Ohio History Journal

PREFACE

Charles Hammond as a lawyer, politician, and editor was a

commanding figure in the life of the pioneer West. Under his

direction the Cincinnati Gazette was one of the most influential

newspapers in the country. An able journalist of a later period

asserted that "among all the editors of Ohio--indeed, of the Great

West--he is the chief object of interest to thinking men, because

he was fearless, far-sighted, vigorous and uncorrupted." Such a

distinguished critic as john Marshall recognized his "remarkable

acuteness and accuracy of mind." A century after his life and

work, however, his name is practically unknown except to well-

informed journalists and historical specialists; and to most of

these his personality and achievements may seem blurred and in-

definite. Fifty years ago a small volume dealing with certain

phases of his life was issued -- William Henry Smith, Charles

Hammond and His Relations to Henry Clay and John Quincy

Adams (published for the Chicago Historical Society, 1885);

Professor Reginald C. McGrane has briefly summarized his career

in the Dictionary of American Biography, VIII, 202-203; but no

biographical sketch or memoir has been produced, which gives

adequate recognition to this able and distinguished man. The

following monograph is an attempt to reconstruct his personality

and attainments against the background of his time. Newspaper

collections in the Library of Congress, the Western Reserve His-

torical Society Library and the Ohio Archaeological and His-

torical Society Library have been extensively used. Manuscript

collections in the Library of Congress have yielded the contents

of some of his letters, but a collection of Hammond correspond-

ence on deposit in the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society

Library has been the most fruitful source of information. To

Dr. Harlow Lindley, Secretary of the Ohio Archaeological and

Historical Society, and his assistants, who have rendered every

possible courtesy, and to Professor Carl Wittke and E. H. Rose-

boom of the Ohio State University who have made valuable

suggestions, the author wishes to acknowledge his sincere thanks.

FRANCIS P. WEISENBURGER.

(338)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.   Early Years....................................................                                              340

2.      Federalist  Editor  and  Legislator.................................                                                                            346

3. A Leader in the Struggle Against the U. S. Bank ................ 352

4.  Clay's  Political  M anager  in  1824 ................................ 364

5. An Administration Editor Under the Second Adams .............. 372

6. An Opposition Editor During the Jackson Period ................ 393

7. The Man: His Personality and Influence......................... 413

>^T  '  '.

CHARLES HAMMOND

THE FIRST GREAT JOURNALIST OF THE OLD NORTHWEST

I. EARLY YEARS

Late in September, 1779, John Paul Jones, in com-

mand of his flagship, the Bon Homme Richard, was

terrorizing the coast of Britain and bringing laurels to

himself by his capture of the British man-of-war, the

Serapis.¹ During the same month,² on the opposite side

of the Atlantic, in Baltimore County, Maryland, a son

was born to George and Elizabeth (Wells) Hammond.

News of an American victory, however, was not par-

ticularly gratifying to the parents of the babe, for the

father was a Loyalist, who, although he did not take

up arms for the Mother Country, refused assistance to

the Continental Congress.

George Hammond, at the time of the birth of the

son, who was named Charles, was a young man of thirty-

one years. "Tall and spare," with a carriage "erect and

imposing," he was a thoughtful reader and a good

talker. He was imbued with uncompromising preju-

dices, and his membership in the Episcopal church may

have confirmed him in his attachment to the country

where the king was the head of the Anglican faith.

1 C. H. Van Tyne, The American Revolution (The American Nation:

A History, IX), 317.

2 On the nineteenth.

(340)

A Life of Charles Hammond                341

In the days following the close of the American

struggle for independence, two of George's brothers

found that their connection with the unpopular side of

the conflict made it expedient for them to return to

England.³ George himself was a farmer of some means,

who in the uncertain economic conditions of the "criti-

cal period of American history," felt lured to the region

beyond the mountains. Accordingly, in 1785 the family

with its slaves moved to the vicinity of Wellsburg,

Brooke County, in western Virginia.⁴ The building of

a log cabin and the clearing of the backwoods farm

compelled the family's attention for a time, but at length

the father, who was well educated, sought to teach the

children to read and write. Charles, it appears, was an

unusually apt pupil, for when very young he could amuse

and edify the neighbors by repeating the first chapter

of Isaiah "with great ease.^"5 As he grew older he

worked steadily at the farm tasks, often feeling the pinch

of poverty, wearing a tow shirt and trousers in fairly

cold weather and sometimes lacking shoes at the coming

of the frost.⁶ Even then, however, in the evenings after

supper, there was the enjoyment of listening to grave

political discussions and literary recitations or in study-

ing under the direction of the father, who could recite

3 W. T. Coggeshall, "The Character and Influence of Charles Ham-

mond." Transactions of the Ohio Editorial Association, 1857 (Columbus,

1857), 73-74.

4 In the pan-handle district that became the most northerly part of

West Virginia.

5 Harry Hammond to W. D. Gallagher [McCullough's, Ohio], Sep-

tember 12, 1840. Unless otherwise specified, the MSS. used in the prepara-

tion of this article are in a private collection on deposit with the Ohio

Archaeological and Historical Society.

6 David Chambers to William D. Gallagher, Oak Grove [Ohio], July

18, 1840.

342       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

whole plays of Shakespeare and had committed to mem-

ory Edward Young's Night Thoughts. George Ham-

mond impressed his passions and prejudices upon all of

his sons and daughters, and especially upon Charles.⁷

The latter composed pointed but rude verses about the

neighbors of the family, receiving as a result several

sound whippings. He was thoroughly imbued with his

father's Federalist convictions, however, and these

spurred him to write poetry ridiculing Chief Justice

M'Kean of Pennsylvania, later the Republican governor

of the same state (1799-1808). Under the nom de

plume, "The Plough Boy," he contributed to the col-

umns of the Washington, Pennsylvania, Telegraph,

which at about the same time was carrying the poems

of David Bruce, the Federalist poet of Western Penn-

sylvania.⁸ In the spring of 1798 he set out to learn the

printing business in that establishment, but friction de-

veloped and he remained but two days.9

He thereafter attended a Latin school taught by

a Mr. Johnson at Wellsburg, and about 1799 commenced

the study of law under Philip Doddridge, a prominent

attorney of western Virginia, who instructed him in

political economy and the philosophy of history as well.

By April, 1801, he was off on a journey to "old Vir-

ginia" to secure a license to practice his profession.

Armed with his credentials, he undertook the building

7 W. T. Coggeshall, op. cit., 74.

8 See Harry R. Warfel, "David Bruce, Federalist Poet of Western

Pennsylvania," Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine (Pittsburgh,

1918-  ), VIII, 215-234.

9 It has sometimes been erroneously assumed that this occurred at Wash-

ington, D. C., as e. g., in R. C. McGrane, "Charles Hammond," Dictionary

of American Biography, VIII, 202-203. But, see A. Armstrong to W. D.

Gallagher, Wheeling, July 5, 1840.

A Life of Charles Hammond        343

of a practice, boarding at the time in the home of an

Oliver Brown and associating in the community with

Doddridge, Alexander Caldwell (later U. S. judge),

Calvin Pease (later judge of the Supreme Court of

Ohio) and others of more than average ability. Clients

came to him slowly, hence he had much leisure for read-

ing, and at times eked out a living by posting books and

settling accounts for merchants. The first (or at least

one of the first) of his cases was as an attorney for the

defendant in an action brought for slander in charging

a woman with being a witch. Doddridge and Caldwell

were counsel for the plaintiffs, but Hammond argued

so well that the damages granted were of such a meagre

amount that the case was carried to the Superior Court.

Hammond early showed himself to be a fearless and

able, though opinionated partisan.  He continued to

write satirical poetry until his Federalist politics and the

verses which proclaimed his views became so obnoxious

to some of his fellow-citizens that he was publicly show-

ered with a volley of eggs.10 His capabilities far ex-

ceeded his discretion, and his dislike of pretense did not

always add to his popularity. On one occasion, meeting

a young married man (who had trifled away a fortune),

dressed with a fine large ruffle protruding from his

bosom, Hammond took hold of the bit of finery and

plucked it contemptuously, observing, "My good fellow,

this does not suit your circumstances. You had better

rip it off."11

10 David Chambers to William D. Gallagher, Oak Grove, August 24,

1840.

11 Id. to id., Oak Grove, July 18, 1840.

344       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

All of Hammond's poems, however, were not of a

satirical nature. One entitled "Boyhood" may be given

in part:

"How oft, amid the sordid strife

Of worldly wisdom, have I turned

To memory's scenes of early life

And o'er my joyous boyhood mourned;

How oft have wished, 'mid care and pain,

To be that buoyant boy again!

To sleep beneath the slanting roof,

And hear the pattering rain-drops fall,

Or listen to the lively proof

Of vagrants round my airy hall;

Yet rise at morn with wonted glee

To wade the brook, or climb the tree."12

Hammond soon established a residence on the Ohio

side of the river and journeyed to Marietta to secure a

license to practice law in the Northwest Territory. In

November, 1801, he was appointed prosecuting attorney

for Belmont County by the territorial court and soon

thereafter by Governor St. Clair.¹³     The latter became

somewhat indebted to him during this period, for Ham-

mond, although unacquainted with the Federalist gover-

nor, braved the wrath of the Republican opposition by

contributing a series of articles to the Chillicothe Scioto

Gazette in his defense. The antagonism to St. Clair was

especially strong because of his disagreements with the

Legislature, and    Hammond's contributions were the

most spirited attempts in support of his cause.14

12 W. T. Coggeshall, The Poets and Poetry of the West (Columbus,

1860), 70. There are nine other stanzas.

13 Charles Hammond to Arthur St. Clair, Steubenville, Northwest Ter-

ritory, November 10, 1801; J. A. Caldwell, History of Belmont and Jeffer-

son Counties, (Wheeling, 1880), 229.

14 Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Early Settlement of the Northwestern

Territory, (Cincinnati, 1847), 380-381.

A Life of Charles Hammond              345

On October 23, 1803, the young lawyer was united

in marriage to Sarah (Sally) Tillinghast of Wellsburg.15

During this period he was employed in a legal case in-

volving the federal excise law, and his argument was so

able that it was published during the summer of 1804 in

the United States Gazette.    He expressed, however, at

that time Federalist views of the position of the United

States judiciary, which he was not at all "delighted at

finding" when he later supported the rights of the State

of Ohio before the federal courts.16

In 1804 he relinquished his position as prosecutor for

Belmont County, and established himself in Wheeling,

where he lived and worked for five years.¹⁷ During this

time he contributed miscellaneous essays to a Wheeling

paper, the Repository, the articles being designated "The

Junket, by Richard Rummager, Esq."¹8 In 1809 he re-

turned to Belmont County, where he attracted attention

as the author of "Letters to J. Sloane" on the judiciary,

which discussion was published and widely discussed in

relation to the struggle between the legislative and judi-

cial branches of the state government. Hammond's de-

cided views aroused intense animosity, and soon he was

being assailed, as in the Chillicothe Independent Repub-

lican as "a drivelling menial," "a young adventurer,"

15 She was a daughter of Nicholas P. Tillinghast, born in Newport,

Rhode Island, in 1742, and Sarah (Almy) Tillinghast. American Ancestry

(Albany, N. Y.), X (1895), 97.

¹⁶ C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont, May 6, 1821; W. H. Smith,

Charles Hammond and His Relations to Henry Clay and John Quincy Ad-

ams, (Pub. for Chicago Historical Soc., 1885), 14.

17 Harry Hammond to W. D. Gallagher [McCullough's, Ohio], Sep-

tember 12, 1840.

18 A. M. Bolton to W. D. Gallagher, Dayton, July 27, 1840. Bolton for

a time assisted with these contributions.

346       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and a "toothache politician."¹⁹ During the next year,

over the signature, "Calpurnius," he made vitriolic at-

tacks upon leading Republican politicians through the

columns of the Supporter, a Federalist paper at Chilli-

cothe. Before this fray was concluded, Lewis Cass, ex-

Governor Edward Tiffin and others had discharged

verbal weapons in the fight.²⁰

2. EXPERIENCE AS A FEDERALIST EDITOR

AND OHIO LEGISLATOR

Hammond's inherited qualities and his early environ-

ment forged a personality of marked individuality. His

announced intention of establishing a newspaper at St.

Clairsville in the spring of 1813 was a promise, there-

fore, of an avenue of expression, which at least would

never be dull. There were then eighteen papers pub-

lished in the youthful state, and one of them greeted this

new rival, the Ohio Federalist, with the following com-

ment:

"Modern federalism, like modern warfare, frequently mili-

tates against the most essential interests of the country. Mr.

Hammond, however, possesses talents of the first grade; and we

trust he will not misapply them."1

The spirited manner in which the editor meant to

conduct the new venture is shown in a part of the ad-

vance announcement:

"It is common for the author of a prospectus to give assur-

ances that all 'low scurrility' and all personalities shall be excluded

19 Letter of Charles Hammond, February 1, 1810, in Chillicothe Sup-

porter, February 24, 1810.

20 Chillicothe Supporter, June 8, 15, July 13, August 3, 1811; David

Chambers to William D. Gallagher, Oak Grove, July 18, 1840.

1 Franklinton (now part of Columbus) Freeman's Chronicle, March

19, 1813.

A Life of Charles Hammond               347

from his columns. I make no promise of the kind. There are

men of such vitiated taste, that they can perceive nothing but 'low

scurrility' in the eloquent and classic speeches of John Randolph

and Josiah Quincy.

"By such men the coarse and clumsy ribaldry of David R.

Williams and Richard M. Johnson is received as the most finished

specimens of chastened elegance. I shall be studious to hold no

language which would disgrace the lips of a gentleman; but in

exposing the mean and contemptible artifices of worthless men,

I shall assuredly apply to their conduct such epithets as it may

deserve.

"Instead of excluding all personalities from the Ohio Fed-

eralist, it is my determined purpose to drag into public view, and

expose in all its deformity the true character of every false and

hollow-hearted demagogue that attempts to delude the people.

The vocabulary of sophisticated jargon does not contain a more

impudent falsehood than the proposition that a knave in private

life may be safely trusted in public life. . . . The follies and vices

of men who take no share in politics are not objects of public

scrutiny. They shall be left to the vengeance of the law and the

contempt of their neighbors. The Ohio Federalist will never med-

dle with them."2

The motto of the paper was a quotation from Cow-

per, selected in the same spirit:

"In freedom's field advancing firm his foot,

He plants it on the line that Justice draws,

And will prevail, or perish in her cause."3

As editor he pursued a policy of uncompromising

hostility to those who had engaged the nation in the War

of 1812. In one of his early numbers he declared:

"I shall resist this Administration in a spirit of desperation,

as a man bereft of all hope and reckless of what may befall

him."4

2 MS. in Hammond's Handwriting, "Part of Prospectus to Ohio Fed-

eralist."

3 W. T. Coggeshall, The Poets and Poetry of the West (Columbus,

1860), 68.

4 W. T. Coggeshall in Transactions of the Ohio Editorial Convention--

1857, (Columbus, 1857), 75.

348      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

At the same time he indulged in merciless satires or

in such biting sarcasm as suited his fancy. Without

provocation, for example, he verbally pounced upon a

fellow editor, demanding of him "what wag" furnished

him with the scraps of Latin which he employed.⁵ The

paper lasted till 1817, when it was abandoned, since the

Federalist party had practically disappeared from the

State.

In the same year in which he undertook the publica-

tion of the Ohio Federalist, he presented himself to the

people of Belmont County as a candidate for the Ohio

Senate in an address which a contemporary considered

to be "among the most extraordinary of his produc-

tions."6 In it he gave candid expression to his political

creed and to his views of the Administration at Wash-

ington. He was elected and served the regular two-year

term (1813-1815). While in the Senate he was chair-

man of a joint committee of the Legislature to frame the

first criminal code of the State so as to permit the carry-

ing into effect of the new penitentiary system.  Peter

Hitchcock (later judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio)

from the Senate and Jacob Burnet (later United States

senator) from the House were among the other mem-

bers of the committee, but a large portion of the work

was done by Hammond.⁷

In the fabric of Hammond's personality there was an

exuberance of spirit which, interwoven with an intense

individualism, was apt to express itself in an almost

boyish mischievousness. During Hammond's first ses-

5 Zanesville Express and Republican Standard, May 26, 1813.

6 David Chambers to W. D. Gallagher, Oak Grove, July 18, 1840.

7 Zanesville Express and Republican Standard, December 21, 1814.

A Life of Charles Hammond          349

sion in the Legislature Samuel Dunlap of Jefferson

County introduced resolutions expressing approval of

the conduct of the government by the Administration

and pledging the support of Ohio in carrying on the war.

Hammond at once endeavored to ridicule the procedure

by composing a doggerel poem, which greatly irritated

the members of the Legislature, who required him to

make a retraction.⁹

Some Federalists were not well pleased with Ham-

mond's efforts.  One asserted that his efforts "in the

federal vineyard" had savoured "more of political zeal

than sound discretion, serving more to irritate and con-

firm in political error, than to convince and convert,"

and that his versification of the Dunlap Resolutions

manifested a lack of dignity.  Particular chagrin, how-

ever, was expressed that in the end he had crouched "to

men he despised,--making concessions which truth and

justice did not require," rather than lose his seat, before

making recantation, as a true Federalist would have

done.10

At the present day many may be surprised, on the

other hand, that Hammond was permitted to go to the

lengths that he did in criticizing the conduct of the War.

The pioneers of Ohio were, however, deeply jealous of

their individual freedom of expression and tolerated a

rather liberal variety of opinions.  The people of the

State, moreover, were probably not so keenly enthusiastic

about the War as has sometimes been supposed.  Sena-

tor Thomas Worthington voted against the declaration

8 Chillicothe Supporter, January 5, 1814.

9 David Chambers to W. D. Gallagher, Oak Grove, July 18, 1840.

10 Letter of "An Ohio Federalist," Zanesville Express and Republican

Standard, February 16, 1814.

350       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of hostilities, yet before the conflict had come to an end

was chosen governor.11 In 1813, in some places the re-

cruiting of one-year men was so slow that an Ohio paper

concluded that the patriotism of young men was at low

ebb.   "God only knows," lamented the editor, "how

soon we may be aroused from our present lethargy by

the terrible yells of savages, and the piercing cries of

women and children."12 Desertions were frequent in

spite of the execution of those who were captured,¹³ and

when peace finally came, the pastor of the most promi-

nent church in Franklinton petitioned the Governor to

set aside a day of Thanksgiving "for the return of

peace."14

Hammond's lack of respect for personalities more

than once got him into difficulties.  In the same session

in which he had poked fun at the Dunlap Resolutions, he

vented his sarcasm upon Duncan McArthur of Chilli-

cothe, a commander in the War of 1812, who later was to

be a congressman and governor of the State (1830-

1832). McArthur found revenge by striking Hammond

with a cane, but the latter proved the pen to be mightier

than the cane by wielding the final blows through the

columns of the Ohio Federalist.15

After his retirement from the State Senate, Ham-

mond continued to assist in drafting legislation, as for

11 Alfred B. Sears, Thomas Worthington. MS. dissertation, Ohio State

University Library.

12 Zanesville Express and Republican Standard, April 21, 1813.

13 Ibid., July 27, 1814.

14 Rev. James Hoge in behalf of the Presbyterian congregation at

Franklinton, to Gov. Thomas Worthington, February 25, 1815. MS. in

Ohio State Library.

15 W. T. Coggeshall in Transactions of the Ohio Editorial Association,

1857, 76.

A Life of Charles Hammond         351

example, the well-known law of February, 1816, which

required the state banks which might be incorporated

under its provisions to turn over a portion of their stock

to the State.16 In the fall of that year he was elected

to the Lower House and was re-elected in 1817, in 1818,

and again in 1820. James Wilson, a Steubenville pub-

lisher (and grandfather of Woodrow Wilson), who as

an editor had had such editorial controversies with Ham-

mond that the latter wrote of him as one possessing "no

character to be injured and no friends to be mortified at

his exposure" was a fellow-member for a part of Ham-

mond's term of service.¹⁸ Wilson later paid generous

tribute to the work of his colleague. . . . "Although

calling himself a Federalist I soon discovered that he

was a better Democrat than many of those who bawled

democracy the loudest.  As a legislator I never knew

a member more fair, honorable and upright.  He was

above any kind of trick or double-dealing. His tongue

or his pen were almost continuously at work, in aiding

inexperienced or incompetent members in preparing for

the action of the Assembly, the business with which they

were entrusted by their constituents--and I never knew

a man who had a superior faculty of calming and bring-

ing to reason a turbulent or excited public body. In this

particular I can compare him with no person so well as

Dr. Franklin.  His powerful intellect, deep research,

and the natural goodness of his heart, secured to him

great influence among his fellow-members--which was

checked in no other way but by his consenting to be

16 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont, January 19, 1816.

17 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, November 4, 1816.

18 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont, August 27, 1816.

352      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

called a Federalist whilst, in reality, his manners, opin-

ions, and principles, were strictly democratic."19

Much of the business before the Legislature during

this time, Hammond found to be of merely local interest

and importance. He discovered also that he was hardly

of the inner circle of leaders and, at the beginning of his

service in the House wrote rather wistfully:  "I find

myself a very unimportant member.    When the wise

ones have agreed upon a measure, they are quite willing

to give me the honor of licking the cub into shape.  I am

well respected as a committee clerk; beyond this, I stand

perhaps as high as Sam Williams."20 Hammond's name,

"for mere sport," had been mentioned for speaker, and

this caused the successful candidate to treat him with

studied indifference.²¹

3. A LEADER IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST

THE U. S. BANK

With the development of the controversy between

Ohio and the Bank of the United States, however, he be-

came a potent figure and the acknowledged leader of

the Legislature.  The long story of the rising jealousy

of local bankers toward the "Mammoth Institution" of

the East, which had established branches at Cincinnati

and Chillicothe, need not be rehearsed in detail.  In De-

cember, 1817, the Legislature adopted a resolution pro-

viding for a committee to report on the expediency of

taxing the branches of the United States Bank within

19 James Wilson to W. D. Gallagher, Steubenville, October 1, 1840.

20 An unimportant member from Richland County who served a single

term.

21 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus, December 27, 1816.

A Life of Charles Hammond         353

the State.  An unfavorable report was given, but the

House proceeded to give formal expression to the right

and expediency of taxing the institution.  Proposed

legislation for levying the tax, however, was deferred

for consideration until December, 1818.  In February,

1819, the tax was passed, fifty thousand dollars to be

assessed against each branch within Ohio. The auditor

of the State was required to demand this sum from the

banks and to empower an agent to collect the tax.  In

performing this commission the latter might go into

"every closet, box or drawer in such banking-house to

open and search."

A few weeks after the passage of this "Crowbar

Law," as it was called, the United States Supreme Court

rendered its judgment in a parallel case, McCulloch vs.

Maryland.   The decision asserted the constitutionality

of the Bank and denied the right of a state to tax the

branches within its borders. Hammond at once asserted

that he had never "seen or heard an argument advanced

in support of the principle of the decision" that seemed

"worthy of refutation" and expressed the hope that if

the reasoning of the court should fail to give general

satisfaction, Ohio would "feel enough of the spirit of

independence to afford the Judges an opportunity of re-

viewing their opinions.  It is time enough to succumb,

when the western states have been heard, and when their

rights have been decided upon in a case where they are

themselves parties."1

In September, 1819, the United States Bank secured

a subpoena in chancery, restraining Ralph Osborn, the

1 Letter of C. Hammond, Belmont, March 19, 1819, in Belmont Journal,

reprinted in Chillicothe Supporter, May 31, 1819.

Vol. XLIII--23

354      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

auditor of Ohio, from collecting the tax.  The papers

served upon him, however, were not such as to consti-

tute, in his opinion, a formal injunction, and he called

upon John L. Harper to collect the tax. The latter ac-

cordingly entered the vault of the Bank and carried

away $100,000 to the Bank of Chillicothe. The Circuit

Court, thereupon, issued another writ, restraining Os-

born and Harper from paying over the money to the

State or making a report of its collection to the Legis-

lature. The legal process, which was served upon Har-

per while en route to Columbus with the money, was dis-

regarded by him, as he turned over the specie and bank

notes, which he had obtained, to the State treasurer.

Harper and Thomas Orr, his assistant, were then

arrested for trespass in removing the money.    Judge

Byrd of the Circuit Court required bail to the amount

of $240,000, hence the men were advised by friends to

go to prison. Hammond, however, wrote to them urg-

ing them to secure bail.  His reactions to the case were

expressed in a letter to his friend, John C. Wright:

". . . I suppose the folks will begin to see that there is no

rebellion in the case, and that the Mammoth must seek legal re-

dress like other folks. The imprisonment of Harper and Orr is

very well--it will be considered when the jury are assessing dam-

ages. You comprehend these matters."2

Hammond thought that Harper and Orr did not give

bail partly because they wished "to be looked upon as

persecuted patriots." The prisoners were removed to

Lancaster, supposedly for safe-keeping,³ but were re-

leased by the Circuit Court at Chillicothe in January,

1820, due to illegalities in the manner of their arrest.

2 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont, October 27, 1819.

3 Id. to id., Belmont, December 3, 1819.

A Life of Charles Hammond                 355

Hammond was busy during this time in developing

sentiment in favor of the State's position.        In the fall

of 1820, in regard to the opinion of the Federal Circuit

Court delivered at Columbus on September 9,4 which had

declared Osborn guilty of contempt, he formulated a

communication which occupied four columns in the Na-

tional Intelligencer.5    One prominent Ohio paper com-

mented:

"We always considered the reasoning of the court in this case

as very weak, and we are now fully confirmed in that opinion by

the able argument of Mr. Hammond, who has refuted the whole

of it in a manner that must be satisfactory to every reader."

The issue then was whether the Legislature would

"permit their auditor to suffer imprisonment for a faith-

ful discharge of his official duties."6

When the Legislature met in December, 1820, Os-

born's report of the proceedings that had been made

against him, was sent to a special committee, of which

Hammond was a member.⁷ There was not a unanimity

of opinion among them, but at length Hammond pro-

duced a report,⁸ which McMaster considers as extending

some remarkable advice."9

The committee declared that "the people" constitute

4 National Intelligencer, October 7, 1820.

5 October 11, 1820.

6 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, October 28, 1820.

7 The other members were Senators William H. Harrison, John

Thompson, Robert Lucas; Representatives Harper, Hubbard, and Johnson.

8 Harrison and Thompson especially had views of their own. C. Ham-

mond to J. C. Wright, Columbus, December 12, 1820.

9 J. B. McMaster, History of the People Of the United States, IV,

500. The reaction of the press in Ohio may be sensed from the comment

of a leading editor: The report "is well written. It takes a bold stand

and maintains it with considerable ability." Liberty Hall and Cincinnati

Gazette, February 10, 1821.

356      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the final arbiter as to whether the Federal courts are the

sole expositors of the Constitution or share that power

with the states themselves, and that in the political con-

test of 1800 the popular voice had endorsed the state

rights doctrines of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolu-

tions.  Hence, "so long as one single constitutional ef-

fort can be made to save them, she [Ohio] ought not to

surrender her rights to the encroaching pretensions of

the Circuit Court."¹⁰ The cases of Marbury vs. Madi-

son, and Fletcher vs. Peck were cited as instances where

the opinion of the Supreme Court had not been carried

out, and the committee therefore advised the State to

defy the decision of the Court and see whether the judi-

cial department would be sustained by the executive and

legislative branches.  To make the test, it was recom-

mended that state legislation should be passed, proclaim-

ing the Bank of the United States and its branches to be

outlawed within the State, with a denial to it of protec-

tion by the police and judicial authorities. The commit-

tee further recommended the adoption by the Legisla-

ture of resolutions endorsing the principles asserted by

Kentucky and Virginia in 1798 and denying the right

of the Supreme Court to act in cases between individuals

where no state was a direct party.11

Hammond's influence as the leader of his colleagues

at this time was later analyzed by Elisha Whittlesey, one

of the members. The latter, who was to serve for many

years as a congressman and later as comptroller of the

treasury, asserted that Hammond "was industrious, and

no proposition was presented that was not critically

10 McMaster, op. cit., IV, 501.

11 The report is in Ohio House Journal (1821), 99-132.

A Life of Charles Hammond               357

examined by him. His influence with the members was

very considerable and it was dependent on his integrity

and intelligence solely, as there existed no party organi-

zation at that time in the Legislature."12     The resolu-

tions advocated by Hammond's committee were adopted,

and on January 29, 1821, the law was passed withdraw-

ing from the Bank of the United States the protection of

Ohio's laws.¹³

A reaction to Hammond's work as a legislator and

lawyer, differing somewhat from that of Whittlesey, was

expressed by Francis P. Blair, the well-known Ken-

tuckian, who was then an observer of developments at

Columbus:

"He [Clay] is a good deal chagrined at the measures taken

here against the Bank of the U. S. I will endeavor to forward

to you a report of both houses of the Legislature which will fur-

nish a clue to their purposes. It is written by Chas. Hammond,

a leading man here. He possesses a great genius but not a great

mind. He wants honesty, and dignity and has too much cunning.

The attachment case vs. the Treasurer here was continued. The

trespass case vs. the same came on to be tried and excited great

anxiety and curiosity among the people here. The lawyers from

every part of Ohio came to hear Clay speak, but the judges dif-

fered about the admission of certain evidence to the jury."14

Thomas Ewing, later United States senator (1831-

1837), secretary of the treasury under Harrison and

first secretary of the interior (under Taylor), was at the

time a young lawyer who was thrilled at the excitement

12 To W. D. Gallagher, Canfield, Ohio, July 23, 1840.

13 Laws of Ohio XIX (1821), 108; Revised Statutes of Ohio (Chase),

1185. Hammond's report was called, in 1853, "the ablest state paper prob-

ably to be found in our legislative records." Quoted by C. C. Huntington,

"A History of Banking and Currency in Ohio Before the Civil War," in

Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Publications, XXIV, 322.

14 F. P. Blair to J. J. Crittenden, Columbus, Ohio, January 6, 1821.

Crittenden MSS., Library of Congress.

358      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of the clash of intellects between Hammond, the legal

champion of Osborn, and Clay, the representative of the

Bank. The action of trespass for breaking "the close"

of the institution and carrying off its property was the

basis of the argument. The Bank claimed title as lessee,

but Hammond contended that since it was an artificial

person and could act only as authorized by its charter, it

was not authorized to take or hold title in this way. At

this point, according to Ewing, "Mr. Clay felt that he

was floored--he took snuff with both hands for a while

and asked leave to withdraw a juror and amend. Mr.

Hammond said that he did not desire postponement. Mr.

Clay might amend instanter and proceed with the cause.

We were all proud of the victory of our Ohio Hero and

the magnanimity with which it was waived and Mr.

Hammond was thereafter our great Apollo at the

Bar."15

The principal points in the Bank case were passed

upon by the Federal Circuit Court at its September term,

1821. At that time a decree was issued for the return

to the Bank of one hundred thousand dollars with inter-

est on nineteen thousand eight hundred and thirty dol-

lars, the amount of specie collected.  This order was

not complied with, hence an attachment was awarded

against the Treasurer (who in the September 1820

term of the Court had been made a party to the suit).

This officer was placed in confinement by the U. S. mar-

shal, and ninety-eight thousand dollars was taken from

the Treasury and delivered by the Court to the Bank.

An appeal was arranged to the United States Supreme

15 T. Ewing to Wm. Henry Smith, Washington, November 13, 1867.

A Life of Charles Hammond              359

Court, and the Treasurer was then released from cus-

tody.16

In the meantime Hammond journeyed to Washing-

ton, whence he wrote that he was given "credit for great

ingenuity for presenting a new case, a new view and

all that," but that Ohio was believed to be in the wrong.17

Two years later Hammond made plans to meet John C.

Wright at Washington, Pennsylvania, to proceed with

him by stage or horseback to the national capital to argue

the case, which was then coming before the Supreme

Court for consideration.    Hammond, in the course of

his arguments, which were presented in March, 1823,

made a decided impression upon Marshall, for during

the next year the latter made inquiries concerning the

Ohio lawyer on a trip down the Potomac with William

Greene of Cincinnati.¹⁸ The Chief Justice spoke of Ham-

mond's remarkable acuteness and accuracy of mind, and

referred with emphatic admiration to his argument be-

fore the Supreme Court in the Bank case.         He said

that he had met "no judicial record of equal intellectual

power since Lord Hardwicke's time."¹9

After the case had been heard, the Supreme Court

expressed a wish to have it reargued in connection with

a Georgia case, in which some similar constitutional

16 9 Wheaton, 740-744; Huntington, in Ohio Archaeological and His-

torical Society Publications, XXIV, 320.

17 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Washington, February 26, 1821.

18 Greene came to Cincinnati from Rhode Island. A graduate of Brown

University, he became president of the Cincinnati school board and dean

of the Law College. Later he returned to Rhode Island and became

lieutenant-governor of the state.--Grete, Centennial History of Cincinnati,

(Chicago, 1904), 1, 629.

19 W. H. Smith, Charles Hammond, 28.

360       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

questions were raised.²⁰ When the second argument

was heard, Hammond was not personally present. Ham-

mond's beloved wife, whose tubercular affliction, as early

as 1819, had required "bleeding, blistering and cathar-

tics" to secure relief,²¹ at the beginning of 1824 was in

such precarious health that he could think "little of any-

thing else."22 His arguments, however, had been sent

to Marshall,²³ the other judges and counsel, and to Mr.

Webster, one of the attorneys for the Bank.²⁴

In the decision of the Court, rendered March 19,

1824, four essential questions were decided: "the right

of the Bank to maintain suit against the officials of a

State; the right of the Bank to sue in Federal Circuit

Courts; the power of Congress to charter the Bank; and

the power of the State of Ohio to tax the Bank."25. The

last two questions were, as was generally expected, de-

cided in favor of the Bank, an affirmation of the McCul-

loch vs. Maryland decision of 1819.    The other rulings,

however, marked new departures in constitutional law.

Hammond had argued that Osborn acted in an official

capacity, hence the State of Ohio was really a party to

the suit.  He had maintained, moreover, that since the

State was involved, the case was one of original jurisdic-

tion in which the Federal Supreme Court alone had au-

thority to act; and that the Circuit Court had therefore

20 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in U. S. History (3 vols., Bos-

ton, 1922), II, 90. The other case was that of Bank of United States vs.

Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 9 Wheaton 904.

21 Hammond to Wright, Belmont, October 27, 1819.

22 Id. to id., Cincinnati, March 19, 1824.

23 John Marshall to C. Hammond, Richmond, December 28, 1823, in

W. H. Smith, Charles Hammond, 18-20.

24   C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus, December 11, 1823.

25   Warren, The Supreme Court in U. S. History, II, 88, 91.

A Life of Charles Hammond             361

erred in passing judgment on the matter.      Marshall's

opinion, however, denied the validity of these arguments

and held that a state officer who had observed an uncon-

stitutional statute might be sued in spite of his official

station; that the contention that the suit against Osborn

was a case in which a state was a party, and therefore

was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, was untenable;

and that the decree of the Circuit Court as to the return

of the tax money taken from the Bank must be affirmed,

except as to the payment of interest on the specie col-

lected.²⁶

Hammond had believed that the re-argument of the

case was, in itself, a bad sign for the cause of Ohio,

though he considered that Clay, as the Bank's attorney,

could not have been very confident of his positions or "he

would have thought extraneous declamations" against

the conduct of Ohio unnecessary.²⁷    When the decision

of the Court was definitely announced, Hammond con-

fessed that he was "disappointed much worse" than he

had expected to be and that he was more than ever con-

firmed in the opinion "that it is a great folly for a man

to confide in the force of argument." The extension of

jurisdiction which was settled by the decision, he consid-

ered to be "the most untenable and the most danger-

ous.^"28 The case, if we may believe Chief Justice Mar-

26 9 Wheaton, 871. The case is imperfectly reported by Wheaton. See

D. H. Chamberlain, "Osborn vs. The Bank of the U. S.," Harvard Law

Review, I (1887), 223-225. For the significance of the case, see also Ibid.,

XXXI (1917-1918), 1036-1037.

27 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, February 23, 1824; id. to

id., March 5, 1824.

28 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, March 26, 1824.

362       Ohio Arch. and, Hist. Society Publications

shall, had indeed been "argued with equal zest and talent

and decided on great deliberation."²⁹

Hammond during this period had a lively interest in

constitutional questions. He was in Washington at the

time of the arguments in the famous case of Cohens vs.

Virginia before the United States Supreme Court. The

suit was on appeal from a Virginia court and involved

the important consideration as to whether the high fed-

eral court had jurisdiction in reviewing the decisions of

state courts in cases in which a state was a party. Wil-

liam Pinkney of Maryland, one of the attorneys for

Cohens, presented an argument which one authority has

deemed "masterly,"³⁰ but which Hammond considered to

be "scum, slang, ostentation." The Ohio lawyer was

clearly prejudiced in favor of the state rights position

and viewed the reply of Philip P. Barbour, an attorney

for Virginia, as "close, logical," even "unanswerable."³1

Hammond was so much concerned with the implications

of the case that he wrote a series of articles, discussing

its aspects, for the Washington Gazette.³² Under the

name of "Hampden," a pseudonym employed earlier by

Judge Spencer Roane of Virginia in discussing the

McCulloch vs. Maryland case,³³ Hammond wrote eight

numbers, which were reprinted in other papers and

aroused national attention.³⁴ Oddly enough, Charles

29 Ex parte Madrazo (1833), 7 Peters 627, quoted by Warren, op. cit.,

II, 90.

30 Charles Warren, op. cit., II, 9.

31 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Washington, February 26, 1821.

32 Id. to id., St. Clairsville, July 1, 1821; id. to id., September 30, 1821.

33. H. Ambler, Thomas Ritchie (Richmond, Va., 1913), 80.

34 They were reprinted in pamphlet form as Review of the Opinion of

the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cohens vs. Virginia

originally published in the Washington (city) Gazette (Steubenville, Ohio,

1821).

A Life of Charles Hammond          363

Warren in his The Supreme Court in United States

History has attributed this series also to Judge Roane.³⁵

In 1821 Hammond had refused to run again for the

Legislature because, he declared, he had found the meas-

ures passed "so puerile and inefficacious" and the

finances "so completely deranged" that he was ashamed

of the record.³⁶ The next year he ran for Congress in

the St. Clairsville district, but his Federalist professions

proved too heavy a weight for him to carry, and he was

beaten by John Patterson, after a fairly close contest.37

Wright and Hammond continued to be intimately

associated in the conduct of legal business. Hammond

would not have been averse, however, to the acceptance

of a public office, such as that of district attorney, but

he wished to solicit the place neither personally nor

through friends. He might have been elected to the

State Supreme Court, it seems, but he had "very little

stomach" for the office because he felt that political con-

ditions were against him. He, moreover, asserted that

he hated to have his name "hawked about in a doubtful

contest" and was conscious of a fundamental impulsive-

ness in his nature related to a desire to enjoy himself in

"free and easy" fashion, characteristics which he

thought might discredit a station that required dignity

and restraint.38

Hammond's agricultural interests in the vicinity of

St. Clairsville had not turned out so favorably as he had

expected, his political opportunities also seemed less

35 Vol. II, 15, 16, and note.

36 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, St. Clairsville, July 1, 1821.

37 Id. to id., October 10, 1822.

38 David Chambers to William D. Gallagher, Oak Grove, August 24,

1840.

364        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

promising, hence about the first of January, 1823, he

removed to Cincinnati. There he undertook the practice

of law, participating in cases before the state and fed-

eral courts, and serving at the same time as editorial

writer for the Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette.³⁹

4. CLAY'S POLITICAL MANAGER IN 1824

In the presidential campaign of 1824, in which the

names of Clinton and Calhoun were for a time sug-

gested and in which Adams, Clay, Crawford, and Jack-

son became active candidates, Hammond played a lead-

ing role in advocating the claims of Henry Clay. In

December, 1822, when an attempt was made to bring the

Kentuckian before the voters by means of a nomination

by the Ohio Legislature, Hammond composed a pam-

phlet in his favor. Opposition, however, asserted itself,

and Hammond wrote regretfully: "Clay I suppose is

blown up. The Legislature or rather the members re-

fused to proceed to a nomination. My poor pamphlet

is quite out of season, unless it should have an effect

which cannot be expected, of getting up a second cau-

cus."¹ A few weeks later, however, on January 3, 1823,

Clay's name was endorsed by a majority of those pres-

ent at a legislative caucus in Columbus.² Hammond's

39 Duff Green, in an open letter to "Charles Hammond, Esq.," asserted

that Clay, following his resignation as speaker of the national House had

met Hammond at Chillicothe and converted the latter's "enmity to him

and to the Bank into a subserviency to the one and a blind devotion to the

other," and that Hammond's talents had then been "transferred from St.

Clairsville to Cincinnati and at one time were on the verge of being trans-

ferred to Washington City."--Cincinnati National Republican, September

19, 1825.

1 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont, December 20, 1822.

2 Elijah Hayward to E. A. Brown, Cincinnati, January 12, 1823. MS.

in Ohio State Library; Cincinnati National Republican, January 14, 1823.

A Life of Charles Hammond          365

views at the end of the same year were expressed in a

letter to his faithful correspondent, J. C. Wright: "In

respect to the presidential election there is much ma-

neuvering and some shuffling.  Clinton is still spoken

of as a candidate, and many are, or affect to be, un-

willing to commit themselves to any other candidate

because they prefer him. The Steubenville nomination

[Clinton for president and Jackson for vice president]

reached here this evening and has made some impression.

To me it appears like a very singularly inconsistent

movement that those who could not support Clay be-

cause of his being friendly to slavery, and the resident

of a slave state should nominate Jackson. I do not see

how your quakers . . . can swallow war and slavery both

in Jackson, and at the same time nauseate so at slavery in

Clay."3

Unlike many Ohioans who felt that Senator Benja-

min Ruggles of St. Clairsville had materially injured his

political standing by presiding over what proved to be

the last congressional caucus (which endorsed Craw-

ford),⁴ Hammond doubted that the Senator had im-

paired his influence. The lawyer-journalist expressed

the belief that government, as it existed in the days of

Jefferson and Madison was better than that which was

likely to be introduced by those who had just discovered

a caucus was "anti-republican."⁵

The rising enthusiasm for Jackson was the chief

development of the campaign in Ohio during the early

months of 1824. Hammond at first did not think that

3 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus, December 11, 1823.

4 Columbus Gazette, February 26, 1824; Chillicothe Friend of Freedom,

March 1, 1824; Cincinnati National Republican, February 27, 1824.

5 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, February 23, 1824.

366      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

his nomination in Pennsylvania would affect the situa-

tion in Ohio, but if it did, it would serve only to silence

those who declaimed against Clay's slave-holding affilia-

tions.⁶ A few weeks later, although he found that the

Clay electoral ticket was coldly received and that the

military officers were "all taken by the military mania"

and ranted for Jackson, he felt that the Kentuckian was

gaining strength in the Miami country.⁷ Hammond,

although moderate in his published utterances in regard

to Jackson, in his private correspondence abandoned re-

straint in venting his dislike of the military candidate.

"How is it," he wrote to Henry Clay, "that no one speaks

freely of this man? Instead of being a frank, open,

fearless, honest man, is he not the victim  of strong

prejudices, violent when irresponsible, cautious when

differently situated, vain and hasty, a fit instrument for

others to work upon, subject to be governed by flatterers,

and still inclined to hate every man of talents who has

the firmness to look through him and speak of him as he

deserves? I think he is strongly endowed with those

traits of character, and that if classed as a mere animal,

he would be a kind of monkey tiger. I do not know but

that it would be well for such a monster to be placed in

the presidential chair for the next term; King Snake

succeeding King Log, and the citizen frogs made to

scamper. I am almost sure that if I had been this winter

at Washington, I should have contrived to quarrel with

him. I dislike him for cause, I hate him peremptorily,

and I could wish that his supporters for the presidency,

one and all, were snugly by themselves in some island of

6 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, March 5, 1824; id. to id.,

March 19, 1824.

7 Id. to id., Cincinnati, April 16, 1824.

A Life of Charles Hammond             367

Barrataria, and he be their king, provided that they

constituted the entire population. They would make a

glorious terrestrial pandemonium, and as fast as they

could cut each other's throats would be rid of very

troublesome politicians, and in general, right worthless

citizens.^"8

Although J. C. Wright, congressman from the Steu-

benville district and a close personal and professional

friend of Hammond, himself believed Jackson to be a

mere military chieftain, who had frequently been "too

violent" to be restrained by law,⁹ he warned Hammond

against being "too rash as to old Hickory."¹⁰ The Cin-

cinnatian, however, would not retract a single word. He

did find some consolation in the General's nomination

because of a belief that Jackson's vote for the tariff of

1824, dear to the hearts of Ohioans, was due solely to

his desire for northern votes for the presidency.11 Yet

he felt that Jackson's failure to express clear-cut con-

victions on the tariff issue showed him to be "a poor

time-serving popularity-hunting scamp," who as presi-

dent would be "as poor a tool as Monroe, governed

wholly by military Jockies of every sort."12

As the months went by, the enthusiasm for Jackson

increased until in Cincinnati he became "all the rage,"

making inroads, as Hammond felt, almost entirely upon

the strength of the other western candidate, Clay.13

⁸ W. H. Smith, Charles Hammond, 35.

9 John C. Wright to E. Cutler, Washington, February 23, 1824, in

Julia Perkins Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, (Cincinnati,

1890), 185.

10 J. C. Wright to C. Hammond, House of Reps., April 21, 1824.

11 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, May 3, 1824.

12 Id. to id., Cincinnati, May 7, 1824.

13 Id. to id., Cincinnati, June 7, 1824.

368      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Hammond supported Clay at every turn--arranging the

candidacy of Nathan Sandford as his running-mate in

Ohio--making preparations for a respectable number at

the Clay meeting in Cincinnati--composing a pamphlet

comprising extracts from his speeches--dispatching cir-

culars to be distributed in eastern Ohio, and writing

articles for the newspapers. Yet, by August he pri-

vately admitted a lack of reasonable hope:

"I confess I think his chance rather desperate. Were I a

principal among his advocates--one of his keepers in the proper

sense of the term--I should say withdraw. . . . As it is, should

I say so above my breath, it would be Crawfordism."14

The last-mentioned charge was a most sensitive dart

when directed against the Clay supporters, and publicly

Hammond did all in his power to repel it. Crawford

was definitely unpopular in Ohio and supposedly held

views contrary to the interests of the State.¹⁵ His

strength was largely in the South and East, while that

of Clay was in the West. In the nation as a whole,

however, Clay's chances of success were weaker than

those of Crawford, so the enemies of the former charged

that his strength would ultimately be diverted to the

latter. When the Clay electoral ticket in Ohio had first

been presented, the Cincinnati National Republican had

declared that the list bore the marks of a Crawford

slate, and that Ohio must be on guard against the selling

out of the State by a withdrawal of Clay.¹⁶ Hammond

had at once issued a reply, asserting that the Clay ticket

was thoroughly committed to the Kentuckian and that

14 Id. to id., Cincinnati, August 30, 1824.

15 Chillicothe Supporter and Scioto Gazette, July 8, 1824; Miami Re-

publican quoted in Chillicothe Times, September 8, 1824.

16 Cincinnati National Republican, March 30, 1824.

A Life of Charles Hammond          369

so far as was known, Adams was the next choice of the

electors. Hammond, candid as usual, admitted his own

second preference for Crawford, and the charge was

persistently continued.17 One Jackson editor, Moses

Dawson, the Irish-born editor of the Cincinnati Adver-

tiser, urged a union of the Jackson and Clay forces as

a means of securing a western president. Hammond

saw fit to reply, expressing a belief that Clay's with-

drawal would give Ohio, as well as several other states,

to Adams rather than Jackson, since Clay's followers

honestly believed that the Tennessean did not possess the

qualifications necessary for a president. Hence, if the

election should go to the House, the chances of Clay

would clearly be superior to those of Jackson.18 The

Crawford men hoped that they might achieve such a

coalition as the enemies of Clay had charged was con-

templated. Accordingly, late in the campaign, Ham-

mond was urged by Senator Benjamin Ruggles to assist

in uniting the Clay and Crawford forces.¹⁹ The Ken-

tuckian supposedly would receive the vice presidency.

Hammond refused to be associated with the proposal,

and was commended for his decision by Clay, who had

no desire to enter into such an arrangement.²⁰

A rising enthusiasm for Jackson became increas-

ingly apparent as the election drew near. This, Ham-

mond noted, commanded particular attention on the days

of militia training, when "The Jackson fever rose al-

most to blood heat."  The ill-feeling created by Clay's

17 Cincinnati National Republican, April 2, 1824, August 13, 1824.

18 Cincinnati Advertiser, September 11, 1824.

19 H. Clay to C. Hammond, Frankfort, October 25, 1824, cited in C.

Hammond to Gales and Seaton, Cincinnati, April 25, 1825.

20 National Intelligencer, September 14, 1824.

Vol. XLIII--24

370      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

connection with the United States Bank was a distinct

advantage to Jackson in the vicinity of Cincinnati, where

many felt that they had suffered severely as a result of

the policies of the branch in that city. Hence, even

Hammond was willing to admit, before the election, that

the group of counties in that vicinity would go for the

Warrior of New Orleans. The claims asserted by Elijah

Hayward, Jacksonian editor of the Cincinnati National

Republican, however, stirred Hammond to anger. The

former, in a letter to the secretary of the Jackson com-

mittee in Virginia announced that the abuse of Jackson

by the followers of Clay had produced a reaction against

Clay and that it was seriously believed in Cincinnati

that Clay would be withdrawn. Hammond and seven

other prominent citizens of Cincinnati thereupon issued

"a flat contradiction of his statement," and Hammond

then proceeded to denounce the personal ambitions of

Hayward.²¹

The voters of Ohio, as the campaign came to an end,

gave 19,255 votes to Clay to 18,489 for Jackson and

12,280 for Adams.²² In the country as a whole the elec-

toral vote was ninety-nine for Jackson to eighty-four for

Adams, forty-one for Crawford, and thirty-seven for

Clay. Since the federal constitution provides that when

no candidate receives a majority in the electoral college,

the House of Representatives shall choose from among

those having the three highest numbers of votes, Clay

was automatically eliminated. With Crawford in im-

paired health, Adams or Jackson then loomed as the

next president.

21 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, September 28, 1824; October

5, 1824. C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, October 1, 1824.

22 Delaware Patron, November 18, 1824.

A Life of Charles Hammond          371

The congressional delegation from Ohio then faced

the problem of choosing between a Northern and a

Western president, with some considerations pulling

them in either direction and with no way of determining

how the people might have voted in a direct choice be-

tween Adams and Jackson. As to sentiment in the State,

Hammond expressed himself that if the vote were taken

in January to choose between the two, the former would

succeed, for he scarcely knew a single supporter of Clay

who did not prefer Adams to Jackson. In the meantime

speculation was rife in Ohio as to what course the state

delegation would take, and although Hammond chafed

somewhat under the taciturnity of his Washington cor-

respondents, he expressed his approval of their attitude:

"I cannot but admire the dignified reserve of our members

of Congress in this present 'eventful crisis.' Like circumspect

jurymen let out to eat and sleep they forbear all conversation

upon the subject under trial before them."23

When ten of the fourteen representatives of the State

voted for Adams, thus giving the vote of Ohio for that

candidate, Hammond, of course, expressed his entire

approval of that procedure.²⁴ A similar decision was

reached in the delegations from other states, whose

popular vote had been given for Clay, and it became

apparent that Adams would be the next President.

Almost at once, however, the charge was produced

that the result had been accomplished by means of a

"corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay, by which

the latter was to receive the portfolio of secretary of

state. When Clay first read this assertion in the Colum-

23 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus, January 10, 1825.

24 Id. to id., Cincinnati, February 2, 1825.

372      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

bian Observer of January 28, he dispatched a card to the

National Intelligencer, challenging the author to settle

the affair of honor. The development that the person

involved was George Kremer, an undistinguished and

eccentric congressman from Pennsylvania, however,

turned the episode from one of dramatic to one of farci-

cal possibilities.²⁵ Under these circumstances Hammond

was not pleased at Clay's lack of restraint:

"I am concerned at Clay's card. He is out of temper. He

calls hard names. He lets himself down to the level of Printers'

Devils, which things ought not to be. But we are not all wise at

all times. There are some poor devils in the Pennsylvania dele-

gation who are beneath his level. . . . I regret the publication and

have no more to say."26

5. AN ADMINISTRATION EDITOR UNDER THE

SECOND ADAMS

Hammond at this time was serving as official re-

porter for the Ohio State Supreme Court, a position

which he occupied from 1823 till his retirement from the

bar in 1838.1 His law practice was continued, though

at times he grew restive because "their honors of the

Supreme Court" were not lawyers of similar "habits of

thinking or reasoning" to his own, hence whenever he

argued a case at Washington or Columbus, "when there

was a difference of opinion," he was always beaten.² He

was not interested particularly in his own pecuniary

advantage, and in 1825, as an outlet for his strong po-

litical convictions he succeeded Benjamin F. Powers as

editor of the semi-weekly Cincinnati Gazette, apparently

25 National Intelligencer, February 3, 1825.

26 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, February 10, 1825.

1 William T. Coggeshall, The Poets and Poetry of the West, 68.

2 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, March 16, 1835.

A Life of Charles Hammond           373

receiving no compensation for his services.³ Although

he had determined to bid adieu to political writing fol-

lowing the presidential election of 1824, the unusual de-

velopments of that election and the urgings of his friend

J. C. Wright that he could do more than anyone else "to

keep public sentiment correct" had caused him to aban-

don that intention. He considered the inaugural ad-

dress of Adams "not a very elegant piece of composi-

tion," but "a good practical paper" and was pleased by

the apparent complete harmony of the new President

and his secretary of state.⁴ Soon he was "again plunged

in up to the ears" and was pointing with pride to the

wide circulation given to his writings. His review of

Jackson's letter to Samuel Swartwout,⁵ in which he de-

clared that Jackson had offered his congratulations to

Adams, hence the letter was that of a "consummate

hypocrite" or of one careless of his veracity, had been

written "in haste and never revised." Yet it received

such wide attention that copies of it returned "by every

mail from every direction," and it elicited from Clay a

letter of special thanks.⁶

After the new Adams administration had been well

launched on its career, political excitement died down to

some extent in Ohio for the greater part of two years.

Hammond continued to devote considerable time to his

law business. Early in 1826 he went to Washington in

the interest of the cases of Perkins vs. Hart and Hinde's

3 W. T. Coggeshall, op. cit., 69.

4 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, March 16, 1825.

⁵ Andrew Jackson to Samuel Swartwout, Washington, February 23,

1825, in Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, March 22, 1825.

6 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, April 2, 1825; id. to id.,

April 20, 1825.

374      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Lessee vs. Longworth then before the court. Elisha

Whittlesey, a congressman from Ohio, argued for Per-

kins, and Hammond and Daniel Webster for the plain-

tiff in the former case. In the latter case Thomas Scott

of Chillicothe, a former judge of the Ohio Supreme

Court, argued for the lessee of Hinde, while Daniel

Webster, John Sargeant, and Hammond were the attor-

neys for Longworth.⁷ At that time there was much

discussion of a new judiciary bill then before Congress,

which would give better judicial facilities to the West

and increase the membership of the Supreme Court.

Hammond apparently felt that his services to Clay in

the preceding campaign gave him some claim to a fed-

eral judgeship and that he should receive consideration,

along with Thomas Scott, Jacob Burnet of Cincinnati,

and John McLean, United States postmaster-general

(from Lebanon, Ohio), who had rival pretensions.

Hammond was particularly bitter against the claims of

McLean, for he felt that the latter's appointment would

be not as a reward for faithful service to the Adminis-

tration but as a cowardly means of "conciliating open

or covert hostility," an attempt "at bribing him from

opposition" in the position which he then occupied.⁸

McLean's steady, industrious habits of attention to

business and his suave, tactful, even hypocritical man-

ners in promoting his political advancement were strik-

ingly in contrast to the impulsive, erratically brilliant

efforts of Hammond, who, individualistic to his very

marrow, scorned flattery as an instrument of effeminate

weaklings and spared none who brooked his dislike from

7 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, March 3, 1826; C. Hammond

to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, January 28, 1826.

8 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, March 27, 1826.

A Life of Charles Hammond         375

the lashes of his biting sarcasm. Hammond could say

with truth that the two were "antipodes," though his

own motives were probably not so self-effacing as when

he declared: "I am a politician labouring to promote

what I deem a common good, having no eye to myself;

never for one instant permitting a claim of my own to

interfere with the common cause." At any rate, he was

rather bitterly disappointed that his claims were not

given more consideration in Washington, and the

thought of practicing in a federal court, presided over

by McLean, maddened him to the point of declaring that

he "would rather saw wood or drive a dray than be

subject to the dominion of such a man."⁹ With these

considerations in view, it is not remarkable that, at

length Hammond expressed himself as indifferent to the

passage of the bill.10 Nor need we be surprised that

shortly thereafter, when Robert Trimble of Kentucky

was appointed by Adams to fill an existing vacancy in

the Federal Supreme Court, Hammond editorially ex-

pressed his belief that Trimble was "a very ardent and

opinionative man" whose opinions were "altogether at

variance, on many subjects, with those of the best law-

yers in Ohio."¹¹

Hammond's moody irritation in this connection was

probably due in part to the loss of his cherished wife.

For seven years her health had been a source of deep

concern to him, and his letters display feelings of hope,

despair, hope revived, and finally resignation to the in-

evitable. Two passages from his private correspondence

⁹ Id. to id., April 12, 1826.

10 Id. to ?, Cincinnati, April 18, 1826; Liberty Hall and Cincinnati

Gazette, May 30, 1826.

11 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, April 25, 1826.

376       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

will serve to demonstrate the strain through which he

had been passing for several years. In April, 1824, he

wrote:

"My dear wife has had a very sudden and unexpected ill turn

or rather a succession of them since Sunday last. She is now

much lower than ever. Tho' perfectly sensible and able to con-

verse, she is too feeble to get up. . . . I am daily fortifying my

mind for the worst, and for taking upon me all the duties which

the afflicting charge must impose upon me. Her fortitude and

resignation are surprising."12

About a month later he again wrote:

"My dear wife is still alive: but now all hope of her surviving

is gone . . . subsisting with very little motion or action, most of

the time dozing as if in stupor, yet for that period sensible and

perfectly aware of her approaching end. Her resignation and

firmness continue. . . . The approach of death has been so gradual,

and notwithstanding some hopes that could not be wholly sup-

pressed, so certain that the whole family are prepared for it. Ex-

cept in her sufferings which are not acute or very severe the bit-

terness is measurably past. She leaves to me and to her children

both in her life and in her death an example to be remembered,

admired and imitated--and I hope it is an example by which we

may all profit."13

Yet she lived until July 31, 1826,14 so that the family

had further time to be prepared for her passing. Indi-

vidualist though the bereaved husband was, he evinced

a fundamental conservatism as to domestic relations,

and when rumors of a prospective second marriage were

abroad some months after his wife's death, his letter to

a friend is vocal as to certain traits of his character and

incidentally of the social milieu in which he moved:

"There is no foundation whatever for the 'report' you notice.

It has nevertheless provoked me a good deal. . . . It has ever been

12 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, April 16, 1824.

13 Id. to id., Cincinnati, May 7, 1824.

14 Cincinnati National Republican, August 1, 1826; Liberty Hall and

Cincinnati Gazette, August 1, 1826.

A Life of Charles Hammond              377

my opinion that a decent respect was due to the opinion of the

world in cases of this nature, and were I ever so anxious to marry

I should feel it a duty to refrain for at least the year and day not

merely from consummation but from preparation also. I was

mortified that my acquaintances thought so cheaply of me. . . .

My present impression is that I shall not marry. I am poor and

condemned to remain so. This will prevent me from multiplying

my wants. Were I rich, I would marry could I find an accom-

plished young woman to accept me. As I am, prudence, necessity

forbid it. The lady in question is a kind of Magdalene. Some

ten years ago or more her husband, an officer in the army, died

here and left her young, beautiful, accomplished, with one infant

child and no relative. She fell into the hands of a . . . married

man. Their fooleries were extraordinary and ridiculous. Still

she retained a half-forbidden station in society. After a time her

mother, with other daughters came here to reside. The intrigue

. . . has long since been given up and the lady devotes herself with

unwearied zeal to the performance of all the charities of life. She

is nurse and drudge for all her acquaintances when sick. She is

at everybody's command to aid at funerals and is teacher of a

Sunday School and organist for our church when no one else can

be had. But evidently broken in spirit and in health. During our

residence here, I have generally spoken well of her and scouted

the story of her frailty. She has two young single sisters, with

whom I used to to stop and chat. . . . And its only consequence has

been to vex me on the score of the impropriety imputed, and to

prevent me from calling to see the girls, the eldest of whom, about

22, were I rich enough, I might be tempted to play the fool with.

You have the whole case."15

During this time Hammond of course was main-

taining a lively interest in political and social develop-

ments and expressing himself through private letters

and the editorial columns of the Gazette. During 1825,

one of the memorable events in Ohio was the visit of

De Witt Clinton, the father of the New York canal

system, who came to assist in breaking ground for the

beginnings of the State's canals.¹⁶ There was doubtless

a political significance to this western trip of New

15 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, April 15, 1827.

16 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, July 12, 15, 1825.

378      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

York's governor, and privately Hammond stated his

belief that Clinton had "not appeared to great advan-

tage," having failed to "equal public expectation."17

Hammond gave a most valuable support to the

Adams administration. When the New Englander's

first annual message was sent to Congress he privately

expressed his admiration for its "statesmanlike bold-

ness"¹⁸ and lauded it editorially as embracing "every

prominent subject of interest to the nation" and as ex-

pressing all that the most ardent friends of internal im-

provements could wish.¹⁹ He urged the sending of rep-

resentatives to the Panama congress, brushing aside ob-

jections as similar to those that might be voiced against

every embassy of our government.²⁰ John Randolph's

attacks upon the Administration particularly aroused

Hammond's ire, and the latter denounced the Virginian

as a "political Goliath," a madman sent to the Senate to

give scope to his talent for mischief, and indulge his

propensity to snarl at everything and everybody."²¹ The

opponents of the Administration were "chiefly the dis-

appointed men of all parties--Jacksonians, Crawford-

ites, Calhounites and Clintonians," connected by no bond

of union except an agreement to overthrow the leader-

ship of Adams and Clay.²²

Hammond's zealous support of the Administration

led to bitter attacks upon opposition editors through the

editorial columns of the Gazette. These assaults natu-

rally brought replies in kind. His most frequent alter-

17 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, July 27, 1825.

18 Id. to id., Cincinnati, December 14, 1825.

19 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, December 23, 1825.

20 Ibid., Feb. 17, 1826; March 14, 1826; March 24, 1826.

21 Ibid., March 17, 21, 28, April 7, 14, 18, 21, 1826.

A Life of Charles Hammond           379

cations were with Moses Dawson, the editor of the Cin-

cinnati National Republican. The two editors were on

courteous terms personally and would often meet in a

noted coffee-house on Front Street in Cincinnati. There

they would banter each other over their toddy, Dawson

teasingly remarking, "I'll beat you, Charley," and Ham-

mond replying, "I'll give it to you in the morning."

Hammond's editorial weapons were like rifles, whose

balls invariably hit the mark, while Dawson's reply

would be a veritable blunderbuss, heavily charged, but

making more noise than execution.²³ At one time Daw-

son denounced Hammond as a traitor. Elijah Hay-

ward, another Jacksonian editor and politician, served

as Dawson's counsel and borrowed Hammond's file of

the Ohio Federalist, which included his editorials issued

during the War of 1812. When Hayward proposed to

read from the file in open court, Hammond promptly

withdrew the suit for libel.²⁴ Earlier, in December, 1825,

upon the resignation of Jackson from the Senate, Ham-

mond expressed amusement at the occurrence and com-

mented at length on the General's conduct, under the

title, "Warren." This enraged Elijah Hayward, the

editor of the Cincinnati National Republican, to such an

extent that, in view of Hammond's unsympathetic atti-

tude toward the War of 1812, he charged him "in direct

terms with taking part with the British and Indians

against the country" at that time.²⁵ Hammond struck

22 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, May 26, 1826.

23 E. D. Mansfield, Personal Memories, 1803-1843, (Cincinnati, 1879),

175; Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, June 23, 1826.

24 W. T. Coggeshall in Transactions of Ohio Editorial Association,

1857, 82.

25 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, December 14, 1825.

380      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

back and eventually a suit for libel was instigated in the

Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. The case

was withdrawn upon the signing of a retraction by the

Jacksonian publisher.²⁶

Duff Green was another editor who frequently

crossed swords with Hammond through the editorial

column. The former had called Hammond a "supporter

of the Alien and Sedition laws, and the 'Black cockade'

administration, a blue-light Hartford Conventionist in

principle, who rejoiced in our losses and mourned over

our victories . . . who denounced Mr. Adams, and Mr.

Clay as a ranting demagogue."²⁷ Hammond replied that,

although his juvenile impressions were favorable to the

John Adams administration and he had served as editor

of the Ohio Federalist, the charges were generally "a

tissue of shameful falsehoods."  The purchase of a

billiard-table for the White House had been roundly

denounced by the opposition press and stoutly defended

by Hammond. This gave a cue to the Cincinnati editor

for lashing his professional brother in Washington.

"There is nothing," he asserted, "that excites in my

mind stronger sensations of contempt, than the pratings

of men like Mr. Green, upon the immorality and irre-

ligion of a billiard-table. It is like listening to Satan

rebuking sin. We all know, that as a moral man, Mr.

Adams, during his whole life, has been exemplary and

irreproachable. And those whose candidate has lived a

life of directly opposite character, have the hardihood

to denounce the purchase of a billiard-table as a most

unpardonable offence in Mr. Adams. What then should

26 MS. Dated September 15, 1826.

27 United States Telegraph, March 27, 1826.

A Life of Charles Hammond        381

be thought of him [Jackson], who is an adept at bil-

liards, cards, dice, horse-racing, cock-fighting, and tav-

ern brawls?"²⁸ A few months later Duff Green paid a

personal visit to Cincinnati and addressed a letter to

Hammond as the "Editor of the Gazette, the mouthpiece

and conscience-keeper of Mr. Clay in Ohio." Hammond

replied that this must be excused as coming from "one

of the most obtrusive and incessant praters in the land."²⁹

Thomas Ritchie, the noted editor of the Richmond

Enquirer, also was an editorial antagonist of Hammond.

In 1826, Hammond appealed for the election of an Ad-

ministration member of Congress who was, he said, en-

titled to the vote of all who were not prepared "to fall

down and worship the slave-drivers of the South."

Ritchie then took occasion to assert that Hammond was

"one of the most unblushing and devoted instruments of

Mr. Clay, also a slave-driver," but Hammond denied

that he could be called an instrument of any man.³⁰

That Hammond maintained a spirit of independence

and was no mere satellite of Clay is evident from the

former's refusal to procure in the Ohio Legislature a

political move which Clay desired but which Hammond

thought inadvisable.³1 In the summer of 1826 Ham-

mond visited Clay at his home near Lexington, found

him in very poor health, and secured from him a promise

that he would not permit himself to be kept in office, as

Crawford had been, "after disease disabled him from

performing its duties." He found, however, that Clay

was reluctant to leave the office and feared bad conse-

28 Cincinnati Gazette, June 27, 1826.

29 Ibid., September 22, 1826.

30 Cincinnati Gazette, September 22, 1826.

31 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, January 20, 1826.

382      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

quences from such a move.³² Hammond thought that

his political services to the Administration merited some

consideration and wrote to Clay as to a debt which he

had contracted with the Bank of Steubenville and which

he was unable to meet at the time.³³ The Treasury had

been "very indulgent" with the local institution, and

Hammond trusted that further delay in meeting its obli-

gations might be permitted. Secretary of the Treasury

Rush, however, believed that such a policy might lead to

"the charge of favoritism, or make a precedent which

could not be followed without public inconvenience and

mischief." Clay, nevertheless, had in mind another

means of relieving the pressure of Hammond's embar-

rassment, which the latter thought would doubtless be

acceptable to his creditors.³⁴

The fall elections of 1826 turned out most favorably

to the Administration forces, and although at that time

Hammond was absent from his editorial duties for a

period of seven weeks, he rejoiced that the Ohio Legis-

lature was "as sure and decided as ever for the Adminis-

tration."³⁵ This insured the selection of a United States

senator favorable to the Adams-Clay policies. Some

doubt had arisen as to whether Senator Benjamin Rug-

gles of St. Clairsville should be extended the support of

Administration leaders. He had been the leading parti-

san of Crawford in Ohio in 1824 but later had served

the Administration well, and Hammond, who had known

him in the St. Clairsville days used the influence of his

32 Id. to id., Cincinnati, August 28, 1826.

33 Id. to [H. Clay], Steubenville, October 26 [1826].

34 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, November 26, 1826.

35 Cincinnati Gazette, November 14, 1826; C. Hammond to H. Clay,

October 26 [1826].

A Life of Charles Hammond             383

editorial pen to secure his re-election.³⁶ Ruggles was

again successful, thus being permitted to round out an

eighteen-year period of service in the Upper House.

With the beginning of the new year, political activity

increased in intensity and soon Hammond was com-

plaining:

"I had thought that in political affairs I could be surprised at

nothing. But the events of the last four months have filled me

with both surprise and sorrow. The combination which has been

formed against the Administration, the parties that compose it,

its principles of action, and the men who seem prepared to unite

with it, taken all together, present an extraordinary spectacle,

and one well calculated to excite alarm for our future destiny

as a people."37

Hammond apparently had little reason to complain

of "the principles of action" employed, as he himself had

been busy for some time in collecting information and

documents relevant to the marriage of General and Mrs.

Jackson, whose matrimonial arrangements had been

made with some disregard of legal technicalities. In the

fall of 1826 while visiting in Steubenville, Hammond

had spoken in the public reading room "quite freely and

plainly of both General Jackson and the woman whom

he and others call 'Mrs. Jackson,'" and when the Jack-

sonian press protested he accused them of "hyper-irrita-

bility" on the subject.³⁸ Hammond had previously in-

quired of Clay at Columbus as to his knowledge of the

matter, but the latter disclaimed any information except

that of common report and expressed the opinion that

36 Cincinnati Gazette, November 17, 1826; C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,

Cincinnati, November 30, 1826.

37 Hammond to H. Clay, Cincinnati March 28, 1827. Clay MSS.,

Library of Congress.

38 Cincinnati Gazette, November 14, 1826; November 21, 1826.

384      Ohio Arch. and, Hist. Society Publications

the question ought not to be brought before the public.

Hammond, however, had been for some time of the

"opinion that the matter should be investigated" and

had obtained the references to various documents con-

nected with the case from Mr. Edward Day, a travel-

ling collector for merchants in Baltimore. Hammond

denied any plan to attack the character of Mrs. Jackson,

but stated that he merely proposed to give full elucida-

tion to the personality of the General. "In a spirit of

frankness, to prevent any misconception" of his inten-

tion, Hammond even wrote to the General's friend, J. H.

Eaton, stating his plans.³⁹ There was, at the same time,

some feeling among the editor's friends that the testi-

mony secured was much less complete than had been

expected and that a possibility existed that the original

documents dealing with the matter might have been de-

stroyed or secreted at Richmond.⁴⁰

The publication in the Gazette of his conclusions,

Hammond insisted, was done "after due deliberation,"

but he was disappointed that this effort received little

countenance from the friends of the Administration.

The restraint of the press of his own political faith he

soon found to be a "bad augury" for pressing the matter

further. The Jacksonians were enraged, denouncing

"the infamy of the attack upon a lady" as "a base, wan-

ton and malignant falsehood," and since the Ohio State

Journal at Columbus and other Administration papers

were "too dignified to touch" the discussion, Hammond

39 C. Hammond to J. H. Eaton, Cincinnati, January 3, 1827; id. to id.,

Cincinnati, January 27, 1827. Clay MSS.

⁴⁰ J. Sloane to C. Hammond, Washington, January 14, 1827.

A Life of Charles Hammond                385

found himself left "to bear the whole reproach."⁴¹ But,

for some time there continued much "spluttering" in the

Jackson papers throughout Ohio, Kentucky, and Ten-

nessee in regard to the affair with involved disputation

as to the validity and significance of the various docu-

ments.⁴²

Hammond also joined other Administration editors

in an attempt to discredit Jackson on the grounds of

alleged connection with the Burr Conspiracy. "Direct

proof," he declared, "is elicited and multiplied upon the

very theatre where the transactions took place." The

opposition press maintained that after Burr's plans had

become suspicious, Jackson abandoned them, but Ham-

mond again marshalled evidence to attempt to prove the

contrary. There was "irrefragable proof," he insisted,

"to show that Jackson had been made the coadjutor or

dupe" of Burr.⁴³ Other charges eagerly seized upon by

Hammond included the assertion that Jackson had exe-

cuted six militiamen without authority in 1814. Column

after column was devoted to the discussion,⁴⁴ and other

administration papers in Ohio followed suit.⁴⁵ At length,

John Sloane, a congressman from Ohio, introduced in

the House of Representatives a resolution, which was

41 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, April 15, 1827; id. to id.,

Cincinnati, April 18, [1827]. Cincinnati Gazette, March 30, April 3, April

20, 24, 1827.

42 Francis Johnson to C. Hammond, Bowling Green, Kentucky, April

24, 1827; C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, April 24, 1827.

43 St. Clairsville National Historian, May 17, 1828; Cincinnati Gazette,

August 15, 16, 20, 22, 25, 28, September 23, October 11, 1828.

44 Cincinnati Gazette, June 12, July 7, August 8, 15, September 5,

October 15, 22, 24, November 6, 1827, July 4, 1828.

45 Cleveland Herald, April 18, 25, May 2, 1828; Ohio State Journal,

April 3, June 5, 1828; St. Clairsville National Historian, May 3, 1828.

Vol. XLIII--25

386       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

adopted, calling for copies of various documents in the

War department respecting the drafting, desertion, and

execution of the six militiamen. These official papers

and the review of the case, which Sloane subsequently

drew up, were widely copied, and in pamphlet form were

extensively circulated.⁴⁶

Other allegations also were employed. Jackson's

duel with Charles Dickinson, in which the latter was

killed, was not forgotten.⁴⁷ Religious and economic

prejudices were appealed to in asserting that in the Ten-

nessee Constitutional Convention in 1796 Jackson had

voted to admit to office-holding those who "publicly de-

nied the divine authority of the Old and New Testa-

ments" and had favored the exclusion from the Leg-