FREDERICK J. BLUE
Salmon P. Chase, First Historian of
the Old Northwest
The name of Salmon Portland Chase
rarely comes to mind when
early historians of the Old Northwest
are recalled. Yet in 1833, as a
struggling young attorney of
twenty-five, he produced a succinct
account of Ohio's history which served
as a valuable guide for several
decades. Not surprisingly, the young
writer's study reflected his own
social standing and political ideology
as well as contemporary atti-
tudes. In recounting Ohio's early
development, he patriotically pre-
sented the facts in their best light,
describing a story of a people of
virtue destined for greatness. Chase's
interpretation was in keeping
with the nationalistic views of other
historians of the early nineteenth
century best represented by George
Bancroft.
Chase was born in New Hampshire in
1808, and had lived briefly in
Ohio under the guidance of his uncle
and Episcopal bishop, Philander
Chase. At fourteen he attended
Cincinnati College, presided over by
his uncle. Unhappy with the stern
discipline of Philander Chase, he
returned east in 1823 and, three years
later, graduated from Dartmouth
College. Eager to pursue the law, he
left New Hampshire's quiet
surroundings for the bustle of
Washington D.C. in late 1826 and there
established a private school for boys.
Among his students was the son
of Attorney General William Wirt.
Taking advantage of this contact, he
persuaded the elder Wirt to direct his
legal studies.Although exerting
only a minimal effort, he passed the
Maryland bar and moved to the
rapidly growing frontier city of
Cincinnati, a place where the opportu-
nities appeared limitless for an
ambitious young lawyer eager to make
his mark on society.1
Initially, clients were few, leaving
Chase with much spare time.
Some of that time was occupied in
intellectual and cultural pursuits. He
Frederick J. Blue is Professor of
History at Youngstown State University.
1. For an account of Chase's early
career, see Albert Bushnell Hart, Salmon
Portland Chase (Boston,
1899), pp. 1-12, and Frederick J. Blue, Salmon P. Chase: A
Life in Politics (Kent, Ohio, 1987), pp 1-13.
Salmon P. Chase 53 |
|
helped establish the Cincinnati Lyceum where he delivered several lectures, two of which were published in the North American Review. Active in the Episcopal Church and shocked by the proliferation of taverns and the intemperate behavior of many townsfolk, he joined the temperance movement. The temperance crusade was to him a means to preserve the traditional values and institutions which seemed jeopar- dized in his community.2 Little in this phase of his life hinted at the career of antislavery leadership and prominence among Republicans championing the cause of black equality which lay ahead. Chase's political and social conservatism was his most obvious characteristic as he established himself in Cincinnati in the early 1830s. The Jacksonian Democrats represented to him all that was wrong with society, an unwelcome intrusion of the lower classes on his previously
2. Chase, Diary, Edward L. Pierce, Manuscript Biography of Chase, Chase Papers, Library of Congress, hereafter cited as LC; North American Review, 33 (July, 1831), 227-61, 34 (Jan., 1832), 220-46. |
54 OHIO HISTORY
stable world. Commenting on Jackson's
victory over John Quincy
Adams in 1828, Chase noted that
"the recent election of an ignoramus,
rash, violent military chief" was a
serious omen "of approaching
convulsions." Bemoaning the decline
of "intellectual strength" and
"moral excellence," he sadly
observed that with Jackson's ascendency
"a more savage spirit
breathes" in Washington; a new "purse proud,
vulgar" crowd had replaced the
"pure and gentle and refined and
cultivated circle" of the Wirts and
Adamses.3 Chase's ambition to rise
in conservative circles also revealed
itself in an elitism characterized
by smugness and pomposity. On his arrival
in Cincinnati in 1830, he
explained to a friend, only
half-jokingly, that he had been thinking
about changing "my awkward
fishy" first name as well as the spelling
of his last name "so as to
disconnect us from the world a little more
than we are." He asked his friend
how "Spencer De Cheyce or
Spencer Payne Cheyce" struck him.4
Chase was intensely nationalistic,
believing in the inevitable rise of
his country to a position of preeminence
among the world's nations.
His ethnocentric beliefs led him to
assume the natural inferiority of the
Indian peoples who temporarily blocked
the preordained advance of
Americans westward. Nor did Chase
believe that any but white
Americans would share in his country's
future greatness. During his
three years in Washington he rarely
recognized the presence of four
thousand slaves and free blacks in the
city. Nor did he comment on the
racial disturbance that had racked
Cincinnati in the year before his
arrival.5 A quick rise in the
social and legal circles of his new home was
his prime concern.
At first his legal practice was hardly
lucrative. After two weeks in his
own office he had had but two clients
and had received but four dollars
in fees. After a month he confessed,
"I have earned about fifteen
dollars and perhaps shall be
paid."6 In 1832, he formed the first of
several partnerships and slowly business
began to improve. Highly
3. Chase to Thomas Sparhawk, Jan. 2,
Nov. 10, 1828, Jan. 15, 1830, in Arthur M.
Schlesinger (ed.), " Salmon
Portland Chase, Undergraduate and Pedagogue," Ohio
State Archaeological and Historical
Quarterly, 28 (April, 1919), 142,
156-58; Chase to
Charles Cleveland, June 3, 1828, Chase,
Diary, Jan. 10, April 14, 1829, Chase Papers,
LC; Chase, Diary, Jan. 7, 1830, in
Robert Warden, An Account of the Private Life and
Public Services of Salmon Portland
Chase (Cincinnati, 1874), p. 149.
4. Chase to Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1830,
Chase Papers, LC.
5. Constance McLoughlin Green, Washington:
Village and Capital, 1800-1878
(Princeton, 1962), p. 99. For an account
of the racial unrest in Cincinnati see Richard C.
Wade, "The Negro in Cincinnati,
1800-1834," Journal of Negro History, 39 (1954),
43-57.
6. Chase, Diary, Sept. 30, 1830, in
Warden, Chase, p. 193.
Salmon P. Chase
55
ambitious and seeking prominence, he
also began collecting and
publishing the laws of Ohio from the
time of territorial organization in
1788. Those laws were scattered in four
volumes of adopted laws, three
of territorial statutes, and thirty-one
of state laws. Chase hoped that the
project would provide a valuable service
to the state's attorneys and
courts, while earning him additional income
and much-needed visibil-
ity. The project was necessitated
"by the difficulties which he experi-
enced in his first researches" into
state and territorial law; a lawyer
seeking to examine the course of
legislation was forced to gather it
"from various quarters at great
expense and with immense trouble."
Small wonder, he concluded, "if the
mind shrunk from the labor of
research and if an accurate knowledge of
the statutes was a rare
attainment even among lawyers."7
The three volumes of The Statutes of
Ohio, published in three
consecutive years beginning in 1833,
brought him a measure of
recognition. Chancellor James Kent of
New York called them "a great
work" and credit to his
"enterprise, industry and accuracy," while
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
showered Chase with similar
praise. The young editor also added
numerous notes and references to
what had taken three years of
painstaking effort and soon became the
standard source. Twenty years later
Chase would immodestly but
accurately suggest that his Statutes had
"ever since been used by the
Bench and Bar as undoubted authority for
reference in all cases."8 His
effort reflected the nationalistic
interest in gathering government
documents so prevalent in early
nineteenth-century America. Numer-
ous state papers were published for the
first time including treaties,
official correspondence, legislative
journals, and the acts of Congress.9
Unfortunately, The Statutes did
not bring Chase comparable finan-
cial renumeration. An edition of a
thousand copies was printed, but the
state purchased only one hundred and
fifty, fewer than he had been led
to believe it would buy. Fire destroyed
several hundred copies of the
second volume, and in all, he received
only about a thousand dollars
for the monumental task.10 More
important, however, he had provided
7. Chase, ed., The Statutes of Ohio
and of the Northwestern Territory Adopted or
Enacted from 1788 to 1833 Inclusive,
Including a Preliminary Sketch of the History of
Ohio (Cincinnati, 1833-1835), 3 vols, Preface, 1:5.
8. Chancellor James Kent to Chase, July
1, 1835, Joseph Story to Chase, March 1,
1834, in Jacob Schuckers, The Life
and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase (New
York, 1874), pp. 35-37; Chase, Autobiographical
Sketch, Chase Papers, LC.
9. Michael Kraus, A History of
American History (New York, 1937), pp. 171-83;
David D. Van Tassel, Recording
America's Past: An Interpretation of the Development
of Historical Studies in America,
1607-1884 (Chicago, 1960), pp. 103-07.
10. D. W. Fairbank to Chase, Dec. 19,
1832, Chase Papers, LC; Schuckers, Chase,
p. 37.
56 OHIO HISTORY
a valuable service and the legal
profession of Ohio had been made
aware of Salmon P. Chase.
Chase prefaced The Statutes of Ohio with
a forty-page "Preliminary
Sketch of the History of Ohio," the
only account of the region's past
then available. An indication of both
his interest in and ability to
interpret history, the essay provided a
readable and lively study
beginning with the coming of
Euro-Americans to the area. In it he
reflected the biases of those of his
position. Most obviously, he
expressed his conservative political
philosophy as well as the ethno-
centric attitude of his fellow Ohioans
toward Native Americans. His
history was based on careful research of
the most important sources of
the time. Taking advantage of the
collections of documents already
published, he consulted such primary
sources as The Journals of
Congress, American State Papers, the Journal of the Constitutional
Convention of Ohio, and the territorial and state laws he was compiling
for The Statutes.11
At a time when writers were producing an
increasing number of
biographies of important leaders, as
well as national, state, regional,
and local histories, Chase consulted a
revealing list of secondary
sources, most by authors who reflected
his own conservative and
nationalistic biases. Timothy Pitkin and
John Marshall provided a
perspective on national politics.
Pitkin's two-volume history of the late
eighteenth century was essentially Hamiltonian
economic history. The
author had served in Congress for
fifteen years as a Federalist from
Connecticut. His history contained not
only a defense of Hamilton's
financial policies, but an attack on the
lawlessness of the Shays and
Whiskey rebels. Chase also consulted the
five-volume biography of
George Washington written by Supreme
Court Chief Justice Marshall
published during the Jefferson
administration and revised in 1832.
Marshall's biography was a highly
nationalistic account which, in its
final volume, presented a Federalist
interpretation of the partisan
struggles of the 1790s.12
11. Other primary sources Chase used
included Nathan Dane, A General Abridge-
ment and Digest of the American Law (Boston, 1823-29), 9 vols; and American Annual
Register, 1825-26.
12. Timothy Pitkin, A Political and
Civil History of the United States of America
from the Year 1763 to the Close of the Administration
of President Washington in March,
1797 (New Haven, 1828), 2 vols; John Marshall, The Life
of George Washington,
Commander in Chief of the American
Forces . . . (Philadelphia, 1832), 5
vols. See also
Harvey Wish, The American Historian:
A Social Intellectual History of the Writing of
the American Past (New York, 1960), pp. 53-54; Kraus, American
History, pp. 187-89;
Van Tassel, Recording America's Past,
pp. 81-83. Although Marshall's biography of
Washington was praised for its
"soundness and high scholarly qualities" throughout the
Salmon P. Chase
57
Chase did not confine his secondary
sources solely to a national
perspective but drew extensively on the
best available descriptions and
histories of the Ohio Valley. Especially
noteworthy was his use of
Timothy Flint's Geography and History
of the Western States. Flint, a
New England clergyman, traveled widely
in the Mississippi and Ohio
Valleys as a missionary before
publishing his two-volume study which
helped raise the standard of scholarship
of regional studies. Flint, like
Pitkin, included numerous documents in
his study. Humphrey
Marshall's History of Kentucky also
provided Chase with an Ohio
Valley view for the period before and
after state boundaries existed.
Marshall, like so many writers of the
day, wrote as a Federalist and
presented a partisan account designed in
part to vindicate his own role
in Kentucky politics. Among the most
significant descriptions of the
area north of the Ohio River which Chase
found useful was Daniel
Drake's study of Cincinnati and the
Miami Country. It included a
careful account of the early natural
history of the area and prehistoric
mounds and a description of the first
forty years of Cincinnati's
history. 13
While many of Chase's sources were
subjective, collectively they
were a representative sample of the most
useful material then avail-
able. The regional studies of Flint,
Humphrey Marshall, and Drake
offered an invaluable amount of
information critical to Chase's re-
search needs. Equally important, they
all reflected the nationalistic
trends of the day. Pitkin was especially
important as a predecessor to
George Bancroft as a national historian.
Chase also preceded Bancroft,
writing his history just a year before
Bancroft published the first
volume of his monumental work, History
of the United States from the
Discovery of the American Continent. Bancroft used history to instruct
his countrymen along patriotic lines and
usually presented the story in
the most positive way. Chase was no
exception in using this approach.
As he explained to Chancellor Kent:
"I have aimed, in my humble
way, to inculcate national ideas and
sentiments and to enlist state pride
nineteenth century, a twentieth-century
historian, William A. Foran, revealed it to be a
heavily plagiarized account, the
"hasty and careless compilations of unacknowledged
borrowings." See "John
Marshall as Historian," American Historical Review, 43 (1937),
51-64.
13. Timothy Flint, A Condensed
Geography and History of the Western States or the
Mississippi Valley (Cincinnati, 1828); Humphrey Marshall, The History
of Kentucky
(Frankfort, 1824), 2 vols.; Daniel
Drake, Natural and Statistical View or Picture of
Cincinnati and the Miami Country (Cincinnati, 1815). See also Allen Johnson and Dumas
Malone (eds.) Dictionary of American
Biography (New York, 1931), for brief descrip-
tions of the lives of Flint, Humphrey
Marshall, and Drake. See also Van Tassel,
Recording America's Past, p. 121.
58 OHIO HISTORY
in the support and maintenance of the
national union and the national
constitution."14
Chase began his "Preliminary
Sketch" with a description of the
arrival of the earliest "civilized
inhabitants" of the Ohio Country
when, in 1673, "two French
missionaries penetrated from Canada."
He quickly moved to the confrontation
with the English and elimina-
tion of the French from the Ohio Valley,
only occasionally offering a
value judgment on these events or those
regarding the role played by
frontier settlers in the American
Revolution. In noting the impact of the
Proclamation of 1763 and subsequent
British efforts to prevent settlers
from moving north of the Ohio River, he
observed that until the
Revolution "the soil remained in
the occupancy of the native and
rightful proprietor, undisturbed but by
the wandering hunter or the
vagrant trader." This would be
Chase's only recognition of the
impending impact of white intruders on
the native population. He then
lavished praise on the exploits of
George Rogers Clark in the Ohio
Country during the Revolution,
necessitated by "the murderous incur-
sions of the savages" on the
frontiers of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
New York. Chase continued by celebrating
Clark's successful cam-
paign against the British in the
Illinois Country in which "the gallant
commander cheerfully shared" the
hardships of battle as "he marched
on foot at the head of his men with a
rifle in his hand and provisions on
his back."15 Like other
nationalistic historians of his day, Chase
viewed the Revolution as a clash between
tyranny and freedom, with
frontiersman Clark representing the
inevitably triumphant forces of
liberty.
The young historian then reviewed the
states' claims to the public
domain and concluded that federal
ownership "seems to have been the
most rational and just." Chase's
discussion of the all-important issue of
land claims, a question which delayed
ratification of the Articles of
Confederation until 1781, was brief and
superficial. His knowledge of
the question was limited and he thus
brushed over it lightly, leaving the
controversy over the selfish interests
of all involved to later historians. 16
14. Chase to Kent, Nov. 25, 1833, Chase
to William Wirt, Nov. 25, 1833, Chase
Papers, Historical Society of
Pennsylvania, hereafter cited as HSP.
15. Chase, "Preliminary Sketch of
the History of Ohio," pp. 9-12. For a more
objective account of Clark's activities
by a recent historian, see Jack M. Sosin, The
Revolutionary Frontier, 1763-1783 (New York, 1967), pp. 117-20, 137-41. Sosin's
balanced account of the military
struggle in the West suggests that although Clark's
motives in waging war against the
British and their Indian allies were not clear, "they
may have been to establish land claims
or to consolidate Virginia's right to the region
north of the Ohio."
16. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," p. 13. For a modern interpretation of this struggle
Salmon P. Chase
59
Congressional jurisdiction rested
"upon the solid ground that a vacant
territory, wrested from the common
enemy, by the united arms and at
the joint expense of all the states,
ought to belong to congress in trust
for the common use and benefit of the
whole union." Following "the
magnanimous example of New York,"
the states reluctantly surren-
dered their claims. Connecticut made
"the last tardy and reluctant
sacrifice of state pretensions to the
common good," although it like
Virginia, ever mindful of its individual
interests, retained important
reserves in the new country. Congress,
now in full possession, could
proceed "to perfect its title"
by negotiations with the tribes, "the only
rightful sovereigns and
proprietors."17
Chase then turned to the settlement of
the new territory and the laws
governing it. Efforts to keep out those
settlers who crossed the river
before the conclusion of land cession
agreements with tribal leaders
were "treated with very little
respect, by the hardy pioneers of the
wilderness." With this seemingly
innocuous observation, Chase gave
indirect endorsement to the actions of
hundreds of illegal squatters who
defied their government's efforts to
prevent settler-Indian conflict. As
Chase noted, "Congress had no means
of enforcing obedience."18
Like so many others, although he
recognized Indian tribes which
negotiated treaties as political entities,
at the same time he regarded
fighting natives as savages. He thus
gave legitimacy to the Indian land
cessions secured by the United States in
the treaty-making process.
Chase paid only brief attention to the
Land Ordinance of 1785, the
land sale to the Ohio Company, and the
initial settlement at Marietta.
Instead, he concentrated on the
Northwest Ordinance, known official-
ly as the "Ordinance for the
Government of the Territory of the United
States North West of the River
Ohio." He emphasized the importance
of the ban on slavery and accorded
special recognition to the recently-
elected Congressman, attorney Nathan
Dane of Massachusetts who
authored the section of the Ordinance
denying the government the
power to "interfere with or affect
private contracts." This provision,
along with other protections inserted by
Dane, became, said Chase,
between the landed and landless states
which emphasizes much more than Chase did the
self-interest of both sides as well as
those of land speculators rather than concern for the
common good of a united nation, see
Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation
(Madison, 1940), pp. 198-230; Jensen,
"The Cession of the Old Northwest," Mississippi
Valley Historical Review, 23 (1936), 27-48; Jensen, "The Creation of the
National
Domain, 1781-1784," Mississippi
Valley Historical Review, 26 (1939), 323-42.
17. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," pp. 13-15.
18. Ibid., pp. 15-16. For a twentieth
century description of this issue, see Beverly
Bond, The Foundations of Ohio, Vol.
I, History of Ohio, Carl Wittke (ed.), (Columbus,
1941), pp. 255-56.
60 OHIO HISTORY
"the safeguard of public morals and
of individual rights." To the rising
Cincinnati attorney, such a guarantee of
property rights was of major
significance.19
When Chase turned to that section of the
Ordinance dealing with
Native Americans, he expressed the
ethnocentric view of many leading
contemporaries who believed that the
United States must treat Indians
as children needing guidance and
protection. Thus he accepted at face
value the law's promise of fair
treatment toward the Indians. He even
praised "the performance towards
them of those offices of kindness
and peace which so adorn and grace the
intercourse of the mighty with
the weak." The law assured the tribes
that they "shall never be
invaded or disturbed" unless in
"just and lawful wars authorized by
Congress," a condition which Chase
did not find significant enough to
mention. Yet the promise of an Indian
policy "founded in justice and
humanity," along with the ban on
slavery, led Chase to exclaim that
"the great principles
promulgated" were "wholly and purely
American," for they were
"indeed the genuine principles of freedom
unadulterated" by compromise.20
Chase was lavish in his praise of the
Northwest Ordinance, for never
"in the history of the world, did a
measure of legislation so accurately
fulfill and yet so mightily exceed the
anticipations of the legislature."
In describing the first stage of
territorial government, Chase noted that
"its character ... depended entirely on the temper and
disposition of
19. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," p. 16. The Ordinance of July 11, 1787, is included
in Roscoe R. Hill (ed.), Journals of
the Continental Congress, (Washington, D.C., 1936),
32: 314-20. Among the most significant
modern studies of the law are Peter S. Onuf,
Statehood and Union: A History of the
Northwest Ordinance (Bloomington,
1987) and
Jack E. Eblen The First and Second
United States Empires: Governors and Territorial
Government, 1784-1912 (Pittsburgh, 1968), pp. 17-51. Both include discussions
of
Dane's role in the bill's framing as
well as that of Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe.
Chase, in contrast, mentions only Dane
in explaining the bill's origins. For recent, more
sophisticated studies of the Ordinance's
ban on slavery see Paul Finkelman, "Slavery
and the Northwest Ordinance: A Study of
Ambiguity," Journal of the Early Republic,
pp. 343-70 and Onuf, Statehood and
Slavery, especially pp. 109-32.
20. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," pp. 17-18. Unlike historians of the post-World War
Two period, Chase viewed Native
Americans much like most contemporaries of a
frontier society. Where modern scholars
portray Indians as humanistic and traditional,
he described savages endeavoring to hold
on to primitive ways often times through acts
of violence against white settlers and
their civilized ways. Among the most important of
the many recent studies which describe
the views of Chase's generation are Bernard W.
Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction:
Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian
(Chapel Hill, 1973); Reginald Horsman, Race
and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of
American Racial Anglo-Saxonism (Cambridge, 1981); Francis Jennings, The Invasion of
America: Indians, Colonialism and the Cant of Conquest (Chapel Hill, 1975); Robert F.
Berkhofer, The Whiteman's Indian:
Images of the American Indian from Columbus to
the Present (New York, 1978).
Salmon P. Chase
61
those who administered it." Such a
system of all-powerful appointed
officials was necessary to assure the
loyalty of the people until
statehood was obtained, for it would
"create some strong motives to
draw them into the union." Thus
Chase recognized the colonial status
of Ohio and later territories during
their early development. He
explained it as temporary and however
"unfriendly as it seems to
liberty," there were
"sufficient reasons" to deny them equality with
the original states until their
population increased sufficiently.21
For the most part, contended Chase,
territorial officials governed
well. Although they "exceeded their
authority," they did so "without
the slightest disposition to abuse
it" as seen when the territorial
legislature later affirmed virtually all
of their actions. Despite some
shortcomings in the actual process, the
success of territorial govern-
ment in Ohio was due to the wisdom of
the Confederation Congress
which acted just prior to being
superceded by the new government
under the Constitution. Thus Congress
offered the law as "a fit
consumation" of its "glorious
labors." Expressing the faith of many
nineteenth-century nationalistic
observers in America's inevitable
progress, Chase noted proudly that the
law contained "the true theory
of American liberty."22
In describing the settlement of the
territory, Chase noted but did not
criticize John Cleves Symmes for his
difficulties in paying for the lands
north of Cincinnati which Congress
granted him. He exuberantly
described the site chosen for
Cincinnati's location as "a vast
amphitheatre enclosed on all sides by
hills, wooded to their summits."
Drawing on the descriptions of the area
of Daniel Drake, he continued:
"The unaccustomed luxuriance of the
vegetation and the majestic size
of the forest trees ... astonished and
delighted the eye of the eastern
immigrant."23
Such idyllic scenes were soon shattered
by Indian "aggressions."
Resenting white settlement of any kind,
tribesmen "were strongly
stimulated to deeds of violence" by
the British presence in Great
Lakes posts "in open disregard of
the treaty of 1783." Such treatment
by Native Americans was hardly deserved,
for the immigrants had not
21. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," pp. 19-20. Some modern historians emphasize the
conservative nature of the Ordinance and
stress the colonial status that the territories
were subjected to before obtaining
statehood. See for example, Eblen, The First and
Second United States Empires, p. 1, 17-51, passim. Perhaps the most thorough and
balanced interpretation of the
territorial period is provided in Onuf, Statehood and
Union, pp. 67-87.
22. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," pp. 18-20.
23. Ibid., p. 21.
62 OHIO HISTORY
been the aggressors: "Disposed to
deal justly and in good faith with
their savage neighbors, they were averse
to bloodshed." Yet while
they "preferred to be
citizens," they "knew how to be soldiers."24
In describing the Indian campaigns of
Generals Josiah Harmar,
Arthur St. Clair, and Anthony Wayne,
Chase's comments reflected the
cultural bias and racism of his times.
He explained that the tribes
"fought with all the fury of savage
vengeance," while the American
troops "behaved with the greatest
gallantry." Chase presented
Harmar's shattering defeat in 1790 as
positively as possible. Although
recognizing that the American army
"was defeated with severe loss,"
Chase chose to emphasize the unnecessary
and militarily insignificant
actions through which the Indian
"villages on the Miami were reduced
to ashes." In his account of St.
Clair's even more disastrous defeat
with the loss of 630 American lives the
following year, Chase com-
mented that "Indian outrages of
every kind were everywhere multi-
plied and emigration almost entirely
suspended." Nowhere did he
recognize the importance to the tribes
of stopping the American
advance. Interjecting a politically
partisan note, the young Whig
criticized the Jeffersonians in Congress
for making "every effort" to
resist the Washington war measures
necessary for the protection of
"the inhabitants of the West."
In the Treaty of Greenville following
Wayne's victory at Fallen Timbers, the
United States "received the
Indian nations into their
protection," thus shielding them "from wrong
and injury." Resistance to
settlement had finally ceased and "the
emigrant no longer had the fear of the
tomahawk and the scalping knife
of the midnight conflagration and the
noonday ambush" to worry
about.25
Chase was only slightly less subjective
in describing the ensuing
conflict between Governor St. Clair and
the territorial legislature. The
governor, possessing an absolute veto,
was "dependent upon the
people for nothing and responsible to
them in no respect." He was
"subject to no control but that of
a public opinion which might be
disregarded with impunity." While
not endorsing St. Clair's autocratic
rule, Chase nonetheless praised the
governor's Federalist ally in the
council, Jacob Burnet, to whose labors
"the territory was indebted for
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., pp. 22-25. Unlike Chase,
today's historians find few redeeming features in
the Harmar and St. Clair defeats of 1790
and 1791. See Reginald Horsman, Expansion
and American Indian Policy, 1783-1812
(East Lansing, 1967) pp. 84-103; David
Nelson,
Anthony Wayne: Soldier of the Early
Republic (Bloomington, 1985); and
Wiley Sword,
President Washington's Indian War:
The Struggle for the Old Northwest, 1790-1795
(Norman, 1985), pp. 96-119, 160-95.
Salmon P. Chase
63
some of its most beneficial laws."
Given the bitterness of the struggle
between St. Clair and the
Republican-dominated territorial legislature,
Chase's overly brief account was further
indication of his desire to give
St. Clair every benefit of the doubt
possible and to deemphasize
disputes among Americans. Still, he
recognized that the governor's
dictatorial rule led the opposition to
seek statehood "as a way of
escape from a rule which they thought
harsh and oppressive."26
Chase's conservative political bias left
him unsympathetic to the
Jeffersonian party in the territorial
legislature and in Congress. He
agreed with St. Clair's complaint that because
the statehood bill
advocated in Chillicothe and enacted in
Washington excluded the
inhabitants of the Detroit area, it
violated "the spirit of the Ordinance"
in order "to secure the political
influence of the new state for the
ascendant party." Chase offered
little rebuke of St. Clair for his angry
and uncontrolled outburst against the
delegates at the constitutional
convention for "their exclusion of
Wayne County (Detroit)." Despite
the governor's bitter attack on Congress
for the terms it set for Ohio
statehood in the Enabling Act of April,
1802, Chase found little
justification for Jefferson's
interpretation that the governor's speech
was "sufficiently reprehensible to
warrant his immediate removal from
office."27 Yet Chase
endorsed the decision of the convention that "the
veto power, that anomaly in republican
government, is not recognized
in the constitution of Ohio." The
result was to make executive
authority "very feeble." The
governor, said Chase, "is a name almost
without meaning," a point brought
home more directly when Chase
served as the state's chief executive in
the late 1850s.28
The future advocate of antislavery and
black enfranchisement had
little to say about the new state's denial of suffrage to blacks,
26. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," pp. 27-30. Several twentieth century historians
have described the political bitterness
of the St. Clair-Republican struggle which Chase
preferred to downplay. Especially useful
in this respect are Andrew R. L. Cayton, The
Frontier Republic: Ideology and
Politics in the Ohio Country, 1780-1825 (Kent,
1986),
pp. 68-81.; Alfred B. Sears, Thomas
Worthington, Father of Ohio Statehood (Columbus,
1958), pp. 47-102; Randolph C. Downes, Frontier
Ohio, 1788-1803 (Columbus, 1935), pp.
178-250; Bond, The Foundations of
Ohio, pp. 447-75, and Ruhl Bartlett, "The Struggle
for Statehood in Ohio," Ohio
State Archaeological and Historical Society Proceedings,
32 (1923), pp. 472-505.
27. St. Clair has few defenders among
modern historians on Jefferson's decisions to
remove him from office, and most agree
with Dumas Malone that given the governor's
defiance of Congress, the president
"could have taken no other action." Jefferson the
President: First Term, 1801-1805, Vol. 4 of Jefferson and His Time (Boston, 1970),
p.
244. Chase was clearly more willing to
give St. Clair the benefit of the doubt. Chase,
"Preliminary Sketch," p. 31.
28. Ibid., pp. 32, 35.
64 OHIO HISTORY
commenting instead that "no white
male inhabitant of the age of 21
years ... can be excluded from the
privilege of voting." He thus failed
to note that the convention had
deadlocked on the black suffrage
question, with the president of the
convention and first governor of the
state, Edward Tiffin of Virginia,
casting the deciding negative vote.
Chase did note that "Negroes and
mulattoes" were excluded from
public schools, but offered no
criticism. Nor did he mention the black
codes passed in 1804 and 1807 which he
would work to repeal in the
late 1840s. Under the Ohio code, blacks
entering the state were
required to post a $500 bond and denied
the right to testify in court in
cases involving whites. Within four
years of having completed his
"Preliminary Sketch" Chase
would begin his defense of alleged
fugitive slaves and his efforts to limit
fugitive slave provisions of
federal law in Ohio.29 But in
his history Chase did as other writers of
the period and ignored or played down
the unpleasant and in this case
racist aspects. A consensus view was
much more in keeping with a
nationalistic and progressive
interpretation. Moreover, in 1833, Chase
had not yet been won over to the
antislavery cause and paternalistically
viewed blacks as undeserving of
equality.
Always eager to paint the brightest
picture, Chase made no comment
on the early state law which forbade any
assistance to fugitives by
Ohioans or a similar provision in the
Northwest Ordinance. Nor did he
mention the serious racial disturbance
directed against the black
community of Cincinnati by white
citizens and police in 1829 which had
forced many blacks to leave the city. In
1836, Chase would first
become involved in the antislavery
movement following a similar
disturbance against Cincinnati blacks
and the abolitionist editor, James
G. Birney. In 1833, however, he had not
yet developed a concern for
blacks, free or slave. His later
commitment to racial equality would be
a part of a gradual radicalization
process which he experienced
beginning in the late 1830s.
Shortly after his arrival in Cincinnati
in 1830 Chase had endorsed the
colonization movement. He believed then
that the two races could not
29. Ibid., pp. 34, 37; Ohio, General
Assembly, Acts, 2: 63-66; 5: 53-55 (Norwalk,
Ohio, 1901); Chase, Autobiographical
Sketch, Chase Papers, LC. Beginning in the late
1950s, historians have repeatedly called
attention to the racist actions and attitudes of
antebellum northerners which Chase
failed to mention. Among the most significant
studies relating to Ohio are Leon
Litwack, North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free
States, 1790-1860 (Chicago, 1961), passim; Eugene Berwanger, The
Frontier Against
Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice
and the Slavery Extension Controversy (Urbana,
1967), pp. 18-23, 35-39.; David A.
Gerber, Black Ohio and the Color Line, 1860-1915
(Urbana, 1976), pp. 3-24.
Salmon P. Chase
65
live together in peace and that blacks
must therefore leave to avoid
further violence. In 1834, he addressed
the Young Men's Colonization
Society of Hamilton County and supported
African colonization as "a
sure and powerful mode of extending
civilization and Christianity to
that great, but as yet barbarous
continent." Believing that blacks were
inferior to whites, he argued
condescendingly that it was in the best
interests of blacks themselves to be
colonized in Africa.30
When Chase turned to the events in Ohio
leading to the War of 1812,
his ethnocentric bias against Indians
surfaced anew. The tribes, which
"had remained quiet" since the
Treaty of Greenville, "again began to
commit aggressions upon the inhabitants
of the west." Behind the
Shawnee chief Tecumseh's rise was
"British influence." Not surpris-
ingly, Chase failed to recognize that
Tecumseh had formed his confed-
eration to halt American expansion; nor
did the young historian admit
the Native American desire to cooperate
with the British to prevent the
loss of their lands. "The
Indians," said Chase, "were totally defeated"
at Tippecanoe. The resurgence of
Tecumseh's confederation following
Harrison's victory was conspicuously
missing from his account.
Throughout the war against Great
Britain, "the conduct of Ohio was
eminently patriotic and honorable."
Ohio support was great and
"hardly a battle was fought in the
Northwest in which some of "these
brave soldiers did not seal their
devotion to their country with their
blood."31
Chase's praise of Ohioans' patriotism
continued as he described the
postwar years. Despite unhappiness with
the Bank of the United States
and Ohio's efforts to tax its branches
in 1819, state officials acquiesced
in the Supreme Court's ruling in McCulloch
v Maryland and "exhibited
an example of dignified and
unconstrained submission to the judgment
of that high arbiter" which struck
down such taxes. Such an interpre-
tation required Chase to downplay the
fact that state officials believed
the decision did not apply to the Ohio
situation. This had led them to
30. Wade, "The Negro in
Cincinnati," pp. 43-57; Edward Mansfield et. al to Chase,
Nov. 26, 1834, Chase Papers, HSP; Cincinnati
Daily Gazette, Dec. 19, 1834. For a
modern interpretation of the
colonization movement and the complex motives of those
supporting it, see Philip J.
Staudenraus, The African Colonization Movement, 1816-1865
(New York, 1961).
31. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," pp. 41-42. For a modern description of the
British-Indian alliance which recognizes
the native perspective, see Horsman, Expan-
sion and American Indian Policy, passim. Tecumseh's movement is best described by R.
David Edmunds in Tecumseh and the
Quest for Indian Leadership (Boston, 1984) and
"Tecumseh, The Shawnee Prophet and
American History: A Reassessment," Western
Historical Quarterly, 12 (1983), pp. 261-76.
66 OHIO HISTORY
challenge the ruling further and to
continue to collect the tax until a
subsequent Supreme Court decision
convinced them otherwise.32
The 1820s and early thirties were, in
Chase's eyes, years of
unparalleled economic growth for Ohio,
climaxing with the building of
a canal system whose initial phase was
completed the year he wrote.
The benefits of the canals would be
enormous in terms of farmer access
to markets and future trade and
development, making "the name and
character of Ohio well known throughout
the civilized world." Pride in
his state led Chase to conclude that the
resulting economic growth and
unlimited opportunities facilitated by
the canal system was one "of
which her sons may be justly
proud." Progress had developed also in
Ohio's public and private systems of
education. He noted the estab-
lishment of state universities at Athens
and Oxford and singled out
Western Reserve and Kenyon Colleges for
special mention among
private colleges, the latter founded
"through the exertions of the Rt.
Rev. Philander Chase, in 1826."
Both had become "institutions of
established reputation and extensive
usefulness."33
Chase saw nothing but a rosy future for
his adopted state. Fifty years
earlier Ohio was covered "by the
trees of the primeval forest." It had
since grown "from colonial infancy,
to freedom, independence and
strength." Having become the fourth
largest state in population, its
progress was "attributable
mainly" to its institutions. Most especially,
the Northwest Ordinance ban on slavery
provided the key because
"the soil of Ohio" bore only
freemen. Although already strongly
supportive of the exclusion of slave
labor, he ignored the black codes
and instead claimed that "the great
doctrine of equal rights" was
recognized in state constitution and
laws. Chase concluded proudly
and enthusiastically that Ohio could be
proud of her past and look to
32. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," p. 43. The continuing litigation led to the 1824
decision, Osborn v. Bank of the
United States, (9 Wheaton, 739), which ruled the Ohio
efforts unconstitutional. See William T. Utter, The
Frontier State, 1803-1825, Vol. II,
History of Ohio, Carl Wittke (ed.), (Columbus, 1942), pp. 296-312. Utter argues that
Ohio had a strong case and presented it
with force, logic and dignity. See also Cayton,
The Frontier Republic, pp. 131-32.
33. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," pp. 46-48. Modern historians vary little from
Chase on the importance of Ohio's canals
in the state's development. They recognize the
significance for the Ohio economy after
the fact as he did as it was happening. See
Francis P. Weisenburger, The Passing
of the Frontier, 1825-1850, Vol. III, History of
Ohio, Carl Wittke (ed.), (Columbus, 1941), pp. 92-106; Harry
Scheiber, Ohio Canal Era:
A Case Study of Government and the
Economy, 1820-1861 (Athens, 1968).
Similarly,
historians have followed his lead in
mid-nineteenth century education. See Louis B.
Wright, Culture on the Moving
Frontier (New York, 1955), pp. 101-11; Weisenburger,
The Passing of the Frontier, pp. 174-82.
Salmon P. Chase 67
the promise of "good government,
wise legislation and universal
instruction."34
The young historian had not always been
so high in his praise of Ohio
politicians and voters. In his
"Preliminary Sketch" Chase lauded the
political strength of the state and
attributed it in part to the fact that
"Every man may vote; every man is
eligible to any office." On the
other hand, only two years earlier he
had told the French observers,
Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave
Beaumont, that the result of
universal suffrage in Cincinnati was
some very unqualified officials.
They were, he said, chosen "by
flattering everybody, a thing which
men of character will never do; by
mixing with the mob; by basely
flattering its emotions; by drinking
together." Only in New England
were the people "sufficiently
enlightened" to choose the most quali-
fied candidates. The evils resulting
from the ascendency of the
Jacksonians in Washington had apparently
made inroads in Ohio
politics as well. Only by maintaining a
property qualification for voting
and officeholding could this be
prevented.35
Chase's conservative, elitist views
expressed to Tocqueville and
Beaumont were not meant for his readers'
consumption. A public
expression of such views would surely
not be wise for one who may
have already harbored expectations of a
career in politics. Instead, in
his history he extolled the
"unlimited extension of the elective
franchise" which "so far from
producing an evil has ever constituted
a safe and sufficient check upon
injurious legislation." In 1833, as he
wrote his "Preliminary
Sketch," the nullification struggle between
President Jackson and South Carolina had
only recently been resolved.
Chase hoped through his writings to
inculcate national ideas and
sentiments and to enlist state pride in
the support of "the national
constitution and the national union."36
He would keep any lingering
reservations about popular democracy to
himself.
Chase thus emphasized the themes of
nationalism, conservatism,
and ethnocentrism in his interpretation
of Ohio's early development. In
doing so he set the tone for and helped
to establish the approach that
would be followed by three other Ohio
historians who wrote in the next
decade and a half. Caleb Atwater's A
History of the State of Ohio,
Natural and Civil, published five years after Chase's account, was the
first full-length study of Ohio. The
author, a Massachusetts-born
attorney, developed more completely many
of the same themes that
34. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," p. 48.
35. Ibid.; de Tocqueville, Journey to
America, J. P. Mayer, ed. (Garden City, 1971),
pp. 84-85.
36. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," p. 48.
68 OHIO HISTORY
Chase had and revealed a view of Indians
and early settlers similar to
his predecessor. In describing the
defeat of St. Clair in 1790, Atwater
suggested that the Native American had
wreaked "his vengeance to
the very utmost, on the dying, the dead
and the living." Like Chase,
Atwater believed that the people of the
state were superior to those
"found anywhere else in the
world." In "the result of their labors ...
we challenge all history to produce its
parallel."37
Samuel Hildreth, a Massachusetts-born
physician and naturalist and
early resident of Marietta, wrote an
account of southeastern Ohio
entitled Pioneer History: Being an
Account of the First Examinations
of the Ohio Valley and the Early
Settlement of the Northwest Territory.
Published in 1848, it described Indian
attacks on the people of Marietta
in which the tribesmen "killed and
plundered them whenever they
could find a fitting opportunity."
Hildreth's brief mention of St. Clair's
rule was similar to Chase in his
recognition that the governor's vetoes,
while understandable, nevertheless
"greatly offended the republican
spirit" of the legislature.38
Unlike Hildreth and Atwater, Jacob
Burnet was an active participant
in early Ohio politics. Like them and
Chase, his politics were conser-
vative. A New Jersey-born attorney, he
settled in Cincinnati in 1796
when it was little more than a frontier
post. As a member of the
governor's Council, he was one of the
few Federalists in territorial
politics. His Notes on the Early
Settlement of the North-Western
Territory published in 1847, was a detailed account of Ohio's
transition
from territory to state. Burnet
consistently defended St. Clair's ongo-
ing struggle with the
Republican-dominated Assembly. In his account
he cited with approval the address of
the Council in 1800 which
expressed "concern and
indignation" at the "malicious attempts" of
the Assembly to attack "the
character of Your Excellency." Chase
would have found little to take issue
with in the writings of Atwater,
Hildreth, and Burnet.39
Chase never returned to the writing of
history. Instead, his legal
practice burgeoned and he took on new
interests with his defense of
fugitive slaves and participation in the
political antislavery movement.
An active role in the formation of the
Liberty, Free Soil, and
Republican parties was followed by a
career in state and national
elective and appointive office until his
death in 1873. An evaluation of
37. Caleb Atwater, A History of the
State of Ohio, Natural and Civil (Cincinnati,
1838), pp. 140, 353.
38. Samuel P. Hildreth, Pioneer
History: Being An Account of the First Examinations
and the Early Settlement of the Northwest Territory (Cincinnati, 1848), pp. 274, 374.
39. Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Early
Settlement of the North-Western Territory
(Cincinnati, 1847), pp. 316-17.
Salmon P. Chase
69
Chase as an historian must therefore be
based only on a brief state
history written as a young man.
Nonetheless, Chase equalled the
standards set by those of his generation
who were far better known as
historians than he. As part of the
nationalist school of the period, he
interpreted the issues to present his
state and nation in the most
positive way, always deemphasizing the
most divisive and unfavorable
aspects. A conservative in politics, his
analysis favored Federalists
over Republicans, while his
ethnocentrism led him to denigrate the role
of Native Americans and blacks. In this
area, he reflected the thinking
of not only most of his fellow
Americans, but virtually all antebellum
observers who described America's past.
He thus conformed to the
thinking of historians like Timothy
Pitkin who preceded him and the
giants of the age who followed including
Bancroft and Francis
Parkman.40 Chase did his
research thoroughly and wrote in an inter-
esting and straight-forward manner, thus
making a small yet significant
scholarly contribution.41 He
later noted with pride that the writing of
the sketch "cost me a great deal of
pain." Although "imperfect," it
was "the only connected sketch of
the history of our state." Although
his history was never publicly reviewed,
Chancellor Kent spoke for
many when he praised Chase for an
"admirable" effort which dis-
played "impartiality, truth and
eloquence."42
Ironically, Chase concluded his history
with a tribute to Ohio and to
the Union at a time when the slavery
issue was beginning to threaten
the national harmony he so prized. In
1833, he could confidently
predict that "Ohio will cleave fast
to the National Constitution and the
National Union."43 Yet
within less than five years Chase would
assume a central role in the events that
challenged the national
government and the state government
which supported it. In his eyes
the unity which he had found so
desirable had become less important
than the need to challenge slavery. Such
an idea could not have been
imagined by the young attorney and
historian when he wrote his
"Preliminary Sketch."
40. Bancroft's belief in the inevitability
of American progress led him to a similar
ethnocentric position. His view of
Native Americans differed little from that of Chase.
He opposed slavery, yet found little to
criticize in white America's treatment of free
blacks. See Leonard I. Sweet's treatment
of Bancroft in Black Images of America,
1784-1870 (New York, 1976), pp. 7-22.
41. Albert Bushnell Hart, in his early
biography, evaluated Chase the historian in the
most positive terms. He concluded that
the "Preliminary Sketch" proves Chase to have
had "the qualities of a good
historian-truth, patience, accuracy, impartiality, discern-
ment, an interesting method and a
readable style." Hart, Chase, p. 20.
42. Chase, Autobiographical Sketch,
Chase Papers, LC; Kent to Chase, July 1, 1835,
in Schuckers, Chase, pp. 35-36.
43. Chase, "Preliminary
Sketch," p. 48.
FREDERICK J. BLUE
Salmon P. Chase, First Historian of
the Old Northwest
The name of Salmon Portland Chase
rarely comes to mind when
early historians of the Old Northwest
are recalled. Yet in 1833, as a
struggling young attorney of
twenty-five, he produced a succinct
account of Ohio's history which served
as a valuable guide for several
decades. Not surprisingly, the young
writer's study reflected his own
social standing and political ideology
as well as contemporary atti-
tudes. In recounting Ohio's early
development, he patriotically pre-
sented the facts in their best light,
describing a story of a people of
virtue destined for greatness. Chase's
interpretation was in keeping
with the nationalistic views of other
historians of the early nineteenth
century best represented by George
Bancroft.
Chase was born in New Hampshire in
1808, and had lived briefly in
Ohio under the guidance of his uncle
and Episcopal bishop, Philander
Chase. At fourteen he attended
Cincinnati College, presided over by
his uncle. Unhappy with the stern
discipline of Philander Chase, he
returned east in 1823 and, three years
later, graduated from Dartmouth
College. Eager to pursue the law, he
left New Hampshire's quiet
surroundings for the bustle of
Washington D.C. in late 1826 and there
established a private school for boys.
Among his students was the son
of Attorney General William Wirt.
Taking advantage of this contact, he
persuaded the elder Wirt to direct his
legal studies.Although exerting
only a minimal effort, he passed the
Maryland bar and moved to the
rapidly growing frontier city of
Cincinnati, a place where the opportu-
nities appeared limitless for an
ambitious young lawyer eager to make
his mark on society.1
Initially, clients were few, leaving
Chase with much spare time.
Some of that time was occupied in
intellectual and cultural pursuits. He
Frederick J. Blue is Professor of
History at Youngstown State University.
1. For an account of Chase's early
career, see Albert Bushnell Hart, Salmon
Portland Chase (Boston,
1899), pp. 1-12, and Frederick J. Blue, Salmon P. Chase: A
Life in Politics (Kent, Ohio, 1987), pp 1-13.