fugitive slave and in an elaborate argument, afterward published,
controverted the authority of Congress to impose any duties or confer
any powers in fugitive slave cases on state magistrates, a position in
which he has since been sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court; and
maintained that the law of 1793, relative to fugitives from service,
was void, because unwarranted by the Constitution of the United
States. The same year, in an argument before the Supreme Court of
Ohio, in defence of James G. Birney, prosecuted under a State law for
harboring a negro slave, Mr. Chase asserted the doctrine that slavery
is local, and independent on state law for existence and continuance,
and insisted that the person alleged to have been harbored, having
been brought within the territorial limits of Ohio by the individual
claiming her as master, was thenceforth, in fact and by right, free.
In 1838, in a newspaper review of a report of the judiciary committee
of the senate of Ohio against the granting of trial by jury to alleged
slaves, Mr. Chase took the same ground as in his legal arguments. In
1846, he was associated with the Hon. W. H. Seward as defendant's
counsel in the case of Van Zandt, before the Supreme Court of the
United States. The case excited much interest, and in a speech which
attracted marked attention, Mr. Chase argued more elaborately the
principles which he advanced in former cases, maintaining that under
the ordinance of 1787 no fugitives from service could be reclaimed
from Ohio, unless there had been an escape from one of the original
States; that it was the clear understanding of the framers of the
Constitution, and of the people who adopted it, that slavery was to be
left exclusively to the disposal of the several States, without
sanction or support from the National Government; and that the clause
of the Constitution relative to persons held to service was one of
compact between the States, and conferred no power of legislation on
Congress, having been transferred from the ordinance of 1787, in which
it conferred no power on the Confederation, and was never understood
to confer any. He was subsequently engaged for the defence in the case
of Driskell _vs._ Parish, before the U.S. Circuit Court at Columbus,
and re-argued the same positions."
Mr. Chase's _political_ history is thus summed up in the same article:
"Mr. Chase's sentiments of hostility to the nationalization of slavery
were expressed by his position in the political movements of the
country, as well as his efforts at the bar. Prior to 1841 he had taken
little part in politics. He had voted sometimes with the Democrats,
but more commonly with the Whigs, who, in the North, seemed to him
more favorable to anti-slavery views than their opponents. He
supported Gen. Harrison in 1840, but the tone of his inaugural
address, and still more the course of the Tyler administration,
convinced him that no effective resistance to the encroachments of
slavery was to be expected from any party with a slaveholding and
pro-slavery wing, modifying if not controlling its action; and in 1841
he united in a call for a convention of the opponents of slavery and
slavery extension, which assembled in Columbus in December of that
year. This convention organized the liberty party of Ohio, nominated a
candidate for governor, and issued an address to the people defining
its principles and purposes.--This address, written and reported by
Mr. Chase, and unanimously adopted by the convention, deserves
attention as one of the earliest expositions of the political
movements against slavery. In 1843, a national liberty convention
assembled at Buffalo. Mr. Chase was an active member of the committee
on resolutions, to which was referred, under a rule of the convention,
a resolution proposing 'to regard and treat the third clause of the
Constitution, whenever applied to the case of a fugitive slave, as
utterly null and void, and consequently as forming no part of the
Constitution of the United States, whenever we are called upon or
sworn to support it.' Mr. Chase opposed the resolution, and the
committee refused to report it. It was, however, afterward moved in
the convention by its author, and adopted. Having been charged in the
U.S. Senate with the authorship and advocacy of this resolution, by
Mr. Butler of South Carolina, who denounced the doctrine of mental
reservation apparently sanctioned by it, Mr. Chase replied: 'I have
only to say I never proposed the resolution; I never would propose or
vote for such a resolution. I hold no doctrine of mental reservation.
Every man, in my judgment, should speak just as he thinks, keeping
nothing back, here or elsewhere.' In 1843 it became Mr. Chase's duty
to prepare an address on behalf of the friends of liberty, Ireland,
and repeal in Cincinnati, to the loyal national repeal association in
Ireland, in reply to a letter from Daniel O'Connell.
"In this address Mr. Chase reviewed the relations of the federal
government to slavery at the period of its organization, set forth its
original anti-slavery policy, and the subsequent growth of the
political power of slavery, vindicated the action of the liberal
party, and repelled the aspersions cast by a repeal association in
Cincinnati upon anti-slavery men. In 1845 Mr. Chase projected a
southern and western liberty convention, designed to embrace 'all who,
believing that whatever is worth preserving in republicanism can be
maintained only by uncompromising war against the usurpations of the
slave power, and are therefore resolved to use all constitutional and
honorable means to effect the extinction of slavery in their
respective States, and its reduction to its constitutional limits in
the United States.' The convention was held in Cincinnati in June,
1845, and was attended by 4,000 persons; delegates were present to the
number of 2,000. Mr. Chase, as chairman of the committee, prepared the
address, giving a history of slavery in the United States, showing the
position of the Whig and Democratic parties, and arguing the necessity
of a political organization unequivocally committed to the
denationalization of slavery and the overthrow of the slave power, and
exhibiting what he regarded as the necessary hostility of the
slaveholding interest to democracy and all liberal measures. This
address was widely circulated.
"In 1847, Mr. Chase was a member of the Second National Liberty
Convention, and opposed the making of any national nomination at that
time, urging that a more general movement against slavery extension
and denomination, was likely to grow out of the agitation of the
Wilmot Proviso, and the action of Congress and political parties in
reference to slavery. In 1848, anticipating that the conventions of
the Whig and Democratic parties would probably refuse to take grounds
against the extensions of slavery, he prepared a call for a free
territory state convention at Columbus, which was signed by more than
3,000 voters of all political parties. The convention thus called was
largely attended, and invited a national convention to meet at Buffalo
in August. The influence of Mr. Chase was conspicuous in the state
convention, and no less so in the national convention, which assembled
upon its invitation, and nominated Mr. Van Buren for President. An
immense mass meeting was held at Buffalo at the same time. Mr. Chase
was president of the national convention, and also a member of its
committee on resolutions. The platform was substantially his work. On
February 22d, 1849, Mr. Chase was chosen a senator of the United
States from Ohio, receiving the entire vote of the Democratic members
of the Legislature, and of those freesoil members who favored
Democratic views. The Democratic party of Ohio, by the resolutions of
its state convention, had already declared slavery an evil; and
practically, through its press and the declarations of its leading
men, had committed itself to the denationalization of slavery. Mr.
Chase, therefore, coinciding with the Democrats in their general views
of the state policy, supported their state nominees, distinctly
announcing his intention, in the event of the party's desertion of its
anti-slavery position, in state or national conventions, to end at
once his connection with it. When the nomination of Mr. Pierce by the
Baltimore convention of 1852, with a platform approving the compromise
acts of 1850, and denouncing the further discussion of the slavery
question, was sanctioned by the Democratic party in Ohio, Mr. Chase,
true to his word, withdrew from it, and addressed to the Hon. B. F.
Butler, of New York, his associate in the Buffalo convention, a letter
in vindication of an independent Democratic party. He prepared a
platform, which was substantially adopted by the convention of the
independent Democracy at Pittsburg in 1852. Having thus gone into a
minority rather than compromise his principles, Mr. Chase gave a
cordial and energetic support to the nominees and measures of the
independent Democracy, until the Nebraska bill gave rise to a new and
powerful party, based substantially upon the ideas he had so long
maintained. As a senator of the United States, Mr. Chase delivered on
March 26 and 27, 1850, a speech against Mr. Clay's compromise bill,
reviewing thoroughly all the questions presented in it. He moved an
amendment providing against the introduction of slavery in the
territories to which the bill applied, but it failed by a vote of 25
to 30. He proposed also, though without success, an amendment to the
fugitive slave bill, securing trial by jury to alleged slaves, and
another conforming its provisions to the terms of the Constitution, by
excluding from its operation persons escaping from State or
territories, and _vice versa_. In 1854, when the bill for the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise, commonly called the Nebraska Kansas bill,
was introduced, he drafted an appeal to the people against the
measure, which was signed by the senators and representatives in
Congress, concurring in his political opinions; and in a speech on
February 3, attempted the first elaborate exposure of the features of
that bill, as viewed by its opponents. In the general opposition to
the Nebraska bill he took a leading part, and the rejection of three
of his proposed amendments, was thought to be of such significance as
bearing on the slavery question, that it may be well to state them.
The first proposed to add after the words, 'subject only to the
Constitution of the United States,' in section 14, the following
clause: 'Under which the people of the territory, through their
appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the
existence of slavery therein.' This was rejected, yeas 10, nays 36.
The second proposed to give practical effect to the principle of
popular sovereignty by providing for the election by the people of the
territory of their own governor, judges, and secretary, instead of
leaving, as in the bill, their appointment to the Federal Executive.
This was defeated, yeas 10, nays 30. He then proposed an amendment of
the boundary, so as to have but one territory, named Nebraska, instead
of two entitled respectively Nebraska and Kansas. This was rejected,
yeas 8, nays 34. His opposition to the bill was ended by a final and
earnest protest against it on the night of its passage. While thus
vigilant in maintaining his principles on the slavery question, Mr.
Chase was constant in the discharge of the general duties of his
position. To divorce the Federal Government from all connection with
slavery; to confine its action strictly within Constitutional limits;
to uphold the rights of individuals and of States; to foster with
equal care all the great interests of the country, and to secure an
economical administration of the national finances, were the general
aims, which he endeavored, both by his votes and his speeches, to
promote. On the interests of the West, he always kept a watchful eye,
claiming that the Federal treasury should defray the expenses of
providing for the safety of navigation on our great inland seas, as
well as on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and advocating liberal aid
by the Federal Government to the construction of a railroad to the
Pacific by the best, shortest, and cheapest route.
"He was an earnest supporter of the policy of the free homestead
movement, in behalf of which he expressed his views during the first
session of his term, on presenting a petition for granting the public
lands, in limited quantities, to actual settlers not possessed of
other land. He was also an early advocate of cheap postage and an
unwearied opponent of extravagant appropriations. In July, 1855, Mr.
Chase was nominated by the opponents of the Nebraska bill and the
Pierce administration for governor of Ohio, and was elected. His
inaugural address, delivered in 1856, recommended economy in the
administration of public affairs, single districts for legislative
representation, annual instead of biennial sessions of the
legislature, and ample provision for the educational interests of the
State. His state policy and senatorial course were now so much
approved that at the national convention of the Republican party, held
the same year, a majority of the Ohio delegation and many delegates
from other States, desired his nomination for the presidency; but his
name was, at his request, withdrawn. His first annual message to the
Ohio legislature, in 1857, after reviewing the material resources, and
the financial and educational condition of the State, together with
its federal relations, recommended a bureau of statistics, which was
accordingly established.
"During the same year, a deficit of over $500,000 being discovered in
the State treasury, a few days before the semi-annual interest of the
State debt became due, the decided action of Gov. Chase compelled the
resignation of the State treasurer, who had concealed its existence,
secured a thorough investigation, and, through a prompt and judicious
arrangement, protected the credit of the State and averted a large
pecuniary loss. At the close of his first term, Gov. Chase desired to
retire from office, but the Republicans insisted on his renomination,
which was made by acclamation. After an active canvass, the continued
confidence of the people in his administration was manifested by his
reelection by the largest vote ever given for a governor in Ohio. In
his annual message, in 1858, after submitting an elaborate exposition
of the financial condition and resources of Ohio, he recommended
semi-annual taxation, more stringent provisions for the security of
the treasury, and a special attention to the State benevolent
institutions, including the reform school, in which he had always
manifested a deep interest. These suggestions met the approbation of
the legislature, and laws were passed accordingly."
The sketch we have quoted, gives an _exact_ and impartial, though
brief, history of the political acts of Mr. Chase, but it is
bloodless, without enthusiasm, and _to the friends_ of the
distinguished subject of the sketch, will seem cold, giving no
adequate idea of the ability and greatness of the man; but the sketch
is perfectly impartial, and accurate in every particular.
Mr. Chase, while in the Senate of the United States, bore a very high
reputation as a debater and as an orator. He never descended to notice
personal attacks unless his political history was called in question,
and remained cool and unruffled through scenes of great excitement and
under a storm of personalities. His manner is dignified and his
eloquence massive. Few men can deliver a speech, which for force,
solid arguments, and high-toned eloquence, will equal the best of his.
He is not an impetuous orator, or man, but is always collected, calm,
and self-poised. Nevertheless, he has warm and enthusiastic friends,
and those who know him best esteem him most.
In his personal appearance, Mr. Chase is somewhat imposing, for he is
tall, of large proportions, with a large head and face, a fine port,
dignified bearing, and an eye of quick intelligence. Through his
entire career, whether at the bar, in Congress, or in the
gubernatorial chair, Mr. Chase has never for an instant compromised
the integrity or dignity of his character.
One of the finest of his senatorial speeches was made Feb. 3, 1854, in
reply to a severe attack of Mr. Douglas upon himself and two or three
other gentlemen, who had issued an address to the people upon the
Kansas-Nebraska act. We can only quote the closing portions of this
great speech:
"Mr. President, three great eras have marked the history of this
country, in respect of slavery. The first may be characterized as
the era of enfranchisement. It commenced with the earliest
struggle for national independence. The spirit which inspired it
animated the hearts and prompted the efforts of Washington, of
Jefferson, of Patrick Henry, of Wythe, of Adams, of Jay, of
Hamilton, of Morris--in short, of all the great men of our early
history. All these hoped, all these labored for, all these
believed in the final deliverance of the country from the curse of
slavery. That spirit burned in the Declaration of Independence,
and inspired the provisions of the Constitution, and of the
Ordinance of 1787. Under its influence, when in full vigor, State
after State provided for the emancipation of the slaves within
their limits, prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Under its
feebler influence at a later period, and during the administration
of Mr. Jefferson, the importation of slaves was prohibited into
Mississippi and Louisiana, in the faint hope that these
territories might finally become free States. Gradually that
spirit ceased to influence our public councils, and lost its
control over the American heart and the American policy. Another
era succeeded, but by such imperceptible gradations that the hues
which separate the two cannot be traced with absolute precision.
The facts of the two eras meet and mingle as the currents of
confluent streams mix so imperceptibly that the observer cannot
fix the spot where the meeting waters blend.
"This second era was the era of Conservatism. Its great maxim was
to preserve the existing condition. Men said, let things remain as
they are; let slavery stay where it is; exclude it where it is
not; refrain from disturbing the public quiet by agitation; adjust
all differences that arise, not by the application of principles,
but by compromises.
"It was during this period that the senator tells us that slavery
was maintained in Illinois, both while a territory and after it
became a State, in despite of the provisions of the ordinance. It
is true, sir, that the slaves held in the Illinois country, under
the French law, were not regarded as absolutely emancipated by the
provisions of the ordinance. But full effect was given to the
ordinance in excluding the introduction of slaves, and thus the
territory was preserved from eventually becoming a slave State.
The few slaveholders in the territory of Indiana, which then
included Illinois, succeeded in obtaining such an ascendency in
its affairs, that repeated applications were made, not merely by
conventions of delegates, but by the Territorial Legislature
itself, for a suspension of a clause in the ordinance prohibiting
slavery. These applications were reported upon by John Randolph,
of Virginia, in the House, and by Mr. Franklin, in the Senate.
Both the reports were against suspension. The grounds stated by
Randolph are specially worthy of being considered now. They are
thus stated in the report:
"'That the committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to
impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and
prosperity of the northwestern country, and to give strength and
security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of
this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the
inhabitants of Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample
remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of
emigration.'
"Sir, these reports, made in 1803 and 1807, and the action of
Congress upon them, in conformity with their recommendation, saved
Illinois, and perhaps Indiana, from becoming slave States. When
the people of Illinois formed their State constitution, they
incorporated into it a section providing that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall be hereafter introduced into this
State. The constitution made provision for the continued service
of the few persons who were originally held as slaves, and then
bound to service under the Territorial laws, and for the freedom
of their children, and thus secured the final extinction of
slavery. The senator thinks that this result is not attributable
to the ordinance. I differ from him. But for the ordinance I have
no doubt slavery would have been introduced into Indiana,
Illinois, and Ohio. It is something to the credit of the era of
conservatism, uniting its influences with those of the expiring
era of enfranchisement, that it maintained the Ordinance of 1787
in the north-west.
"The era of conservatism passed, also, by imperceptible
gradations, into the era of slavery propagandism. Under the
influences of this new spirit, we opened the whole territory
acquired from Mexico, except California, to the ingress of
slavery. Every foot of it was covered by a Mexican prohibition;
and yet, by the legislation of 1850, we consented to expose it to
the introduction of slaves. Some, I believe, have actually been
carried into Utah and into New Mexico. They may be few, perhaps,
but a few are enough to affect materially the probable character
of their future governments.
"Sir, I believe we are on the verge of another era. The
introduction of this question here, and its discussion, will
greatly hasten its advent. That era will be the era of reaction.
We, who insist upon the denationalization of slavery, and upon the
absolute divorce of the General Government from all connection
with it, will stand with the men who favored the compromise acts,
and who yet wish to adhere to them, in their letter and in their
spirit, against the repeal of the Missouri prohibition. You may
pass it here, you may send it to the other House, it may become
law; but its effect will be to satisfy all thinking men that no
compromise with slavery will endure, except so long as they serve
the interests of slavery; and that there is no safe and honorable
ground to stand upon, except that of restricting slavery within
State limits, and excluding it absolutely from the whole sphere of
federal jurisdiction. The old questions between political parties
are at rest. No great question so thoroughly possesses the public
mind as this of slavery. This discussion will hasten the
inevitable reorganization of parties upon the new issues which our
circumstances suggest. It will light up a fire in the country
which may, perhaps, consume those who kindle it.
"I cannot believe that the people of this country have so far lost
sight of the maxims and principles of the Revolution, or are so
insensible to the obligations which those maxims and principles
impose, as to acquiesce in the violation of this compact. Sir, the
Senator from Illinois tells us that he proposes a final settlement
of all territorial questions in respect to slavery, by the
application of the principle of popular sovereignty. What kind of
popular sovereignty is that which allows one portion of the people
to enslave another portion? Is that the doctrine of equal rights?
Is that exact justice? Is that the teaching of enlightened,
liberal, progressive Democracy? No, sir; no! There can be no real
Democracy which does not fully maintain the rights of man, as man.
Living, practical, earnest Democracy imperatively requires us,
while carefully abstaining from unconstitutional interference with
the internal regulations of any State upon the subject of slavery,
or any other subject, to insist upon the practical application of
its great principles in all the legislation of Congress.