Ohio History Journal

FREDERICK J. BLUE

 

Chase and the Governorship:

A Stepping Stone to

the Presidency

 

 

In January of 1854, Senator Salmon P. Chase of Ohio wrote what

he would soon refer to as "the most valuable" of my works."¹ "The

Appeal of the Independent Democrats" helped to set in motion a

series of events that led to the formation of the Republican party. It

also played a major role in Chase's own career, as the new party

soon offered him its nomination for Governor of Ohio. For Chase,

however, election as Governor in 1855 served only as a stepping

stone in what became an unremitting yet unsuccessful drive for a

Presidential nomination-a drive which ended only with Chase's

death in 1873.

"The Appeal," a vehement attack on Stephen A. Douglas's Kan-

sas-Nebraska bill, sought to rally antislavery opposition to what

Chase and his colleagues considered was an effort to convert Kansas

"into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and

slaves."² Coming as it did toward the end of Chase's term in the

Senate, a tenure he had no chance of continuing because of opposi-

tion control of the Ohio legislature, it became an important vehicle

to keep him in the spotlight and allow him to take the lead in the

formation of a new antislavery party.³

 

 

Frederick J. Blue is Professor of History at Youngstown State University.

 

 

1. Chase to E. L. Pierce, Aug. 8,1854, in Edward G. Bourne, et. al. (eds.), "Diary and

Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase," Annual Report of the American Historical

Association, 1902, II (Washington, 1903), 263.

2. The text is in Congressional Globe, 33 Cong., 1 sess., Jan. 30, 1854, 281-82.

3. The final draft, written by Chase, was the revision of an original draft written by

Joshua Giddings. In addition to Chase and Giddings, it was signed by Edward Wade,

Gerrit Smith, Charles Sumner, and Alexander DeWitt. For a discussion of the histor-

iography of the Appeal, see Dick Johnson, "Along the Twisted Road to Civil War:

Historians and the Appeal of the Independent Democrats," Old Northwest, IV (June,

1978), 119-41.

• 1
 

198                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

Chase's early political career had included an active role in the

Ohio Liberty party. In 1848, he became the leading advocate of a

broader-based antislavery party and he played a prominent role in

the formation of the Free Soil party. The new party gained the

balance of power in the Ohio legislature of 1849, and Chase used his

influence to form a coalition with the Democrats and secure for

himself election to the United States Senate. The coalition, and

especially Chase, its chief architect and beneficiary, had antago-

nized many Ohio Whigs with some highly questionable tactics. In

fact, the opposition had never forgiven Chase for what it regarded as

political expediency and sacrifice of antislavery principle.⁴ Chase

was elected Governor, however, and after two successful terms in

the statehouse and two unsuccessful attempts to gain the Republi-

can nomination for President, he became Secretary of the Treasury

in 1861. He served in that post with both distinction and con-

troversy, helping to guide the Lincoln administration through per-

plexing and overwhelming wartime economic problems, only to re-

sign following a frustrated effort to replace Lincoln as the Republican

nominee in 1864. As the Civil War neared an end, Lincoln appointed

Chase Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His eight and a half

year-tenure on the Court again showed Chase's ability and devotion

to principle, along with his continuing search for the Presidency.

Throughout his career Chase displayed a determined courage and

commitment to antislavery principle and the rights of black Amer-

icans, always tempered by his personal ambition to be President.

This ambition first became evident in 1855 when Chase sought

election as Governor.

In 1854, as the Ohio legislature prepared to elect Chase's succes-

sor to the Senate, Democrats in control had no need for support of

Chase's third party. He had hoped for many years that Northern

Democrats could be won over to his antislavery program which

stressed the principle of the denationalization of slavery and its

containment in the South. But the Compromise of 1850 and the

actions of the Pierce administration had dashed these hopes. When

the state Democratic party, in January, 1854, pledged its support of

the Compromise, Chase had to recognize the futility of further

efforts to create an antislavery Democratic party. He noted with

regret that he felt no "interest in the election of Senator, since our

side has nothing to expect." In congratulating his successor, Demo-

 

 

4. Frederick J. Blue, "The Ohio Free Soilers and the Problems of Factionalism,"

Ohio History, LXXVI (Winter and Spring, 1967), 17-32.

• 2
 

Chase and the Governorship                                       199

 

crat George Pugh, he could not resist hoping "that your action as a

Senator would be directed . . . as I fear it will not be to the dis-

couragement, limitation and repression of slavery."⁵ His chief re-

gret in leaving the Senate was that "my place is not to be filled by a

man willing to maintain the rights, interests and honor of Freemen

against a domineering oligarchy."⁶

Even as his term drew to a close, Chase endeavored to prevent

passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill and use the issue to create a

broader-based and more effective antislavery party than had been

the Free Democrats.⁷ He had a number of sharp exchanges with

Senator Douglas and introduced several amendments to defeat his

popular sovereignty proposal. Despite the failure of these amend-

ments, Chase noted with satisfaction that in his reply to Douglas, he

had "worthily upheld the honor of our noble state."⁸ If he could not

prevent the passage of the Douglas bill, however, he could work to

create a potent anti-Nebraska movement.

While still in Washington, Chase had participated in some pre-

liminary moves aimed at creating a new antislavery party, for as he

explained to Charles Sumner, "I am now without a party." Accord-

ing to Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, the morning after passage of

the Kansas-Nebraska bill several Northern Congressmen of all

three parties discussed the possibility, but nothing immediate came

of it.⁹ Chase now had little hope that conservative Whigs or Demo-

crats would desert their parties to join an antislavery party. Since

there was "no use in waiting for old liners of either party," the third

party organizers must take the lead. As he told James W. Grimes of

Iowa, "the only chance is to organize a real democracy against a

 

 

5. Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Jan. 22, 1854, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P.

Chase," 255-56; Chase to George Pugh, March 8, 1854, Chase Papers, Library of

Congress (hereafter cited as LC). Chase received only ten of the more than one

hundred votes cast in the legislature. See Ohio Statesman (Columbus), March 4,

1854.

6. Chase to James A. Briggs, April 26, 1854, Chase Papers, LC.

7. Chase had been instrumental in changing the name of the Free Soilers to Inde-

pendent or Free Democrats in 1849 in order to facilitate a Democratic coalition. See

Frederick J. Blue, The Free Soilers: Third Party Politics, 1848-54 (Urbana, Ill., 1973),

169n.

8. Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Feb. 10, 1854, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P.

Chase," 257-58. See also, James W. Taylor to Chase, Feb. 19, 1854, Chase Papers, LC.

9. Chase to Sumner, Sept. 13, 1854, Sumner Papers, Harvard Univ.; Andrew W.

Crandall, The Early History of the Republican Party, 1854-1856 (Boston, 1930), 47-

48; Henry Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America (Boston,

1873-1877), II, 410-11; Joshua Leavitt to Chase, March 13, 14, 1854, Chase Papers,

Historical Society of Pennsylvania (hereafter cited HSP); National Era, June 22,

1854.

• 3
 

200                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

proslavery party claiming to be a democracy" and unite "the Inde-

pendent Democrats, the Liberal Whigs and the Liberals among the

old Democrats." Unless that happened, third-party members must

"maintain their distinct organization."¹⁰

Several fusion meetings of anti-Nebraska people took place in

Columbus even before the act became law, with Chase speaking at a

mass meeting on March 22. Many Ohio Whigs were clearly in-

terested, for their own party had suffered a series of shattering

defeats, both statewide and nationally. Led by Ohio State Journal

editor Oran Follett and actively backed by Chase and Congressman

Joshua Giddings, a delegate convention was planned for July 13 at

Columbus. About a thousand delegates pledged to make the repeal

of the Missouri Compromise section of the Kansas-Nebraska Act

"inoperative and void." Stronger antislavery planks were rejected,

however, and Chase expressed great disappointment in the out-

come. Candidates for state offices were chosen, although no formal

name was given to the new fusion movement.11

Despite success at the polls in November, with Democrats paying

the price for the unpopular Kansas-Nebraska Act,¹² all was not

unity in the new movement. Two distinct factions had appeared,

greatly complicating Chase's goals of unifying antislavery elements

in a new party while promoting his own political future. By the end

of 1854 his plan included election as Governor of Ohio the following

year. The faction which he led, made up primarily of Free Demo-

crats, endorsed a strong antislavery position; the Whig-Know-

Nothing faction proved much more conservative on sectional issues

and unreceptive to Chase's candidacy.

The Know-Nothing movement in Ohio, centered in the southern

part of the state, had grown in significance with declining Whig

fortunes and by early 1855 posed a major threat to Chase's plans.

The Nativists dared not take a strong antislavery stance, however,

 

 

10. Chase to James Grimes, April 29, 1854, Chase Papers, HSP; Chase to John

Greiner, May 10, 1854, in L. Belle Hamlin (ed.), "Selections from the Follett Papers,"

Quarterly Publication of the Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, XIII (1918),

55-56.

11. Eugene H. Roseboom, The Civil War Era, Vol. IV of The History of the State of

Ohio, Carl Wittke (ed.), (Columbus, 1944), 282; Chase to William Schouler, May 28,

1854, Schouler Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, quoted in Reinhard H.

Luthin, "Salmon P. Chase's Political Career Before the Civil War," Mississippi Valley

Historical Review, XXIX (1943), 524;0hio State Journal, July 13, 14, 15, 1855; Chase

to E. S. Hamlin, July 21, 1854, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase,"

262-63.

12. Fusionists won both the few state offices at stake and all the Congressional

seats. See Ohio State Journal, Nov. 25, 1854; Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 293-96.

• 4
 

Chase and the Governorship                               201

 

for fear of alienating the influential Southern elements who

demanded that emphasis be left on an anti-foreign, anti-Catholic

appeal. The Ohioans, led by Congressman Lewis Campbell, also

opposed a strong antislavery stance, but understood that the only

way to displace the pro-immigrant Democratic party lay in cooper-

ating with the Chase people.¹³ The two Ohio groups thus viewed

each other with anticipation on the one hand, distrust and suspicion

on the other.

As his own desire to be Governor increased, Chase carefully kept

the door open to Know-Nothing support while surrendering none of

his opposition to slavery. This he found a difficult task. He noted

that the Know-Nothing movement "may make the election of a man

of my position impossible." As he told Oran Follett, "I stand upon

democratic antislavery ground. My political principles have been

based upon conviction and I cannot lightly wave or modify any of

them." Noting that both Giddings and Senator Benjamin Wade had

urged him to be a candidate; he played coy with his friend and

supporter E. S. Hamlin, saying the post was important only as an

endorsement of "my course in the Senate." Hiding his political

ambitions, he noted that "in other respects the reasons against

being a candidate rather overbalance the reasons for being one."

The Governorship, he feared, would mean "the loss of professional

business and the neglect of private affairs."14

If Chase had mixed emotions about his own candidacy, many in

the Know-Nothing movement thoroughly distrusted his motives.

Recalling the 1849 Senate race, many assumed that personal ambi-

tion consumed him. Feeling that "Chase would hardly be the man

for that post," Cleveland editor Joseph Medill urged Follett to help

him "check the movement of the Chase clique." Arguing that Chase

would be an unacceptable candidate except in the Western Reserve,

he complained how he "detested these miserable personal ambitions

which are continually thrust upon us." Medill and others supported

Jacob Brinkerhoff for Governor. Brinkerhoff, himself, expressed the

ever-present fears of many Know-Nothings of the "rule or ruin"

attitude of many Chase supporters and the "idea of Mr. C. being a

 

 

 

13. Ibid., 287-93; Crandall, Republican Party, 28-31; William E. Van Home, "Lewis

D. Campbell and the Know-Nothing Party in Ohio," Ohio History, LXXVI (Autumn,

1967), 207-08; Eugene H. Roseboom, "Salmon P. Chase and the Know Nothings,"

Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXV (1938), 338-40.

14. Chase to ?, Jan. 12, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; Chase to Follett, Jan. 1, Feb. 14,

1855, "Follett Papers," XIII (1918), 61, 64-65; Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Jan. 22, 1855,

"Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase," 267-68.

• 5
 

202                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

candidate for the Presidency and making the Governorship a step-

ping stone to that."¹⁵

Such feelings on both sides made cooperation appear unlikely.

Neither faction was ready to make the initial move. Chase ex-

plained his position carefully, noting that if Know-Nothings would

support men of his organization he would be willing to support

candidates of theirs. But if they would not, he would assume "an

antagonistic position"; if necessary, "the People's movement . . .

must go on without the Know-Nothing cooperation."¹⁶

Yet Chase worked for compromise. To pacify the Nativists, he

admitted that "in the action of some foreigners there has been some-

thing justly censurable and calculated to provoke . . . hostility,"

although in his mind, "secret political organizations" were not the

answer. He urged one of his antislavery supporters "to abate some-

thing of your tone against the KNs [for] what is objectionable in

their organization will be most likely to cure itself." Common

ground could be reached, thought Chase, if the state ticket for 1855

"be nominated by a People's Convention." Knowing that his own

supporters would insist that he head that ticket, he adroitly told

Follett that while he did not seek the Governorship, he would accept

the nomination if accompanied by a platform consistent with his

views. When Follett complained that Chase's friends were making

his nomination a requirement of their participation, the Senator

responded that the Know-Nothings, had adopted a list of their own

candidates and were unwilling to accept any others.¹⁷ Throughout

the spring of 1855, neither side appeared willing to budge.

Chase also tried to satisfy the Whig faction by explaining his

controversial role in the 1849 Senate election. At that time Chase

had turned his back on antislavery Whigs in order to secure Demo-

cratic support. He insisted to Follett that "there was nothing in my

connexion with it of which I am ashamed..." Yet he had to acknow-

ledge that many Whigs would insist on nominating "another

 

 

 

15. Joseph Medill to Follett, Dec. 20, 1854, Jacob Brinkerhoff to Follett, May 21,

1855, "Follett Papers," XIII (1918), 77-78, 75-76.

16. Chase to John Paul, Dec. 28, 1854, quoted in Jacob W. Schuckers, The Life and

Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase (New York, 1874), 156-58; Chase to Follett,

Feb. 14, 1855, "Follett Papers," XIII (1918), 64.

17. Chase to Paul, Dec. 28, 1854, in Schuckers, Chase, 156-58; Chase to A. M. G.,

Feb. 15, 1855, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase," 271-72; Chase to J. S.

Pike, March 22, 1855, quoted in J. S. Pike, First Blows of the Civil War (New York,

1879), 294; Chase to Follett, Feb. 14, May 4, 1855, "Follett Papers," XIII (1918),

64-65, 73-74; Follett to Chase, May 2, 1855, Chase Papers, LC.

• 6
 

Chase and the Governorship                           203

man."18 In the end, however, the Whig element came to accept Chase's candidacy more willingly than did the Know-Nothings. As the July, 1855, fusion or People's convention approached, Chase and his supporters grew more confident. One supporter told Chase, "the influence against us is waning" and the Know-Nothings appeared intimidated and acquiescent.19 The Nativists were them- selves struggling to keep down internal factionalism as one group threatened to nominate its own slate at a separate convention.20     18. Chase to Follett, Feb. 14, 1855, "Follett Papers," XIII (1918), 64-65; Chase to Hamlin, Feb. 9, 1855, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase," 269-70. 19. J. H. Coulter to Chase, May 27, 1855, Chase Papers, LC. 20. A faction of Know-Nothings, nicknaming themselves the "Know-Somethings," had evolved with the purpose of making the order more aggressively antislavery. The Know-Somethings won control of the separate convention which met in Cleveland. They turned down a separate state ticket and instead proposed cooperation with the Chase people. Ohio Know-Nothings also led the walk-out of Northern Nativists from the parent movement at the national convention meeting in Philadelphia in June when a plank saying that Congress had no power over slavery in the territories had been adopted. All of this made the Chase people more confident and willing to insist

• 7
 

204                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

Chase could confidently ridicule Congressman Campbell about

"how ignorant you Know-Nothings are." Saying that "any ticket

nominated with a KN candidate for Governor" would be defeated, he

considered Brinkerhoff unacceptable for he did not "represent the

pure element of opposition to Slavery extension and slavery

domination."²1 Clearly, only his own nomination would meet that

requirement.

Chase further explained to Campbell that cooperating with the

Know-Nothings for the 1855 state elections meant just that-coop-

eration, not fusion. Fusion would require "making myself responsi-

ble for their doctrines"; cooperation for a "common paramount object

such as the freedom of the territories" was as far as he would go.²²

By mid-1855, Chase and his followers felt confident that antislavery

sentiment in Ohio was stronger than Nativism, and would force the

Know-Nothings to accept their terms.

Even before his nomination, Chase and his followers began to look

ahead to victory in November as a springboard necessary to a Pres-

idential nomination the following year. For this reason, Chase's

lieutenant and chief strategist, James M. Ashley, urged him to play

down cooperation with the American party and make public his

opposition to Nativism "before Seward or any other leading men

come out" against the Know-Nothings. Ashley attended the Cleve-

land meeting of the Know-Nothings which turned down indepen-

dent action and took a strong antislavery position. He confidently

told Chase that mention of his name "for the Presidency in 1856"

received support from the great majority present. Chase now con-

fidently told a friend that he would receive the nomination and that

everything would go "harmoniously." Know-Nothingism would

"gracefully give itself up and die." To Governor James Grimes of

Iowa, he predicted, "Should I be nominated I shall certainly be

elected" by a majority of between twenty-five and fifty thousand.

Originally thinking his nomination impossible, he had become con-

vinced by events that there existed "a strong sentiment" for it in the

West and "a respectable backing" in the East.²³

 

 

on their position. See Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 301-02; Van Home, "Campbell

and the Know-Nothings," 207-09.

21. Chase to Campbell, May 29, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; Chase to Campbell, May

25, 1855, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase," 273-74.

22. Chase to Campbell, June 2, 1855, Campbell Papers, Ohio Historical Society

(hereafter cited as OHS).

23. Ashley to Chase, May 29, June 16, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; Chase to Pike, June

20, 1855, quoted in Pike, First Blows, 295-96; Chase to Grimes, June 27, 1855, Chase

Papers, HSP.

• 8
 

Chase and the Governorship                                 205

 

The July 13 convention at the Town Street Methodist Church in

Columbus went exactly as Chase expected. With surprisingly little

opposition a strong antislavery platform was adopted, promising

that "we will resist the spread of slavery under whatever shape or

color" and pledging to repeal the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The plat-

form said nothing of Nativist principles. Campbell and Follett per-

suaded Brinkerhoff to step aside and accept Chase's nomination

instead. With that, Chase was easily nominated for Governor with

the remainder of the ticket going to Know-Nothings. He then

addressed the meeting, endorsed the platform, and pledged "to work

with all men who are willing to unite with me for the defense of

freedom."²⁴ The meeting thus formally launched the Republican

party in Ohio and Chase's drive for the White House.

To no one's surprise, the campaign of 1855 was bitter. Chase had

predicted that the Democratic press would do "all it can to identify

me with the KNs on the one hand and to arouse the prejudices of the

Old Whigs growing out of my democratic antecedents on the other."

He was not disappointed, for the leading Democratic paper of Col-

umbus, the Ohio Statesman, quickly noted that Chase and his fol-

lowers who had "heretofore professed sentiments utterly at war

with the so-called American party" were now ready to forget their

differences even though Know-Nothingism was "still sworn to put

down the Catholic Church and to degrade the alien born." The

Statesman also labelled Chase an abolitionist, seeing no difference

between his position and that of William Lloyd Garrison. Worse

still, in quoting a Chase letter of 1845, it emphasized, "CHASE IN

FAVOR OF NEGRO VOTERS! CHASE IN FAVOR OF NIGGER

CHILDREN ATTENDING THE SAME PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH

WHITES." Throughout the campaign, the paper criticized Chase's

views on race and his role in the partial repeal of Ohio's black laws

in 1849.25

On the other hand, the Republican press enthusiastically sup-

ported Chase. Gamaliel Bailey's National Era praised his candidacy

and endorsed the role he had played in the Senate, while the Ohio

Columbian campaigned strenuously for him.²⁶ Both papers had pre-

 

24. Ohio State Journal, July 13, 1855. Chase received 225 votes to 102 for Judge

Joseph Swan and 42 for Hiram Griswold. Brinkerhoff was nominated for Chief Jus-

tice of the state Supreme Court. Oran Follett, "The Coalition of 1855," in Alfred E.

Lee, History of the City of Columbus (New York, 1892), II, 432-33; Ohio State Journal,

July 14, 1855; Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 303-04.

Chase to James Grimes, June 27, 1855, Chase Papers, HSP: Ohio Statesman,

J   ,8, Aug. 7, Oct. 3, 5, 1855.

National Era, July 19, 1855; Ohio Columbian, Aug. 29, 1855.

• 9
 

206                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

viously been Free Democratic journals and in agreement with his

antislavery views. Bailey noted the wisdom of Chase's party in

ignoring Nativism and stressing slave-related issues in its platform.

Some of the more conservative Know-Nothing or formerly Whig

papers had more difficulty accepting Chase's candidacy. The Cincin-

nati Gazette was slow to warm up, noting that his nomination "is one

we hoped would be averted" for "few of our public men . . . have so

many bitter prejudices to contend with." By the close of the cam-

paign, however, the Gazette, while still not overly enthusiastic, felt

that "Chase more nearly approaches our views of state policy" than

the Democratic candidate, incumbent William Medill. Similarly,

the Ohio State Journal spent more time attacking Chase's oppo-

nents than supporting him. Yet, when Governor Medill argued

"that Congress had no power to meddle with slavery in the territor-

ies," the paper responded immediately. Noting that it had differed

with Chase, "his stand on the Nebraska outrage challenged the

hearty concurrence of every true friend of freedom. . ."27

The Gazette feared rightly that Know-Nothings in southern Ohio,

especially in Cincinnati, would not endorse Chase. For although the

head of the Know-Nothing order in Ohio, Thomas Spooner, urged

Nativists to support Chase for fear that their opposition "would

render us obnoxious to the charge of bad faith," many opposed his

candidacy. The Gallipolis Journal charged that Chase expected to

"secure his election by the aid of the foreign and Catholic vote" and,

instead, endorsed the candidate of a breakaway faction of Know-

Nothings. This faction nominated an eighty year-old former Gov-

ernor, Allen Trimble, in an anti-Chase Columbus convention. Even

though only a few small newspapers in southern Ohio endorsed

Trimble, the movement represented a serious threat to Chase's

chances for it could be expected to attract only potential Republican

voters. The Democrats tried to ignore the Nebraska issue, stressing

the danger of the Know-Nothing movement as represented by both

the Chase and Trimble candidacies.²⁸

Chase accepted the advice of Lewis Campbell and kept to himself

doubts and feelings about the Know-Nothings. He urged supporters

to emphasize the slave expansion issue. To call attention needlessly

to their differences with the Nativists could only hurt his chances.

 

 

 

27. Cincinnati Gazette, July 14, Aug. 30, Sept. 27, 1855; Ohio State Journal, Aug.

18, Sept. 25, 1855.

28. Gallipolis Journal, Aug. 30. 1855; Ohio State Journal, Aug. 9, 10, 1855; Rose-

boom, The Civil War Era, 306-08.

• 10
 

Chase and the Governorship                                        207

 

Throughout the campaign, he remained on the defensive against

Democratic attacks on his past record, attacks led by the Cincinnati

Enquirer, the Ohio Statesman and Governor Medill. In a Cincinnati

speech, Chase again denied that a corrupt bargain in 1849 had led to

his Senate election. Further, he refuted charges that he was an

abolitionist and a disunionist. He noted that Garrison and Southern

nullifiers regarded the Union "lightly." But, said Chase, "I have no

fellowship with either."²⁹

In all, Chase spoke in forty-nine of Ohio's eighty-eight counties

before emerging with a narrow victory. With Trimble earning close

to 25,000 votes, Chase defeated Governor Medill by less than 16,000

of the more than 300,000 votes cast.³⁰ Chase ran strongest in north-

ern Ohio where the antislavery appeal was strongest, but finished a

poor third in Hamilton County (Cincinnati).³¹ There, Know-

Nothings, Germans, and conservative business interests combined

against him. But elsewhere strong support from Know-Nothing

leaders like Campbell and Spooner helped provide the margin of

difference. When Campbell claimed credit, Chase readily admitted

that he was "the one, not immediately interested in the result who

did most service."³²

The Governor-elect and his supporters realized that the victory,

narrow as it had been, gave him an all-important jump on securing

the Republican nomination in 1856. The new Republican party had

not done well elsewhere in 1855, primarily because of the surprising

strength of the Know-Nothings. As Governor Kinsley Bingham of

Michigan reminded Chase, he had won "the only real antislavery

 

 

29. Campbell to Chase, Aug. 6, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; Roseboom, "Chase and the

Know Nothings," 347; Cincinnati Gazette, Aug. 22, 1855; Ohio State Journal, Aug.

14, 1855.

30. The vote was Chase: 146,659; Medill: 130,789; Trimble: 24,209. Ohio State

Journal, Nov. 27, 1855.

31. Cincinnati Gazette, Oct. 11, 12, 1855; Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 312.

32. Ashley to Chase, Oct. 21, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; Chase to Pike, Oct. 18, 1855,

quoted in Pike, First Blows, 298-300. Campbell was perhaps not quite so disin-

terested as Chase suggested, for he soon asked Chase's help in his own efforts to be

elected Speaker of the House in Washington. When critics charged that a deal had

been made, Chase responded that Campbell had never "directly or indirectly sought

my support for any office whatsoever." See Chase to David Heaton, John Martin and

George Jacobs, Oct. 23, 1855, Chase Papers, LC. In the Speakership race, Chase

favored Joshua Giddings, but indicated he would consider Campbell if Giddings could

not be elected. When, after a long deadlock, Nathaniel Banks of Massachusetts was

chosen, Campbell was bitter over what he imagined was the treachery of some Re-

publicans. Chase to Campbell, Nov. 8, 1855, Campbell Papers, OHS; Campbell to

Chase, Jan. 14, Feb. 9, 1856, Chase Papers, LC; Van Home, "Campbell and the

Know-Nothings," 212-15.

• 11
 

208                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

victory" that fall. He would now have the initial advantage over

potential rivals like William H. Seward. Democrats naturally

lamented "the election of Chase will widen the breach between the

two sections of the country and add fuel to the undermining fires of

disunion." Conservative Supreme Court Justice John McLean,

another rival for the 1856 Republican nomination, voted for Chase

under protest, for "I have been opposed to his ultraism and to the

means used for his own advancement." But Chase was exuberant

over the results. He told Gideon Welles that "Ohio may be put down

as entirely safe in 1856 if we can have a candidate who will be

acceptable to the parties which were harmonized this year." Con-

sidering himself such a candidate, he told Governor Bingham, "I

have as much if not more of the right kind of strength than any

other of the gentlemen named." He concluded, with characteristic

understatement, that "it would be gratifying to me to be selected as

the exponent of the anti-Nebraska sentiment of the country."³³

A Presidential candidate, Governor Chase would make every

effort to keep national issues in the forefront. He devoted a major

part of his Inaugural Address to slave-related issues. Chase clearly

did not believe that a Governor or a state legislature should confine

themselves to state affairs. He presented a long resume of the polit-

ical history of Kansas, reminding his listeners of his "Appeal of the

Independent Democrats" and his efforts to prevent the passage of

the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Rejecting Douglas's popular sovereignty,

he labelled it "nothing but the right of a portion of the community to

enslave the rest." Rather, he argued, "the prohibition of slavery is a

necessary pre-requisite to a real sovereignty of the people." In an

effort to bring this closer to home, he reminded his listeners that

Ohio revealed the benefits of a territory free of slavery. Ohioans

must therefore defend these rights guaranteed in the Northwest

Ordinance, for slavery transcended in importance "all other politi-

cal questions of a national character."³⁴

Chase's call did not go unnoticed outside of Ohio, as Horace

Greeley's New York Tribune rejoiced "that Ohio once more has a

Governor worthy of rank and influential position; but more especial-

 

 

33. Bingham to Chase, Nov. 16, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; Crandall, Republican

Party, 49; Ohio Statesman, Oct. 10, 1855; Mclean to John Teasdale, Nov. 2, 1855,

McLean Papers, OHS; Chase to Welles, Oct. 26, 1855, Welles Papers, LC; Chase to

Bingham, Oct. 19, 1855, Chase Papers HSP.

34. Chase, "Inaugural Address of Salmon P. Chase, Governor of the State of Ohio,

Delivered Before the Senate and House of Representatives, January 14, 1856," (Col-

umbus, 1856), 12-15.

• 12
 

Chase and the Governorship                                       209

 

ly that sound political doctrine has so powerful a spokesman." The

National Era called the address a "State paper of the first order."

During the legislative session which followed, the Republican-

controlled legislature responded with a series of strong antislavery

resolutions on Kansas as well as one calling for repeal of the Fugi-

tive Slave Act.³⁵

Governor Chase also continued his efforts in behalf of fugitive

slaves. He had begun this campaign as a young Cincinnati lawyer

almost twenty years earlier when he had earned the title "attorney

general for runaway Negroes."³⁶ In two important cases, those of

Margaret Garner and Peyton Polly, Chase did all he could as gov-

ernor to secure release for fugitives captured in Ohio. While success-

ful in neither instance, Chase's efforts in these and in several other

cases nonetheless kept Northerners fully aware of his position.³⁷

The Governor also made strenuous efforts to keep his Kansas

feelings before the public by acting in behalf of Ohioans and other

Northerners living in Kansas. He corresponded regularly with

several Free State residents of the territory, who drew him into the

emotionalism that characterized the area. From one such resident

he heard of "the plan of the slave power ... to hire several thousand

men to come to Kansas" to assure the organization of a pro-slave

government. From others he received petitions asking his assist-

ance in securing the "enforcement of their constitutional rights as

citizens of Ohio" now in Kansas and heard tales of lives threatened

and property destroyed by mobs from Missouri. Quick to respond to

such appeals, Chase wrote Governor Grimes of Iowa that "we must

not sit still; rather "no time should be lost and no effort spared ... to

give our outraged brethren . . . prompt and efficient succor.^"38 Fol-

lowing the appeal of several Ohioans imprisoned by the proslave

 

 

35. New York Tribune, Jan. 16, 1856; National Era, Jan. 24, 1856; Ohio Laws, Acts,

LII (1856), 61-63, 237-38.

36. Robert H. Gruber, "Salmon P. Chase and the Politics of Reform," Unpublished

Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Maryland, 1969, 65.

37. The two cases are covered in Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 343-45 and Schuck-

ers, Chase, 171-76. Chase's exchange with Governor Charles L. Morehead of Ken-

tucky concerning the Garner case is found in Chase to Morehead, March 4, 1856 and

Morehead to Chase, March 7, 1856, Chase Papers, LC. Chase's efforts in behalf of

Peyton Polly and family, a case which stretched over the administrations of five

governors, can be seen in numerous letters in the Chase Papers, OHS, and Polly

Papers, OHS.

38. C. Robinson to Chase, Feb. 22, 1856, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P.

Chase," 475-76; Kansas Council for Public Safety to Northern Governors, May 22,

1856, Ohio Citizens to Chase, Nov. 4, 1856, Samuel Wood to Chase, Nov. 1, 1856,

Chase Papers, OHS; Chase to James Grimes, Aug. 23, 1856, Chase Papers, LC.

• 13
 

210                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

government, Chase wrote to Kansas Governor John W. Geary de-

manding their release for "technical" offenses while "partisans of

the slavery side who have committed more numerous and less jus-

tifiable acts go altogether unvisited of justice." Needless to say,

Chase's efforts to help the Free State settlers in Kansas "throw off

the galling and oppressive laws of the Missouri invaders" did not go

unnoticed in the Republican press.³⁹ Chase also offered advice to

Free State leaders in Lawrence and Leavenworth as to the best tac-

tics to win approval of the antislavery Topeka constitution. He could

only have been pleased when one of them told him that he was

"regarded as the champion of our cause" and that his actions "will

not soon be forgotten."⁴⁰

In addition to national affairs, Chase proved highly adept in state

issues. Although the Governor of Ohio had no veto and was thus

deprived of any direct role in the legislative process, Chase made

sure that he appeared much more than a figurehead. His inaugural

address called for a number of economic reforms in the area of bank-

ing and taxation, some of which the legislature enacted. Largely

through his initiative, the legislature adopted a much-needed reor-

ganization of the state militia in 1857.41 In addition, the Governor

dextrously handled the vast amount of patronage at his disposal,

fielding literally hundreds of requests from those who considered

themselves deserving Republicans.⁴² For the most part he managed

to keep his fellow partisans content by his appointment policies-an

accomplishment which would do him no harm when Republicans

met to choose their Presidential nominee.

Even before his election as Governor, Chase began to accelerate

his efforts for an 1856 nomination. He readily accepted suggestions

from several sources that campaign biographies be published. He

was naturally flattered when Republican leaders like Governor

 

 

39. Chase to Geary, Dec. 3, 1856, Chase Papers, OHS; Ohio State Journal, Sept. 13,

1856, Sept. 14, 1857.

40. Chase to H. J. Adams, May 11, 1857, quoted in Robert B. Warden, An Account of

the Private Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase (Cincinnati, 1874),

341-42; C. Robinson to Chase, Feb. 22, 1856, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P.

Chase," 475-76.

41. Chase, "Inaugural Address," 2-4; Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 314; Schuckers,

Chase, 183.

42. For example, one John McCormick wrote to Chase: "At every fall election for

twenty-seven years I have been one of the county stumpers as a Whig or Republican

and up to the present time have not asked for a slice from the State Loaf or a nubbin

from the public crib. I now say to you that I am willing to accept any appointment

that you may think proper to confer." McCormick to Chase, Nov. 27, 1857, Chase

Papers, OHS.

• 14
 

Chase and the Governorship                                 211

 

Bingham told him that "it would please me best to see your name

inscribed as the leader" of the party ticket, an opinion reaffirmed by

Governor Grimes of Iowa.⁴³ But clearly, much hard work and many

difficulties lay ahead before a nomination would be his.

Chief among these problems was the need to resolve the issues

raised by his coalition with the Know-Nothings of Ohio. While that

relationship had been necessary to secure his election as Governor, it

could prove an embarrassment and a liability among Republicans

outside of the state. The most prominent of Chase's friends urging

him to repudiate his Know-Nothing association were Gamaliel

Bailey and James Ashley, Chase's trusted Ohio lieutenant. Ashley,

in fact, had opposed a coalition for the gubernatorial race and now

increased his pressure on Chase for fear that "all will be lost to

freedom in the contest of 56."Bailey noted that "I have never been

entirely satisfied with your organization in Ohio," for the Know-

Nothings, who were "men trying to serve two masters," would be-

tray him. At the same time, he warned that the coalition would only

hurt Chase's chances for a Republican nomination. "Do all you can

to make your position of antagonism to Know-Nothing doctrines

and policy conspicuous and unmistakable," he advised.⁴⁴ Yet Chase,

afraid to alienate the Nativists too soon, refrained from any denun-

ciation of Americanism in his inaugural address and legislative

communications. His strategy was to stay on friendly terms with

individual Know-Nothings and hope that the movement itself would

die a natural death. In the long run, Chase proved wiser than either

Ashley or Bailey.

Not surprisingly, those with Know-Nothing leanings had very

little interest in a Chase Presidential candidacy. Whether they re-

mained in the third party or joined the Republicans, Chase was

clearly not their kind of candidate. While some like Thomas Spooner

worked to push the order to a stronger antislavery stance and com-

municated with Chase on how best to achieve this, others like Con-

gressman Lewis Campbell and Lieutenant Governor Thomas Ford

were uninterested. Ford in fact sought to persuade Justice McLean

 

 

43. E. L. Pierce to Chase, Nov. 9, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; George Bunce to Chase,

Oct. 22, 1855, Chase to Gideon Welles, Oct. 22, 1855, Welles Papers, LC; Crandall,

Republican Party, 49; Bingham to Chase, Nov. 16, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; Grimes to

Chase, April 8, 1855, quoted in William Salter, The Life of James W. Grimes, (New

York, 1876), 68.

44. Ashley to Chase, May 29, Oct. 21, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; Bailey to Chase,

Nov. 27, 1855, Chase Papers, HSP; Bailey to Chase, Feb. 21, 1856, T. M. Tweed to

Chase, Oct. 25, 1855, Chase Papers, LC.

• 15
 

212                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

to be a candidate and forestall the danger of radical "fanatics"like

Chase from capturing the Republican party. Such a feeling was no

secret, for Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts warned Chase

that "Ford, Campbell and others of your state are too willing to

sacrifice freedom to build up the American party."⁴⁵

Part of the Chase strategy to parry the challenge and establish

himself as the frontrunner was to help organize a meeting of Repub-

licans before the nominating convention. Ashley and Bailey per-

suaded the chairmen of the state Republican committees to call such

a meeting at Pittsburgh on February 22 for the official purpose "of

perfecting a national organization" and planning for the nominat-

ing convention. For at least Ashley and Chase, the real purpose

would be to advertise the Governor's candidacy.⁴⁶

The Pittsburgh Convention officially inaugurated the Republican

party on a national basis. Representatives from twenty-four states

elected Francis P. Blair president and heard key addresses by

Horace Greeley and Joshua Giddings.⁴⁷ Chase himself did not

attend, preferring to remain in the background while his supporters

who dominated the Ohio delegation pushed his cause. Those support-

ers returned with enthusiastic accounts. One told him, "I am satis-

fied that a large majority of the Delegates at Pittsburgh were of our

way of thinking," while another claimed that had the meeting been

a nominating convention "you would have the nomination for the

Presidency by two to one." The platform called for strong antislav-

ery positions, and was not too different from the one Chase had

helped to write in 1848 at Buffalo for the Free Soil party. Most

inportantly, it demanded "the repeal of all laws which allow the

introduction of Slavery into Territories once consecrated to Free-

dom." Furthermore, the delegates promised to "resist by every con-

stitutional means the existence of Slavery in any of the Territories

of the United States.48

 

 

45. Spooner to Chase, Feb. 5, 1856, Chase Papers, LC; Ford to McLean, Nov. 27,

1855, McLean Papers, LC; Wilson to Chase, Jan. 15, 1856, Chase Papers, HSP;

Crandall, Republican Party, 38-39.

46. Ibid. 50-52; Bailey to Chase, Jan. 20, 1856, Ashley to Chase, Jan. 18, 1856,

Chase Papers, LC; John Niven, Gideon Welles: Lincoln's Secretary of the Navy (New

York, 1973), 265-66.

47. William B. Hesseltine and Rex G. Fisher (eds.), Trimmers, Trucklers and Tem-

porizers: Notes of Murat Halstead from the Political Conventions of 1856 (Madison,

1961), 12-15; George H. Mayer, The Republican Party, 2nd ed. (New York, 1967),

35-37; Crandall, Republican Party, 52.

48. F. D. Kimball to Chase, Feb. 28, 1856, Chase Papers, LC; Thomas Bolton to

Chase, Feb. 25, 1856, Chase Papers, HSP; Crandall, Republican Party, 60-61; Nation-

al Era, Feb. 28, 1856.

• 16
 

Chase and the Governorship                               213

 

There were also signs both before and after Pittsburgh, however,

that indicated a Chase nomination could not easily be secured. One

Ohio delegate told him of significant support for McLean. Bailey

wrote that some among conservative Ohioans pledged themselves

against Chase's candidacy because he sought "the Governorship as a

stepping stone to the Presidency." Ashley added that some New

Yorkers discredited Chase as an abolitionist, and that party con-

servatives everywhere stressed the need for someone to appeal to a

broad cross-section of Northern voters. Chase could not even count

on the support of Bailey or Giddings. Bailey wrote to Chase just

before the Pittsburgh convention that he "regarded Seward as the

strongest candidate" and his National Era maintained a strict neu-

trality between Seward and Chase. Bailey privately urged the

Ohioan to wait until 1860 for "you are destined to be the strongest

candidate hereafter." Giddings, then a candidate for Speaker of the

House, suggested that he too would remain neutral, lest "Seward's

friends" support another candidate for Speaker.⁴⁹ Seward's strength

would naturally be greatest among Eastern delegates, but Chase

knew that some midwesterners would also throw their support to

the New Yorker.

Chase nonetheless remained optimistic as the nominating con-

vention, scheduled for mid-June in Philadelphia, approached.

Ashley had overconfidently told him to expect the majority of votes

from New York, Pennsylvania, and the West. Governor Grimes told

him that there were "too many old chronic prejudices" against Se-

ward to allow him to be nominated. Chase wrote to his friend

Charles Cleveland that "the majority in Ohio desire my nomination

and election." Furthermore, he said, "I am less objectionable to the

various elements of the opposition to the administration than any

other man." He also reminded Charles Sumner that "a year ago you

expressed a preference for me."⁵⁰

Yet from Sumner, Bailey, and others he learned of a stronger

movement than those for Seward, McLean, or himself. As so many

antebellum parties had done-before, the Republican party of 1856

would find it most expedient to choose a candidate who had not been

prominent politically and who could conciliate the various factions.

 

 

49. Jacob Heaton to Chase, Feb. 25, 1856; Bailey to Chase, Jan. 20, Feb. 21, 1856,

Ashley to Chase, Oct. 21, 1855, Chase Papers, LC; National Era, June 12, 1856;

Giddings to Bailey, Nov. 11, 1855, Giddings-Julian Papers, LC.

50. Ashley to Chase, Feb. 26, 1856, Chase Papers, OHS; Grimes to Chase, March

28,1856, quoted in Salter, Grimes, 79-80; Chase to Cleveland, March 21, 1856, Chase

Papers, HSP; Chase to Sumner, May 3, 1856, Sumner Papers.

• 17
 

214                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

Such a man was John C. Fremont, the frontier explorer and perse-

cuted military hero of California. Not identified with any wing of

the party, Fremont had no clear-cut position on slavery or economic

issues. Murat Halstead, the Cincinnati journalist, suggested that

Fremont was everybody's second choice and thus acceptable to all.⁵¹

In lamenting the Fremont movement, Bailey wrote to Chase, "You

and Seward are thrust aside" solely for having done "so much ser-

vice" and having aroused "so much antagonism." Bailey still hoped

the convention would not sink to "old Whig expediency," for Fre'-

mont, "an honorable gentleman with a gift for exploration and

adventure," had no knowledge "of politics or political men or the

value and aims of our movement." Edward L. Pierce of Mas-

sachusetts told Chase that "the very qualifications which entitle

you to superior regard are those which are thought to diminish your

availability." Others reported similar discouraging news to Chase,

but the candidate remained hopeful. When reports claimed large

numbers of the Michigan and Wisconsin delegates would support

him, there seemed no reason to concede to Fre'mont.⁵²

Most telling for Chase's chances, however, was the realization

that he would not have a united Ohio delegation at the convention.

The Republican state convention, which Chase had expected to en-

dorse him, instead expressed no preference and chose six unin-

structed at-large delegates. Only three of these delegates would sup-

port Chase at the convention, and the district delegates were equal-

ly divided. Chase remained in the battle, however, and instructed E.

S. Hamlin "to take all fair measures you can to strengthen our side"

at the convention. It still appeared to him "that if the unbiased

wishes of the people could prevail I should be nominated."⁵³

The Philadelphia convention of June, 1856, brought Chase the first

of several disappointments. With Easterners like Francis P. Blair,

Nathaniel Banks, and Thurlow Weed in control, the Fremont move-

ment was so strong that Seward's supporters withdrew his name

before the nominating began. The Ohio delegation divided its sup-

port, with half of the seventy delegates supporting Chase and the

remainder divided between McLean and Fre'mont. Seeing no more

than an additional sixty delegates in support totaling less than

 

 

51. Hesseltine and Fisher (eds.), Trimmers, Trucklers and Temporizers, 82.

52. Bailey to Chase, April 18, 1856, Chase Papers, HSP; Sumner to Chase, May 15,

1856, E. L. Pierce to Chase, May 3, 1856, Bingham to Chase, June 7, 1856, D.

McBride to Chase, June 7, 1856, Chase Papers, LC.

53. Chase to Hamlin, June 12, 1856, Chase Papers, LC; Roseboom, The Civil War

Era, 317.

• 18
 

Chase and the Governorship                                    215

 

one-third of the necessary number to win the nomination, Chase's

followers thought it best to withdraw his name too. Chase had given

his backers a letter to be read should such a circumstance arise. In it

the Governor noted how he had labored all of his life for "the cause

of Freedom, Progress and Reform," but that the success of the cause

"is infinitely dearer to me than any personal advancement. No-

thing," he said, should "stand in the way of that complete union

necessary to end the domination of slavery propagandism."⁵⁴

Although McLean's supporters persisted, the convention quickly

chose Fremont on an informal ballot.⁵⁵ The platform was one that

the Chase people endorsed, for it recognized the power of Congress

to prohibit slavery in the territories. In Chase's words, it included

"all that is most important for us."⁵⁶ This was perhaps an effort to

save face, for he could not have been too pleased with a platform

which failed to mention the Fugitive Slave law and the status of

slavery in the District of Columbia. Clearly, the moderate elements

in the Republican party had dealt Chase a stunning setback.

Chase quickly sent his congratulations to Fremont, and promis-

ing "cordial and earnest" support, he actively campaigned for him in

Ohio. But he later complained to Sumner that the party "had com-

mitted an act of positive injustice . . . in failing to take as their

nominees men who truly personified the great real issue before the

country."⁵⁷

In retrospect, several factors account for Chase's failure in 1856.

Party leaders wanted someone in the middle between its conserva-

tive and radical extremes, preferably someone who had not been

directly involved in the key sectional issues of the day.⁵⁸ Despite his

own efforts and those of Ashley, he had not been able to create an

effective enough political machinery to overcome the desire of many

Republicans for such a candidate. As it would occur in each of

Chase's subsequent tries for nomination, he could not count on a

united Ohio delegation. His past record and reputation as an anti-

 

 

54. Chase, Manuscript Diary, June, 1856, Chase to George Hoadly, June 12, 1856,

Chase Papers, LC; Chase to Philadelphia Convention, June, 1856, quoted in Hessel-

tine and Fisher (eds.), Trimmers, Trucklers and Temporizers, 94.

55. The vote on the informal ballot was Fremont: 359, McLean: 196, Roseboom, The

Civil War Era, 318, Crandall, Republican Party, 184.

56. Kirk Porter and Donald Johnson (eds.), National Party Platforms, 1840-1972,

5th ed. (Urbana, Ill., 1973), 27-28; Chase to George Julian, July 17, 1856, Giddings-

Julian Papers, LC.

57. Chase to Fremont, June 27, 1856, Chase Papers, LC; Ohio State Journal, Sept.

23, 1856; Chase to Sumner, May 1, 1857, Sumner Papers; Chase to Sumner, Jan. 18,

1858, "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase," 276-77.

58. Hesseltine and Fisher (eds.), Trimmers, Trucklers and Temporizers, 97.

• 19
 

216                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

slavery advocate produced too many enemies and overwhelming

obstacles to overcome the availability of John C. Fremont.

Defeat for Chase brought the Governor face to face with the issue

of reelection in 1857 for a second two-year term. His political ally

James Ashley pointed out all of the disadvantages of a second cam-

paign, including economic problems and the continuing Know-

Nothing appeal. Most importantly, said Ashley, a defeat in the Octo-

ber election would give "great trouble" to those who desired his

nomination "as the Republican Candidate for President in 1860."

Chase denied that 1860 was a factor in his decision, emphasizing

that "the sake of our cause" would determine whether he sought

reelection. As late as two weeks before the nominating convention

he wrote Congressman John Sherman that "nothing is farther from

my wish than a renomination, [for] all my purposes and plans for

the next two years must be surrendered if I accept it." Yet he told

Lieutenant Governor Thomas Ford that he felt morally bound to

serve if asked. More importantly, if he were to maintain a promin-

ent position and be able to control the Republican machinery in

Ohio, there were few other roads open to him in 1857. Not surpri-

singly, many Democrats and Republicans questioned his high-

minded explanation to run only because of "our cause," unless that

phrase translated to "Chase's cause."⁵⁹

One major factor in Chase's decision to seek reelection was the

revelation in June, 1857, of a major treasury scandal. State Treasur-

er William H. Gibson was forced to reveal a shortage of more than a

half million dollars. While the defalcation was primarily the respon-

sibility of Gibson's predecessor, Democrat John G. Breslin, the pres-

ent Treasurer concealed the matter for more than a year and a half.

Chase reluctantly forced Gibson's resignation in order to save his

administration any further embarrassment.⁶⁰ For some like Ashley,

the whole affiar indicated another reason why Chase should not

seek a second term.⁶¹ Democrats naturally tried to make the most of

the situation by charging the administration and Gibson with cor-

ruption and malfeasance, a charge difficult to substantiate when

 

 

 

59. Ashley to Chase, Nov. 27, 1856, Chase Papers, LC; Chase to Giddings, Jan. 7,

1857, Giddings Papers, OHS; Chase to John Sherman, July 30, 1857, Sherman Pa-

pers, LC; Chase to Thomas Ford, Aug. 3, 1857, Chase Papers, LC.

60. The two treasurers were brothers-in-law, a fact which may have influenced

Gibson in his attempt to cover up for Breslin. Chase to Henry Reed, June 25, 1857,

Chase Papers, LC; Chase to John Trowbridge, March, 1864, quoted in Warden,

Chase, 351-52.

61. Ashley to Chase, June 16, 1857, Chase Papers, LC.

• 20
 

Chase and the Governorship                                  217

 

Democrat Breslin fled to Canada to avoid an embezzlement

indictment.⁶² Yet for Chase to turn down renomination might

appear as admitting complicity with Gibson in the coverup. And to

most Republicans, Gibson seemed as guilty as Breslin. Hence Chase

would seek reelection to exonerate his reputation, hoping to survive

the crisis and perhaps even strengthen himself for 1860.

Partly because neither party could gain much political capital

from the scandal, the campaign revolved around sectional and eco-

nomic issues. The Democrats, led by their nominee Henry B. Payne

of Cleveland, contended that Chase had neglected Ohio by empha-

sizing distant Kansas problems. The Ohio Statesman charged anew

that Chase, "an undisguised abolitionist," believed "in the right of

Congress to abolish slavery in the states and territories." But with

the recent Dred Scott decision causing an emotional reaction, this

was not an effective argument. Chase and the Republican press

immediately attacked the Supreme Court and the Buchanan admin-

istration for a decision which would transform their territories

"into one great slave pen, and make Slavery National and Freedom

Sectional." Bailey pointed out that Republicans must continue to

assert "the doctrine that slaves are not to be regarded or dealt with

by the Federal Constitution as property." Republicans knew a hard

fight awaited them, but determined that they could beat the "Doug-

las, Nebraska, Dred Scott ticket headed by Payne."63

Economic troubles, initiated by the Panic of 1857, gave the Demo-

crats another issue to use against the party in power, and these

became important factors in making the election extremely close.

Promising to establish a state independent treasury to protect pub-

lic funds from bank failures, the Democrats campaigned strenuous-

ly against the Republican-Chase backed referendum to create addi-

tional banks. The overwhelming rejection of the banking proposal

on election day indicated that the voters agreed with the Democrats

on the need to remove state money from corporation control.⁶⁴

 

62. Chase carried on a lengthy effort to force the extradition of Breslin from Cana-

da, but received minimum help from Democratic Secretary of State Lewis Cass who

claimed that existing treaties between the United States and Great Britain did not

include embezzlement as a condition for extradition. Cass to Chase, Aug. 4, 27, 1857,

April 16, 1859, Chase to Cass, March 30, 1859, Chase Papers, OHS; Roseboom, The

Civil War Era, 325-26.

63. E. B. Andrews to Chase, Aug. 20, 1857, Chase Papers, LC; Ohio Statesman,

Aug. 11, 1857; Ohio State Journal, March 11, 1857; National Era, March 19, 1857;

W.J. Bascom to Richard Howe, Aug. 8, 1857, Howe Papers, OHS.

64. B. W. Collins, "Economic Issues in Ohio's Politics During the Recession of

1857-1858," Ohio History, LXXXIX (Winter, 1980), 52-54; Roseboom, The Civil War

Era, 328.

• 21
 

218                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

With a minor Know-Nothing candidate attracting 9200 votes,

Chase's plurality over Payne was a mere 1500 votes out of more

than 325,000 cast.⁶⁵ Democratic strength resulted in the party gain-

ing control of both legislative houses. Even in the predominantly

Republican Western Reserve, Chase's majority was sharply reduced

from the 1855 figure. Chase attributed the closeness of the vote to

"the concealment by our Treasurer of his predecessor's defalcation

and the anti bank clamor in consequence of the money panic." He

added that "the cry of negro equality, amalgamation and the like"

turned "the ignorant" against his party.⁶⁶

The Governor could take heart that he had his much-needed vic-

tory, one which he could give much credit to his own strenuous

campaign effort.⁶⁷ Chase reasoned that it was due in large part to

his own political appeal. Certainly the narrowness of his victory did

not deter him from another effort to win the Presidential nomina-

tion. Shortly after the election, he found that "many are beginning

to talk about the election of 1860 and not a few are again urging my

name." Some insisted that he could combine "more strength than

any other man."⁶⁸

Chase would thus begin his second gubernatorial term with his

eyes on the White House. Events during the next two years would

only serve to heighten that desire and increase his efforts to secure

the prize. As in his first term, he subordinated state issues to nation-

al ones. Continuing problems wrought by the financial panic, efforts

to lease the state canal system, and further reverberations from the

Breslin-Gibson scandal did receive some attention. But he placed

much greater stress on problems dividing North and South. The

Governor and the Democratic legislature spent much time wran-

gling over the Lecompton Constitution for Kansas, the fugitive

slave issue, and black suffrage.⁶⁹ Just before Chase's term ended,

John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry gave the Governor another

opportunity to attack the Southern slave interests publicly.⁷⁰ Final-

 

 

65. The results were Chase: 160,568; Payne: 159,065; Van Trump (American):

9263. Ohio State Journal, Nov. 4, 5, 11, 1857.

66. Chase to Giddings, Oct. 27, 1857, Giddings Papers, OHS; Chase to Elihu Wash-

burne, Nov. 3, 1857, Washburne Papers, LC; Chase Manuscript Diary, 1857, Chase

Papers, LC.

67. He traveled more than 3700 miles and spoke in forty-three of Ohio's eighty-

eight counties. Ohio State Journal, Oct. 27, 1857.

68. Chase to Cleveland, Nov. 3, 1857, Chase Papers, HSP.

69. Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 102, 105, 324, 329-49; Collins, "Economic Issues

in Ohio Politics," 55-64.

70. See, for example, Chase to Henry A. Wise, Dec. 1, 1859, quoted in Schuckers,

• 22
 

Chase and the Governorship                              219

 

ly, as a preliminary to an all-out drive for delegates to the Republi-

can convention of 1860 in Chicago, Chase secured his own election

to the United States Senate by the Ohio legislature in February of

that year.⁷¹ The months ahead would again reveal Chase's unremit-

ting efforts for the Presidential nomination and some of the same

flaws which had thwarted his candidacy in 1856.

Thus Salmon P. Chase sought and won the Governorship with a

much bigger goal in mind. Using an office whose powers were lim-

ited at best, he nevertheless managed to keep his name constantly

before the public as a prospective Presidential candidate. Yet the

obstacles in his path to the White House were too great to overcome,

and in the end several factors prevented him from reaching his goal.

Chase's courageous stands on sectional issues alienated moderates

and conservatives. Although incorrectly labeled an abolitionist by

his opponents, he was more willing to advocate the antislavery

cause than most Republicans. In a period of intense racism, his

advocacy of limited rights for blacks in Ohio won him few friends.

He explained to John Sherman in 1858, "My best years have been

devoted in no wild or fanatical spirit I hope, to the advancement of

the antislavery cause."⁷² Unfortunately for him, too many Republi-

cans viewed his as one who did have a "wild or fanatical spirit."

Chase was hampered also by an inability to establish a smoothly

functioning political machine to overcome the well-organized efforts

of eastern Republicans like Blair, Weed and Banks to nominate

Fremont. Both Chase and Ashley had travelled in the East during

the summer of 1855 establishing contacts, but few others actively

urged his candidacy. Even in Ohio there was too little effort put into

organizing a Chase movement for President. After several anti-

Chase Ohio delegates were chosen for the Philadelphia convention,

the Governor unhappily noted that "our friends were not overpow-

ered but out-generaled, [failing] to act with the skill and decision

which was required." The problem was even more serious at Phil-

adelphia where Chase's few friends were no match for their more

experienced opponents. In the end, as Hiram Barney told Chase,

"You have had nobody really and actually at work for you" at the

convention.⁷³

Equally important, his ambition for power was so all-consuming

 

 

Chase, 192; Chase to Trowbridge, March, 1864, quoted in Warden, Chase, 360-61.

71. Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 360-61.

72. Chase to Sherman, May 6, 1858, Sherman Papers, LC.

73. Chase to Hamlin, June 2, 1856, Chase Papers, LC; Barney to Chase, June 21,

1856, Chase Papers, HSP.

• 23
 

220                                              OHIO HISTORY

 

that it alienated not only political opponents but also potential

friends and thus hurt his chances for a nomination. Not surprising-

ly, John McLean regarded his rival as "the most unprincipled man

politically that I have known." Even James G. Birney, Liberty party

leader, described him as overly "ambitious of individual precedence

and prominence." In addition, Chase's past record in partisan poli-

tics, especially his Senate election in 1849, would continually haunt

him. When Chase was denied the presidential nomination in 1860,

in part because of Ohio opposition, a friend lamented, "The truth is

the old Whigs of this State are eternally hostile to you. You have

helped them to power and now they would be glad to destroy the

ladder by which they have been elevated." Most significantly,

however, Republicans of all persuasions reacted negatively to his

single-minded desire to be President and his rather transparent

efforts to mask his political ambitions. As Carl Schurz later rem-

inisced, "I had never [before] come in contact with a public man

who was . . . possessed by the desire to be President even to the

extent of honestly believing that he owed it to the country and that

the country owed it to him . . ."74

Chase thus failed to achieve the Republican nomination in 1856

because of an unusual combination of antislavery principle and self-

interest. A staunch opponent of the proslavery elements of the

South, he was unacceptable to those Northerners unwilling to chal-

lenge slavery. At the same time, his political ambition, which was

not sustained by an effective organization, intensified the opposition

even more and thus helped to prevent Chase from achieving his

goal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74. McLean to John Teasdale, Sept. 3, 1859, McLean Papers, OHS; James G. Bir-

ney, Diary, Oct. 4, 1851, quoted in Betty Fladeland, James Gillespie Birney:

Slaveholder to Abolitionist (Ithaca, N.Y., 1955), 217n.; R. Brinkerhoff to Chase, June

19, 1860, Chase Papers, LC; Carl Schurz, The Reminiscences of Carl Shurz, 1852-

1863 (New York, 1909), II, 172.

• 24