Private Hartford, 10 th Oct 1851
Dear Sir
Although it is some time since I have seen
or heard from you, except through the Columns
of the Statesmen, I assume the privilege belonging
to an old brothers soldier in the democratic
cause of writing you. In the confusion and
derangement of parties, commencing in the
action of the Ba[l]timore convention
of 1844 there have been and still are alienations
and disagreement, but in the main the great
body of the party are well disposed. Generally
our views have corresponded, for I have been
a pretty attentive reader of your paper –
and in the embarrassed situation of parties,
I have been better pleased with the course
of the Ohio democracy than that of almost
any other State.
In the efforts that have been made, and
are still making to establish a new test in
the democratic creed, which certain of our
friends at the South imperiously exort and
others of our friends in the north obsequiously
adopt, I have not sympathized. Indeed I cannot
without violence to my convictions and an
abandonment of my political principles. If
the Fugitive Slave law is not an assumption
of power on the part of the central government,
the alien and sedition laws were not, and
the principle embodied in the Kentucky and
Virginia resolutions of 1798 and ’99
are equally applicable to the law of 1850.
There is no grant of power to congress in
either case, and the last named act is the
worst unwarrantable violation of the rights
and sover[e]ignty of the States we
have ever witnessed. [2] The South,
in my opinion, are committing a fatal error
in urging and insisting on this law. The claus[e]
in the Constitution is a mere compact among
the States, wherein each State binds itself
to two things – first that the State
will pass no law relieving a fugitive from
service owed in another state – Second
that the State will deliver him up on claim
from the person to whom service is due. It
was the true policy of the South to have demanded
that the States should each fulfill its constitutional
obligations, and to that end have repealed
the law 1793 which was drawn up by George
Cabot afterwards President of the Hartford
Convention – a consolidationist, who
favored a strong central government and opposed
the State rights doctrines.
But the great interest involved has made
our Southern friends oblivious to the fundamental
doctrines of the party and the teachings of
Jefferson, and in their desire to get their
runaways, they forget or are unmindful of
constitutional rights & restrictions.
Not only this departure from the faith on
primitive principles, it has I fear had a
corrupting tendency in other respects. In
no other way can I account for the indifference
manifested respecting the stupendous frauds
and improper practices involving high official
delinquents.
The Fugitive Slave law has done more to
break down a correct public opinion and sweep
away the distinctions of party through the
North than any thing that has occurred in
my day. What, I often ask my friends who are
striving with the Whigs to maintain “the
Compromise”, are the distinctions between
the democrats and the whigs, if this is your
test? You have different organizations it
is true, but wherein do your principles differ?
The Whigs can without inconsistency support
this law, because they do not hold to a strict
[3] construction of the Constitution
– they are not believers in the rights
& sover[e]ignty of the States,
but are advocates of a strong, over shadowing
central government. Supposing the State of
Ohio were to enact a law in conformity with
their constitutional obligations for the rendition
of fugitives – requiring their own officers
to arrest, try & surrender them. Does
any one question her right or authority to
do so? No one can. If however the State can
do this, the general government cannot, for
it is either a granted or a reserved power.
The power is not granted to congress and is
consequently reserved.
While these are frankly my views, I have
not deemed it wise or expedient to break with
my party friends who differ with me, nor have
I thought it necessary to unite myself with
other organizations. The test I do not recognize,
and I trust it will never be embodied in any
national resolutions. If, from motives of
expediency our friends should, some of them,
choose to identify themselves with “the
compromise” they may reconcile it with
themselves to do so – I from principle
cannot.
It was not, however, my intention to have
entered upon this subject at such length.
We are approaching the period when a presidential
candidate is to be selected and preliminary
movements have already commenced. As yet the
people are not, to a great extent, committed
in this section, nor do I know that they are
in any quarter. Indeed we have not the right
man named, nor do I know that he can be designated,
but there may be a choice among competitors.
At the present time the men most talked
of here are Houston, Douglass & Buchanan,
and numerically I should think they stood
in the order named. Benton, Marcy & W
O Butler are also mentioned. Of all these
men my individual preference [4]
would be for Benton, for with some failings,
he has in my opinions more of the great elements
for the part than any of the others. It is
said however he will not be a candidate, and
there are old antagonisms that would come
out strong against him.
I have not mentioned Cass for it seems to
be a universal impression in this quarter
that he will not be brought forward, and the
friends of Douglass intimate that he will
throw his influence for the latter.
It is doubtful in my mind whether the South
will be willing to take Houston but the active
men in this quarter are a good deal engaged
for him. Some traits of heroism & romance,
with undoubted patriotism, lend a charm to
him that others do not possess, and the scope
for embellishment is great. Towards Douglass
there is no unkind feeling, but an impression
that he is young, and if adopted for the plan,
he would better fill it twelv[e]
years hence than now. He has however some
rather active supporters. Buchanan enlists
no Zeal. Some of the more influential men
who supported Cass in 1848 are very divided
for him, [inserted: (Buchanan)] but
their views do not meet a favorable response
with the masses.
You are in a position favorable for a pretty
correct survey of the ground, and I should
esteem it a favor and trust it may be of service,
if you will write me how these matters are
viewed by you. It is desirable that there
should be an interchange of views, and it
is with that object I write you. Your letter
shall be strictly confidential, and I trust
the same in regard to my own. Since my return
from Washington, I have not taken an active
part in party affairs, for I found things
in a condition not altogether satisfactory.
Trusting you will do me the favor to write
me at your earliest convence I am very truly
yours
Gideon Welles
Samuel Medary, Esq
[docket]
Private
