so well that reporters found it difficult to

take notes:

 

. . . [A]s he began to warm up into earnestness, the flashes of wit became

more and more frequent and brilliant, the arrows of ironies and sarcasm

flew faster and faster, burst after burst of laughter succeeded each other in

rapid succession, and in perfect despair, he [the reporter] threw down his

pen and joined in with the multitude present. . and indulged in the luxury

of listening and not unfrequently laughter.24

 

Encased in classical and historical allusions, Corwin's moral

argument became lost in the controversy that his speech engen-

dered. Many listeners remembered only those arguments which

they wanted to hear. The Democratic press, for example, heard

treason. The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer thought that most Whigs

would "utterly condemn and scorn sentiments so unpatriotic - anti-

American - so disgraceful to the people and State of Ohio." A

correspondent of the Cleveland Plain Dealer accused Corwin of "de-

faming the fair fame of his country; in withholding supplies for the

prosecution of the war, and in giving aid and succor to the enemy!"

Some newspapers even argued that Corwin's words offered en-

couragement to the Mexicans to continue fighting. The editor of the

Cleveland Plain Dealer agreed with the Pittsburgh Post which pre-

dicted: "As soon as Mr. Corwin's speech reaches Mexico, it will be

read and greatly admired by the plunderers and murderers of our

citizens, and it will give them the comfortable assurance that their

 

 

23. "Speech," 216-17.

24. Pittsburgh Gazette, quoted in Cleveland True Democrat, February 19, 1847.

• 9
 

42                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

cause has talented advocates in this country."²⁵ Others felt that

speeches such as Corwin's would hurt peace negotiations. In line

with this sentiment, a group of citizens in Hamilton County passed

a resolution that "all efforts to cripple and embarrass the Adminis-

tration in conducting the war to a successful termination [are] . . .

unpatriotic and deserving of the severest condemnation."²⁶

When reports of Corwin's address reached Mexico, the American

occupation forces reacted emotionally. A company of Ohio volun-

teers stationed near Monterey burned his effigy. The Monterey

(Mexico) Pioneer felt that Ohio's fighting men would ". . . pass the

sentence of political damnation upon the man who could so vilify

their character as soldiers and as Americans."²⁷ The soldiers may

not have been aware of that portion of Corwin's speech in which he

said ". .. I can yield to the brave soldier, whose trade is war, and

whose duty is obedience, the highest need of praise for his courage,

his enterprise and perpetual endurance of the fatigues and horrors

of war." Moreover, three weeks earlier Corwin had supported a

bonus of a land grant for volunteers and he claimed on another

occasion that he had voted for the original war appropriation only

because he felt it was necessary to rescue Taylor's army from prob-

able extermination.²⁸ On Corwin's behalf, the Ohio Repository (Can-

ton) laid the blame for the effigy burning at the feet of a soldier

named Theodore Gibbons, "as arrant a knave as ever existed." Gib-

bons, who had twice been dismissed from his company, was char-

acterized by the paper as "a thief, a vagabond, and a scoundrel."

With tongue in cheek, the Cleveland True Democrat noted: "Mr.

Corwin will probably feel very bad when he hears that a member of

those who are engaged in robbing and murdering the Mexicans,

burned him in effigy . . . such sort of gentry have crucified better

men than Mr. Corwin, before these times."²⁹ When one Democratic

editor told his readers that Corwin had defamed the soldiers and

accused him of saying, "Neither helpless infancy, decrepit old age,

nor female loveliness, can arrest them in gratification of their brut-

al passions," Horace Greeley attacked him as a "Scoundrel" and

 

 

 

25. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 16, 1847; Cleveland Plain Dealer, March

3, 1847.

26. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 25, 1847.

27. Ohio Repository (Canton), cited in Ohio State Journal (Columbus), August 3,

1847; Monterey Pioneer, cited in North American (Mexico City), November 30, 1847.

28. "Speech," 213; Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 2nd Session, 207, 543-44.

29. Ohio Repository (Canton), in Ohio State Journal (Columbus), August 3, 1847;

Cleveland True Democrat, June 9, 1847.

• 10
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                            43

suggested that if he "did not know that Mr. Corwin never said any-

thing of the kind," he was "unfit to conduct a paper."³⁰

Whigs who supported the war echoed Democratic criticism of Cor-

win's speech. Speaking to a Crawfordsville, Indiana, audience, Colo-

nel Henry S. Lane, former Whig congressman and presidential elec-

tor, denounced the speech as ". . . an emanation of a master mind,

but the eloquent language in which it is clothed cannot conceal its

damning treason." James Watson Webb, editor of the New York

Courier and Enquirer, noted that although he was "delighted to

bestow the highest praise on the manner of the speech, the sub-

stance of it, was such as excited in the breasts of nine-tenths of the

Whigs who heard it, feelings of regret, disappointment, and vexa-

tion." Webb suggested that a "more thorough anti-war . . . anti-

American speech ... cannot be imagined."³¹

Many Whig leaders, especially conservative ones, misjudged the

effect Corwin's speech would have on his popularity. Before he deliv-

ered his great address, Corwin had been considered an influential

senator, but few outside Ohio thought of him as presidential

timber.³² In the spring of 1846, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John

McLean's followers had feared that Corwin would support General

Winfield Scott and thus hurt McLean's chances for the 1848 pres-

idential nomination by lessening his strength in his native Ohio.³³

By October, 1846, some Ohio Whigs thought Corwin might try for

the nomination himself, but considered his chances poor unless he

could ". . . gain a reputation of something more than a mere stump

orator . . ." McLean's friends tried by "dry argument and sweet

persuasion" to convince Corwin that his time for presidency "hath

not, as yet arrived."³⁴ They wanted Corwin to put himself out of the

race, and they felt his criticism of the war had done just that. One

admirer wrote McLean: "The game is over with him." His speech

"has laid him aside for this campaign," claimed another.³⁵ Indiana's

Thomas Dowling explained the position of the regular Whigs: "The

rank and file of Mr. Corwin's supporters are not to be found here,

 

30. Columbus Ohio State Journal, October 25, 1847, and November 20, 1847.

31. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 22, 1847, and March 3, 1847.

32. Edgar A. Holt, Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 (Columbus, 1931), 269-70. See

also Norman Graebner, "Thomas Corwin and the Election of 1848: A Study of Con-

servative Politics," Journal of Southern History, XVII (1951), 162.

33. William Miner to John McLean, April 24, 1846, John McLean MSS, Library of

Congress.

34. Miner to McLean, October 11, 1846, and J. B. Mower to McLean, February 13,

1847, in McLean MSS, Library of Congress.

35. James E. Harvey to McLean, March 10, 1847, and Mower to McLean, February

19, 1847, in McLean MSS, Library of Congress.

• 11
 

44                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

except with the ultra anti-war men .... No man despises the cause of

the war more than I do, or more thoroughly laments its existence,

but I could not and would not trail the flag of my country in the dirt

by withholding the means of sustaining it." In a confidential letter

to Logansport attorney Daniel Pratt, newspaper editor John Defrees

of Indianapolis discussed the practical political problem presented

by Corwin's speech: "The war question is a rather dangerous one to

handle. It requires much prudence in its management. Corwin's

speech on that subject was pure unadulterated Christianity, but,

unfortunately, that has very little to do in determining elections."³⁶

If Corwin's speech alienated him from conservative members of

the Whig party, it nevertheless attracted a large number of party

admirers. Antislavery Whigs had long been searching for influen-

tial support. In September 1846, Columbus Delano, Ohio congress-

man from Knox County, had seen indications that Corwin would

join the "fourteen" in opposition to the war. Charles Francis Adams,

founder of the Boston Whig and supporter of Giddings' antiwar posi-

tion, knew the "timid feeling" which prevented many Whigs from

speaking out against the war but hoped that Corwin would agree to

head Giddings' delegation. Only a week before Corwin's speech, Gid-

dings had predicted: "If Tom comes out he will make a noise. He has

been trying his hand a little for some time and if he doesn't use up

Cass, I shall call myself no prophet."³⁷ So eagerly did these Whigs

desire Corwin's support, they too misunderstood his position. The

Ashtabula Sentinel, Giddings' voice in the Western Reserve, de-

scribed the speech as "liberty's first germ in the Senate, the first

onslaught made upon the wide-mouthed and all-devouring spirit of

slavery." The Cleveland True Democrat exalted "that our Whig

Senator should throw himself among the advocates of right and

raise his clarion voice in favor of the oppressed and wronged .... "38

At the cost of a week's news ".. . every Whig print from the Intel-

ligencer down to the Cleveland Herald . ." and even some Democra-

tic journals printed the long speech in its entirety. Public feelings

could be satisfied in no other way. The Conneaut Reporter requested

its readers to lend their papers to their Democratic neighbor, "that

 

 

36. Thomas Dowling to McLean, August 17, 1847, McLean MSS, Library of Con-

gress; John D. Defrees to Daniel Pratt, April 17, 1847, Daniel Pratt MSS, Indiana

State Library.

37. Columbus Delano to Joshua R. Giddings, September 26, 1846, Charles F.

Adams to Giddings, December 30, 1846, and Giddings to J. Addison Giddings, Febru-

ary 7, 1847, in Giddings MSS, Ohio Historical Society.

38. Ashtabula Sentinel, March 15, 1847; Cleveland True Democrat, February 17,

1847.

• 12
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                             45

 

he too may learn into whose hands the reigns of Government have

unhappily fallen."³⁹ When Democrats claimed Corwin's speech

would ruin the Whig party, the Wabash Express asked: "Why don't

they print it, or send it in pamphlet form to every citizen in the

Union?" The Indiana State Journal summarized the situation:

"Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, is denounced by the Locofoco press as a

'Mexican' - 'traitor' - and every other odious epithet known to the

English language .... Traitor Corwin may some day be President of

the United States."⁴⁰

The antiwar Whigs rightly felt that Corwin's speech had made

their position a respectable one and that it would attract popular

support. Omitting its obvious bias, the Democratic Plain Dealer cor-

rectly assessed what had happened: "Tom has a little out-Corwined

Giddings. He has not only assumed Giddings' ground, but as a Sena-

tor from the noble and patriotic state of Ohio, given character to his

treason. How many Giddings' men, alias Abbey Kelleyites, could be

found in the country before Corwin endorsed his position? Aye, not a

corporal's guard."⁴¹ Giddings found himself inundated with letters

praising Corwin's effort and seeking more information about him.⁴²

Horace Greeley announced that Corwin was his first choice for the

presidency, but he denied the widely circulated rumor that he had

helped Corwin write his speech. Greeley proposed to supply the

world with copies of the speech at $1.00 per hundred.43

Antislavery newspapers vied for the honor of being first to nomin-

ate Corwin for president. The Sentinel wishfully suggested that "the

early nomination of Mr. Corwin by the people may save the ne-

cessity of a national convention."⁴⁴ Corwin's popularity reached its

highest levels in New England, in the eastern part of Indiana, and

throughout Ohio, especially in the Miami River Valley and in the

Western Reserve. In central Indiana, ". . . they play on both strings

 

 

39. Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 10, 1847. See also Columbus Ohio State Jour-

nal, October 25, 1847; Ashtabula Sentinel, March 15, 1847; Conneaut Reporter,

March 11, 1847.

40. Terre Haute Wabash Express, April 7, 1847; Indianapolis Indiana State Jour-

nal, quoted in Ashtabula Sentinel, August 23, 1847.

41. Joshua Giddings to J. Addison Giddings, February 22, 1847, Giddings MSS,

Ohio Historical Society; Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 24, 1847.

42. Joshua Giddings to J. Addison Giddings, February 21, 1847, Giddings MSS,

Ohio Historical Society.

43. Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 10, 1847; Horace Greeley to Joshua Giddings,

May 5, 1847, Giddings MSS, Ohio Historical Society; Cleveland True Democrat,

March 10, 1847; Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 24, 1847.

44. The honor was conceded to the St. Louis New Era by the Ashtabula Sentinel,

April 19, 1847.

• 13
 

46                                                OHIO HISTORY

- praise Corwin, but hurrah for Taylor."⁴⁵ Several papers through-

out the country offered an incongruous ticket: Taylor for president

and Corwin for vice president.⁴⁶

Corwin's increased popularity showed itself in the resolutions

passed by numerous Whig conventions throughout the West. A res-

olution passed by the Portage County, Ohio, Whigs praised Corwin

and attacked Zachary Taylor at the same time: "Resolved, That if in

a candidate for the Presidency personal bravery is to be considered a

requisite, we prefer true heroism which dares to lift its voice in

defense of the right, to the courage which manifests itself in fighting

for the wrong." The resolution also declared: ". . . the eloquent and

fearless opposition of the Hon. Thomas Corwin in the Senate of the

United States to the present Mexican War demands of a higher

admiration than any feat of arms against the citizens of a neighbor-

ing republic."⁴⁷

Abolitionists based their support for Corwin on the false assump-

tion that anyone who criticized the war and who refused to supply

the president with men and equipment opposed slavery as strongly

as they did. They accepted his strong criticism of the war; they

disregarded his remarks on the dangers involved in the slavery

question. Only Charles Francis Adams noted that the closing sec-

tion of Corwin's speech indicated that he had not yet decided to join

the ranks of those opposed to the extension of slavery.⁴⁸ Corwin's

choice of language had shown clearly that he felt himself a con-

cerned observer rather than a participant in the battle between

North and South over slavery in the territories. Speaking of the

opposition to the further extension of slavery, he referred to "men of

all parties in what we call the non-slaveholding states," "their lan-

guage," and "their determination." He studiously avoided aligning

himself with this faction. In fact, he suggested that northern men

might be moved by "prejudice, passion, hypocrisy, or fanaticism" as

well as by more noble motives. He made no attempt to present a

northern rationale for opposition. While Giddings and other radical

Whigs opposed the war because it might lead to an extension of

slavery and an accompanying increase in southern influence, Cor-

win opposed it because he wanted "to close forever the approaches of

 

 

45. Indianapolis Indiana Sentinel, July 22, 1847.

46. Cincinnati National Press, May 5, 1847.

47. Columbus Ohio State Journal, September 27, 1847. For other counties, Ibid.,

October 5, 1847.

48. Charles F. Adams to Joshua Giddings, May 19, 1847, Giddings MSS, Ohio

Historical Society.

• 14
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                        47

• 15
 

48                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

internal feud." He wanted to avoid a question which might lead to

"internal commotion."⁴⁹ Giddings and his friends eagerly discussed

the slavery controversy; Corwin repeatedly stated in his speech that

he opposed such discussions.

As his political support grew, Corwin adopted a three-fold

strategy about the presidency. First, he decided not to seek the office

and privately made this decision known to his close friends and

political allies.⁵⁰ Second, because he believed that a unified Whig

party offered the nation its only hope of survival, he concluded he

should "do nothing which may tend to alienate the feelings of the

leading men of that [Whig] party towards each other."⁵¹ Since he

feared that fellow Ohioan John McLean would think he was

"attempting to supplant him," Corwin refused an invitation to

address the Whig party of Cincinnati.⁵² He also declined invitations

to appear at rallies in Buffalo and Boston lest his visit "rouse a

strong moral feeling against the war, and thus to some extent, pro-

duce an Anti-Taylor party there."⁵³ He dreaded disunity in the party

"quite as much as dismemberment of the States."⁵⁴ Third, Corwin

decided to reject the notion of a public disavowal of the groups sup-

porting him for the presidency. William Bebb and other Whig lead-

ers in Ohio had convinced him that he "represented a certain princi-

ple touching on the Mexican War," and that those who agreed with

him would be able to take "no concerted stand" if he withdrew from

the race. If he seemed to be a candidate, however, other presidential

aspirants, seeing a group supporting Corwin's position, might ". . .

come over more readily to those views in order to gain strength."⁵⁵

Thus Corwin believed that his ideas had a stronger chance of accept-

ance if he appeared to be a presidential candidate.

At first Corwin's strategy succeeded. He attracted an enthusiastic

response to his July 5, 1847, speech at the Chicago River and Harbor

Convention where he called for westerners of both parties to unite in

favor of internal improvements.⁵⁶ Although he spent most of August

at home in Lebanon, Ohio, doing legal work so that he could provide

 

 

49. "Speech," 218.

50. Corwin to William Greene, June 7, 1847, and December 24, 1847, "Greene

Papers," 21, 25-27. Corwin to Giddings, October 21, 1847, Giddings MSS, Ohio His-

torical Society.

51. Corwin to William Greene, July 25, 1847, "Greene Papers," 22.

52. Ibid., March 30, 1847, 18.

53. Ibid., September 3, 1847, 23-24.

54. Ibid., July 25, 1847, 22.

55. Corwin optimistically explained this strategy to Greene in his letter of June 7,

1847, but rejected it January 24, 1848. See "Greene Papers," 21, 25-26.

• 16
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                         49

 

for his family, he kept in contact with political leaders across the

country.⁵⁷ On August 23 the state's most prominent Whigs arrived

in Lebanon for a large political rally at which ex-Governor Jere-

miah Morrow presided. Governor William Bebb and Thomas

Stevenson, editor of the Cincinnati Atlas, spoke to an enthusiastic

audience. Corwin's address, however, highlighted the meeting.

Stevenson, who had never heard Corwin before, declared that his

speech was "the noblest, whether considered with reference to the

matter or manner, or both," that he had "ever heard from mortal

lips."⁵⁸

For the next few weeks Corwin discussed the war at rallies

throughout southwestern Ohio at which he campaigned for Robert

Schenck's reelection to Congress. More than 2,000 Whigs cheered

Corwin, Schenck, and Stevenson at Wilmington, but Corwin's polit-

ical influence had reached its zenith.⁵⁹ On September 18, 1847, Tom

Corwin lost his abolitionist support for the presidency. In a speech

delivered at Carthage, Ohio, he provided evidence that he was not

the antislavery candidate that the radical Whigs had desired when

he criticized those abolitionists who had not supported Henry Clay

in the election of 1844 and implied that by failing to aid Clay, who

was opposed to the annexation of Texas, abolitionists had made the

war inevitable. Corwin lost even more supporters by deploring the

growing "agitation" over the attempt by Representative David Wil-

mot of Pennsylvania and other northern Democrats and Whigs to

prohibit slavery in any territory to be acquired from Mexico by

purchase or conquest; he labeled the Wilmot Proviso a "dangerous

question."⁶⁰ Hoping to avoid a conflict between North and South, he

advocated the position suggested by Thomas Ewing - no new terri-

tory should be admitted to the Union. Although many of his critics

ignored it, Corwin added the stipulation that if any territory should

be acquired from Mexico by either force or treaty, the proviso should

be extended to it.⁶1

Corwin's abolitionist support declined sharply. Salmon P. Chase

wrote that Corwin's attack on the abolitionists in his speech at

 

56. Baltimore Niles' Weekly Register, July 31, 1847.

57. See, for example, Corwin to Joshua Giddings, August 18, 1847. Joshua Gid-

dings MSS, Library of Congress.

58. Cincinnati Atlas, cited in Niles' Register, September 18, 1847.

59. Columbus Ohio State Journal, September 14, 1847.

60. Cincinnati Gazette, cited in Columbus Ohio State Journal, September 23, 1847;

Charles Sumner to Joshua Giddings, November 1, 1847, Giddings MSS, Ohio Histor-

ical Society.

61. Cincinnati Atlas, cited in Columbus Ohio State Journal, September 28, 1847;

Holt, Party Politics, 266.

• 17
 

50                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

Carthage had "pleased the proslavery people, hereabouts, more

than his censure of the war offended them."⁶² Charles Sumner re-

ported to Giddings that Whigs in New England were "much

disheartened" by what Corwin had said since, apparently, he was

with them ". . . against the war, but not against slavery." Sumner,

who had grown personally attached to Corwin, now reluctantly

turned from him, unable to understand why the courage Corwin had

shown in criticizing the war did not impel him to act against

slavery.⁶³ The True Democrat announced that Corwin's eagerness to

avoid discussion of the slavery question offered sufficient reason for

it to refuse to support him for the presidency and removed his name

from the head of its editorial columns.⁶⁴

Corwin did not expect to convince Giddings of the correctness of

his position, but he nevertheless wrote him that the Proviso could

never be passed in the Senate and that a "no territory" stand would

find much greater public support than an attempt to prohibit slav-

ery in any acquired territories. Corwin added that he did not care

what Giddings' "liberty friends" thought of him.⁶⁵ Sometime later

Corwin revealed his true feelings about the abolitionists to Caleb

Smith: "I fear them. The leaders within my knowledge are either

utterly selfish, or impracticably fanatical ...."66

In spite of the stir he had created, Corwin continued his tour on

Schenck's behalf, speaking to 2,500 supporters at Dayton on

September 29. Clement L. Vallandingham, editor of the Western

Empire, described the speech as "but a dilation of Mr. C.'s great

effort in the Senate" and attacked Corwin's assertion that the

Founding Fathers had not tried to bring Canada into the Union.

Vallandingham pointed out the difficulties faced by anyone who

questioned Corwin's historical allusions: "Having no history of Tyre

before us, nor yet any of the 'official dispatches' of the Babylonian

Monarch, we cannot say how far Mr. Corwin erred in his glowing

narrative of the siege of that ancient and renowned city."⁶⁷

Corwin's criticism of the war played an important role in the

October, 1847, election of the Ohio state legislature. As one Demo-

 

 

62. Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, September 22, 1847, Annual Report of the

American Historical Association for 1902, II, 122 (hereafter cited "Chase Papers").

63. Sumner to Giddings, October 1, 1847, and Sumner to Giddings, November 1,

1847, in Giddings MSS, Ohio Historical Society.

64. Cleveland True Democrat, October 5, 21, 1847.

65. Corwin to Giddings, October 12, 1847, Giddings MSS, Ohio Historical Society.

66. Corwin to Caleb B. Smith, May 10, 1848, Caleb B. Smith MSS, Library of

Congress.

67. Dayton Western Empire, October 7, 1847.

• 18
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                          51

 

cratic editor warned, ". . the election on Tuesday next, is to be

converted by the Whig leaders, if it results unfavorably to the demo-

cracy, into a glorification of Mr. Corwin and his war views."⁶⁸ In

Cincinnati a host of boys thrust copies of Corwin's Senate speech

into the hands of evey passerby, hoping that they would read and

support his views.69 Both political parties found something to cheer

about in the election results. The Whigs captured both houses of the

state legislature, but Democratic candidates totaled 1,563 more

votes.⁷⁰

Although Corwin requested that his name not be offered for the

presidency if it would "produce discord," a group led by R. McBrat-

ney, editor of the Xenia Torch-Light, nevertheless attempted to per-

suade the Ohio Whig Convention, meeting in Columbus on January

19, 1848, to nominate him. Friends of Clay, Taylor, and McLean

united, however, to prevent the convention from making any pres-

idential nomination.⁷¹ By a margin of one vote the assembled Whigs

issued a strong resolution giving their "heartfelt approval" to Cor-

win's conduct and praising him "especially in the fearless stand he

has taken in the Senate of the United States against the Mexican

War."⁷² The ratification of a treaty of peace with Mexico in March,

however, dashed any remaining hopes of Corwin's followers. Corwin

had first lost the support of his party's abolitionists, then he had lost

the nomination of his state party, and finally with the conclusion of

the war he lost his issue. As Charles Francis Adams had astutely

observed: "Corwin does not have a firm standing ground. He is

against the war which is not in its nature a permanent evil and he

hesitates about slavery, which is."⁷³

Corwin, however, remained a popular figure, and friends of other

Whig candidates sought his blessing. Caleb B. Smith, an early sup-

porter of Justice John McLean, thought that the differences between

the supporters of Corwin and McLean in Ohio could be easily settled

and that Corwin would support McLean "with great cordiality."⁷⁴

Smith's analysis proved to be overly optimistic, for Corwin kept the

political situation in Ohio confused by issuing conflicting state-

 

68. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 9, 1847.

69. Ibid., October 11, 1847.

70. Ibid., November 3, 1847.

71. John Teesdale to John McLean, January 17, 1848, McLean MSS, Library of

Congress; Holt, Party Politics, 288.

72. Cleveland Herald, January 24, 1848; Holt, Party Politics, 288.

73. Charles F. Adams to Joshua Giddings, November 2, 1847, Giddings MSS, Ohio

Historical Society.

74. Caleb B. Smith to Allen Hamilton, March 26, 1848, Allen Hamilton MSS,

Indiana State Library.

• 19
 

52                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

ments about whom he supported. In December, 1847, he had de-

clared that he preferred Clay as his first choice, McLean as his

second, and then had added that he also held a high opinion of

General Winfield Scott. By April, 1848, however, Corwin was

quoted as saying that General Taylor should be the nominee of the

Whig Convention. This statement shocked Smith, who had been told

by Corwin a few days earlier that the fight for the nomination would

be between McLean and Scott.⁷⁵ In May, Corwin reportedly urged

the Ohio delegation to vote for Clay first, Webster second, and final-

ly, if no civilian could be found, to go for Scott. "Frustrated friends"

of Corwin added to the confusion by continuing to urge him as the

"only available candidate."⁷⁶ Thus the Ohio delegation to the

national Whig convention arrived in Philadelphia on June 5, 1848,

unpledged on everything except the defeat of Taylor. Seeing the

great support for Taylor in the rest of the country and deciding that

only another military man had a chance to defeat him, the Ohio

delegates gave most of their votes to Scott. McLean's backers were

extremely disappointed, and after Taylor's nomination they com-

plained that had Ohio supported McLean instead of Scott, McLean

would have captured the nomination.77

Much to the dismay of his former abolitionist followers, Corwin,

always loyal to the Whig party, "bent the knee and received the

yoke" and campaigned in Ohio for Taylor. In the Western Reserve,

where many Whigs repudiated Taylor's nomination and supported

the newly formed Free Soil party ticket headed by Martin Van

Buren, Corwin faced an uncustomarily cool reception: as one obser-

ver put it, "Never before had we seen the people of old Ashtabula

county wait for a formal proposition to cheer this gifted and elo-

quent son of our gallant State." Salmon Chase informed Charles

Sumner that Corwin had "lost entirely the confidence of the sincere

and earnest antislavery men of the state."⁷⁸ Attempting to reassure

those antislavery Whigs to whom Chase referred, Corwin repeated-

 

 

75. Corwin to William Greene, December 24, 1847, "Greene Papers," 25; John

McLean to Caleb Smith, April 26, 1848, Caleb Smith MSS, Library of Congress;

Smith to McLean, May 1, 1848, McLean MSS, Library of Congress.

76. Holt, Party Politics, 304-05; Elisha Whittlesey to James A. Briggs, February

18, 1848, Elisha Whittlesey MSS, Western Reserve Historical Society.

77. Holt, Party Politics, 305, 312. Holt contends that despite Corwin's repeated

refusal to be a candidate, he hoped to so confuse the political situation in Ohio that he

would receive the nomination of a third party. Ibid., 313; Caleb Smith to McLean,

June 13, 1848, Smith MSS, Library of Congress.

78. Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, June 20, 1848, "Chase Papers," 137-38;

Ashtabula Sentinel, September 16, 1848; Chase to Charles Sumner, November 27,

1848, "Chase Papers," 142.

• 20
 

Tom Corwin's Speech                                          53

 

ly argued that General Taylor would not veto the Wilmot proviso

should it become law. Despite his attempts to minimize Whig losses

to the Free Soil party, Corwin could not prevent the defections

which enabled Democratic candidate Lewis Cass to carry the state.⁷⁹

During the 1850s, the angry dialogue between North and South

over new issues drove the Mexican War from the American political

consciousness, and the bloody struggle which Corwin had foretold

came ever closer to reality. After leaving the Senate in 1851 to

become President Millard Fillmore's Secretary of the Treasury, Cor-

win returned to Congress as a representative in 1859. By that time

nominally a Republican, Corwin, like Henry Clay and Daniel Webs-

ter, felt that armed conflict could be avoided only if the North and

South were willing to compromise on the issue of slavery in the

territories. Although his actions estranged him from those Republi-

cans who felt that compromise would destroy their party, Corwin

nevertheless chaired the House Committee of Thirty-three which

unsuccessfully sought a constitutional solution to the crisis facing

the nation.80 Corwin's final role in government came in March, 1861,

when newly inaugurated President Abraham Lincoln, seeking a

minister to Mexico whom that government would trust, appointed

Corwin, who served with distinction.81

Thomas Corwin delivered what was at the same time the most

highly praised and most frequently reviled speech against the Mex-

ican War. Logical in content but emotional in tone, Corwin's address

invited misinterpretation by Whig and Democrat alike. Abolition-

ists, desperately searching for prestigious support, mistakenly

assumed the speech meant Corwin would act against the establish-

ment of slavery in the territories while Democrats, looking for

treason, claimed they had found it in Corwin's remarks. But in fact

Corwin spoke for his country's welfare at the risk of his own political

career. Believing that only a united Whig party could save the Un-

ion, Corwin attempted to bring party members to a consensus; in-

stead, however, he alienated and confused his political allies. The

fact that Corwin had offered a strong moral argument against the

war quickly became lost in the myriad partisan comments which his

 

 

79. Joseph Vance to John C. Crittenden, September 21, 1848, John C. Crittenden

MSS, Library of Congress; Salmon P. Chase to Charles Sumner, November 27, 1848,

"Chase Papers," 142; Holt, Party Politics, 349. See also, Graebner, "Thomas Corwin

and the Election of 1848," 162-79.

80. Norman A. Graebner, "Thomas Corwin and the Sectional Crisis," Ohio His-

tory, 86 (Autumn 1977), 229-47.

81. For an account of Corwin's mission, see J. Jeffery Auer, "Lincoln's Minister to

Mexico," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, LIX (April 1950), 115-28.

• 21
 

54                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

speech engendered. That Corwin had courageously adopted a posi-

tion more consistent than that of his party went practically un-

noticed. Nevertheless, the editor of the Ohio State Journal was prob-

ably correct when he found in Corwin's speech the basis of true

eloquence: ". . . an earnest and impassioned advocacy of what he

believed to be RIGHT against all odds and the face of all

opposition."⁸²

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82. Columbus Ohio State Journal, May 27, 1847.

• 22