|
William Henry Harrison (1773-1841), Autograph Letter Signed (“W.H. Harrison”) to William Corwin; North Bend, Ohio, 18 December 1839. 4 pp.
Inventory# 12048 $50,000
“I am I assure you all awake to the subject to which your letter to our friend Greene & myself refer, both of which I have. I was about to day to dispatch to Gov.r Owen of N.C. my answer to the committee communicating my nomination. But your letter has suggested the propriety of sticking into it some general principles to which I may refer obtrusive inquiries. Upon the “vexed question[”] I will give you the facts in my political life which may make me an Abolitionist with one party & an Antibolitionist [sic] with the other. But which candid men of the former may see something to lament but nothing blame & the latter a perfect security to their cause as far as I may be concerned.
When I was a youth of 17, studying medicine in Richmond I joined an Emancipating Society that was formed there & came under a solemn engagement not to hold a Slave longer than I could provide for his emancipation. This promise I have faithfully kept. I have bot [sic] as many as 7 or 8 & freed them simply upon their promise to remain with me for some years. The greater part fulfilled their engagements but several left me immediately. After the war (1814) I settled in this place. I found the people on both sides of the river under great excitement in relation to fugitive slaves. A society was formed at Cincinnati to protect them. [William] Gazley [sic, Gazlay] (my former competitor (but now friend) was the Counsel & I believe T Henderson the President[.] My utmost efforts were used to prevent the effects of their violence & injustice. These had produced so much corresponding violence in the Citizens of Ky that an armed party crossed the river on one occasion at night to take Justice in their own hands & as a compy of Militia were called out by their Captain to resist them there would certainly have been bloodshed if I had not gone in pursuit of the Kentuckians & induced them to return which I was enabled to effect from the circumstance of their leader being one of my old Captains & many of the men my former Soldiers. I take to myself some credit for having allayed in a great measure the hard feeling which existed between the two sides of the River. In fact I do not know that any one of any influence took any active part in the matter on that side but myself.
You know the part I took on the Missouri question in the last Session of the 15.th Congress voting against all my colleagues. Who entreated me not to abandon them. After I had voted Hendricks of Indiana came to me & said that I would “ruin myself by my Southern feelings”. My answer was that it was not feeling that dictated my course but the obligations of duty & the oath I had taken. You no doubt know the Advantage which Gazley [Gazlay] obtained over me at the subsequent Election [in 1822] by the artful use of my votes on this occasion. A caricature [of Harrison] leading a Negroe [sic] in Chains was circulated. I defended myself in Addresses & on the stump—Upon the Missouri part of the question upon constitution grounds, And upon that of Arcansas [sic] by the necessity of allowing a[n] outlet to the the [sic] population of the Southern States in the country which had been purchased out of the Common funds. And which could not be refused without gross injustice. The people would have pardoned the first (the Missouri vote) & the latter also if I had backed out by professing regret. This I would not do & I was beaten by a Majority of 600 in Hamilton [County, Ohio] altho at the former election I had received a majority of 1300 over five popular opponents. I have retained for the last fact upon this subject to bring to your view a circumstance which occurred in Indiana in the early part of my Administration [as Territorial Governor]. And which has already been seized on to do me injury.
An Abolition Almanac has recently made its appearance here Many of them having been sent from N York where it was printed to Harvey Hall of Cincinnati for distribution & one of them by some one sent to me. It examines the claims of V B. [incumbent President Martin Van Buren] [,] [fellow Whig aspirant Henry] Clay & myself for the support of the Abolitionists and rejects them all. Me—on account of my Missouri & Arcansas votes & for having as they were “assured by a friend” endeavoured during the whole of the 13 years that I was Gov.r of Indiana [Territory] to get Slavery introduced there[.] The single fact upon which this vile charge is founded is this. Some time after the Territory went into operation the people became restless & disatisfied [sic] because they got little or no accession of population. The emigrants from the free States stopped in Ohio & those from the Southern in Ky. Whilst many indeed from the latter were passing through Indiana with their slaves to settle in the Spanish Territory beyond the Mississippi [the future Louisiana Purchase, before its acquisition by France]. An Idea was propagated that these emigrants might be arrested & settle in Indiana if the provisions of the Ordinances against Slavery could be, not repealed, but suspended for a short period. If this measure was likely to be of benefit to some it certainly could be of none to me. I had no land to sell as others had[;] I was precluded by a voluntary obligation from holding Slaves & my interest clearly would have recommended to keep the territory without self Govt as long as possible. And it was for these very reasons & from my belief too that the Emancipation of the Negroes who were brought in would be easily effected [that] I gave my reluctant consent to it. That it was rejected by Congress everybody rejoiced. Afterwards when by my exertions to extinguish Indian titles a large space was allowed for emigrant[s] to settle on We got a sufficient population to go into the 2d degree of Govt [i.e., with an elected territorial legislature, rather than simply a governor appointed from Washington]. You were certainly aright in the Answer you gave to Mr Bates[’] enquiry. This letter is not intended to shew [sic] to any one but to put you in possession of facts which you can no doubt use to advance the cause which you have so much at heart.
Give my best regards to my friends Morris & Giddings & ask them why they do not & write to me as they were wont.
And Mr Curtis of N York & tell him that I have received & will answer his letter by the next mail.”
Historical Background: The Election of 1840 is often considered to be “the first modern presidential campaign, complete with partisan songs, decorative objects advertising the candidates, and hoopla” (William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents, p. 143). The candidates themselves, however, remained above the fray. Adhering to an anachronistic model of republican political virtue, presidential nominees took care not to appear too ambitious for the highest office in the land; hence, their campaigns were almost exclusively conducted through partisan surrogates. To the extent that the parties’ nominees did make their positions known during the campaign, it was done through correspondence carefully put to them by supporters. Their replies were usually then published in sympathetic newspapers for public edification.
In a private letter written only a week after winning the Whig Party nomination for President, William Henry Harrison goes to elaborate lengths to stake out a politically safe middle ground on the “vexed question” of slavery. Due to the sensitive nature of this controversy, whereby the safest course was to say nothing at all publicly on the subject, Harrison makes it understood that he is not to be quoted directly; nevertheless, he trusts his correspondent to use this information to defend his record while out on the hustings campaigning for him. “This letter is not intended to shew [sic] to any one but to put you in possession of facts which you can no doubt use to advance the cause which you have so much at heart.”
Eager to appeal to both the Northern and Southern sections of the country, Harrison admits that there is much in “the facts in my political life which may make me an Abolitionist with one party & an Antibolitionist [sic] with the other. But which candid men of the former may see something to lament but nothing blame & the latter a perfect security to their cause as far as I may be concerned.” His voting record as a member of Congress was largely conciliatory toward the South’s need to expand into fresh territories. At the same time, even though he was the son of a wealthy Virginia planter and signer of the Declaration of Independence, he remained personally opposed to owning slaves. Harrison admits that he has been, since his young adulthood in Richmond, a pledged member of an emancipation society, purchasing slaves for the sole purpose of freeing them. Furthermore, after moving to southern Ohio, he dissuaded an armed proslavery party from across the river in Kentucky from attacking an abolitionist group that had been luring away their slaves.
Harrison’s service in the House of Representatives (1816-1819), in the Ohio legislature (1819-1821), and the Senate (1825-1828), was nonetheless held against him by those opposed to slavery’s spread. His votes to admit Missouri as a slave state and on the territorial status of Arkansas became “the Advantage” which his opponent successfully used against him went he sought to return to Congress in 1822: “A caricature [of Harrison] leading a Negroe [sic] in Chains was circulated. I defended myself in Addresses & on the stump—Upon the Missouri part of the question upon constitution grounds, And upon that of Arcansas [sic] by the necessity of allowing a[n] outlet to the the [sic] population of the Southern States in the country which had been purchased out of the Common funds. And which could not be refused without gross injustice.”
Harrison apparently believed that, as a practical matter, any expansion of slavery into colder climes would be temporary, and the slaves thus brought in would soon be freed. Easing the restrictions on slavery would thus lessen sectional tensions while encouraging population growth in the territories held in common by the entire United States. As a territorial governor of Indiana, Harrison had given his “reluctant consent” to such a plan, before being overruled (to his apparent relief) by Congress.
Despite Harrison’s concern over criticisms contained in “An Abolition Almanac” which attacked his record and those of his rivals on slavery, the Election of 1840 would turn into a referendum on the incumbent Martin Van Buren’s handling of the economy as a result of the Panic of 1837.
Provenance: Malcolm Forbes Collection (sale II, Christie’s, October 9, 2002, lot 74).
|
