Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Governor Chase, Ohio : Peterboro, January 30th, 1856

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 501

PETERBORO, January 30th 1856.

Governor Chase, Ohio,

MY DEAR SIR,

Alas my poor colored brother! Alas my poor white brother! alas my poor country! Often, in the last eight or ten years, has my despair of the antislavery cause prompted such exclamations. All unbidden did they come to my lips, as I read your Inaugural Address.

Marked though it is by your vigorous and cultivated intellect, and pleasant though it is to be reminded by it, that there is one State, which is willing to bestow her highest honors upon her noblest citizens, I nevertheless confess, that the Inaugural is a fresh occasion for my sadness.

Sixteen years ago, the Liberty Party was organized. Notwithstanding its very small beginnings, so rapid was its growth, that it came in a few years to cast more than sixty thousand votes. It was fast learning just views of civil government; and no political party had ever given promise of so much usefulness. Nevertheless, in the year 1848, nearly all its members forsook it to join the Freesoil party. It was not, that they meant to abandon their antislavery principles. It was, that they had fallen under the matchlessly strange delusion, that they could promote those principles by voting for Martin Van Buren. The existence of the Freesoil party was, of course, very brief. Indeed, it was death-struck from the moment of its birth. Its antislavery pretensions were in conflict with its real and proslavery character. It was at war with itself, and killed itself.

An antislavery sentiment survived the Freesoil party. But, for the most part, it was diluted and feeble. It had been mixed up with so much, that was foreign and hostile to it, and had expended itself so greatly in false directions, that there was very little of it left, and that little was comparatively worthless. From the first however, the course of events has been favorable to the antislavery cause. When its friends have failed it, its enemies have furnished occasions for its advancement. Less than two years from the time when the public sentiment against slavery was absorbed and wasted by the Freesoil party, came the reviving influence of the fugitive slave Act. Then followed the frequent proceedings under this Act with all their necessary tendency to keep alive and invigorate that sentiment. Scarcely four years more, and the whole North was aroused by the perfidious repeal of the Missouri compromise line. With trumpet-tongue did that repeal call for another political organization against slavery. This last provocation prepared the masses for an efficient organization: not for a mere antislavery party, but for a downright abolition party. Promptly, gladly, triumphantly would they have followed bold leaders into such a party. But unhappily cautious and timid counsels prevailed among the most prominent and influential opponents of slavery; and the result was nothing better than the Republican party. A party fired and strengthened by the purpose of conquest was the party, which we needed against a conquering foe, that can live only by multiplying its conquests:-and, lo; we have but a defensive party! defensive too at only one of the innumerable points of incessant attack upon us!! A party was needed, that would make no terms with an enormous crime, a rampant and all-devouring monster, a piratical and bloody outlaw. But the Republican party begins its cowardly existence with propositions of compromise and with fatal concessions. The Republican party is willing to divide with slavery - ay, and to leave to it the lion's share. It is willing to make an absolute surrender of fifteen States, and to retain for its own share but a qualified right - a most basely qualified right - in the remainder. In other words, it stipulates in advance, that from fifteen States liberty may be entirely banished, and that over the whole of the remainder of our guilty and cursed country slavery may forever hunt for its victims.

That this new party, which is so partial, as to concede to one State the right to hold slaves, whilst it denies it to another; which is so illogical, as to admit slaveholding to be Constitutional in the one case, whilst it forbids slaveholding in the other, that this new party is no better, but far worse, than the Freesoil party of 1848, I cannot doubt - nor can I doubt, that it is to die as speedily and ignominiously, as did that party. Now, that you a wise, benevolent, high-souled man should give your countenance to such a party, and indorse its policy, as you virtually do in your Inaugural, is to me, whatever it may be to others, exceedingly disheartening and afflictive.

Why will you, my dear friend, persist in reading the Constitution, as you do? You are a lawyer, and unsurpassed by any other in your State.Why, then, will you not read it as a lawyer? The answer is at hand.The habit of the whole country is to justify the pretensions of slavery, and, therefore, to adopt the slaveholders' interpretations of the Constitution: - and even Salmon P. Chase is so enslaved to this miserable and guilty habit, as to lack courage and energy to break out of it. You well know, that in the light of law, and according to the canon of legal interpretation, there is not one proslavery line in the whole Constitution: - and, yet, rather than resist this mighty slavery-manufactured public sentiment, you allow, that it is Constitutional - or, at least, not repugnant to the Constitution - for any and every State to set up slavery. Perhaps, too, you still go so far, as to allow it to be positively Constitutional for the slaveholder to make the whole country his hunting ground for human prey.

I freely admit, that the published proceedings of the Convention, which framed the Constitution, show, that it was the purpose of a few, though only a few, of its members to provide a Constitutional shelter for slavery. But not only are you aware, that these proceedings were unknown to the American people, until long after the Constitution was adopted; but you are, also, aware, that only four days before the close of the Convention, they, who had cherished this wicked purpose, confessed their repentance of it. They confessed it, by joining the whole Convention in declaring, that they now meant by the word "service," wherever it occurs in the Constitution, not the condition of slaves, but of freemen: - that, to use other words, they had now no reference whatever to slaves, either in the apportionment or three fifths clause, or in the fugitive servant clause. Does any one say. that they were hypocritical in this confession? Then is he estopped from quoting them on the side of slavery - for hypocrites are entitled to no credit and no authority.

But it was entirely unnecessary to refer to these discussions and intentions.You are aware, that it is as immaterial to know what they were, as to know the motives of the scrivener, who wrote the deed of the land. It is the intentions of the millions, who adopted the Constitution, and not of the handful, who framed it, that we are after; and what were those intentions we are to learn from the letter of the Constitution.

What, however, if I were to admit, that ingenuity could argue a sanction for slavery in certain passages of the Constitution? Nevertheless, I am not at liberty to interpret these passages as containing such sanction. They do not contain it literally, plainly, certainly. At the most, their reference to slavery is obscure. And I surely need not say to you, that there is no more reasonable rule of the Courts than that which forbids our so interpreting a law, as to serve a purpose of injustice, unless such purpose is so clearly and undeniably expressed in the law, as to compel such interpretation. . But slavery is injustice - the deepest and most glaring injustice; and, hence, for the reason just given, the Constitution is not to be interpreted in behalf of slavery. No one believes, that it would have been adopted, had it provided, in plain, literal terms, for making, or permitting, this nation to be a slaveholding nation.I add, in this connexion; that the passages in question, so far from compelling the odious interpretation referred to, are capable, naturally and easily capable, of an entirely agreeable and innocent interpretation. Without the least violence to the language, the apportionment clause may be construed to refer to aliens instead of slaves, and the fugitive servant clause to apprentices and other than slaves.

I may have done you injustice in supposing, that you do, perhaps, hold the proslavery and popular view of the fugitive servant clause of the Constitution.The fact, that your Address is not only silent in regard to this clause, but that, it expressly denies all national and constitutional sanction to slavery, leads me to hope, that you have repudiated this view. Whilst I agree with you, that whatever the class of persons referred to in it, the injunction of the clause is on the State, and not on the Federal Government, I venture to hope for your agreement with me, that if this class of persons be slaves, thee is no possible escape, from the conclusion, that there is a national and constitutional sanction, ay and command; of slavery. Be the injunction on the State or Federal Government, it is in either case a national and constitutional injunction. If the clause in question refers to slaves, then, beyond all controversy, we have a base and wicked Constitution, and, beyond all controversy, we are a base and

[2]

wicked nation, and, beyond all controversy, Mr. Garrison and his friends are right in calling for the breaking up either of the Constitution or the nation. May I hope, my clear friend to hear, that you have adopted the abolition interpretation of this clause? Should I hear, that you have not, pray tell me what, in the name of common sense, I am to make of your declaration that: "All recognition of the rightfulness of slaveholding was carefully excluded from the Constitution?"

Another instance of your interpreting the Constitution, as the slaveholders have taught and commanded the country to interpret it, is in your making the prohibition to deprive "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", a prohibition on the Federal Government only. You believe, that the clause referred to forbids the Nation, but not a State, to sink its citizens in the pit of slavery: but do tell me, if you can, what there is either in the letter or history of the prohibition to justify this limitation? There is nothing - absolutely nothing. From your acquiescence in this limitation, I am warranted in believing you to hold, that, notwithstanding the Constitution does, confessedly on all hands, deny many things to a State, and in many respects qualify and impair its sovereignty, it nevertheless does permit it to authorize the robbery and murder and, what is worse, the enslavement of its citizens. You believe; that the Constitution presumes to forbid a State to coin money, or grant a title of nobility; but that it does not presume to forbid it to rob, and murder, and enslave! A specimen this of the absurd consequences of following proslavery interpretations of the Constitution. For my own part, I cannot believe, that our fathers were so stupid, as to imagine, that this nation could be held together, in spite of the mutual repulsion of States, one of which should protect property, and another plunder it; one of which should recognize the sacredness of life, and another sanction murder; one of which should maintain the liberty and rights of man, and another throw him into the category of brutes and things.

It is often said, that when the Constitution was adopted, it was not expected, that it would ever be employed to put down slavery. A sufficient answer to this is, that it was not then expected, that American slavery would survive that generation. The. spirit of the Revolution and the sentiment then so fresh, so vigorous, so pervading, so influential, that all men are brothers and have equal rights, made our fathers worshippers of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, - and left no room in their hearts for any other feelings toward slavery than shame and sorrow, and disgust and hatred. They unanimously resolved to put an end to the African slave trade; and it must never be forgotten, that, at that day, the end of the African slave trade was regarded, no less in America than in England, as the end of slavery. That trade continued less than twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution. But for the invention of Whitney's cotton gin, it might not have continued half that time. Let me here disclaim all idea, that the people of that day stipulated not to wield the powers of the Constitution for the overthrow of slavery. That there was an understanding among some of the politicians to leave slavery to die its natural and speedy death is highly probable. But that the people did not come into such an understanding is well illustrated by the fact, that they began with the very first session of Congress under the Constitution to petition for the abolition of slavery. It is noteworthy, that the first manic on their petition was that of the immortal Dr. Franklin, who was himself one of the framers of the Constitution.

It is surely no wonder, that, in such a liberty-loving and liberty-honoring mood of the public mind, and when the price of slaves was but one to two hundred dollars, instead of, as now, one to two thousand dollars, the slaveholders were not careful to get proslavery powers into the Constitution, nor to keep antislavery powers out of it. Had they been intent on perpetuating slavery, they certainly would not have been willing to let the Constitution forbid hereditary slavery, as it virtually and emphatically does, by forbidding attainder; nor would they have been willing to let it empower Congress to give freedom to the slaves by giving them citizenship, or by enrolling them in the army. But I need not proceed in enumerating the various passages of the Constitution, which are incompatible with slavery, and which demand its immediate abolition. Indeed, it seems to be scarcely necessary to argue the illegality of slavery with any one - for there is no one, who, if he will examine himself, but will find, that he is already convinced of it. It is nothing but the prejudice against the black man, that keeps up the idea of the legality of his slavery. Not for a moment could that idea co-exist with a full sense of his manhood. Were you to declare, that the Anglo Saxon, or any other race in our country than the African, could be legally enslaved, your popularity would he gone, and your present office would be your last office. Again, were you so unfortunate, as to become a slave in one of the Barbary States, you would prove by your readiness to escape, at whatever expense to the honor of the statute book, or to the lives of your keepers, that you had not the least faith in the legality of slavery. I said, that the question of slavery is but a question of prejudice. I add, that it is but a question of honesty. We cannot do unto others, as we would have others do unto us, and yet admit, that there is, or can be, a real, valid, obligatory law for slavery.

Let me here refer to the fact, that you antislavery men often charge us abortionists with the folly of holding, that Congress should abolish slavery. So far as I know, we all look to the Courts for the declaration, that slavery is repugnant to the Constitution, and that there is not, and cannot be law, either in or out of the Constitution, for the unequalled crime and abomination of slavery. Put the Federal Government into the hands of the abolitionists, and they will promptly impeach every Federal Judge, who is guilty of knowing slavery to be law, and they will, if need be, place a Federal Judge in every County of the South, who will use his office to deliver such, as are restrained of their liberty for no better reasons than that they were kidnapped at their birth, and have ever afterwards been reckoned as chattels, instead of men.

Do not suppose from what I have just said, that I have given up my old doctrine of compensation. Of the truth of that doctrine I have no doubt. Whilst I still believe, that the emancipation of the slave, instead of being conditioned on compensation, is his absolute and immediate due; so, also, do I still believe, that the North, in virtue of what it has done to sanction, maintain, extend, and profit by the system of slavery, is bound to share with the slaveholder in the loss; which he shall suffer from emancipation.

I need say no more to show, that, I hold, and justly hold, to the duty and practicability of abolishing, by virtue of tile Federal Constitution, every part and parcel of American slavery. But I go much farther. I hold, that, whatever might be that instrument, and though it were as destitute, as it is full, of antislavery and abolition powers, ay, and though our States were as independent of each other as are nations, there would still rest upon the whole of the American people the highest obligations to abolish the whole of American slavery. I am very far from believing with Kossuth and other statesmen, that one nation has nothing to do with the internal affairs of another. Nor would they believe it, had they larger and juster apprehensions of the human brotherhood, and of the mutual obligations of all its members. That brotherhood is bound to concern itself for all portions of itself; and it is never at liberty to abandon any of these portions to whatever bloody and merciless despotisms they may have fallen under. The whole may, and should, leave its parts to their respective Governments; - but if those Governments become intolerable and their subjects are too weak to throw them off, then is the whole required to fall back upon its original right and obligation to take care of the parts. If the Government of Austria goes to work to murder its subjects, then are England and France and the whole earth bound to deliver those subjects. On the same principle, and all the more promptly because slavery is worse than murder, are the people of Ohio, when all other means to that end have been exhausted, bound to deliver the slaves of Kentucky.

The base acquiescence of the North, including even the professed and enrolled antislavery men, in the idea, that American slavery must be allowed to continue, is no less amazing than humiliating. This acquiescence is never more strikingly illustrated than when the proposition is made to enlarge our national borders. All admit, that Cuba should belong to us, and all should be able to see, that Mexico must be miserable, until she become apart of us. But no sooner is the union proposed - even though it be an unforced, unbought, and altogether voluntary union - than the whole North is alarmed. She sees in the proposition but another scheme to extend slavery: and, instead of arousing herself to deliver the whole country from it, she goes again to making terms with the handful of slaveholders; falls upon her knees; and assures them, that slavery - bloody, devilish slavery - shall never be molested in its present sway, only let it be content with that sway. And then there is this whining of the North over the rascally attempt of the Missourians to make Kansas a slave State. What can be more disgusting than that chicken-hearted cowardly whining! Oh, my good friend, if your Republican party were only one half what it should be, it would rise up from its "oh don't" and detestable attitude, and quickly solve the Kansas problem by determining to make Missouri herself free. What a glorious contrast would be that to its nonsense of indorsing slavery in Missouri, whilst denying its rightfulness in Kansas! Its all a delusion, that your party is against slavery in Kansas. The party, that acknowledges slavery in Missouri, may say what it will and do what it will to the contrary - it nevertheless is, in effect; a party for slavery in Kansas.

I said, that your Inaugural is a fresh occasion for my sadness. It is such, because it serves to confirm my fears, that the impulse given to the cause of liberty by the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, and by those infamous scenes in Kansas, which are the natural fruits of that Bill, will be entirely misdirected and wasted. That mighty impulse will certainly be misdirected and

[3]

wasted, if spent in building up a party of the extremely superficial antislavery character, and of the very inadequate objects, of the Republican party. Nevertheless, your Inaugural justifies the inference, that you contemplate no higher and no more decisive action than is proposed by this party.

To my own mind it is well nigh certain, that if the Republican party is to be allowed to absorb the antislavery sentiment of the country, this sentiment will be found, after the speedy death and burial of that party, to be weaker than it has been at any time within the last twenty years - weaker even than after its similar experience of the perverting and corrupting influence of the Freesoil party. Then will there he less prospect than ever of a bloodless termination of American slavery. True, there may follow some other event to revive that enfeebled and perishing antislavery sentiment. But what event of such mighty influence to that end, as the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, can there ever be again? Moreover, the oftener that sentiment has been aroused, but to be trifled with, disappointed, abused - the more difficult it will be to break its slumbers, and encourage it to action. Indeed, the public mind is fast becoming hopeless on the subject of slavery, in consequence of this blasting of its hopes by shallow and idle movements against slavery.

I see, that there is to be a National Convention of the Republican party at Pittsburg 22d next month. Would to God, that you and other strong men, who belong to it, might, on that occasion, see the folly of keeping the party on its present low ground, and the necessity of exalting it into an abolition party. It is now but an antislavery party. Make it an abolition party, and it will be as full of power, as it is now full of weakness. It has now but a half-way and negative character; and it will die, be cause, like all such miserable things, it deserves to die. But give it a positive and efficient character, and it will live and triumph. Fear not, that the masses would refuse to follow you in such an upward and glorious movement. I was in Pittsburg on a similar occasion three years and a half ago; and I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears abundant evidence, that the masses desired to take this same high ground to which I then invited them. It was as much as their more cautious and calculating leaders could possibly do to keep them from rushing to that ground. Depend upon it, the antislavery masses are far in advance of their leaders. They are tired of the low policy and low views, which can make no appeal to the earnest ness and enthusiasm of their souls. They are weary of standing month after month, and year after year, upon a fruitless and inglorious defensive. Their impatience to conquer waits but the summons to conquer. They have the courage and the power to go forward, and put an end to slavery; but of the policy, which never advances against slavery, and which, when not retreating before it, is, at the most, but standing still, they are heartily tired, wholly ashamed.

My desire to see your party rise into an abolition party and put away slavery from the whole land, is not exclusively for the sake of the slave and the scarcely less abused free colored man. It is in no small degree for the salve of the slaveholders also. Our pity for the slaves cannot be excessive: and hardly excessive can be our pity for the slaveholders. There are few classes of men so unfortunate and so wronged, as are the slaveholders. In the first place, they have inherited the most wicked of all systems of oppression. In the second place, I know not why it should be any easier for them than for others to sea the sinfulness of that to which they were born and bred. In the third place, whence shall light come to scatter the darkness of their false education? Not from the South - for the whole South is enveloped in that darkness. It should come from the North: - but the religious parties of the North quiet the slaveholder in his sin. Its titled divines, with the Bible in their hands and their proslavery interpretations of it on their lips, easily succeed in transmuting slavery into a virtue, and in making it the ordination of Heaven, instead of the product of Hell. This light should come from the North: - but the merchants of the North go for slavery, because they go for Southern trade. It should come from the North: - but the political parties of the North your own no less than the others - exalt slavery into the dignity of law, and accord to it all the sacred obligations of law.

Such are the circumstances of. the unfortunate and wronged slaveholder, whom the North is confirming in sin, instead of bringing to repentance: - and is he not to be pitied rather than scorned, and hated, and shunned? Are we to treat him, as if he saw slavery with our eyes, and were conscious, as aye are, of its superlative wickedness? Are we to refuse even to discuss the question of slavery with him? Reason and religion forbid such treatment and such refusal. Mr. Garrison, though seldom wrong, errs in my judgment, at this point. He would discuss this question with the Northern politicians and Northern Doctors of Divinity: - and yet, even on the subject of slavery, their sin, compared with that of the slaveholder, is as the mountain to the molehill. I would here add, that we should encourage the strongest slaveholders to come to the North with their arguments for slavery, if only that the people of the North may have the opportunity of witnessing the utter weakness and emptiness of even the strongest arguments in that direction.

It is possible. that I judge the slaveholder too leniently. My father was a slaveholder, until after I reached manhood. I. married a slaveholder. In no period of my life have I refused social and even friendly relations with slaveholders. Now, I admit, it is possible, that these and other facts in my history may serve to unfit me to judge impartially of Southern slaveholders. At any rate, so it is, that, with all my abhorrence of their stupendous crime - their preeminent piracy - I do not look upon them to be the worst of men. How can I, so long as I believe, that no small share of them regard slavery as right, and that the vast majority of them believe it to be, if not absolutely right, nevertheless excusable and unavoidable? It is because he may be blinded to the criminality of slavery by the lying education of the South and by the more wickedly lying politics and religion of the North, that it is not only possible for him not to be totally corrupt, but possible also, as we have had frequent evidence, for beautiful and noble traits to shine in his character, and generous and sublime deeds to abound in his life.

The antislavery men spend quite too much of their time in denouncing the South. The reformation of the South is indeed among their legitimate aims; but their first duty is to reform themselves and their neighbors. Southern men are not worse than Northern men. They are nothing like as bad, if we take into the account, that they go with, and Northern men against, the current of education and conviction. It is in this point of view, that the worst slaveholder is a very saint, compared with a doughface.

What is mainly necessary is a change at the North in religion and politics. Our religion must be so changed, that it will no more countenance slavery than murder; and our politics must come to know no law for slavery. Then will Southern slavery pass away under the power of Northern influence, as naturally and as quietly, as the mists of the morning disappear before the rising sun. May both you and I, my good friend, be found faithful and prompt to perform our respective parts, in bringing about these mighty and saving changes.

Before closing my already too long letter, I must say the few words, which I am prompted to say by reading this evening a very brief Newspaper notice of the horrid scene witnessed the present week in the chief city of your State. Our poor fellow beings dragged from their home to be plunged into the hell of slavery! - one of them, however, not until she had cut the throats of her children to save them from a more dreadful fate than murder!!

Am I then to conclude, that Ohio too, like all our other States, is still to be without a Government? For, surely, if she suffers kidnappers within her borders, and the tearing away from her soil of innocent persons, she can have nothing under the name of Government, that it is at all worthy of that sacred name. When I took up your Inaugural, I hoped to find it speaking brave and true words at this point. I hoped to find it declaring, that, at this point especially, Ohio should, so far as lies in her Chief Magistrate, enjoy a real Government: - that the day of her sham, or rather shark, Government was past: - that henceforth her Government was to be no longer a conspiracy against her innocent poor, but their faithful and efficient protector: - no longer the patron and partner of kidnappers, but their stern, unrelenting, prompt, effectual punisher. I need not add, that I was sorrowful at your silence on this vital point. Of course, I did not desire to have it say, that the future kidnapping of Ohio is to be done by the State, instead of the Nation. If the diabolical work is to be done, I care little whether it is done by State devils or Federal devils. What I looked to your Inaugural to say was, that it should not be done at all: - and had it said so, this horrid scene, to which we have referred, would not rave been enacted. Let me be very explicit at this point. I looked to your Inaugural, not to say, that no man should be taken from your State, as a slave, without first having had a fair and proper trial. But I looked to it to say, that there should be no trial whatever in your State of the question whether a man is a slave - or, in other words, whether a being, made in the image of God, is a chattel and a marketable commodity. If need be, in order to arrest such a trial, I would have the Governor of a State march a band of armed men, Oliver Cromwell like, into the Court-Room to expel from it the Court guilty of such an outrage on the dignity of human nature, and of such blasphemy against the Majesty of Heaven.

The duty of a Governor in regard to these frequent forays into the Northern States is, in my own mind, clear of all doubts. -

[4]

What if the pirates of all the seas, collected in one mighty fleet, were known to be bearing down upon the City of New York? - should not the Governor of my State feel himself bound to summon, if need be, all the brave hearts and all the strong arms in the State to meet these pirates - these hostes humani generis? But these human hounds, who scented their prey to your Cincinnati, were as emphatically pirates and hostes humani generis, as any buccaneers, who ever sailed upon the deep; - and, all Statutes and Constitutions to the contrary notwithstanding, they were as destitute, as those buccaneers, of all law for their plunders and murders. I will not doubt, that you view this matter, as I do. I will not doubt, that, had you been apprised of the coming and intent of these kidnappers, you would have been amply prepared to make it their last expedition into your State.

Is it said. that the people of Ohio would not have obeyed your summons to meet these invaders? and that they would have been withheld from such obedience by their respect for a long, unbroken line of judicial, legislative, and Constitutional authorities? They are ignorant of human nature, and they grossly wrong human nature, who say so. When the thousands, who were assembled before the prison of poor Jerry in Syracuse, were bid to rescue him, they cared naught for these counter authorities; but they hastened to obey the instincts of their own high nature, the convictions and demands of their own glowing souls, and the voice of the great God. Thus would the people of Ohio follow your lead against the enemies of the human brotherhood. It is, as I have already intimated, that the cause of freedom is perishing for the lack of brave and true men to take the lead. The people are ready: - but the leaders are wanting.

I confess to you, my dear friend, that if I never coveted office before, I did covet it, when this Newspaper notice of the outrage in Cincinnati first fired my indignation, and filled my veins with boiling blood. Forgetting at the moment, that it requires wisdom, as Well as spirit, to be a Governor, I was actually guilty of wishing, that I were Governor of Ohio. So intense and engrossing was my desire to wield the power of free Ohio against the slave power, that with me all the qualifications for a Governor were at that moment summed up in that one desire. I owe you an apology for my wish to be in your official place. That wish was more than foolish. It was unjust also. It implied a distrust of your bravery to meet, and of your ability to discharge, the high and responsible duties of your office. The world already knows your great ability; and it will yet know, that your bravery equals your ability. I confidently predict, that this horrible occurrence in Cincinnati will prompt you to such a demonstration of your purposes, as will effectually prevent, during your Administration at least, the carrying into slavery of any more of the inhabitants of Ohio. I confidently predict, that you will tell your great State to provide safety for all the innocent upon her soil, at whatever expense of treasure or blood: and that you will tell her, that Ohio cannot be said to be governed and protected, if there is, any where within her limits, even the humblest black parent, or even the least black baby, over whom the shield of her Government is not firmly and faithfully extended.

Had I time and room, I should like to add a few words about Washington matters. This failure of all attempts to organize the House helps to open many eyes to see, that liberty and slavery, those deadliest enemies of each other, cannot dwell together always, and cannot always be partners in Government. In all this new light I, of course, rejoice. But. alas, how lamentable, that, in the face of all these providential instructions, your party should persist in saying, that liberty and slavery can dwell together, and can govern in partnership! - that slavery is entitled to the absolute control of fifteen States and to hunt for slaves in all the others! - and that liberty should be content with what is left! When, oh when, will the antislavery men throwaway their nonsense and wickedness, and become what common sense and common honesty bid them become - whole-hearted, out spoken, uncompromising abolitionists? I fear, not until it is too late: - not until slavery shall have provoked civil and servile wars. It is not yet too late to expel slavery by the ballot-box and the peaceful operations of Government. Would, that we might have the courage and wisdom and integrity to do it, before it is too late!

With great regard,

your friend.

GERRIT SMITH.