Ohio History Journal

SAMUEL MEDARY--JOURNALIST AND

POLITICIAN, 1801-1864

 

BY HELEN P. DORN

 

Ohio has produced some of the most interesting and chal-

lenging, and certainly the most virile journalists in the United

States. Nevertheless, the memory of man is short, and promi-

nent figures are soon forgotten unless their achievements are re-

created by future generations. Samuel Medary was such a man.

He was born of Quaker parents in Montgomery County, Penn-

sylvania, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. On his

mother's side he could trace his lineage back to William Penn,

that sturdy Quaker who founded Pennsylvania. Medary grew

tip on a farm and attended Norristown Academy. He was in-

terested in debating and took an active part in the debating and

literary societies of the community. In fact, he had the reputa-

tion as the best debator of the county. Like many of the pioneer

families, the Medarys had little capital and Samuel was forced to

quit school and begin teaching in order to secure money to con-

tinue his education. Medary inherited many of the traits of his

Quaker ancestors: independence, self-respect, faithfulness and

sincerity. He valued truth, justice and equal opportunity for all;

so it is little wonder that many times in his picturesque career

these traits manifested themselves.

When Medary arrived in Bethel in I825, with his wife and

child, it was but a small frontier community in the southwestern

part of Ohio. Like many an early settler, he brought with him

not only a faith in the future of the country, but also the seed of

intellectual development and a refining influence upon his fellows.

Medary taught school, entered into the political controversies of

the time and soon became a staunch supporter of Andrew Jackson

and the Democratic party. Today, as one reads through numerous

treatises on the history of the years 1830-1864, it appears rather

 

14

• 1
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                         15

odd that there is so little mention of Medary who, it seems, wielded

far more influence upon the people and life of his era than one

would gather from a perusal of the histories of the period. That

he has not received his just consideration at the hands of pos-

terity is perhaps due to several reasons. In the first place, Ohio

historians have not until recently made any detailed study of their

State's general history and especially of the period in which

Medary lived. Thus there still is no comprehensive picture of

his importance and his influence written from the proper per-

spective.¹ Then, too, as the years passed and the newspaper be-

came an accepted and fixed part of daily life, the average person

failed to realize the tremendous influence of the journalist of a

century ago. He forgot that in Medary's day there was no radio

commentator, no "People's Platform," and no weekly news digest

with which to compete, and the editor was, in fact, lord and mas-

ter of a considerable group of loyal disciples. Into such a scheme,

Medary, with his flair for journalism, fitted perfectly: he was a

dynamic, forceful character, regarded by friends and foes alike

as a man of keen intellect, astute political judgment and a coura-

geous heart.

His activity as a journalist began in 1828 when, aided by

Thomas Morris, also of Bethel, and Ohio's first abolitionist sen-

ator, he founded the Ohio Sun, a Democratic paper devoted to

tie election of Andrew Jackson. It was later published at Batavia

with Medary as editor until early in 1836. The motto of the Sun

is typical of Medary's political philosophy: "Unawed by the in-

fluence of the rich, the great, or the noble, the people must be

heard, and their rights protected."2 Never in Medary's long

career was he to waver from his belief that governments are made

for the people and not the people for governments. Although

little is known of the Ohio Sun, one learns from an editorial in

the Western Aegis and Public Advertiser of June 24, 1828, that

in its first issue Medary promised "to pursue a liberal and inde-

 

1 Carl Wittke, ed., The History of the State of Ohio (8 vols., Columbus, 1941--)

is still incomplete at the writing of this paper and the period of Medary's life has not

been covered in the volumes already printed.

2 Ohio Sun, June 23, 1828, in Henry Howe, Historical Collections of Ohio (2 vole.,

Cincinnati, 1904), I, 414.

• 2
 

16    OHIO ARCHA EOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

pendent course, and to support General Jackson on 'principle

alone.' " The editor of the Western Aegis thought that Medary

was entitled to some credit for his boldness in coming out openly

at the beginning of his career. He wrote, "We are therefore

pleased to see our enemies fight under their true colors, and support

their candidate on 'principle,' the only principle on which he can

consistently be supported."3

Jackson very soon recognized in this young editor one of his

most loyal friends and staunch supporters; in fact, he admitted

that one of the important features of his great veto message was

based upon an editorial on national banking, printed in the Ohio

Sun.⁴  Numerous letters, among the Jackson and Van Buren

manuscripts, and comments, in the various newspapers of the era.

show that Medary was one of Jackson's confidants.

One has only to turn to the political history of the period to

discover the influence of Medary. In 1837, when the suspension

of specie payment was announced during the heated controversy

over the banking policies of the United States, among the several

papers which were trying to quiet the fears of the people, was the

Western Hemisphere of Columbus, edited by Medary. Now a

prominent Democratic editor and politician, Medary wrote to

Martin Van Buren that the stoppage of specie payments along the

seaboard had created a shock, but only a momentary one, in Ohio's

capital city.⁵ Medary believed, however, that if the banks would

resume payment, much of the trouble would disappear. Further-

more, he was opposed to hanks. He considered them a monopoly

of the rich, and therefore he carried on a running attack against

them well into 1839. Nevertheless, once Van Buren announced

his support of the Independent Treasury Bill, Medary upheld him;

and in the columns of the Statesman he declared that the people

wanted the bill passed. He said that they had spoken in its favor

because it was a plan natural to all governments, for it restored

the government to the people. When the measure was finally

enacted, Medary was lavish in his praise; he called it a second

 

3 Georgetown (Ohio) Western Aegis and Public Advertiser, June 24, 1828.

4 Columbus (Ohio) Crisis, November 16, 1864.

5 Samuel Medary  to  Martin Van Buren, Columbus, May 18, 1837, Van  Buren

MSS, (in Library of Congress).

• 3
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                          17

 

Declaration of Independence. To him it was in fact "a great

triumph of the People over Bank corporations--speculators and

rag barons both in Europe and America.6"

Medary's real leadership of Ohio politics became evident in

1835 with the purchase of the Western Hemisphere, the most in-

fluential Democratic journal in Columbus. He did not assume

complete control, however, until 1837, when he moved to Co-

lumbus and, with his brothers, published, on July 4, 1837, the first

issue of his paper under the name of Ohio Statesman. It was a

modest four-page journal issued daily during the sessions of the

legislature and semi-weekly for the rest of the year, but frequently

the days of publication were changed to meet the exigencies of

the situation. Under the banner: "The Sovereignty of the People,

the Rights of the States, and a Light and Simple Government"--

the Statesman had the honor of being the most influential party

organ in Ohio and the leading paper of the Democratic party in

the Northwest.

During the campaign of 1840, Medary was particularly busy.

In the beginning, he failed to take the Whig campaign seriously,

for despite his political finesse, he was misled by all the tomfoolery

of the Whigs and he did not seem to grasp the appeal of the Whig

slogans and campaign promises for the common people; but, as

the time of the election approached, Medary became alarmed at

the danger to Ohio Democracy, and he called upon the press to

go to the people. In an editorial appearing in the Statesman, he

wrote:

From this time until after the election, we will furnish the Extra Ohio

Statesman to subscribers for 25 cents each. Democrats, you have but a

short time in which to work. Let no one be idle. Such a systematic

scheme of falsehood, from the highest to the lowest federal in the state was

never before witnessed. Brother editors of the democratic press, push out

your papers into every neighborhood; every voter can pay 25 cents.7

The editors responded to this eloquent appeal, yet they were

not equal to the task. One thing was certain, however, the press

 

6 Francis P. Weisenburger, The Passing of the Frontier, 1825-1850, Carl Wittke,

ed., The History of the State of Ohio (Columbus, 1941--), III, 356.

7 Columbus Ohio Statesman, August 18, 1840.

• 4
 

18   OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

campaign against the Whigs only served to embitter them against

Medary and they decided that he and his Ohio Statesman should

be silenced. Just what they planned to do we do not know; but

Medary's friends realized that something was afoot and they

urged him to be careful. Medary paid no attention to their warn-

ings, and so one night as he was leaving his office he was attacked

and rather badly handled by a group of ruffians. This unwarranted

assault came only a few days after his appeal to the Ohio press,

and it aroused and angered his friends, who redoubled their efforts

to stop Whiggery; but their work was in vain, the Whigs were

triumphant. There was no doubt that he was disappointed at the

results of the election; nevertheless, he was not one to give up

easily, and he began almost at once to lay plans for the election of

1842. This time a series of events, together with the vigorous

campaigning of Medary, led to the defeat of the Whigs in Ohio,

much to the journalist's delight.

During the period of 1840-1842, Ohio Democrats were un-

able to agree among themselves regarding their stand on banks

and money matters, and neither were they in complete agreement

over the tariff. Some of the Democrats were in favor of a pro-

tective tariff, but Medary and his followers were not in favor of

any tariff that was not primarily a "tariff for revenue only." One

of the best proofs of this is an editorial appearing in the Ohio

Statesman, in which Medary said:

It has become fashionable of late to cry loudly for a tariff for the

purpose of protecting American Industry. We will go as far as anyone, in

according to industry all the protection it asks; for industry is honest and

will ask no other protection than that which it needs.

What does it need? Let it alone--give it freedom of thought and of

action--protect it not by pillaging it, under pretext of taxation, and industry

asks no more. . . .8

After the tariff of 1842 had been in operation for several

months, Medary again set forth his views on a tariff for protec-

tion. He wrote,

A tariff for protection has a direct tendency to diminish our foreign

trade. Its express purpose is to exclude foreign nations from selling to this

 

8  Ibid., November 8, 1842.

• 5
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                       19

 

country. Of course, therefore it prevents this country from selling to foreign

nations. While its pretended aim is only to diminish our exports . . . our

American industry has the widest field and best regards, under a tariff of

moderate duties, imposed for revenue, and not for protection.9

Therefore, from these rather plain statements, one is forced

to believe that Medary and a considerable group of Ohio Dem-

ocrats were not in favor of a protective tariff, and they most cer-

tainly were not in favor of the tariff of 1842.

Yet, while the tariff remained one of the important issues of

the day, there were other questions which demanded attention.

One of these was Oregon; and Medary's fight for this territory is

indeed one of the most interesting phases of his career. It has

been said that he was the originator of the popular slogan "54°-40'

or fight!" but the claim is as yet not proved. There is consid-

erable evidence, however, to corroborate it. Long before the

slogan became popular, Medary had spoken in this tone and had

urged that since the United States' claim to all of Oregon was

based upon its discovery of the territory, why arbitrate? As early

as 1843, Medary was one of the sponsors of a group of Columbus

citizens who banded together to study this salient question. He

represented the society at an Oregon convention held in Cincinnati

in July of that same year; in fact, he was chosen as the second

vice-president of the convention. During the following weeks

there were frequent references to the "Oregon Question" in the

columns of the Statesman, and in mid-February (1844) the Ohio

group met to press the cause of Oregon's occupation. Medary

was active at this meeting and later through his newspaper, issued

the call to his countrymen in the West. He urged them neither to

slumber nor to be misled by the remarks of certain politicos, and

he also warned them to remember that the real issue of the presi-

dential campaign was not "a greasy shin-plaster" but the Union,

the re-occupation of Oregon. At the Democratic Convention of

1844, Medary and his friends urged that the re-occupation of

Oregon be made a part of the convention's platform. It would

seem, therefore, that when he went to the Baltimore convention

he was already crying "54??-40' or fight" and that, as one of the

9 Ibid., January 13, 1843.

• 6
 

20    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

leaders of the Ohio delegation, he was instrumental in writing this

now common phrase into the platform of the party. Several years

ago, a granddaughter of Samuel Medary, in a conversation per-

taining to this matter stated that although she had heard the story

many times in her family, she was not very sure just how her

grandfather originated the slogan. Thus one cannot with complete

assurance credit this familiar American battle-cry to Medary, yet

one can say with equal candor that he seems the most likely

author.10

The Oregon question was one of considerable importance at

the national convention of the Democratic party at Baltimore in

1844. Here the Ohio delegation, with Medary as chairman, was

pledged to Van Buren and the re-occupation of Oregon, as were

several of the delegates. Van Buren, however, was not approved

by many of the convention's members, and a move was made to

secure his defeat by the adoption of the 2/3 rule. Van Buren,

while the most promising contender for the nomination, could

not command a 2/3 majority of the votes cast. This was due in

part to his hesitant and uncertain stand on Oregon and Texas.

During the debates on the 2/3 rule, Medary fought valiantly

against its adoption. He contended such a rule would be a man-

acle not only at this time but in later years, and the party after-

wards discovered that he was right. He kept arguing, "Why

insist upon a two-thirds vote . . .? Give us a candidate by a bare

majority--we will give you a splendid fight."¹¹ In the controversy,

Medary had the support of the Ohio delegation and of a consid-

erable part of the convention, but they could not muster enough

votes to nominate their candidate. Then it was that Medary

headed off a movement to support Cass; turned to the support of

Silas Wright of New York, and finally arose to read a letter from

Andrew Jackson (one of two Jackson had written on this subject)

in which he suggested that the name of James K. Polk, the "young

hickory" of Tennessee, be presented to the convention in case of

a deadlock. The delegates then nominated Polk, a nomination due

 

10 For more complete discussion see Helen P. Dorn, Samuel Medary, Politician,

Statesman, and Journalist, 1801-1864 (M.A. thesis, Miami University, 1938).

11 Washington (D. C.) Globe, Tune 5, 1844.

• 7
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                      21

 

in no small way to the efforts of Medary, a fact which Polk never

seemed to appreciate.

Van Buren's friends tried to ease the sting of defeat by as-

suring him that this was a matter of "principle and not of men,"

and that in this hour they needed someone who stood for the prin-

ciple of "re-occupation of Oregon and re-annexation of Texas."

While Medary was always one of Van Buren's admirers, it is

quite likely Medary thought Van Buren was not suited to this

task; and although Medary sought to secure Van Buren's nomi-

nation, he was quite willing to support Polk, in whom the Dem-

ocrats found a rallying point. Thus Polk became the first dark

horse elected to the presidency. Medary worked hard for the

election of Polk, and though he was "cast down beyond measure"

at the loss of Ohio, he was gratified, however, at Polk's election.

Yet, probably no one was any less interested in Ohio's part

in the election nor less appreciative of Medary's efforts than Polk.

It is known that Medary's friends expected him to be rewarded

by a cabinet post. They urged him to seek the postmaster-general-

ship, and he did try to secure the appointment, though without

success; finally he became disgusted and gave up his aspiration for

the post. Later, Medary was offered the postmastership of Co-

lumbus,  which was "an adequate gauge of Polk's appreciation of

the democracy of Ohio, but it failed to satisfy Medary, who sold

the Ohio Statesman, to C. C. Hazewell, in 1846, and tried to se-

cure a consular appointment, only to be tricked by Tod, who had

promised to help him in securing it."12 In an effort to clear up

matters, Medary visited Washington, and on his return he ap-

peared reconciled and agreed to do all he could in the fall elec-

tions of 1845. In a letter to Van Buren, written on May 22, 1845,

while Medary was in Washington, Medary said that there were no

appointments promised. He further stated that he intended to

continue his ownership of the Statestman for the rest of his life

unless the printing office was sold by July 1, 1846. Shortly after-

ward, however, he sold the Statesman and dropped out of the

 

12 Edgar A. Holt, "Party  Politics in  Ohio, 1840-1850," Ohio  State Archaeological

and Historical Quarterly (Columbus), XXXVIII (1929). 108-9.

• 8
 

22    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

editorial harness until November 10, 1846, when he again resumed

control of this powerful Democratic paper.

After the election of Polk, the Democracy of Ohio was con-

stantly torn with bitterness and party strife. Medary regretted

this, although there was little that he could do about it.

In the months that followed, Oregon and Texas were fre-

quently in the news. Let no one think that Medary was silent

even though he was disappointed in Polk and the turn of events.

He was a strong annexationist and seemed to have fully realized

that in all probabilities annexation meant just one thing: war. He

kept up a constant barrage, however, urging the government to

take action. By the summer of 1845 when the conflict became

apparent, Medary was one of its ablest defenders, and at the open-

ing of hostilities in 1846, he called it a "glorious war" and urged

his readers to support it with men, money and supplies.

The political scene was far from quiet when the Democratic

Convention met in Baltimore in 1848. It was a convention split

over the same question which had caused the dilemma in 1844;

namely, slavery. Medary stated in a letter to Van Buren that he

would support the man nominated by the party. All he asked was

to be left out of the party intrigues. He did not believe in making

the Wilmot Proviso an issue because there were "higher, better,

safer, and less obnoxious grounds to take."¹³ He deplored the

dissension among New York Democrats, yet he did not blame Van

Buren. The Van Buren group, the Barnburners, bolted the party,

but Medary kept his word. Though Cass and Butler received able

support from the Statesman, the loss of New York, nevertheless

meant the loss of the election.

With the defeat of Cass, Medary turned his attention to cer-

tain local political and non-political interests. Among the former

was the Ohio Constitution, about which there had been a great deal

of discussion, but no concerted action. Medary plunged into the

argument and was probably the most ardent and effective advocate

of the revision of the Constitution. His first journalistic efforts

on behalf of a new constitutional convention appeared in several

 

13 Medary to Van Buren, Columbus, May 5, 1848, Van Buren MSS.

• 9
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                    23

articles in the Statesman. He considered this inadequate, how-

ever, "and on May 6, 1849, he began to publish the New Consti-

tution, a weekly magazine, of octavo size, devoted entirely to the

cause of constitutional revision. This publication contained nu-

merous and extended reports of press opinions throughout the

State favorable to the holding of a convention. One writer says

that "probably no other agency exercised so great an influence in

the cause as did this magazine."14

Of course, like any matter involving the policies of govern-

ment, the fight for a revision of the Constitution became tinged

with politics. Someone wrote to Medary and said that he hoped

the New Constitution would not be of a purely partisan nature.

Medary's reply was typical of him and of the period. While he

argued that such an issue as this should be above party considera-

tion, he contended that, "if men write freely and speak their open

and honest sentiments, and no others are worthy of publication.

they will of course bear the character of some leading party ....

Let men write for the sake of principle and not party, and there

need be no complaint."15  It seems evident that Medary made an

effort to be fair and unbiased, however one must always bear in

mind that his views were those of a Jeffersonian - Jacksonian

Democrat.

After the convention was called and the new constitution had

been submitted to the people, Medary published another small

pamphlet called The Reformer. Its purpose was to secure the

election of a corps of officers pledged to carry out the new or-

ganic law. Their work once completed, both the New Constitu-

tion and The Reformer were discontinued.

The election of 1852 was now at hand, and it found Medary

busily engaged with the affairs of the party. He was a delegate

to the convention; and although Franklin Pierce was not his first

choice, he supported him without reservation. In turn, Pierce

appointed him Minister Plenipotentiary to Chili, an appointment

Medary finally declined.

 

14 Emilius 0. Randall and Daniel J. Ryan, History of Ohio (New York, 1912),

IV, 98-100.

15 New Constitution, May 26, 1849.

• 10
 

24   0HIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

Some months before, he had sold his interest in the Statesman

to Samuel S. Cox, a conscientious but less able editor than Medary.

From that time until February, 1855, Medary was out of touch

with the press. On returning to the Statesman, however, he con-

tinued as editor until 1857 when he left for the West where he

remained for about a year.

It was during the earlier period from 1845-1849, that Me-

dary's non-political interests were legion. "He was one of Frank-

lin County's representatives in a state agricultural convention in

Columbus, June 25, 1845."16 A direct outgrowth of this conven-

tion was the formation of a State Board of Agriculture of which

he was both a member and the first secretary. He was also one of

the organizers of the Columbus Horticultural Society. In 1849,

at the height of the cholera epidemic Medary headed a citizens'

committee which conferred with the city council on measures to

curb the disease. Probably no one was any more interested in the

health and sanitation of the city than he. He was an incorporator

and a director in four railroads: the Franklin and Ohio River

Company; the Columbus and Xenia; the Columbus and Lake Erie

Company which was later known as the Cleveland, Columbus and

Cincinnati; and the Central Ohio Company. All of these roads

were incorporated between the years 1845-1851.

In addition to these interests Medary was the champion of

the oppressed. He sympathized with the leaders of the French

revolution in 1848, and with those of the Cuban revolt of 1851.

Then too, he advocated the support of Louis Kossuth, the great

Hungarian patriot, who in February, 1852, visited Columbus,

where he was given an elaborate reception. He and his party were

met by officials of the State, the members of the General Assembly,

city officials, military and civilian organizations. An informal re-

ception was held at the Neil House. Later, a state Hungarian

Association was formed, and Medary was a member of the central

committee. They sent out an appeal for money, and Medary said,

"Let every man remember that the appeal is to himself." Yet this

was not the end of his crusading: he sympathized with the Irish

 

16 Osman Castle Hooper, The Crisis and the Man (Columbus, 1929), 16.

• 11
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                           25

revolutionist, Francis Meagher; he aided and encouraged Samuel

Morse, the inventor of the telegraph; and he also encouraged

James Russel, the builder of one of the first planetariums.

Although in 1854, Medary desired to rest from his many po-

litical battles and public crusades, his party had other plans for

him. They wanted him to run for United States Senator, but this

too he declined, and in a letter to the committee, he stated his

position:

There is a question of principle, not of men, about to give a new bear-

ing to the Senatorial election; as that is a matter of importance to the

whole people, of the nation as well as the State of Ohio, I desire to be dis-

tinctly understood, before being again voted for....

I always have been, and always expect to be, an advocate of the right

of every people to establish such forms of government as they think con-

ducive to their own happiness and welfare.... I have always advocated the

doctrine of alteration, amendment or repeal, and have ever looked upon

finalities in a free government as contrary to its spirit and dangerous to the

people's independence if not a reflection on the intelligence of those who are

to come after us. I am, therefore, in favor of the Territorial bills before

Congress, to organize Nebraska and Kansas; and I expect at future times to

advocate the same doctrines, whether applied north or south of 36 degrees

30 minutes. If these views are not satisfactory to the members of the Legis-

lature, I do not desire an election, and prefer to remain a private citizen and

advocate them in the ranks of the democratic party, as heretofore.17

This letter gives an insight into the character and political

philosophy of Medary. There is every reason to believe that he

was sincere in his statement, and that his refusal to run for senator

was the result of the divergence of opinion already beginning to

manifest itself within the ranks of the party in Ohio. His friends

were insistent, however; and later in May of the same year, they

urged him to run for Congress from the tenth district; yet this he

also refused to do. Instead, he chose to remain free to work for

states' rights, and for the measures which furthered this idea.

One of these was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which Medary

supported but upon which there is little record of his attitude for

reasons previously mentioned.    One speech, however, does exist,

and it is a significant one. It is an address made to the Nebraska

 

17 Ohio Statesman, February 18, 1854,

• 12
 

26    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

meeting on February 28, 1854. In it Medary stated his opinion

on the right of a territory to choose and regulate its own institu-

tions. Said he:

Will you deny them the poor privilege of a vote respecting their own

institutions in the territories they make their homes in? I never can, I

never will do this under the name of democracy. I would sooner scatter

the Constitution to the winds, and break up this Union, than stab democracy

in the back and give lie to the hopes of freedom throughout the universe

by denying the people the right of suffrage.18

In this course Medary was steadfast. To him the doctrine

of states' rights was the Alpha and Omega of his political philos-

ophy, and regardless of what other men might do, Medary adhered

to this principle. In his attitude toward the Negro, he was just

as adamant in his view that the blacks could never be equal to the

whites.

With the growing tension, new political parties began to ap-

pear, among them the Know-Nothings. Shortly after Medary's

return to the editorial helm of the Statesman, he took issue with

this group. They were so obnoxious to him that he even urged

the old Whig party to keep free from them, because if the Dem-

ocrats must lose, he should prefer to see his old enemies, whose

policies he knew, in office, rather than a new group of "political

crusaders" whose policies were contrary to the American system

of government.

At the Democratic Convention of 1856, Medary was a dele-

gate as well as the temporary chairman. In his remarks to the

delegates, he reminded them that he had attended all the conven-

tions since Jackson's first nomination (1824) and that at no time

had the Democratic party had a more serious task to perform nor

a better opportunity to serve the country.

Of the several available candidates, Medary was inclined to

favor Douglas, whose views on Oregon and on the Kansas-Ne-

braska Act coincided with his own. When he saw, however, that

Douglas was not the choice of the delegates, he bowed to the will

of the group. Douglas never forgave Medary for switching to

Buchanan, even though Medary could not do otherwise and keep

 

18 Ibid., March 1, 1854.

• 13
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                         27

in the good graces of the party. While this act caused a noticeable

rift in the Medary-Douglas friendship, it did not alter Medary's

admiration for "the Little Giant."

In an effort to secure a candidate who would be acceptable to

all factions of the party, the Democrats chose James Buchanan.

It fell to Medary to announce Ohio's vote and while presenting it

to Buchanan, he stated his views upon the issue of the day:

With the platform that you have given us as a bond of union for the

Democracy of this great country, we are willing to fight under any leader

that this Convention may select for us. I assure you, Mr. President, that

as a personal friend of that Little Giant of the northwest, for whom so many

of us have cast our votes, or for whom I am willing to do battle even single-

handed, that no one will yield more pleasantly, to the decision of the Con-

vention; and I can speak also for the whole of the delegation with which I

am associated, and that none will more readily and jealously support the

nominee presented to us today.19

Yet, in spite of this declaration, one cannot overlook the fact,

that for several months after the convention Medary had little to

say regarding either the platform or the candidate. It is evident

that Medary found himself in a quandary: he had made his

choice between Douglas and Buchanan because he felt that the

party and its principles had a far better chance with the less out-

spoken Buchanan; but he saw far more clearly than most men of

his day that the issues of the campaign, Kansas and slavery, had

in them the seeds of bitterness and of strife.

The history of "Bleeding Kansas" is of no concern here ex-

cept to show Medary's attitude toward the affairs of the territory.

He was anxious to see peace restored and he urged the govern-

ment to take firm measures to quell the disorders.

Then, too, the situation was further aggravated by the opinion

of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott

case. Greeley and his followers attacked the decision with every

means at their command, and just as ably, Medary defended both

the Court and the Constitution which had created it. He wrote:

The Constitution, like the minds that produced it, is marked by the

strong simplicity of that which is really great. . . All which protects is

 

19 Proceedings of the Democratic National Convention, 1856 (Published by order of

the Convention), 52-3.

• 14
 

28     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

there so expressly secured, and all which infringes upon liberty, is there so

expressly prevented, that men enjoy it as they do light without recurring

to the source. . . . the Supreme Court of the United States has lately spoken.

The people cannot err--the voice of the people is the voice of God--said

the ancients; and so it has proven. Upon an intricate question, the best

jurists in the world have come to the same decision--have concurred with

the plain, common sense and reason which guide the humblest citizen.20

here is a clear statement of Medary's views. They are the

views of a states' rights man--true to his political philosophy.

Though Samuel Medary had long been a figure in Ohio poli-

tics, his first opportunity in the realm of statesmanship came as a

result of the election of James Buchanan to the presidency of the

United States. Medary's support of Buchanan had cost him the

political friendship of Stephen A. Douglas; and Buchanan, if not

aware of this, at least knew that Medary had served him well at

the convention; therefore shortly after assuming office (1857), he

appointed Medary as the territorial governor of Minnesota.

The appointment, while gratifying to his friends, was also a

loss to them and to the Democratic party in Ohio. They sorely

missed his faithful service, his efficient leadership and his facile

pen. Medary's stay in Minnesota was brief and without untoward

incidents, but during the few months he was in the territory he

issued several noteworthy messages to the legislature.   His last

message was "a comprehensive review of the conditions of the

territory, and of the changes incident to the transition from a

territory to a state government";21 as such it was of special inter-

est to the people of the new state. Upon the completion of his

work, Medary returned to Columbus where he became postmaster

and shortly thereafter was given a new appointment.

On November 19, 1858, Medary was named territorial gov-

ernor of Kansas, and he assumed his duties a month later. His

term was highlighted by an outbreak of border disturbances and

uprisings which Medary valiantly sought to end, but he was ham-

pered both by lack of authority and lack of money.

One of the first important problems with which Medary had

 

20 Ohio Statesman,  March 19, 1857.

21 James H. Baker, "Lives of Minnesota Governors." in  Minnesota Historical  Col-

lections (Saint Paul), XIII (1908), 72.

• 15
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                        29

 

to deal was John Brown, the abolitionist. So sure was Medary

of the capture of Brown and his companions that the secretary of

state was notified to this effect; however, the attempt proved futile

for Brown eluded the posse.

There were other problems which demanded attention, not

the least of which was the writing of a new state constitution.

After months of delay the convention began its work on July 5,

1859, using as a guide the Constitution of Ohio, on which Medary

had worked in 1851. There is little doubt that his guidance in

the formation of the organic law of Kansas was invaluable. Then

too, he was interested in the men chosen to conduct the new state

He ran for governor but was defeated by his Republican op-

ponent; a defeat he regretted. In a letter to a friend he expressed

himself on this point:

I have not a solitary doubt left about our having a majority in Kansas.

Yet we have to submit to the eternal disgrace of having it go forth as a

Black Old John Brown state. It is our own faults in part and we deserve

it, but I do not feel comfortable under the additional disgrace of running

behind the balance of the ticket.22

Medary's last important act was the delivery of his veto mes-

sage on February 20, 1860, on the bill entitled "An Act to Pro-

hibit Slavery in Kansas." His reasoning is plain enough: it is the

Medary philosophy of government; and while in itself the message

caused a few repercussions outside of Kansas, it explains the at-

titude of Medary and a considerable group of people on slavery,

and in so doing, it is a prelude to the war that was to follow in-

evitably. Medary, like Jefferson before him, believed in states'

rights; he regarded the intrusion of Congress into sectional issues

as an encroachment on those rights, an interference with what the

Constitution expressly reserved to the states and to the people. As

one writer expressed it, "For Medary, then, slavery was a matter

to be dealt with only by the people of a state, and every state could

thus settle it without interference by any other or all the others

together."23 While Medary knew that the question involved many

 

22 Medary to John A. Halderman, Lecompton, December 10, 1859. Medary MSS,

(Kansas Historical Society, Topeka).

23 Hooper, The Crisis and the Man, 22.

• 16
 

30     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

risks, he refused to believe that the Nation would actually be

plunged into the holocaust of war over this very subject. Several

months after writing his veto message Medary resigned from of-

fice; but prior to leaving the state he issued a farewell letter to the

people of Kansas in which he said:

Our country just now is of more value than party, of higher interest

than aspiring men, and it will take the combined efforts of the wise, the

good and the patriotic to wrest the Constitution and the Union, given to us

as our inheritance, from the dangers which threaten it on every side.24

Such was Medary's attitude in the latter part of 1860. He

was deeply concerned over the factionalism, and the bitterness

which were apparent to all those who loved their country. He

was also disturbed by a recurrence of the border outrages in Kan-

sas and the apparent apathy of the government in dealing with the

situation. While on a brief visit to Ohio, Medary wrote to Bu-

chanan. He explained "the monstrous state of things," and asked

for help in correcting it:

Can I not be furnished, this time, with men and means to put the fin-

ishing stroke to the monstrous outrages? I have exhausted all my own

means in striving in every way to serve the people over whom I preside . . .

and to cripple me still more Gen. Cass, Your Sec. of State has withheld

my salary for what I think wholly insufficient causes. My Contingent Fund

is insufficient to pay the inside expenses of my office.25

Buchanan responded to this appeal in due time, but he was

reluctant to give Medary the authority for which he asked; so

Kansas continued to be the scene of frequent disorders for some

time.

During these troubled months, the campaign of 1860 had been

in full swing. There was considerable activity and the feeling was

high in Ohio, where Medary spent several weeks prior to the elec-

tion. He must have been aware of the situation, but just what

part he played in it is not easily discernible. It had been clear for

several months that northern and southern Democrats could not

agree, yet he refused to believe that the bickering could not be

overcome; and until the last, he hoped for the union of all groups

 

24 Columbus Crisis, January 31, 1861.

25 Medary to James Buchanan, Columbus, November 22, 1860, Buchanan MSS.

(Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia).

• 17
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                   31

 

in the battle for the rights of the states. He took no part in any

of the several Democratic conventions, and even though many of

the Jacksonian Democrats were for Breckinridge, it is doubtful

whether Medary supported him, although his son, Charles, as-

sumed that his father would do so.

Shortly after the election, Medary returned to Ohio, where

he resolved to do what he could to stem the tide of the approach-

ing war. In an atmosphere of uneasiness for the Union he loved

so deeply, he resumed the role of editor and began publication of

a new paper, the Crisis. Hooper relates, "He established an

editorial office at the corner of High and Gay Streets, contracting

for the printing at the large job office of Richard Nevins, half a

square north, and issued the first number of the Crisis, Jan. 31,

1861."26  It was an eight-page paper with five wide columns to

the page and none of the display heads so common today. In the

prospectus he promised that the paper would be compactly filled

with matter especially prepared for its columns, that an effort

would be made to make it one of the best weeklies in the country,

clear of floating trash and full of the most solid and useful matter

to suit the "fearful times that surrounded us." That he kept his

word any reader of the Crisis will soon agree.

Perhaps, in the whole United States no man looked upon the

swift moving events of 1861 with a heavier heart than Samuel

Medary. He realized the approach of Civil War in all its stark

reality and cried out, "In the name of humanity shall such a people

be plunged into civil war? Politicians, you have crimes to answer,

for which Heaven will ask judgment."27

From the very opening of the war, Medary held the Republi-

can party strictly responsible for the conflict. He never once con-

sidered the possibility that Democracy through her stubborn ad-

herence to states' rights had reaped its own harvest. He could

only see how the Republican party, born in the death throes of

slavery, had worked its way into the seat of power, there to

trample the Union into its grave. Nor was Lincoln spared Me-

dary's wrath. He accused him of having no governmental policy,

 

26 Hooper, The Crisis and the Man, 19.

27 Crisis, February 28, 1861.

• 18
 

32    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

of being unable to grasp the perplexing difficulties as he found

them, and of being incapable of rising above mere groveling par-

tisanship.²⁸ One wonders if, in this instance, Medary had not suc-

cumbed to the very bigotry he condemned in others.

When Lincoln raised the question as to "which or who" is

empowered to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, Medary, in no

uncertain terms, pointed out that it was the power of the Congress

alone and was explicitly granted by the Constitution in Art. I,

Sec. 9, Par. 2. Moreover, even if Lincoln had the power to sus-

pend the writ, Medary declared that its suspension did not in turn

proclaim martial law.

During the next few months Medary stated clearly in a series

of messages, articles and speeches why he opposed the war. In

the first place, in any country governed by public opinion, war

would not accomplish the thing desired; and in the second place,

the cost in money and lives would be far too great for the benefits

thus secured.

Near the end of the first year of the war, he was even more

censorious. A whole year of bloodshed, of bitterness and of suf-

fering had resulted in nothing constructive, nothing that would

indicate that the avowed aim was "to save the Union." Had not

Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the

Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery . . ."? Yes,

Medary knew all this. Yet for him only one thing was evident:

the "cursed abolitionists," Greeley and his crowd, were slowly de-

stroying the Nation in order to change the status of the Negro.

To appreciate fully Medary's attitude toward the Negro, it is

necessary to know something of his background. More than

twenty years before he had said that no one in his right mind

would claim that a Negro could approach the legislature in the

capacity of a constituent. Several times during the next few

years, he openly questioned the idea of granting the same rights,

civil, political and social, as were enjoyed by the white race. He

constantly reminded his readers that the Negro was never intended

to be the equal of the white man and that such an equality would

breed discontent.

 

28 Ibid., June 20, 1861.

• 19
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                        33

This was the man who deplored the destruction of the South,

because he felt that it was being ruined

not to save the Union, but to desolate it with the horrors of St. Domingo ...

Our people are not prepared for such a war, and if they believe it

must come, if continued for any great length of time, they will demand a

settlement of some kind as speedily as possible.29

Medary was not alone in this view; there were many people,

even in the North, who objected to fighting a war over the ques-

tion of black vs. white.

He was not only concerned over the war but in the results of

the war as well. Early in 1862, when the Union was filled with

hope that Richmond would soon fall and the war thus would be

ended, he called the attention of his readers to the fact that the

victory of arms over the South would not be enough to reconcile

the northern Republicans. He foresaw a political battle as bitter

as the actual conflict. This he attributed to the abolitionists, headed

by the radical Sumner in the Senate, who, Medary claimed, never

intended to receive the South back into the Union "peaceably,

amicably, honorably, as states, part and parcel of this union as

they once were."30

The events of the next few weeks caused him to be even

more positive that it was the abolition element of the Republican

party which was responsible for most of the trouble. He felt, too,

that these abolitionists were laboring under a monstrous delusion.

They seemed to think that "the negro is a black-white man."

Medary, on the other hand, felt "that the negro is a negro and

not a white man--that negro slavery is no slavery at all, but the

normal condition of the African"31 and so far as Medary was

concerned this was the way it should remain.

It is quite true that the abolition of slavery was by no means

a necessary consequence of the war, but because of the pressure

of circumstances, steps were taken early in the conflict which

would lead to the restriction or the eventual abolition of slavery.

When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Medary

29 Ibid., August 22, 1861.

30 Ibid., February 19, 1862.

31 Ibid., March 5, 1862,

• 20
 

34    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

commented upon it as a "Pithy speech by the President."³2 Pre-

vious to this time, he had been hopeful that we should return to

the "Union as it was," and although he saw the fallacy of that

wish, he continued to fight as before.

During the intervening months, factionalism within the major

political groups became more and more pronounced. It hindered

both the Democrats and the Republicans and caused new groups to

form; still it divided the Democratic party most of all: there were

War Democrats, Peace Democrats, and just plain Democrats.

Medary except for a brief interlude remained with the old party

organization. True, he gave support to Clement L. Vallandig-

ham on several occasions, and he aided the Peace Democrats in

1864, because the regular Democratic party platform was repudi-

ated by the candidate, General George B. McClellan; therefore,

Medary, in turn, refused to accept him. Medary took little inter-

est in the campaign. In the first place he was in ill health, and in

the second place he saw in the respective candidates, Lincoln and

McClellan, only a choice between two evils, a choice which the

Democratic voter should never have found necessary. Just what

Medary would have done had he lived until election day, probably

no one knows, but it was asserted quite openly by those close to

him that he did not intend to cast his vote.

Those who opposed the draft in 1941 can find in Medary an

able champion. When the Conscription bill was first proposed in

1863, he praised it as just and fair, but after the act was revised

in 1864 and made more severe, his anger knew no bounds. He

pointed out that it was a "monstrous enormity" and that such an

act had never before been tried upon any people in modern times,

except in such countries as Russia and Austria. Earlier he had

expressed the fear that certain sections of the bill protecting sol-

diers from trial in the civil courts for certain offenses would lead

to an "unbridled conduct of those in arms." He also attacked the

member of the Union League and in turn denied that he was a

member of the Knights of the Golden Circle.

Several weeks later, Medary went to Cincinnati on business

and on the same night, March 5, 1864, the offices of the Crisis

 

32 Ibid., October 1, 1862.

• 21
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                      35

 

were mobbed. Whether the attack was an answer to Medary is

not clear, still the fact remains that a mob of two hundred citizens

and soldiers from Camp Chase completely "cleaned out" the edi-

torial rooms of the Crisis. They evidently wanted to destroy the

type, and when it was discovered that the actual printing was done

at the plant of Richard Nevins, they set out for that establish-

ment; however, before they could gain entrance, the police and

Colonel Cooper arrived, and the crowd dispersed. The next day

Medary returned home and was given a hero's welcome by a large

crowd of compatriots. Sometime later a meeting was held to

determine what could be done to prohibit such occurrences in the

future. Meanwhile, from all over the Union, a sympathetic press

rallied to Medary's defense; even the usually hostile Ohio State

Journal ardently espoused his cause. In spite of the rather gen-

eral disapproval of attempts to hamstring the press, assaults con-

tinued throughout the Union. Two weeks later, a second raid was

made on the Crisis: this time an attempt was made to burn the

office. The plot failed, but some damage was done. Yet, con-

trary to what might be expected, these acts of violence served to

make the Crisis more popular than ever and gained new friends

for its harassed editor.

During all these weeks, the policy of the Crisis remained un-

changed. Medary continued to challenge the Administration to

show good cause for the continuance of such a costly struggle.

At the beginning of the war Medary had defended the attempts

of the Ohio General Assembly to raise money for that purpose.

His attitude was that while he was opposed to the war, if war had

to take place, it should be supported. He made few comments on

the attempts of the Federal Government to raise money for the

war; but when the excise law was passed, he printed it in full so

that people could see how inclusive it was and so that they could

discover the actual costs of the war. Medary wanted his readers

--yes, all people to realize this unreasonable burden. When by

1864, it became evident that more money must be had and that

the taxes must be increased, Medary wrote: "Congress must tax!

Well then let Congress tax! Why howl over it as a question of

• 22
 

36    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

must?"³³ He could not see that anything was being accomplished

by the war and the thought of raising money to carry on a point-

less and needless conflict made him sick at heart.

At first Medary was indifferent toward Lincoln, then he gave

half-hearted approval to Lincoln's war effort, but finally as the

war dragged on and the disquiet and the misery of the people

weighed upon Medary, he turned upon Lincoln, whom he had

never accepted and whom he had long regarded as a very ordinary

individual. Thus, by 1864, Medary was writing:

That Abraham Lincoln is running our country to perdition--destroy-

ing "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," everybody not crazy with

"negro on the brain" knows, and knows it well.34

This is the old Medary of twenty years before. He had little

use for the Negro, neither had he any use for people who claimed

that the Negro should be free to mingle with the white man.

As the weeks rolled by, Medary fully realized that he had ac-

complished nothing toward stopping the war; but week after week

the Crisis went to its readers with the same vigor and the same

high purpose as before. There is little doubt that he was a thorn

in the side of the Administration and of all those in civil and mil-

itary authority. The war was not conducted so perfectly that he

had no cause to deplore the loss of life, the destruction of prop-

erty, and the disregard for constitutional rights. It is little won-

der that he was ridiculed and his paper denied circulation in

various parts of the Union, nor is it strange that he was indicted

by a federal grand jury for conspiracy--this in connection with

the Cathcart case. Medary was never tried, and it may be that he

spoke wisely when he said, "It is just the thing for the tools of

Lincoln to use to injure our paper, and that is all they care

about."35

During the summer of 1864, Medary was ill and did not write

for the Crisis for several weeks, but it is typically Medarian that

he should write one last plea for peace. It had become the prayer

of many, but Medary was talking of the peace that should restore

 

33 Ibid., January 27, 1864.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid., quoted in Osman Castle Hooper, The Crisis and the Man. 32.

• 23
 

SAMUEL MEDARY                          37

the Union and states' rights; yet he was not to know how wrong

he was and how right he had been when he feared the radicalism

of Charles Sumner and his ilk.

Although Medary had been ill for some time, he had not been

thought in a serious condition and his death on November 7, 1864,

at the age of 63, was a distinct shock to his many admirers. The

cause of his last illness was never determined. Some claimed that

it was the direct result of the food poisoning he had suffered

while on a business trip to Washington, D. C., a short time earlier;

others claimed that he had cancer of the stomach; and still others

claimed he died as the result of a heavy cold and severe heart

strain. One thing is certain, he died for a cause, for a principle,

and he gave the last years of his life without stint in the hope that

in his own humble way he might prevent the utter destruction of

the Union he loved so well.

His passing was the occasion for deep sorrow. In spite of

the bitterness against him during his life, his death found praise

from all men. It seemed to be a common wish that he might have

lived to see the restoration of the Union. In an editorial in the

Cincinnati Enquirer one finds a well written tribute which is only

one of many:

A great and distinguished man has fallen in Ohio. Colonel Samuel

Medary is dead. This news will fall with sudden crushing weight upon his

tens of thousands of friends in all parts of the Union, to whom his name

had become almost a household word ...

Few men had a better appreciation of the nature of the political crisis

through which the country is passing, and his loss at this time, upon the

eve of the great battle which is to decide its final destinies is one of the

melancholy incidents connected with his departure, to us who have been

of the same political faith ....

We would, however, that the last moments of this true and tried

Democrat, had been spared to witness the brighter and more auspicious era,

which we hope the setting of today's sun will give this country.36

He was buried at Green Lawn Cemetery, at Columbus, Ohio,

where sometime later his friends and admirers erected a monu-

ment to his memory. It bears this inscription:

 

 

36 Cincinnati Enquirer, November 8, 1864.

• 24
 

38     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

Samuel Medary

Born in Montgomery County, Pa.

Feb. 25, 1801

Died at Columbus, Ohio

Nov. 7, 1864

In Commemoration Of His Public Services,

Private Virtues, Distinguished Ability And

Devotion To Principle, This Monument Is

Erected By The Democracy Of Ohio.

Samuel Medary was one of "the great" of his time--a leader

of men, an able editor, yet an astute politician. He had absolute

faith in the principles of free government and gave himself to

secure their recognition. Indeed his life is a chapter in the his-

tory of Ohio politics where for forty years he and his papers exer-

cised considerable influence upon the social, political and humani-

tarian issues of the day.

• 25