Smith
HARVARD
HISTORICAL STUDIES
PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HISTORY AND GOVERN^IENT FROM THE INCOME OF
%l)t Henrr fBEarren Corrc^ Jfunti
Volume VI.
THE
Liberty and Free Soil Parties
IN
THE NORTHWEST
TOPPAN PRIZE ESSAY OF 1896
BY
THEODORE CLARKE SMITH, Ph.D.
SOMETIME OZIAS GOODWIN MEMORIAL FELLOW OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
INSTRUCTOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
NEW YORK
LONGMANS. GREEN, AND CO.
LONDON AND BOMBAY
1897
[the new YORK
IPUBLICUBRAR'^
95346
ASTOn, LENOX AND
TIUDEN FOUNDATIONS.
1898.
Copyright, 1891,
By the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
University Press:
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, U.S.A.
PREFACE.
The history of the anti-slavery controversy in Congress
and in national politics is the subject of a vast and in-
creasing number of writings ranging from monographs
to large volumes, but the local history of this great
struQ-cle has received little or no attention. Believing,
with many students of recent years, that national and
State politics are too closely related, logically to admit
of such absolute separation, I have endeavored in this
monograph, by a study of the political anti-slavery
parties in the Old Northwest, to work out the local
history of that great movement in a region of which the
importance in our national development has not always
been adequately recognized. Combined with this main
object — and in my mind scarcely less important — has
been the effort to add to the knowledge of the growth
of the American party system.
This work has occupied much of my time during three
years spent in the Seminary of American History and
Institutions of Harvard University, and one year in the
University of Wisconsin. The authorities used are
stated and explained in an Appendix below : they have
been found by search in the great libraries of Boston,
t-
vi PREFA CE.
Cambridge, and Madison, Wisconsin, by visits to many
places in the various Northwestern States, and by corre-
spondence with survivors of the period studied and their
descendants. Yet the diaries and letters of the anti-
slavery leaders, the reminiscences and biographies, have
furnished but a small part of the material. The recol-
lections of Hving men, communicated in person or by
letters, have been suggestive, but have been used as
authorities only to explain facts already learned from
contemporary material. The most valuable group of
sources has therefore been the newspapers of the time,
and especially the Liberty and Free Soil press.
In reaching, studying, and arranging this large and
confused mass of material, I have received indispensable
assistance and kindness in every quarter. I desire to
express a special obligation to the following gentlemen :
Prof. Frederick J. Turner of the University of Wis-
consin ; Mr. Reuben G. Thwaites, Secretary of the
Wisconsin Historical Society; Mr. Warren Upham,
Secretary of the Western Reserve Historical Society;
Hon. Edward L. Pierce, Milton, Massachusetts ; Hon.
Samuel D. Hastings, Madison, Wisconsin ; Prof. W. P.
Howe, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa; Mr. Charles M. Zug, Rev.
George W. Clark, and Rev. J. F. Conover, Detroit,
Michio-an; Hon. Albert G. Riddle and Gen. William
Birney, Washington, D. C. ; Hon. George Hoadly,
New York ; and Mr. Sherman M. Booth, Chicago. I
also wish to record the kindness of Mr. Herbert Putnam
of the Boston Public Library, who gave me access to the
newspapers of that institution while as yet unclassified
and unarranged ; and the courtesy of the editorial staffs
PRE FA CE. vii
of the Chicago Journal and Cleveland Leader who have
given me every facility to examine the valuable files of
these papers.
Especially do I wish to thank the Hon. George W.
Julian, of Irvington, Indiana, for the unfailing kindness
and courtesy with which on very many occasions he has
aided me by his manuscript records and his own accurate
memory. Finally, and above all, I wish to express my
indebtedness to Prof. Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard
University, at whose suggestion and under whose guid-
ance the work was begun, and from whom at every stage
I have received invaluable advice and assistance.
THEODORE CLARKE SMITH.
Ann Arbor, A'ovefuber, 1S07.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Page
The Northwest in the Anti-Slavery Struggle, i 830-1861 . i
CHAPTER II.
Anti-Slavery Beginnings in the Northwest, i 830-1 838 . . 6
CHAFFER III.
Abolition in Western Politics, i 836-1 839 19
CHAPTER IV.
Beginnings of the Third Party. 183 6-1 840 27
CHAPTER V.
Org.anization of the Liberty Party, i 840-1 843 48
CHAPTER VI.
The Liberty Men hold the Balance of Power. 1843-1845 . 69
CHAPTER VH.
Discouragement of the Liberty Men. 1845-184 7 .... 85
X CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VIII.
Page
The Liberty Party in the Wilmot Proviso Controversy.
1846-1848 105
CHAPTER IX.
^^ Combination of Third- Party Men on the Free Soil Issue.
1848 . 121
CHAPTER X.
\^ Campaign of the Free Soil Party. 1848 138
CHAPTER XI.
The Ohio Senatorial Contest. 1849 160
CHAPTER XII.
Collapse of the Free Soil Party in the three Ohio River
States. 1849-1850 176
CHAPTER XIII.
Collapse of the Free Soil Party in Michigan, Wisconsin,
AND Iowa. 1849-1850 198
CHAPTER XIV.
Causes of the Free Soil Collapse, i 849-1 850 220
CHAPTER XV.
The Free Democracy stands against Finality, i 850-1851 . 226
CHAPTER XVI.
The Free Democracy in the Campaign of 1852. 1 851-185 2 245
CONTENTS. xi
CHAPTER XVII.
Page
Expansion of the Free Democratic Party. 1853 . . , . 261
CHAPTER XVIII.
Whigs and Free Democrats in Wisconsin. 1853 . . . . 278
CHAPTER XIX.
The Free Democr.\tic Party aitains Nirvana in the Anti-
Nebraska Movement, 1854 285
CHAPTER XX.
The Result of Twenty Years' Effort. 1834-1854 . . . 298
APPENDICES.
309
A. Bibliography
B. Liberty and Free Soil Press in the Northwest . . . 318
C. Distribution of the Third- Party Vote (with Maps) . . 325
D. Constitutional Conventions and Direct Popular Votes
UPON Negro Disabilities. 1845-185 i 332
INDEX
339
THE
LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PARTIES.
CHAPTER I.
THE NORTHWEST IN THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE.
1830-1861.
The years 1854-56 saw the creation of a new party out
of fragments of the Whig organization combined with anti-
slavery Democrats, Free Soilers, Temperance men, AboHtion-
ists, and Know Nothings. Great, however, as was the popular
upheaval at this time, the platform and programme of the party
were by no means new; for its opposition to the extension of
slavery had long been the basis of certain political organizations,
in which, moreover, many of the ablest men in the Republican
party had gained that experience and prominence which gave
them their leadership. In fact, to their thirteen years of activ-
ity may justly be ascribed, in no small degree, the growth of
that Northern anti-slavery sentiment which in 1854, by the for-
mation of the new party, took the first political step toward
civil war ; yet notwithstanding these well-known facts, there has
so far been no adequate study of the development and achieve-
ments of the Liberty and Free Soil parties.
In political matters the " Old Northwest," maintaining in most
respects the characteristics of a frontier region down to the
middle of the century, presents features of peculiar interest.
Organization was incomplete, personalities counted for more
than principles, and eloquence and combativeness for more than
2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NORTHWEST.
social culture and wealth : hence there was an unsteadiness in
party fortunes and, particularly in anti-slavery matters, a vari-
ableness in political opinion far exceeding similar phenomena in
New England and in the Middle States. Hence, in the West
began the uprising of 1854, which in one year accomplished
the creation of a new party and the complete overthrow in most
of the Western States of the hitherto victorious Democracy.
It is this last feature which gives to the anti-slavery move-
ment in the Northwest its peculiar significance. Had not the
Republican party been born in the Northwest, had not this sec-
tion as a unit taken the lead in the movement, the history of
the country would probably have been altogether different. The
Middle and Eastern States, slow as they were to change front,
might have been expected eventually to oppose the spread of
slavery; but had not the Northwest also proved anti-slavery in
character, the action of the East might have had more resem-
blance to the Hartford Convention of 18 14 than to the Repub-
lican Convention of i860; and the war which followed might
have been directed, not against Southern, but against Northern
secession.
The new States, then, eventually turned the scale in favor of
freedom; but what determined their action? Any Northwest-
erner during the years 1840 to i860 would have said without
hesitation that the anti-slavery clause of the Northwest Ordi-
nance, by excluding slaves and slave-holders, had settled the
question from the outset. Modern opinion, however, suspicious
of such generalizations, and inclined to look for something more
deep-seated than " mere legislation " to account for the social
and political characteristics of a vast region, inclines to believe
that the result would have been the same, even had there been
no prohibition of slavery in 1787 ; that it was the stream of emi-
grants from New England, New York, and Pennsylvania, pouring
first into Ohio, then Michigan and Indiana, and lastly Illinois,
Wisconsin, and Iowa, who inevitably preserved the Northwestern
States for freedom, in spite of a large immigration from Vir-
ginia, Maryland, and Kentucky. It was, according to this view,
a mere question of physiography, the slave-holding States natu-
rally pouring their surplus population into the neighboring
EFFECT OF THE ORDIXAXCE OF 1787. 3
Southwest, the free States into the Northwest, each seeking
physical conditions similar to those of the parent communities.
In the case of Michigan and Wisconsin, we may at the outset
admit the truth of this explanation, for these regions were too
far north to be easily accessible to Southern immigration or to
furnish profitable fields for slave labor; but in regard to the
southern tier of free States something may be said in favor of
the old view. Nearly half of Indiana and Illinois, and a large
part of Ohio, lay to the south of Mason and Uixon's line, in
immediate contact with slave territory. In this region slavery
was just as likely to be profitable as in Missouri, Kentucky,
Virginia, and Maryland; and, as a matter of fact, these sections
actually were settled by people from the South, so that each of
these three Ohio River States — Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois —
repeated in miniature the political condition of the nation dur-
ing the first half of the century. Men of Southern birth or
descent led parties, directed the State policy, and furnished
the great majority of governors, judges, senators, and State
officials of all kinds, until the Republican outburst drove them
from power. The influx from New England, New York, and
Pennsylvania was very large in these States, and played a very
important part in preparing the way for the Republican move-
ment ; but until very late it had little more effect in directing
State sentiment than had New England in influencing Federal
policy toward slavery. Having the power, then, why did not
the Southern-born leaders of these States admit slavery?
What was the cause of the failure of the efforts made in all
three States? The reason, it would seem, must lie in the fact
that the prohibition of slavery had kept people who lived by
the institution from coming into these States, so that in the
years i8oo to 1830 the majority of Southerners in the North-
west, although sympathizing in most respects with the Southern
point of view, had never held slaves themselves, were personally
indifferent to the system of slavery, and cared nothing for its
introduction.
The Ordinance of 1787, therefore, by determining the char-
acter of the settlers during the territorial period, did fulfil its
purpose of keeping slavery out of the Northwest; but no
4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NORTHWEST.
legislation could or did make anti-slavery a dominant political
force in that region. Over half a century was to pass before
the rule of Southern sympathizers was repudiated by the North-
west, and before the States subject to the Ordinance of 1787 —
together with Iowa, first fruits for the North of the Louisiana
Purchase and the Missouri Compromise — determined to throw
their weight against Southern domination at Washington and
in the State capitals.
In bringing about this result, political agitation played a
prominent part ; and it is this phase of the anti-slavery move-
ment with which the present monograph is concerned. That
no attempt is here made to cover the entire field of anti-slavery
action, but mainly its political aspects, must not be understood
to imply that political anti-slavery agitation was more important
than purely moral and religious action ; for the appeal to the
conscience was in fact the cause and condition of the existence
of anti-slavery sentiment, and continued steadily in operation
during the entire course of the Liberty, Free Soil, and Repub-
lican parties, " There can be no doubt but that the teachings
of the Gospel were decisive influences in thousands of individual
cases in the United States in creating a public opinion against
slavery before the civil war; but it would be far more difficult
to write the history of their action than to write the history of
the political influences which combined with them." ^
The mistake is often made of failing to distinguish between
the different forms of anti-slavery agitation, and confusing the
terms "anti-slavery" and "abolition."^ Only before 1840 did
" abolitionist " and " anti-slavery man " mean the same thing.
From 1840 to 1848 the name of "abolitionist" was accepted
by such men only as sought anti-slavery ends outside the long
established political and moral agencies; it included not only the
Garrisonians, but also Liberty men of all shades. After 1848
the term, although often used as equivalent to " Free Soil "
or "Republican," was generally avoided by those parties;
1 G. B. Adams, Civilizatio}i during the Middle Ages, 51.
2 See, for example, the hopeless vagueness of the use of the words in
J. T. Morse's Abraham Lincoln, I. 176-7, where Giddings and Garrison
are classed together.
''ABOLITION" AND '' ANTI-SLAVE RY:' 5
but it remained the appellative of two groups, — the Garrisa-
nians, and the followers of Gerrit Smith and William Goodcll.
Nevertheless, the two men commonly referred to as the personi-
fication of abolitionism are William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell
Phillips, whose striking personality causes the fact to be for-
gotten that after 1840 their followers in the whole United States
numbered at the most a few thousands, and that their leadership
was expressly repudiated by the majority of actual " abolition-
ists." In the Northwest there was, after 1840, very little knowl-
edge of Garrison and his methods, the main interest of Western
anti-slavery men finding its outlet in political action rather than
in demands for disunion.
To separate out the political from the moral movement is,
therefore, possible. It is the aim of this monograph to describe
that political activity which was most characteristic of the
Western movement, and to trace the growth of anti-slavery
political parties in the several Northwestern States, from their
beginnings to the time when the public sentiment which they
had assisted so powerfully to create resulted in the formation
of the Republican party, in the year 1854. It does not treat
of the Whig and Democratic parties, except when directly
concerned with anti-slavery questions or with the Liberty and
Free Soil organizations; nor does it include, except for pur-
poses of illustration or explanation, any consideration of the
Congressional action of Northwestern men, whether as members
of the old parties or of the distinctively anti-slavery bodies.
CHAPTER II.
ANTI-SLAVERY BEGINNINGS IN THE NORTHWEST.
1830-1838.
In 1830 the conception that slavery was "a problem" was
little known in the Northwest ; still less the idea that it was a
national sin or a crime. Neither the Virginia immigrant nor his
neighbor from New England had any particular fondness for
the institution ; but the thought that it bore any different rela-
tion to them than did poverty, crime, or evil in the abstract
scarcely entered their minds. That there could be any remedy
for it seemed never to occur to either group.
Certain movements of an anti-slavery character with which
the Northwest was not wholly unacquainted had, it is true, taken
place in the preceding decade ; but these were not of a kind
to disturb the general indifference, nor were they in fact on the
same basis as the later anti-slavery agitation. An emancipation
propaganda, mainly in the Southern States, had been in exist-
ence for a score of years, and since 18 14 had gone so far as to
bring about national conventions, representing in all over a
hundred local societies. There had been a few societies in
Ohio, and one or two abolition newspapers had sprung up, no-
tably Benjamin Lundy's Genius of Universal Emancipation, and
Charles Osborn's P JiilantJiropist ; and in 1824 the Ohio legis-
lature had adopted resolutions favoring gradual emancipation ; ^
but the whole movement was so purely moral and unaggressive,
and its activity was so largely confined to the slave States, that
upon the Northwest it made little general impression. By 1830
these societies had begun to decay rapidly in the South, and,
^ Senate Journal, 18 Cong., i sess. 245 (March 23, 1824).
EMANCIPATION AND COLONIZATION. 7
although some of them still existed in Ohio, they were without
vigor, and attracted no attention whatever.^
There had been two controversies which brought slavery into
politics: the national struggle leading to the Missouri Compro-
mise, and the local attempts to introduce slavery into the North-
western States; - but by 1830 both of them were passing into
oblivion, almost forgotten in the rush of tariff and financial con-
troversy, and the results of both were so thoroughly acquiesced
in that revival seemed impossible. Both of these struggles,
moreover, were too purely defensive on the part of the free
States to suggest any aggressive conflict with slavery where it
already existed.
Colonization, the only philanthropic movement which at this
time concerned the negroes as such, was not in any sense
anti-slavery : it had for its basis the inferiority of negroes and
their incompatibility with whites; it was therefore, at its best,
only an attempt to better the lot of free blacks, while in the
South it was looked upon chiefly as a means of removing a
class whose existence in a slave-holding community was an
anomaly and a possible danger. In 1830, however, the activity
of this movement in the North seemed justified, in the minds of
benevolent people, by the apparently hopeless degradation in
which free blacks were condemned to live ; for in every free
State " Black Laws," of varying degrees of rigor, segregated
them as an inferior class under grave social, civil, and political
disabilities."^ Without going into all the details, it may be said
that in the Northwest free negroes could not testify against a
white, serve on juries, vote, or send their children to public
schools; they were forbidden, in some cases, to enter the
State without giving bonds not to become paupers ; and if
* For the emancipation movement before 1830. see Henry Wilson, Slave
Power, I. chs. ii, xiii, xiv, and William Birnejs/. G. Birney and his Thnes^
74-86, 169, 382-412.
2 On the efforts to introduce slavery into the Northwest, see B. A.
Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, 351-67.
* Oliio laws of Jan. 5, 1804; Jan. 5, 1807; Feb. 9, March 14, 1831.
Indiana laws of Dec. 30, 1816; Jan. 28, 1818; Jan. 22, 1824. Illinois laws
of March 22, 1S19; Jan. 3, 17, 1S25 ; Jan. 17, 1829; Feb. i, 1831. Iowa
law of Jan. 2t, 1839.
8 ANTI-SLAVERY BEGINNINGS.
they were claimed as slaves, they were obliged, under the
national Fugitive Slave Law, or under special State laws, to
prove their title to freedom before a magistrate alone, without
the privilege of a jury. That any incongruity existed between
these Black Laws and the long Bills of Rights prefixed to the
various State constitutions, scarcely occurred to any one. The
negro disabilities were considered fit and necessary; they
merely proved how much it was for the interest of the free
blacks to go to Liberia under the auspices of the Coloniza-
tion Society.
Some scattered individuals could be found, however, to whom
the system of negro bondage appeared something else than
merely a regrettable necessity. Many of these were anti-
slavery Quakers, whose conscientious scruples are shown, for
example, by the fact that a dry-goods store in Philadelphia
kept by Lydia White, a Quakeress, whose wares were made
entirely by free labor, received orders from far-off Ohio and
Indiana.^ There were others whose sensibilities had been
roused by the sight of a fugitive-slave chase, or by the kid-
napping of a free black; and there were still more who from
religious logic found themselves unable to reconcile slavery
and Christianity. Many of the last-mentioned were Southern
men, who had become convinced of the iniquity of the slave
system, and had removed to the North to escape from contact
with it. Some of these had been active in the earlier emanci-
pation movement, and still continued to assert the sinfulness of
slavery ,2 and without doubt to assist fugitives with all possible
zeal.^
Thus, while on the whole Northwestern popular feeling was
utterly indifferent, anti-slavery elements were slowly growing.
What was needed was some stimulus to rouse them into activity.
Vague dislikes, religious scruples, sentimental and emotional
1 Liberator, May 28, 1831.
2 See, for example, W. Birney,/. G. Birney and his Times, 382 seq., and
G. W. Julian, The Genesis of Modern Abolitiottisjn, in the Internafional
Review, June, 1882.
8 For details, see W. F. Siebert, Underground Railroad (in preparation,
1897).
INFLUENCE OF THE ''LIBERATOR:' 9
objections, must be united in pursuit of some tangible end
before the popular indifference could be pierced. This stimu-
lus, this direction, was undoubtedly furnished in the years 183 1-
35 by William Lloyd Garrison's Liberator^ whose eloquent,
uncompromising, even violent utterances, demanding imme-
diate, unconditional emancipation, fell with thrilling effect
upon the nascent anti-slavery sentiment in the Northwest.
The man into whose hands a copy came could no longer
maintain a careless indifference on the subject; he might be
alarmed or indignant, but he was forced to think, and with
many men there could be but one outcome. The paper made
converts from the very start; to the old-time emancipationists
it came like a draught of fire reviving their enthusiasm and re-
doubling their energies. Still better, the Liberator served as an
outlet to sentiments that had hitherto been suppressed ; it put
Western and Eastern anti-slavery men into communication with
each other; and, from its unique position as the only aggressive
abolition paper in the country, it served as a national organ.
It must always be remembered that Western abolitionism had an
independent beginning; but while credit for independent action
must be given to President Storrs of Western Reserve College;
to Asa Mahan, John Rankin, Elizur Wright, Jr., Beriah Green,
Theodore D. Weld, and Samuel Crothers in Ohio ; to Charles
Osborne in Indiana ; and to James G. Birney in Kentucky, never-
theless the establishment of the Liberator gave the abolition
cause its first real impetus in the West as well as in the East.
The smouldering flames thus fanned by Garrison spread in all
directions, and within a year from the foundation of the paper
an agitation of a kind as yet unknown had begun in the North-
west. Some clergymen early in 1831 wrote letters to the
Liberator, or rushed into print in the local papers, to the
amazement of all and to the disgust of most quiet-minded,
conservative men. Then, after the moral indignation of the
new reformers had expressed itself in condemnation of slave-
holding on religious grounds, their practical natures led them
to fall foul of the only movement wherein negro philanthropy
had at the time any outlet, namely, colonization. As early as
1 83 1 the free blacks of Cincinnati, Columbus, and other places
lO ANTI-SLAVERY BEGINNINGS.
in Ohio had been protesting against the project; ^ and this cir-
cumstance, joined with the relentless logic of the Liberator, at
once led anti-slavery men to appreciate the fact that coloniza-
tion was not in reality a scheme to benefit the negroes, even
the freed men, but simply to get rid of them. The negroes
themselves might have protested against colonization until the
end of time, without attracting any notice ; but this attack from
a new quarter aroused the liveliest indignation. Controversy
immediately began, and after 1832 a war of biblical texts broke
out in Ohio, and to a much less extent in Indiana and Michigan.
Nowhere was the attack upon colonization more active than in
Western Reserve College, from which, until the death of its
anti-slavery president, C. B. Storrs, and the subsequent de-
parture of the anti-slavery professors, Elizur Wright, Jr., and
Beriah Green, there poured forth a constant succession of
lectures, sermons, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and letters.
Organization began almost simultaneously with the movement
in the East. As early as the fall of 1832 an anti-slavery society
was projected in Western Reserve College ; but the first actual
organization on record was that of the Tallmadge Anti-Slavery
Society, founded April 10, 1833, by thirty-two persons under
the leadership of two clergymen. ^ After this speedily fol-
lowed the Paint Valley Abolition Society under the lead of
Rev. Samuel Crothers, the Gustavus Anti-Slavery Society, the
Western Reserve College Anti-Slavery Society, and others,
until by the end of 1833 there were as many as seven or eight.^
1 Liberator, July 30, Sept. 10, 1831 ; Jan. 28, 1832.
2 General William Birney, in his life of his father (p. 164 x^^.), shows that
several old societies dating from the emancipation movement were still in
existence at Ripley in Monroe County, at Mt. Pleasant, West Union, Zanes-
ville, and Columbiana, most of which in the years following 1833 joined in
the new movement. They were, it seems, in a state of inaction after
1828-29, and played no formative part in the later organization. Indeed,
they seem hardly to have been known, although signs of them appear from
time to time. For a mention of the Putnam Society, see Liberator, Aug. 17,
1833, p. 131-
<* From the Liberator, Sept. 7, 1833, ^^ learn that there existed at this
time a State organization of "abolition societies "; but it seems to have had
no influence on later events. The history of these societies is very obscure.
THE FIRST SOCIETIES. II
The relation of this movement to that in the East was shown
when, on December 4, 1832, the American Anti-Slavery So-
ciety was formed at Philadelphia, at a convention presided
over by Beriah Green, of Western Reserve College. Yet the
only other Western members present were Elizur Wright, Jr.,
Rev. Samuel Crothers, J. M. Stirling of Cuyahoga County,
and the Sutlifif brothers of Ashtabula County: no one came
from any State west of Ohio, nor were any managers appointed
for any other Northwestern State, — facts clearly indicating how
fiir Ohio was at this time in advance of its neighbors in anti-
slavery sentiment.
So far the movement had met no opposition other than
colonizationist criticism; but in the year 1834 a conflict
occurred which had far-reaching effects. Lane Seminary, a
theological school at Cincinnati under the presidency of Lyman
Beecher, was the leading institution of its kind in the Northwest.
Theodore D. Weld, one of the instructors, a man whom Dr.
Beecher called " eloquent as an angel and powerful as thun-
der," became interested in anti-slavery matters, and at the
formation of the American Anti-Slavery Society was appointed
a manager for that body. In the following spring the issue
between colonization and abolition came up sharply in the
Seminary, and to settle the question a two days' debate was
held. Although a majority of the students came from the
South, Mr. Weld's eloquence and the testimony of an eman-
cipated slave Carried the day in favor of the new movement,
and with the utmost enthusiasm an anti-slavery society for
active agitation was organized on the spot. Turning their
hands to the nearest work, some members began to aid free
blacks in Cincinnati; others went on lecturing tours in the sur-
rounding country, or appeared in the East as delegates to the
American Anti-Slavery Meeting. In August, however, an un-
expected blow fell upon the new society; the trustees, in the
absence of Dr. Beecher, voted that anti-slavery agitation be-
ing " political in character," was improper in a theological
school, and that all organization, discussion, or even conversa-
tion in public places on the subject should henceforth be for-
bidden. The Southern blood of the young men of the institution
12 ANTI-SLAVERY BEGINNINGS.
revolted at such dictation, and under the lead of Theodore
Weld fifty-one of the students — two-thirds of the whole num-
ber — instantly asked for dismissal. Just at this time, in the
woods of Lorain County, Rev. John Shipherd was founding
" Oberlin Collegiate Institute " as an evangelical anti-slavery
institution, under the presidency of Rev. Asa Mahan, with
Charles G. Finney, already noted as a revivalist, as a professor.
Here most of the seceders found a refuge ; and, when Western
Reserve College lost its anti-slavery professors, Oberlin, led by
its vigorous faculty and inspired by the accession of the Lane
Seminary students, soon became the centre of religious anti-
slavery propagandism in Ohio, and in fact in the whole
Northwest.-^
This Lane Seminary incident made a profound impression
upon public sentiment. It was the first action in the North-
west which looked like persecution, and as such it thrilled all
anti-slavery workers with a new sense of the importance of
their cause; yet still more it emphasized what as yet aboli-
tionists had hardly realized, the supreme indifiference which
many deeply religious men felt toward slavery. The stir which
it had created was not soon allowed to die down; for some
of the seceders, burning with a sense of their wrongs, and not
content to settle quietly at Oberlin, began an active anti-slavery
agitation. H. B. Stanton, J. A. Thome, M. R. Robinson, and,
most eloquent of all, Theodore D. Weld, may fairly be said to
have done more to advance the anti-slavery movement in Ohio
than any other body of men. From town to town they went
preaching, lecturing, talking.; .in churches, in school-houses
when churches were shut to them, in private houses, barns, or,
as a last resort, in the open air ; to audiences large or small,
friendly or contemptuous. Not content with mere denuncia-
tion, they tried in every town to found an anti-slavery society
and to start anti-slavery petitions ; and thus they prepared the
way for the growth of a general anti-slavery feeling. In no
i For the Lane Seminary affair and its connection with Oberlin, see J.
H. Fairchild, Oberlin Colony and College, 50-77; L. Iz^^Tin, Life of Arthur
Tappan, 229-242 ; Asa Mahan, Autobiography. There is also an account in
Henry Wilson, Slave Power. I., ch. xix.
THE I. AXE SE.UIA:47^V AFFAIR. I3
part of Ohio did the lecturing of Mr. Weld make a deeper im-
pression than on the Western Reserve, a region more like the
New England of the preceding century than was the original
New England itself in 1835. There the Puritan element proved
such fertile ground for the sowing of abolition doctrine, that,
after Weld's tour in 1H35-36, popular sentiment became anti-
slavery with a nearness to unanimity probably unequalled in
any similar area in the United States. When, after a year's
campaign, most of the young agitators settled down as clergy-
men, or turned Eastward, their work had been well done
in Ohio ; but Michigan and Indiana had experienced little of
the impetus, and Illinois and the outlying Territories none at
all. In view of the results attained in Ohio, where, until 1830,
popular sentiment had been no farther advanced than in its
Western neighbors, it seems possible that, had Weld, Stanton,
Thome, and the rest extended their work, those other States
might have developed an anti-slavery sentiment commensurate
with that of Ohio.
After 1834-35, anti-slavery societies gradually overspread the
Northwest, their aims for the most part moral and religious,
and their activity still confined to protests against slavery rather
than to aggressive attacks upon it. A typical plan of action
is that of the Ohio State Anti-Slavery Society, as stated by J. G.
Birney in 1835: "We shall seek to effect the destruction of
slavery, not by exciting discontent in the minds of the slaves —
not by the physical force of the fr^e States, not by the interfer-
ence of Congress with State Rights; but ... by ceaseless pro-
clamation of the truth upon thc.wJiole subject, by urging upon
slave-holders and the whole community the flagrant enormity of
slavery as a sin against God and man, by demonstrating the safety
of immediate abolition, by presenting facts, ... by correcting
the public sentiment of the free States. We shall absolve our-
selves from political responsibility by petitioning Congress to
abolish slavery and the slave trade wherever it exercises consti-
tutional jurisdiction." ^
In Ohio the number of societies increased from a dozen or
more in 1834, to over three hundred in 1838, and to a consider-
^ Liberator, May 9, 1835.
14 ANTI-SLAVERY BEGINNINGS.
ably greater number in 1840. After that year the anti-slavery
sentiment of Ohio took a new direction, and the societies tended
to disappear; yet many continued, particularly on the Western
Reserve, until the Civil War. In Indiana the first societies did
not appear until 1836, and their growth was slow. In 1838 only
eight reported to the American Anti-Slavery Society ; nor was it
until the end of 1839 and the beginning of 1840 that the ener-
o-etic but sinsle-handed work of Arnold Buffum succeeded in
causing a marked increase. The names of only a score of
these societies are known, and in all probability most of them
were ephemeral. It is certain that in Indiana anti-slavery senti-
ment was less organized and feebler than in any other of the
Northwestern States except Iowa: this may be accounted for
by the comparatively small proportion of Northern-born set-
tlers, and by the lack of agitation, of which, except at rare
intervals, Indiana had little experience.
In Michigan societies were formed in 1834, and by the spring
of 1838 nineteen were reported. After this time, as the agi-
tation went on, the number must have increased rapidly,
although we have no full statistics. The centre of the move-
ment was in Lenawee County, in which alone, in 1839, there
were fifteen societies. lUinois's first society was that of Putnam
County, formed in 1835. ^Y 1S38 thirteen had reported to the
National Anti-Slavery Convention, a number which must have
been very greatly increased by 1840. They were scattered over
the northern and northwestern parts of the State, the strongest
region being the seven or eight northeastern counties, which
stood in relation to the rest of the State much as the Western
Reserve did to Ohio. In Wisconsin and Iowa at this time
scarcely any attention was given to anti-slavery agitation; it
was not until 1840-41, when elsewhere in the country the
formation of societies had practically ceased, that a few in-
dividuals in these frontier Territories began the work of
organization.^
As might be expected from the religious character of the
early anti-slavery movement, church action on the subject was
1 For statistics of anti-slavery societies at this time, see the annual reports
of the American Anti-Slavery Society from 1835 to 1838.
THE RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY. 1 5
promptly invoked by zealous clergymen. In 1S34 individual
congregations adopted resolutions deploring slavery as an evil ;
and later in the year a long, ably written declaration in favor of
immediate emancipation was published, signed by sixteen Ohio
clergymen, nearly all Presbyterians. Within a year from this
time the subject was fairly placed before the larger church
bodies, where it caused hot debate. The Synod of Illinois
passed resolutions condemning slavery, at a time when aboli-
tionism, properly so called, was hardly known in the State.
Throughout the Northwest, Presbyterian Synods, Baptist Asso-
ciations, Methodist Conferences, and Friends' Yearly Meetings
were shaken out of their customary composure, and by 1838
the condition of things in the churches was suggestive of no-
thing so much as of civil war. All the forces of conservatism
united to suppress anti-slavery discussion and to reject anti-
slavery' principles as in any way a suitable test for church
fellowship ; while from the Southern branches of each denomi-
nation came bitter remonstrances against agitation, with eager
and plausible defences of the institution quoted from the Bible.
The anti-slavery clergymen, on their part, cried aloud and spared
not, including the slave-holder, his apologist, and even his fel-
low-communicant, in the same bitter condemnation. Thus the
struggle went on with increasing violence until it resulted, in
sc\-cral of the Christian denominations, in a split on anti-slavery
lines. ^ In these internal controversies the clerical element,
hitherto predominant in general anti-slavery work, found a field
of occupation, and tended to withdraw from the lead in anti-
slavery societies; leadership thus fell to laymen, under whose
management anti-slavery agitation in the years after 1838 took
a new trend.
Thus the new movement was started by moral and religious
agitation ; but without the powerful aid of another factor it could
never have made such gains after 1835. In its early years in the
Northwest it made little stir in the community at large, but by
1835 the number of anti-slavery societies had grown to be so
considerable, the churches were so convulsed, and the outcries
* Von Hoist has a lucid discussion of the status of the churches on slavery
in his Constitutional History^ II. 226 seq.
1 6 ANTI-SLAVERY BEGINNINGS.
of the agitators were so continuous, that the ultra-conservative
and the pro-slavery elements of society took alarm, particularly
since the insurrection of Nat Turner in Virginia in 1831 had
given a fatal blow to negro philanthropy in the South. This
tragedy, although entirely unconnected with the agitation de-
scribed above, had naturally given Southerners so great a fear
and horror of abolition, that by 1835 it was a settled conviction
that the one unpardonable crime was to tamper with the lot
of slaves or to try to alter it in any way whatever. The result
was persecution, the one thing necessary to give the cause an
immense impulse.
In the autumn of 1834 mobs began to appear, but only here
and there, and they met with little popular support. The next
year, however, some Kentuckians caught Amos Dresser, one of
the Lane Seminary students, distributing abolition books ; and
they furnished an example for their sympathizers north of the
Ohio River by stripping and lashing him in public, with threats
of worse treatment if he repeated his offence. After this, mob
violence became increasingly common. Weld on his journeys
met with uproars, insults, and at last with rotten eggs and filth,
a kind of treatment which resulted only in increasing his fervor
without in the least restraining him. In the next year it seemed
as if the lower elements of society all over the North were
leagued together to suppress free speech, while respectable
people and municipal officials looked on with indifference or
with active approval. In every part of Ohio, even on the
Western Reserve, each new society was formed amid the crash-
ing of stones against doors and windows, and the hootings of a
mob. That all who assailed the abolitionists had any clear idea
why they were doing it, is altogether unlikely. Some of them
regarded the reformers as upsetters of society, deniers of the
Bible, " amalgamationists," — in short, as anarchists; others
considered them as emissaries of British enemies to Republican
institutions, corrupted by British gold ; ^ but many others, no
doubt, knew them merely as unpopular persons, and therefore
as fair marks for rotten eggs and decayed vegetables.
Missouri and Kentucky now proceeded to eject from within
' Philanthropist^ April 21, 1837.
PERSECUTIOX AND PROGRESS. 1/
their borders all men suspected of abolition leanings. From
Kentucky came James G. Birney, largely influenced by Theo-
dore Weld, escaping a threatened persecution only to fall into
an actual one; for in 1836 the office in Cincinnati where he
printed the P/nlanthropisi, the first Western anti-slavery organ,
was twice sacked and his press destroyed. From Missouri were
driven Elijah P. Lovejoy, like Birney, the publisher of an anti-
slavery newspaper, which he now issued at Alton, Illinois ; and
Dr. David Nelson, formerly an army surgeon, now an anti-
slavery schoolmaster.
In 1836 anti-abulition meetings in Cincinnati and elsewhere
served to give some sort of respectability to the attack; but in
1837 the more law-abiding elements of society were willing to
cease opposition, for the popular opponents of the new move-
ment had, by their reckless violence, overshot the mark. Tar
and feathers were freely applied in Indiana ; pistol shots were
used to intimidate in Ohio ; and finally, in November of that
year, mob rule culminated in Illinois, where Lovejoy, who
had refused to give way to repeated attacks, perished gun in
hand while defending his printing-office against an armed mob.
It is needless to say that the anti-slavery movement flourished
under this persecution as never before. Men of a Puritan cast
of mind were forced to think, and found themselves at one with
the abolitionists ; fair-minded people, indignant at the oppres-
sion of a minority, sided with them ; notoriety seekers and
lovers of excitement, fanatics and cranks of every sort, side by
side with earnest, devoted men and women, rushed into the anti-
slavery ranks; and in the track of every mob societies sprang
up like mushrooms. After 1839 outbreaks of violence became
infrequent, and although in pro-slavery sections of the North-
western States there were occasional mobs down to the time of
the Civil War, general persecution was at an end. The aboli-
tionists had grown to be too many and too respectable to be
thus put down.^
1 On anti-slavery mobs, see Henry Wilson, Slave Power, I. cli. xx, xxi,
xxvii ; Life of W. L. Garrison, by his children ; Liberator, and Emancipator,
1836-39, passim ; H. B. Stanton, Random Recollections, 32-5. Compare,
however, W. Birney,/. G. Birney ami his Times, 250 seq.
1 8 A NTI-SLA VER Y BEGINNINGS.
Thus events from 1835 to 1839 had caused the anti-slavery
propaganda to increase, but more and more clearly had
brought into prominence the fact that moral suasion alone was
inadequate to effect the desired result. Moreover, now that the
clerical anti-slavery forces were becoming involved in their sec-
tarian troubles, the laymen, — lawyers, physicians, farmers, —
into whose hands the management of the cause came, tended to
look at their work from a more practical point of view. Since
moral suasion as an agent to effect an immediate reform had by
1838 proved a failure, the American man of affairs began to
think that, if he could not persuade, he could enforce. The
time had come for the anti-slavery cause to enter politics.
CHAPTER III.
ABOLITION IN WESTERN POLITICS.
1836-1839.
The earliest anti-slavery societies, although depending for
success mainly on moral suasion, did not fail to give attention
sometimes to the political duties of abolitionists. In answer
to the charge of the South that they were trying to interfere
with slavery in the States, they uniformly admitted the depend-
ence of slavery on State law alone, and the consequent inabil-
ity of Congress or the free States to carry out their desire
for immediate emancipation. There remained two points at
which the North could attack slavery, namely, the District of
Columbia and the Territories; and accordingly from an early
date we find resolutions like those of the Portage County
(Ohio) Society, of November 30, 1834: " While we believe that
we ought to use all moral means for the universal aboli-
tion of slavery, we also hold that the free States are pecu-
liarly responsible for slavery in all Territories subject to the
legislative control of Congress ; and that they are under the
most special and solemn obligations to use every means, moral
or political, to give freedom to those of our fellow-citizens now
held in slavery under the laws of Congress." ^
To induce Congress to take such action, the societies re-
solved, in the words of the Ohio Anti-Slavery Society in 1835,
" to absolve themselves from the political responsibility by
petitioning Congress to abolish slavery and the slave trade
wherever it exercises constitutional jurisdiction " ; and the re-
sult was a steady stream of petitions from Ohio, Michigan, and
1 Emancipator, Dec. 23, 1834.
20 ABOLITION IN WESTERN POLITICS.
later from Indiana and Illinois. Of the strenuous Congressional
struggle over the question of their reception, it is not necessary
to speak here, except to say that it played a considerable part
in increasing anti-slavery interest in the Northwest during the
years 1836-42, and furnished to the later political anti-slavery
struggle two men, Thomas Morris and Joshua R. Giddings,
both of whom took distinct anti-slavery ground in regard to
petitions. Another stream of petitions directed to several of
the Western State legislatures, asking for the repeal of the Black
Laws, fared little or no better than did the national petitions
at Washington, except that none of the legislatures ventured
to adopt a " gag-rule." Finding petition an effective method of
agitation, the societies kept it up with vigor, and as their num-
bers increased greatly during the years of persecution, so the
size and number of the petitions increased, until men willing to
present them, like John Quincy Adams, Giddings, and Morris,
found themselves involved in a heavy task.
In the Northwestern State legislatures, where the Southern-
born element was preponderant, we find at this time a series of
remarkable legislative acts called forth by the continual influx
of these petitions. Even in Michigan, where the population
was mainly from the Eastern States, and where there were no
severe Black Laws, a conservative spirit prevailed, and in 1838
the legislature refused to consider a proposition to secure the
right of jury trial to fugitive slaves,^ and declared it " unneces-
sary and inexpedient" to express any opinion as to the power
of Congress over slavery in the District of Columbia and the
Territories, and over the interstate slave trade. In Illinois, the
legislature in 1837 adopted a long series of resolutions to the fol-
lowing general effect: It "fully appreciated and shared the
feelings of alarm caused by the misguided abolitionists, whose
end, even if attained peaceably, would bring disaster." Though
it deplored the existence of slavery, it believed that the general
government had no power to free the slaves, and it therefore
resolved (i) That it deplored abolition societies and considered
that they did more harm than good; (2) "That the right of
property in slaves could not be interfered with by the general
1 Philanthropist, Feb. 13, 1838.
ANTI-ABOLITION LEGISLATION. 2 1
government or any power outside the separate slave-holding
States," and that "abolition in the District of Columbia would
be highly inexpedient and injudicious." ^ Two years later the
Indiana legislature adopted a somewhat similar vote: '^Resolved,
That any interference in the domestic institutions of the slave-
holding States — either by Congress or the State legislatures —
is contrary to the compact by which those States became mem-
bers of the Union, and that any such interference is highly
reprehensible, unpatriotic, and injurious to the peace and sta-
bility of the Union of the States." ^ It is to be noted that
both these sets of resolutions asserted triumphantly what no
abolitionist at that time denied: that Congress had no power
over slavery in the States.
In Ohio the first legislative expression on the subject of
negroes after 1831 was a report of a select committee, in 1832,
on the condition of the free blacks. The language used gives
an idea of the public attitude toward that unfortunate class,
which the committee considered to form a " distinct and de-
graded caste forever excluded by the fiat of society and the
laws of the land from all hopes of equality in social intercourse
and political privileges," and " a blotch upon the body politic."
The committee concluded that no legislation could improve
their condition.^ Two years later petitioning began, and in
1834 appeared the first of a series of reports from the Judiciary
Committee adverse to the petitions for the repeal of the Black
Laws. A second adverse report was rendered in 1835, and
another in 1837. In 1836 a motion made in the Senate to re-
peal the Black Laws was rejected, 33 to i, the mover, Leicester
King, giving the only affirmative vote. In 1838 some petitions
were referred to a friendly select committee, who reported
strongly through the same Mr. King in favor of the complete
repeal of all laws discriminating on account of color; but the
bill thereupon introduced w^as killed by postponement. In
this year petitions asking for a legislative protest against the
Congressional " gag-rule " were referred to a select committee,
headed by B. F. Wade ; they received a strong favorable report,
^ Liberator, May 19, 1837. '•* Philanthropist^ Jan. 22, 1839.
8 Liberator, Feb. 4, 1832.
22 ABOLITION IN WESTERN POLITICS.
but a resolution introduced by the chairman was indefinitely
postponed.
In the next year, 1839, the Ohio legislature proceeded to
surpass Indiana and Illinois in its anxiety to please the slave-
holding States. On January 12 a series of resolutions passed
the House, to the following general effect : —
1. Congress has no jurisdiction over slavery in the States.
2. Agitation against slavery is attended with no good results.
3. The schemes of abolitionists are wild and delusive and tend
to disrupt the Union.
4. Any attempt by Congress to interfere with slavery is in
violation of the Constitution.
5. The repeal of the Black Laws is impolitic and inexpedient.
6. " That the blacks and mulattoes who may be residents
within this State have no constitutional right to present their
petitions to the general Assembly for any purpose whatso-
ever." ^
This measure was followed by one even more galling to the
abolitionists. In the middle of January arrived two commis-
sioners from the Kentucky legislature, Morehead, a Whig, and
Speed-Smith, a Democrat, charged with the duty of asking
Ohio for a fugitive-slave law to assist Kentucky masters in re-
claiming those slaves whom the rapidly growing Underground
Railway kept transporting in increasing numbers. On Febru-
ary 12 the request of the commissioners, sent to the legislature
by the governor, was referred to the Judiciary Committee with
favorable instructions ; and a bill framed to suit the Kentuckians
passed the House, 54-15, on February 19. In the Senate, B.
F. Wade made a vigorous fight, delivering a speech which was
printed in anti-slavery papers all over the country; but the
bill passed, 26-10, on February 22, and thus became law. A
public dinner was given to the commissioners, who, after the fes-
tivities, finally returned home, in March, to report their success.
The main points of the bill were, that a pursuer of a fugitive
slave could upon affidavit have a warrant made out; and that
upon proof to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace, the
" person seized " should be returned to the State whence he had
1 Etnancipator, Feb. 7, 1839.
EARL V ANTI-SLA VER Y LEGISLA TORS. 23
fled ; in case the agent could not swear to the fugitive's idcn-
tit}-, the latter was to be committed to jail to await trial ; any
person hindering a sheriff or an agent, or assisting a fugitive,
was to be fined not over five hundred dollars.^
Since abolition efforts had gained from the South nothing
but abuse, from Congress only the " gag-rule," and from the
North only mobs and more stringent anti-negro laws, it was
evident that moral suasion and petitioning were inadequate.
The possibility and desirability of political action at the polls
were thus suggested by numerous considerations : rigid reli-
gious convictions called for anti-slavery protest by voting;
expediency saw in such action a way to impress obdurate poli-
ticians ; impatience expected in this course a shorter road to
abolition than through mere moral protest; and anti-slavery
men of all kinds realized from the effectiveness of the few
abolitionists in public life how much the cause might gain by
having representatives in State and national legislatures.
Four men of the Northwest had produced a profound effect
upon anti-slavery sentiment. Leicester King, a Whig lawyer
and judge, active in philanthropy of all kinds, and president of
the Ohio Anti-Slavery Society, sat in the Ohio Senate from
1833 to 1838, for the district comprising the eastern end of the
Western Reserve. Throughout his term he was a consistent
worker for anti-slavery ends. B. F. Wade, of Ashtabula County,
on the Reserve, a self-made lawyer, in 1833 for a time a member
of the local Anti-Slavery Society, served from 1835 to 1839 in
the State Senate. His action during his term of of^ce, and
especially his speech in 1839 against the Fugitive Slave Bill,
raised him to a high position in the esteem of Ohio abolitionists.
Joshua R. Giddings, at one time Wade's law partner, was in 1838
elected to Congress as a Whig from the Western Reserve. He
was one of Theodore D. Weld's converts, and in 1836 had
served as one of the local managers of the Ohio Anti-Slavery
Society. No sooner had Giddings taken his seat in Congress
in 1839 than he placed himself beside John Ouincy Adams as a
consistent opponent of the " gag-rule " ; and soon made himself
the abolitionist champion in the House.
1 For this fugitive slave law, see Philanthropist^ Jan. 22-March 26, 1S39.
24 ABOLITION IN WESTERN POLITICS.
More impressive, probably, to the Ohio mind than any of the
foregoing was Thomas Morris, the first abolition senator of the
United States. He was born of New England ancestry in Penn-
sylvania in 1778, and moved into Ohio when most of the State
was still a wilderness. Working with head and hands like many
another poor frontier boy, he made a living, gained a frag-
mentary education, read law, and worked his way up from the
very bottom to a considerable practice. Entering politics
early, he served from 1806 to 1832 in the legislature, and later
was chosen to the United States Senate, where he took his seat
in the session of 1833-34. Up to this time Morris had been a
Jeffersonian Democrat, a rather rugged speaker, but a hard
worker, a clear thinker, and a reliable party man. He had shown
no signs whatever of being in advance of his- -constituents on
the slavery question, nor did he in the Senate say anything on
the topic during the first half of his term, although petitions
kept coming in, which his Whig colleague, Thomas Ewing,
presented from time to time. In 1836, however, he became
acquainted with J. G. Birney, who had just removed to Ohio
and was publishing the PJulantJiropist ; and there is a strong
probability that Birney's logic opened Morris's eyes. At any
rate, he suddenly began to take part in affairs in the Senate, of
which he had hitherto been a silent member ; he introduced
abolition petitions, spoke in favor of the right to present them,
and condemned on anti-slavery grounds the new constitution of
Arkansas and the proposed annexation of Texas. In Novem-
ber, 1836, he still more clearly showed his sympathies by
making a speech at a meeting of the Clermont County Anti-
Slavery Society; but it was not until 1838 that he attracted
general attention. In that year, on Calhoun's introduction of
certain resolutions touching the constitutional status of slavery,
Morris entered the lists with an alternative series of resolutions,
which he upheld at length, incidentally defending the rights of
free speech and petition, and the cause of the abolitionists.
This speech produced an instant effect; every anti-slavery
paper in the country rejoiced, and the rapidly growing anti-
slavery sentiment of Ohio in particular prided itself upon pos-
sessing such a representative; but the old parties scented
THE FIRST ABOLITIONIST SENATOR. 25
mischief; and the Whigs, eager to fasten the odium of " aboH-
tionism " upon the Democratic party, proceeded to pass
resolutions in their State Convention censuring Morris as
misrepresenting the State. He replied in a letter as follows: —
" I have opposed and voted against the further extension of
slavery in every case in which I was permitted to do so by the
Constitution. The Whig convention most undoubtedly have
viewed slavery with a very favorable eye and felt willing for its
extension into every State in the Union. ... I have opposed
the slave trade between the different States and with the Re-
public of Texas. The Whig convention probably thought this
trade an honest mode of turning a penny. ... I have con-
tended that all men were born equally free and independent,
and have an indisputable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. In this particular I have no doubt I am entirely an-
tipode to the Whig convention." ^
In November, 1838, the Democrats in the Ohio Legislature,
with whom lay the power to elect Morris's successor, addressed
to him three questions, on the bank, the tariff, and on slavery.
The first two he answered according to the party creed, but as
to the third he gave a full exposition of his abolition principles,
which, he claimed, were pure Democratic doctrine. The Demo-
cratic caucus thought otherwise, and discarded him for Benjamin
Tappan. Morris felt this blow keenly ; but its only effect was
to drive him still farther along the abolition road. He had
already, in 1838, written a letter to the Liberty Committee, who
were building Pennsylvania Hall in Philadelphia; now in every
way he identified himself with the movement, and in the Senate,
in the short session of 1838-39, he made the effort of his life.
He had already dared to encounter Calhoun ; now he ventured
to match himself with Clay, speaking at great length, justifying
himself and the abolitionists, and predicting the final extinction
of slavery through political action.
Morris's " martyrdom " at the hands of his party, as it was
called, and this speech in reply to Clay, raised him to the high-
est pinnacle in the esteem of anti-slavery men ; but upon the
public at large the episode made little impression. Morris
1 Philanthropist, July 24, 1838.
26 ABOLITION IN WESTERN POLITICS.
was a clear thinker; his resolutions on the constitutional posi-
tion of slavery might have stood for the basis of all political
action from that time until i860; his speech against Clay was
sound in reasoning, moderate in temper, and uncompromising
enough for any one. He was not, however, an impressive
speaker, for his delivery was poor and his style often heavy;
and he failed to gain due recognition at a time when eloquence
was thought indispensable for a leading public man.^
^ See B. F. Morris, Life of Thomas Morris.
CHAPTER IV.
BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
1836-1840.
OxE of the first attempts to define the pohtical duties of
abolitionists was made by Birncy in the Philanthropist of Sep-
tember 23, 1836, when he declared that there was not much to
choose between the two candidates for the Presidency, Harrison
and Van Buren. " If abolitionists unite themselves to either of
the existing parties they will weaken their influence. Let our
votes be given, where we can vote at all, to the most worthy
without partisan distinction." A few days later the Philan-
thropist gave more specific advice, by suggesting that aboli-
tionists ought not to vote for Mr. Storer, the Democratic
candidate for Congress, who was a declared opponent of abo-
lition in the District of Columbia.^ If, as asserted at the time,
this advice turned the scale against Storer, it was the first politi-
cal success attained by abolitionists in the Northwest.
At about the same time anti-slavery men in the northern sec-
tion of the State were considering the same question. The
Columbiana County Anti-Slavery Society voted, on October 24,
1836, " not to aid in elevating to office any one who gives
reason to suspect that he would deprive us of our constitutional
rights to publish throughout the land our opinions." ^ This
was aimed at sympathizers with mobs. In March, 1837,
there appeared in the Philanthropist a call for abolitionists
to oppose the Democratic candidates for city offices, because
1 Philanthropist, Oct. 28, 1836; W. Birney, J. G. Biniey and his Times,
232.
^ Philanthropist, Nov. 18, 1836.
28 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
Van Buren, the head of that party, was pledged not to allow the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. " The success
of our principles demands of us," it said, " that discarding every
name of party, we vote for men of principle, the friends of
Liberty, of Law, of Order. If such cannot be found let us not
vote at all. Li this way and in this alone shall we be felt."
Whether any results followed from this appeal is not known ;
but it became manifest, when the State Society met in April,
that the question of the exercise of the suffrage had grown in
importance. Feeling that an authoritative statement of opinion
was called for, the Society resolved : " That it is time for the
abolitionists of Ohio to relinquish all party attachments and act
with a single view to the supremacy of the law, the inviolabil-
ity of constitutional privileges and the rights of all " ; ^ and in
order to make this resolution effectual, it advised abolitionists to
interrogate candidates and to vote for those only who agreed
with their principles. In the East, interrogation of candidates
had already been common for some time ; but it must be borne
in mind that until this time, in Ohio, the clerical element had
continued predominant, and had but just begun to rehnquish
the leadership to such men as Birney and King.
During 1837 the outcries from the South, that the abolitionists
were forming a new party, met with repeated denials from Ohio
as well as from the East. The P Julanthropist said, on May 19:
" Abolitionists have never organized ; they never will organ-
ize as a political party for the purpose of accomplishing the
great object of their desires." On September 8, it said that a
third party for abolitionists was unnecessary and inexpedient:
" Let them attempt a regular political organization, and who
does not see that . . . zeal for human rights would be smothered
in the dust of party conflict ? . . . We have been thus explicit,
not because we apprehend abolitionists will ever become so im-
prudent as to pursue the course animadverted on, but to con-
vince our adversaries . . . how impossible it is that abolitionists,
men of all politics and religions, should ever organize as a
distinct, regular and political party."
In spite of these disclaimers, however, the tide had evidently
^ Efnaticipator, Sept. 21, 1837.
NON-PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTION. 29
begun to run toward politics and away from Biblical discussion
and moral work. Lloydsvillc, Belmont, Hamilton, Clermont,
Ashtabula, and Geauga abolitionists passed resolutions not to
support any but anti-slavery men for office, and to propound to
all candidates searching questions covering the power of Con-
gress over slavery and the slave-trade, and the position of the
candidate himself with regard to slavery in the District of
Columbia, to the annexation of Texas, and to the Black Laws.
Such action led to a dilemma whenever both candidates were
unsatisfactory. Unless the abolitionists chose to run a separate
ticket, they could show disapproval only by refraining from
voting or by scattering their votes, both courses irritatingly
impotent, and unpractical except where parties were nearly
equal.
Although the abolitionists still entirely failed to foresee the
outcome, and continued to disclaim any intention to form a new
party, the Ohio men, in 1838, continued to go farther toward a
political organization. The State Society, and the county and
local societies, in increasing numbers, abjured party action and
demanded anti-slavery principles as a prerequisite for gaining
their support. The system of questioning candidates, which in
1837 ^^'icl proved hardly as successful as had been hoped, was
now resumed with the utmost vigor in most of the Western
Reserve and in many other counties scattered over the State.
When Vance and Shannon, the Whig and Democratic candi-
dates for governor, were both formally interrogated by the officials
of the State Society, and refused to reply, an enthusiast sug-
gested L. P. Whipple as an independent anti-slavery nomination.
The proposal was instantly frowned down. " We are utterly
opposed to every measure that looks toward a separate political
organization," said the Philanthropist. " The cause of anti-
slavery belongs to all parties and all sects, and we should as
much regret to see abolitionists drawing off from the parties to
which they belong as we should to see them leaving the churches
of which they are members to build up a separate anti-slavery
church . . . All that can safely be done in a political way is to
be done by questioning candidates . . . We believe these are the
sentiments of nineteen twentieths of abolitionists throughout
30 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
Ohio." ^ Meanwhile, in Indiana the State Anti-Slavery Society
passed resolutions in favor of political independence, and in
Michigan the questioning of candidates was actively prosecuted.
Evidently the abolitionists were glad to find some tangible way
of showing their anti-slavery feelings.
In Ohio special circumstances rendered the fall election of
1838 interesting; a desire to secure the re-election of Thomas
Morris to the Senate brought many anti-slavery men to the polls
with Democratic tickets. Moreover, just before the election, an
event took place which could not have been better calculated
to work against the Whigs ; an indictment having been brought
by a Kentucky jury against J. B. Mahan for assisting a runaway
slave. Governor Vance, the Whig candidate for re-election, pro-
ceeded to arrest Mahan and deliver him to the Kentucky au-
thorities. The news of this, as the PhilantJiropist said, thrilled
through Ohio like an electric shock, and wrought every abolition-
ist to a high pitch of excitement. When the election occurred,
the Whig defeat was decisive. Vance, elected in 1837 by
6,000 majority, was now beaten by 5,000; and Whig members
of the legislature, and Congressional candidates in every section,
were either defeated or elected by reduced miajorities. That this
result was due entirely to abolition votes, no one seemed inclined
to doubt ; even Whig papers asserted it as an undeniable fact.
The Philanthropist exulted over the first real demonstration of
abolition strength, of which the transfer of 5,500 votes on the
governorship seemed a fair measure. The result in the legis-
lature was universally ascribed to the popular desire to secure
the senatorship for Morris and to rebuke the Whig convention
for censuring him. In Belmont County the Whigs stayed at
home, " from their high respect for Morris " ; in Fayette County
from the same cause the Whig majority dropped from 500 to 6.
The Emancipator, of New York, estimated the change in the
popular vote for the legislature as 20,000, due to Morris's
popularity.
Besides their direct influence in the election, the abolitionists
had gained a triumph in the choice of J. R. Giddings to Con-
gress ; his nomination is said to have been brought about by
1 Philanthropist, March 27, 1838.
FAILURE OF QUESTIONING CANDIDATES. 3 I
some timely letters of J. G. Birney to the local Whi^ managers
on the Reserve.^ On the whole, the election of 1838 was an
intoxicating draught for the abolitionists of Ohio. The wide-
spread reports of their political doings, the congratulations
heaped upon them by Eastern anti-slavery papers, and the half-
dazed admission of their power by the local Whig party, led
them to feel that the liberties of the country were now assured,
and that merely by the questioning of candidates they had suc-
ceeded in gaining all they could wish.
When the results of this election were tested in 1839, the
political abolitionists experienced nothing but perplexity and
disappointment. In the first place, Thomas Morris, to secure
whose re-election anti-slavery men had voted the Democratic
ticket, was thrown over by his party, obviously on account of
those very principles for which abolitionists had honored him.
Then, in January, 1839, came the series of State resolutions
condemning abolition, and in February, most humiliating of all,
the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law at the request of two Ken-
tucky slave-holders. Men who had been elected as opponents
of slavery found nothing incongruous between their professions
in October, 1838, and their votes for these drastic measures ; and
the faith of Ohio reformers in the efificacy of questioning candi-
dates received a severe blow. Still, in default of any better way
of getting what they wanted, they were obliged to continue the
system, except in cases where the behavior of the candidates
in the legislature or elsewhere rendered interrogation super-
fluous. The State Society said somewhat gloomily in its an-
nual report : " W^e can see no other course for abolitionists to
pursue."'^
On the Western Reserve so great was the general indignation
against the new Fugitive Slave Law, that the local Whig con-
ventions found it advisable to discard all members of the
legislature who had voted for the bill, and to nominate new can-
^ W. Birney, /. G. Birney and his Times, 341. General Birney sees his
father's influence in every event of abolitionist history. If Birney really
secured Giddings' nomination, his diplomacy has not been recognized by other
writers. See G. W. Julian, Life of Joshua R. Giddings.
2 Philanthropist^ June il, 1839.
32 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
didates. The renomination of B. F, Wade, who had won the
approbation of anti-slavery men by his resistance to the bill, was
opposed by a large number of local Whigs ; but the anti-slavery
elements of the party forced it through. In Geauga County,
where the Whig majority was very large, the party convention
braved anti-slavery wrath by selecting men of thoroughly un-
satisfactory views; and as the Democratic nominees were no
better, a dilemma presented itself. The Geauga abolitionists
solved it by making an independent nomination, the first in the
Northwest; although the same men, two years earlier, had
resolved in their county anti-slavery society : " We will never
countenance the organization of abolitionists into a distinct
political body." ^
When the election of 1839 came, it resulted in another Demo-
cratic victory even more sweeping than the preceding; but the
abolitionists could not claim, as in 1838, that they were the sole
cause ; for their votes had been either divided between the two
parties, or withheld, with no sort of common action. The
Whigs had done nothing to gain their regard, nor had the
Democrats any claim to their support after their treatment of
Morris. In Wade's district the disaffection of some of his party
over his abolitionism resulted in his defeat by a very narrow
majority.^ In Indiana and Illinois anti-slavery men were too
few and scattered to think of independent action ; so that Michi-
gan was the only other Northwestern State in which the aboli-
tionists played any considerable part in the election. Here the
system of questioning was thoroughly applied. In Jackson
County it resulted in the usual dilemma; whereupon the aboli-
tionists proceeded to make independent nominations. In alarm
at this unseasonable action, the president and officers of the State
Anti-Slavery Society felt called upon to issue a manifesto deny-
ing any complicity in it or sympathy with it.
The elections of 1839 taught once more the lesson of the
futility of the mere interrogation of candidates, and showed
1 Philanthropist, Oct. 13, 1837.
2 Emancipato}-, Oct. 24, 1839. In Geauga County, where the first third-
party ticket was run, the vote stood: Democratic, 1,439; Whig, 1,630; Anti-
slavery, 432 ; and some 300 abstained from voting.
DISSATISFACTION OF POLITICAL ABOLITIONISTS. H
also that some abolitionists were ready for the next step —
separate party action. Nevertheless, that the body of Western
anti-slavery men were not prepared in 1839 for such an inno-
vation, is shown conclusively by their action during this year
and the next. Since the spring of 1839 a movement in favor of
a new party had been rapidly taking shape in the minds of a
few men. In western New York, Myron Holley, in eastern New
York and in New England, C. T. Torrey, were agitating the same
question ; and the Emancipator, the organ of the American
Anti-Slavery Society, now gave its support to the new view.
The questions before abolitionists this year were three: should
they vote at all; if they did, should they insist on a full con-
fession of anti-slavery faith from a candidate ; and what should
they do in case there were no fit nominations by cither party?
In regard to the first question, there was little difference of
opinion in the Northwest ; but in the older States it roused the
bitterest possible controversy between the practical anti-slavery
men on one side, and \V. L. Garrison and his followers on the
other. The latter had adopted the Quaker doctrine of non-resist-
ance, and had carried it to its logical result in a sort of theoreti-
cal Christian anarchism. So generally was the duty of voting
taken for granted by Western abolitionists at this time, that it
was seldom discussed, and such individuals and societies as did
mention the matter almost invariably went contrary to the
Garrisonian position. The Lorain County (Ohio) Anti-Slavery
Society voted : " That it is the duty of abolitionists to use their
influence to secure the nomination for office of men who are
the friends of equal rights. That it is their duty to attend the
polls and vote for such men." ^ A convention at Oakland,
Clinton County, Ohio, on September 7, voted: "That all
abolitionists who deem it their privilege to go to the polls are
bound by their duty to God ... to make their votes tell for
the slave." ^ The Illinois Anti-Slavery Society voted on Sep-
tember 25 : " That every abolitionist who has a right to vote be
earnestly entreated to lose no opportunity to carry his abolition
principles to the polls " ; ^ and again, on December 11:" We
^ Emancipator, July 25, 1839. 2 Liberator, Nov. 15, 1S39.
' Philanthropist, Nov. 26, 1839.
3
34 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
regard the elective franchise as a boon from the Great Author
of every . . . perfect gift, . . . and those who neglect to use it at
all as false to the solemn trust committed to them." ^ When, in
July, 1839, a national anti-slavery convention at Albany voted,
" That every abolitionist who has the right to vote be earnestly
entreated to use his right," its action met with nothing but ap-
proval in the Northwest; nor did the people in that section
regard with much interest the controversy between Garrison
and his opponents over the matter.
Expecting to vote somehow, the Northwestern anti-slavery
men faced the remaining two questions, that were now forced
on them by the approaching Presidential election. Could an
abolitionist vote for any one but an abolitionist? The conclu-
sion toward which the minds of hundreds of men were gradu-
ally tending was that he could not. In that case, what was
to be done if Van Buren were the Presidential candidate against
Clay or Harrison? Torrey, Elizur Wright, Holley, Stanton, and
their followers felt that the only solution of the question lay in
the support by abolitionists of a separate independent candidate;
but from this step all save the most radical recoiled. During
the summer of 1839 the pages of anti-slavery papers were filled
with controversy, steadily increasing in bitterness as the year
advanced. In the Northwest the extreme position of Holley
found as little favor as did that of Garrison. Societies and
newspapers had repeatedly denied the advisability, or even pos-
sibility, of an anti-slavery political party; and now in 1839 they
held to the same position. Questioning, futile as it had proved,
seemed preferable to organizing a forlorn-hope party; and even
the dismal prospect of two pro-slavery Presidential candidates
failed to convince abolitionists of the practicability of such
a mode of action. "Let us retire from the contest," said the
Philanthropist, " and leave the dough-faced politicians to fight
their own battles."^
In July an attempt to clear the air was made at a national
convention at Albany, called to discuss particularly " the ques-
tions which relate to the proper exercise of the suffrage by
citizens of the free States." After a long and animated debate
1 Emancipator, Jan. 2, 1840. 2 April 30, 1839.
DEBATES OVER POLITICAL DUTIES. 35
the assembly resolved not to vote for any one not an abolition-
ist, and to leave the matter of nominating independent anti-
slavery candidates to the discretion of anti-slavery men in
different localities.^ Against the first resolution the Philnji-
//^/'^//V/, speaking for the majority of Ohio anti-slavery men, pro-
tested, as " wrong in principle and inexpedient" ; as demanding
from a candidate entirely arbitrary qualifications, whereas
" requirements should be limited by the constitutional respon-
sibilities of the office they seek " ; as tending to confirm the
slave-holder in his suspicions that abolitionists had unconstitu-
tional designs ; and, lastly, as tending " to disfranchise the anti-
slavery people of the United States." ^ Most of the Ohio
societies adopted this position, and demanded from candidates
only such pledges as they could reasonably be required to
give. The conventions of Huron, Lorain, Cuyahoga, Geauga,
Ashtabula, Portage, and Clinton counties, and, on September
II, a general Western Reserve convention, resolved: "That
abolitionists ought not, and we will not, vote for any man for
any legislative or executive office who is not heartily opposed
to slavery and who will not openly meet and honestly sustain
all constitutional measures calculated immediately to restore
to the oppressed their rights." ^ Some of these conventions
formally rejected the Albany resolution. The Michigan abo-
litionists, as represented by the MicJiigan Frecmaii, agreed with
the Reserve ; but in Illinois the extreme position met with a
partial acceptance. On September 25 the State Anti-Slavery
Society voted : " That we will neither vote for nor support
the election of any man . . . who is not in favor of the imme-
diate abolition of slavery";^ and, on December 4, a convention
at Canton resolved : " That while we are averse to the organiza-
tion of an anti-slavery party for political action, we believe it to
be the duty of all friendly to the cause of human Liberty to
cast their votes for men favorable to the abolition of slavery." ^
But whether abolitionists demanded abolitionism in a candidate
or were satisfied with pledges, the dilemma where there were
^ Emancipator, Aug. 8, 1839. " Philanthropist, Sept. 3, 1839.
« Ibid., Oct. 8, 1839. ^ Ibid., Nov. 26, 1839.
* Emancipator, Jan. 2, 1840.
36 BEGIA'XINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
two unsuitable candidates could not be escaped. Every month
the movement for independent action grew stronger, its drift
being evident in such events as the anti-slavery nominations in
Geauga County, Ohio, and in Jackson County, Michigan. On
October 23, at a special meeting of the American Anti-Slavery
Society at Cleveland, the exciting pohtical question came
up for consideration by a body of four hundred abolitionists,
almost exclusively from Ohio. Two resolutions were offered :
first, to vote for no opponents of abolitionism ; second, to
" neglect no opportunity to record their votes against slavery
when proper candidates in all respects are put up for office."
To the radical element these resolutions seemed absurdly timid
and inconclusive. Blodgett, of Cuyahoga County, at once
moved an amendment sanctioning independenft nomination in
cases where neither candidate was satisfactory ; this was re-
jected. Myron Holley then introduced a more radical resolu-
tion : " That when existing parties directly oppose or purposely
overlook the rights of the slave it is time to form a new political
party," concluding with the still more daring proposition to
appoint a committee to nominate candidates for President and
Vice-President. Blodgett tried so to amend the latter sugges-
tion that it should authorize the calling of a nominating con-
vention, " provided neither of the existing candidates proved
suitable "; but after a prolonged and exciting debate, occupying
nearly a whole day, the resolutions and amendments were all
rejected, and the attempt to turn the American Anti-Slavery
Society into a political party was given up.^
This episode gave rise to violent recriminations in the East
between the third-party faction and the Garrisonian wing, the
latter of whom charged the former with attempting a trick. In
the West, Holley's attempt was generally condemned. The
Oberlin Evangelist said : " Such a measure will meet with no
favor, we trust, among Western abolitionists."^ The Philanthro-
1 On the Cleveland Convention, see Emancipator, Nov. 17-24, 1839;
Liberator, Nov. 15-22, 1839; Philanthropist, Oct. 29-Nov. 19, 1839; Elizur
Wright, Life of Myron Holley, 252 seq.; W. P. and F. J. Garrison, Life of
W. L. Garrison, II. 314 seq. ; W. Birney,/. G. Birney and his Times, 348.
2 Quoted in Liberator, Nov. 29, 1839.
GENERAL REJECTION OF A NEW PARTY. 37
pist remarked : " To us it seems unreasonable to project the
organization of a party on the basis of exckisive attention
to any single interest, however important"; and pointed out
that the change of the existing organization into a political
party was impossible. "The primary object of the American
Anti-Sla\'ery Society was declared to be the abolition of slavery
in the States. ... A political party contemplating as its ob-
ject the extinction of State slavery is manifestly an absurdity,
for it can act by no political means. . . . The attempt to con-
vert our organization into a political one we regard as a violation
of good faith, and, if persisted in, it must end in division." ^
The Anti-Slavery Society of Salem, Columbiana County, Ohio,
resolved, that "we deprecate the foundation of a third political
party as exceedingly injudicious, dangerous to the success of
our enterprise and a violation of good faith." ^ The Niels Creek
(Indiana) Anti-Slavery Society resolved, that " we view with
mournful and sincere regret the attempt made at the late special
meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society at Cleveland,
Ohio, to organize a distinct anti-slavery political party, believing
as we do that such a party would prove injurious if not fatal to
the cause in which abolitionists are engaged." ^
Nevertheless, the PJiilantJiropist, the Michigan Frccvian, and all
the societies in the Northwest could neither escape the dilemma
nor prevent the more radical from acting. On November 13,
a convention at Warsaw, Genesee County, New York, led by
Myron Holley, nominated J. G. Birney, and F. J. Lemoyne of
Pennsylvania, for President and Vice-President respectively.
Birney, who had turned over the Philanthropist to Dr. Gamaliel
Bailey in 1838, and since then had been in New York, was as
widely known and generally respected as any abolitionist, and
Lemoyne was prominent in Pennsylvania. Both declined the
nomination, Lemoyne not seeing any necessity for a third party,
and Birney saying: " While I agree with you fully in the opinion
that the great anti-slavery enterprise can never succeed without
independent nominations, I feel assured that the views of aboli-
^ PJiilanthropist, Dec. 10, 1839. ^ Liberator, Feb. 7, 1S40.
* Philanthropist^ Feb. 4, 1840.
38 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
tionists as a body do not enough harmonize to make such a
measure advisable now." ^
For the time being the third-party men seemed to have been
rebufifed on all sides ; but, as the winter passed, the spectacle of
Harrison as the Whig candidate, opposed to Van Buren, whose
renomination was certain, began to make many who had hither-
to been lukewarm feel that a third party might not be wholly
unnecessary. Letters from Western men favoring independent
action began to appear from time to time in the Emancipator
and the PJiilanthropist?' Dr. Bailey, of the last-named paper,
at this time rather favored the Whigs; he published some evi-
dence to show that Harrison was not pro-slavery,^ and on Janu-
ary 15 wrote to J. R. Giddings that he thought a "tolerably fair
case might be made out for the General."* Throughout the
winter of 1840 the debate continued, although the first murmurs
of the " hard cider" campaign for Harrison were beginning to
distract the attention of abolitionists. Early in February ap-
peared a call from Holley's county convention for a " National
Third-Party Anti-Slavery Convention " to meet at Albany on
April I, to discuss the question of an independent Presidential
nomination. The controversy grew hotter. The PJiilaiitJiropist
printed long and frequent editorials condemning the new move-
ment from every point of view ; and the Trumbull County (Ohio)
Anti-Slavery Society uttered a " Solemn Protest against the pro-
posed convention as uncalled for."^ On the other hand, the
Bellefontaine society resolved : " That our righteous cause calls
us to come out from among the present political parties, and be
separated, that we may get rid of the unclean thing and escape
its plagues."^ Letters representing all degrees of approval and
condemnation poured in upon anti-slavery newspapers.
On April i, the Liberty convention at Albany met, without a
single member from the Northwest. It nominated J. G. Birney
and Thomas Earle of Pennsylvania, and thus forced the abolition-
ists of Ohio and the Northwest to decide whether they would re-
1 Philanthropist, Jan. 21, 1840.
2 Ibid., Jan. 21, Feb. 25, April 14, 1840. ^ Ibid., Feb. 4, 1840.
< G. W. Julian, Life of J. R. Giddings, 88.
^ Emancipator, April 2, 1840. * Philanthropist, April 14, 1840.
EASTERN MEN FORCE THE ISSUE. 39
fuse to support a thoroughly anti-slavery nomination now that it
was practically forced upon them. A majority of anti-slavery
men in the Northwest were without doubt Whigs; for among
the New England and New York elements of population, which
furnished the body of that party, anti-slavery principles natu-
rally gained their earliest foothold. To such it was a trying
time; for the " Tippecanoe and Tyler too " craze was swelling
from week to week, intoxicating all with its presage of victory.
When the prospect of demolishing Van Buren, crushing the sub-
treasury, and restoring the bank and the tariff loomed shining
in the near distance, it required a painful effort to leave their
organization in full career, and out of conscientious scruples to
vote for a man nominated by a corporal's guard as a forlorn
hope.
As the spring advanced, the machinery of abolitionism,
which, by nine years of incessant work, privation, self-sacrifice,
danger from mobs, and ridicule from friends, had been built
up into what seemed a strong and permanent system, seemed
to crumble into atoms. In May, at the annual meeting of the
American Anti-Slavery Society, a violent outbreak occurred
between the Garrisonian wing and the third-party sympathizers.
Garrison's followers came in great numbers from Boston,
completely out-voted the other side, and after a stormy contro-
versy, nominally on the position of women in the movement,
the third-party men were defeated, retired, and formed a new
organization under the name of "The American and Foreign
Anti-Slavery Society." The Emancipator, hitherto the official
paper of the National Society, was taken over by the new body,
and acted as its organ in the contest of recrimination and abuse
which broke forth. Charges of unfair, hypocritical, and even
criminal conduct were freely made by each wing against the
other. In the Northwest, however, this split produced no im-
mediate effect other than seriously to injure common feeling
and to make it easier for Whig or Democratic abolitionists to
decline to follow Birney and the rest into the new party.
In Ohio the struggle began with the annual meeting of the
State society on May 27, 1840, to which came fully five hundred
delegates, many of them instructed to oppose the formation of
40 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
a third party. ^ After two days of heated debate, the society
decided to stand neutral on every question. To avoid taking
sides in the quarrel between the old and the new national organ-
ization, it withdrew from being auxiliary to the one without
committing itself to the other. It resolved that abolitionists
ought to vote so as to aid the cause, but that it would not pre-
tend to decide which was the most efficient method, whether
by staying away from the polls, by scattering votes, or by form-
ing a third party; that it was an organization for moral pur-
poses; that servility to slave-holders disqualified a candidate
from receiving the suffrages of a free people. The radicals held
several caucuses, and tried to get the society to resolve at least
that Harrison and Van Buren were both disqualified for the
Presidency by reason of their disregard of human rights; but
they were outvoted. ^
Rising from this first rebuff, the third-party men resumed the
struggle in local societies. In the last week of July some men
of Harrison County took the first definite step by nominating
R. Hammond as a district Presidential elector. A week later
L. Bissel was similarly nominated as elector for the Sixteenth
Congressional District, and calls appeared for a dozen independ-
ent political anti-slavery meetings. A call for a convention for
Hamilton County was finally enlarged so as to cover the whole
State; and on September i there met, accordingly, the first
Liberty Party convention in Ohio. Like its prototype at
Albany, it was neither a large nor a very representative body ;
but, unlike that meeting, its scanty membership was not rein-
forced by the strength of its leaders. The uproar of " Tippe-
canoe and Tyler too," Hard Cider, Coons, and Log Cabins was
carrying the Ohio Whig abolitionists fairly along with it; and
with few exceptions, the very men who in later years were re-
garded as the personification of political abolitionism were now
in the Whig ranks. Joshua R. Giddings, B. F. Wade and his
brother Edward Wade, Leicester King, Samuel Lewis, and Sal-
mon P. Chase were among those who followed the triumphal
Whig car in this year.
In this convention, accordingly, the leadership fell to two men,
^ Emancipator, June i8, 1840. * Ibid., June 11, 1840.
DISRUPTION INTO FACTIONS. 41
Dr. Gamaliel Bailey and Ex-Senator Thomas Morris. The
former, as has been said, at first favored Harrison ; but in the
summer of 1840 he gradually turned the influence of the
PhilantJiropist in favor of Birncy and Earle. The cause could
not have gained a more valuable acquisition in all the North-
west than this clear-headed, energetic organizer and journalist.
Thomas Morris, in spite of his rejection by the Ohio Demo-
cratic caucus in 1838, had maintained his connection with the
party. His interest, however, v/as wholly in anti-slavery politi-
cal action, and among the advocates of that movement none
spoke or wrote with greater effect. In May, 1839, at a public
meeting in Cincinnati, he vigorously condemned the Fugitive
Slave Law, just passed. In July he wrote to the Albany
National Anti-Slavery Convention a letter strongly commending
political action. " Moral power," he said, " is sufficient for this
work, but that moral power must operate by means to make it
effectual. Political action is necessary, and that action can only
be effectually exercised through the Ballot-Box. And surely
the Ballot-Box can never be used for a more noble purpose than
to restore and secure to any man his inalienable rights." ^ In
the fall of that year he lectured repeatedly against slavery, and
at one time held a joint debate for a week with two Demo-
cratic politicians who favored the Black Laws. In January,
1840, Morris went as a delegate to the Ohio Democratic State
Convention, where as usual he kept quiet on matters uncon-
nected with slavery. A series of resolutions violently condemn-
ing anti-slavery societies having been reported, however, he rose
to protest. At once a pandemonium of hissing and confusion
broke out; in spite of the uproar, and cries of "Turn him out
of the party, and all abolitionists with him ! " Morris stubbornly
refused to yield, and, with one supporter only, persisted until he
had said his say. After he had finished, some one rose, and
amid general applause described him as a " rotten branch that
ought to be lopped off." ^ In view of these facts, it is not sur-
prising that Morris, with Democratic insults and proscription
still burning within him, appeared in September at the Anti-
^ B. F. Morris, Life of Thomas Morris, 230.
^ Ibid., igi ; Philanthropist, Jan. 28, Aug. 11, 1840.
42 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
Slavery Nominating Convention, and in an impassioned speech
renounced Van Buren and his pohcy, and threw himself heart
and soul into the new movement. Spurred on by his fervor,
the convention, not without considerable opposition from among
its own members, proceeded to nominate a full electoral ticket.
In the local conventions that followed in several of the West-
ern Reserve counties and elsewhere, there were sharp contests.
In some places the policy of questioning was continued, as in
the Nineteenth Congressional District convention at Akron,
which also supported Birney. In Portage County the conven-
tion resolved to support three of the Whig candidates, and to
oppose another on the ground " that both the honor and the
interests of the anti-slavery enterprise are pledged against the
nomination of separate candidates when the existing parties
offer such as abolitionists can consistently vote for." In this
case the third-party men were not suppressed ; they reassembled
after the convention adjourned and nominated some anti-slavery
men of their own.^ In Ashtabula County a two days' conven-
tion rejected a third-party proposal; whereupon the defeated
section, under the leadership of General J. H. Paine, withdrew
and set up for themselves. In some places third-party tickets
were run more successfully ; but as a general rule local organiza-
tion hardly existed, and in the State election in October there
were scarcely any third-party votes.
Meanwhile the other Northwestern States had been under-
going experiences similar to that of Ohio. Illinois was first in
the field, its anti-slavery society meeting on July 4 at Prince-
ton, Bureau County. Like the Ohio Society, it adopted a
policy of neutrality, ceasing to be auxiliary to the American
Anti-Slavery Society, and also refusing to take any definite stand
on voting. Thereupon a separate meeting of third-party men
was called at the same place, and on July 5 the first Northwest-
ern electoral ticket was put forth, with a series of resolutions
supporting Birney and Earle, and promising votes for none but
abolitionists. Among the officers of this convention was David
Nelson, who, like Birney, had been persecuted out of Missouri
into Illinois, and was found among those willing to go farther
^ Philanthropist^ Oct. 2, 1840.
DIVISIONS IN STATE ORGANIZATIONS. 43
in opposing slavery. So small was the band of third-party men
in this State that no local organization was attempted.
After Illinois came Michigan. Here anti-slavery action had
been wide-spread for several years, and the condition of things
was more like that in Ohio. Up to the time of the Birney
nomination none of the leading men in the State had favored a
third part}'; but in the spring of 1840 the current began to set
that way, and S. B. Treadwell, of the j\Iichigaii Fncman, grad-
ually came to approve the "Liberty" nomination. In July
appeared a call, signed by seventy voters, for a State Nomi-
nating Convention on August 5. Among the signers were Dr.
Porter, one of the most active abolitionists, and T. McGee,
who less than a year before, when president of the Michigan
Anti-Slavery Society, had issued a manifesto condemning the
third-party nominations in Jackson County. When the conven-
tion met, some confusion was caused by an attempt to prevent
nomination ; but the recalcitrant members were eventually
silenced, and an electoral ticket was selected. After this fol-
lowed local nominations in Jackson and Calhoun counties and
in the Fifth Senatorial District. The opponents of a third
party did not in Michigan, any more than in Ohio, fail to
express their disgust at the course of events. Some of those
who had withdrawn from the nominating convention issued an
address in the State Gazette, complaining of the tyranny of the
third-party men in not allowing the expediency of separate
nominations to be debated ; but, according to the Freeman,
nearly all of the signers of the card were Whig office-holders.
Some members of the executive committee of the State Anti-
Slavery Society followed with a resolution declaring the Free-
man, on account of its political action, to be no longer the
official organ of the society; but, although recriminations were
caused by these measures, they did not prevent the formation of
the new party.
Indiana was the third State in which the question of a third
party came up for decision. A meeting of abolitionists on July
20, at Newport, Wayne Count}', in\itcd the friends of anti-slavery
to assemble in a general State Convention at that place on August
24, " to consider what measures are necessary to be adopted to
44 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
effect the desired reform." Indiana was the most backward of
all the Northwestern States in anti-slavery matters. Not until
the years 1839-40, when the growth of societies in Ohio and
Michigan had come to a standstill, was Arnold Buffum able to
achieve much success in forming them in Indiana. Conse-
quently, of the several hundred members present in the conven-
tion, few were abolitionists of long standing, and scarcely any
were ready for radical measures. In the opinion of Arnold
Buffum, fresh from working among the people, anti-slavery sen-
timent ran so strongly against separate nominations that he
judged it unwise to try to force matters. Others thought differ-
ently, and introduced a series of resolutions ratifying the nomi-
nation of Birney and Earle, and selecting an electoral ticket.
As Buffum had predicted, this proposal aroused great opposi-
tion. Mr. Rariden, a Whig member of Congress, spoke strongly
against it; the resolutions were rejected by a great majority,
and another set was adopted, condemning both the great parties
for their subservience to slavery, and postponing separate action
until 1844. Thus Indiana refused to join the new movement.^
Considerable as were the political changes in the summer of
1840 among anti-slavery men and measures, and bitter as were the
feelings aroused, they attracted very little general attention ; for
the Tippecanoe campaign was now at its height, its uproar com-
pletely drowning the lesser discords of quarrelling abolitionists.
When the party conventions or newspapers did turn aside from
the main battle to glance at abolitionist movements, they generally
condemned them, and did their best to free their own skirts and
inculpate the other party. The Ohio Democratic Convention
of January 8, after condemning abolition in general, resolved
that Congress ought not to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia without the consent of the people of Virginia; " that
the efforts now making for that purpose by organized societies
in the free States are hostile to the spirit of the Constitution " ;
and " that political abolition is but ancient federalism under a
new guise, and that the political action of anti-slavery societies
is only a device for the overthrow of democracy." ^ The Indian-
1 Efnancipator, Sept. 24, Nov. 12, 1840.
2 Philanthropist, Jan. 28, 1840.
INSIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEW PARTY. 45
apolis Democrat, which had at one time " admired the courage
and firmness of this singular party," later said : " We now be-
lieve that the abolitionists are but a branch of the federal Whig
party . . . we believe that Harrison is the Northern iVbolitionist
candidate."^ The Michigan Monroe Times asked: "Is not
the whole movement in fact another of those cowardly tricks
resorted to by the party in order to deceive the people, ... to
pacify the Southern Whigs? " ^ Whig papers, of course, adopted
the same strain, charging the abolitionists with virtually trying
to elect Van Buren; but their interest in this campaign was not
so lively as it became later, for they did not feel any especial
danger from the " mad folly " of Birney and his followers.'^
Of any campaign on the part of the newly-born third party
there are few traces. Without organization, at swords' points
with those hitherto their strongest allies, despised by the regular
parties, and deafened and overborne by the tremendous cry of
" Tippecanoe and Tyler too," the political abolitionists could
do little but play their part in silence. " So strong has been the
political excitement," wrote a correspondent from the Western
Reserve to the Philajithropist, " that for all the good to be ac-
complished it seemed like sailing against the wind. . . . The
Whig candidates for Congress did us more harm than any other
men on the Reserve. They had nothing to fear for them-
selves, and stumped it for Harrison, for weeks throwing out in-
sinuations against the third party as an affair got up to help Van
Buren."* From Illinois came a similar tale: "Many who in
1 Quoted, Philanthropist, Sept. 29, 1840.
2 Quoted, ibid., Aug. 18, 1840.
8 The Phiianfhropist (Aug. 18, Sept. 29, 1840) collected the following
remarks : the Urbana Citizen asked, " Have the Locofocos and the ultra
abolitionists of Ohio formed a coalition?"; the Conneaut Gazette queried,
"Can any man doubt that this is a Loco-Foco move from the foundation?";
the Marietta Intelligencer said, " The editor of the Philanthropist may talk
of his indifference, but we imagine he can hardly make any man believe
that his influence is not subservient to the interests of Van Buren " ; and the
Medina Constitutionalist remarked, " The leaders in this scheme are more
desirous to secure the re-election of Van Buren . . . than to ameliorate the
condition of the slave." See Emancipator, Aug. 18, 1840.
* Ibid., Dec. 9, 1840.
46 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY.
times more perilous, when Lovejoy fell, remained unshaken by
the threats and hovvlings of mob fury, were borne headlong by
the shout of 'Tip and Tyler.' Prominent members and officers
of the State Society, and men in the garb of the Christian min-
istry even, voted for Harrison." ^
When election day came, very many waverers finally went
with their party " once more " ; many others; prepared to vote
for Birney, could find no ballots, and did not know the names of
the third-party electors ; and some stayed away from the polls.
It was not until weeks after the result of the contest was known
that, in the few insignificant returns of scattering votes, the new
party recognized itself.^ Only in Massachusetts was the third-
party vote one per cent of the total ; and in Ohio, where the
anti-slavery movement had been extremely active, the vote was
less than half as numerous proportionally as that of Michigan.
It is not at all certain, however, that the figures given below are
correct. In all probability a good many more anti-slavery votes
were cast in scattered places, but, through the carelessness or the
indifference of election officials, were not returned. Neverthe-
less, whatever additions be made on this score, the fact remains
that the Birney ticket failed completely to attract any large pro-
portion of even the professed abolitionists. Elizur Wright, in
his life of Myron Holley, estimates the number of voting mem-
bers of anti-slavery societies as not less than 70,000.^ If we
^ Ema7icipator^ June 10, 1841.
2 The Northern vote by States was as follows : — ^\
Maine . . .
Democratic.
46,201
Whig.
46,612
Abolitionist.
194
Per cent
.002
New Hampshire
Vermont .
32,761
18,018
26,158
32,440
III
.001
.006
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
51,944
3,301
72,874
5,278
1,415
(42)
.Oil
.004
Connecticut
New York . .
25,296
212,527
3 1 ,60 r
225,817
174
2,798
•003
.006
Pennsylvania
Ohio . . .
Michigan . .
Illinois . .
143,672
124,982
21,131
. 47,496
144,021
148,157
22,933
45,558
343
903
328
157
.001
.003
.007
.OOI
727,329 801,449 6,784
^ Elizur Wright, Life of Myro7i Holley, 235.
THE VOTE IN THE NORTHWEST. 47
consider that, in 1837, 607 societies out of a total of i,oo5
reported 55,790 members, and that in 1840 there were many
more societies, this seems a conservative estimate. It is safe
to say that in 1 840 not one in ten of the thousands of abolition-
ists who had resolved to act without regard to party ties, and
witli a sole purpose of aiding the cause of liberty, felt called
upon to leave the party with which he had hitherto voted.
From the Northwest we have a few returns by counties, the
distribution of which is not without significance. In Ohio seven-
teen counties out of seventy-eight return 550 votes, Ashtabula
heading the list with 95 votes, Trumbull and Lorain having each
82 ; and the ten counties of the Western Reserve cast nearly half
of the total State vote. The contrast, however, between the 425
from the Western Reserve and the 432 which Geauga County
alone cast in 1839, is significant. Outside the Reserve the most
votes appear to have been cast near Cincinnati, which, like the
Western Reserve, had many New England settlers. Since both
these sections were later the strongholds of Liberty and Free
Soil parties, this vote of 1840, meagre as it was, really indicated
the future course of anti-slavery political growth in Ohio.^
In Illinois, on the contrary, almost nothing of the sort is
visible ; for the seven northeastern counties, later to become
the rivals of the Ohio Western Reserve, gave barely 20 votes to
the diminutive total of 157. The centre of Illinois political
abolitionism, in 1840, was Adams County on the Mississippi,
which gave 42 votes. The only facts brought out by the Illi-
nois vote were that " Egypt," the southern half of the State,
would give no abolition votes, and that the influence of Love-
j'oy's murder still lingered to make the region near Alton more
radical than the northern part of the State.*'*
^ For the Ohio vote, collected from scattered returns, see Emancipator,
Nov., 1840-Jan., 1841.
2 For the Illinois vote, see Emancipator^ Dec. 10, 1841.
CHAPTER V.
ORGANIZATION OF THE LIBERTY PARTY.
1840-1843.
At the end of 1840 the new abohtion movement had com-
pleted ten years of its course ; and the fruit of its agitation
was seen in the general development of a distinctly Northern
anti-slavery sentiment. In the Northwest, even where indiffer-
ence had been most marked and had proved hardest to over-
come, the growth of anti-slavery societies had steadily gone on.
Ohio and Michigan were covered with them ; Illinois and In-
diana contained clusters of anti-slavery communities ; and even
the two frontier Territories, hitherto entirely under the influence
of Mississippi River traffic and connections, were beginning to
feel the new anti-slavery influence. In 1840-41 societies started
up in the southeastern counties of Wisconsin adjacent to the
anti-slavery region of Illinois, and in 1841 the first society in
Iowa was formed. Wherever these organizations had worked,
came a change in public sentiment. It was no longer fashion-
able among Whig papers entirely to condemn agitation, nor
did any but the hardiest Democratic sheets continue in the
contemptuous strain which was common a decade earlier.
Of this growth of anti-slavery sentiment the legislative action
of the Northwestern States, as we have seen, gives almost no
reflex. On the contrary, the years 1834-40 saw a series of
resolutions and enactments condemning abolition, and render-
ing harsher the burdens already oppressing the free blacks in
the Northwest; for the Southern-born elements of population in
the southern and western halves of all the States except Michi-
gan controlled local politics, and it was not among these people,
RESL-LTS OF TEN YEARS' AGITATION. 49
nor among professional politicians of any locality, that abolition-
ists could expect to make converts.
There was, however, one point in which the rudiments of a
distinctly Northern feeling were evident: namely, in the opposi-
tion which some of the Northwestern States manifested toward
the proposed annexation of Texas. This matter will be con-
sidered at greater length in another place. ^ It is enough to say
here that the legislatures of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan took
action in this direction in 1836-38, and that there were
occasional public meetings condemning the annexation of any
new sla\-e territory. Since these were the very years in which
the same legislatures poured out disapproval on abolitionists
and increased the severity of Black Laws, it is evident that too
much weight must not be attached to their anti-Texas action.
The political managers in the Northwest were not yet abolition-
ized, nor were they to become so for a score of years ; but they
had no love for slavery, and felt the danger of having a prepon-
derance of slave States. All they wanted was to preserve the
status quo. Whatever section seemed to be altering or trying
to alter the existing balance would meet with their opposition.
Scarcely any of the abolitionists themselves realized the diffi-
culties lying in their way. So little did they appreciate the
motives that sway the politician's mind, that such an acute
observer as Birney in 1838 claimed anti-Texas resolutions of
State legislatures as abolition victories ; and Garrison and his
followers actually thought that a scattering of votes, or a refusal
to vote at all unless some one of the old parties should nominate
an abolitionist, would inevitably and speedily bring politicians
to the feet of the new party, and thus, as the Michigan Anti-
Slavery Society said in 1839, " accomplish the universal triumph
of liberty."^ This expectation proved futile in 1839, and now
abolitionists were turning strongly toward a new party.
After the delirium of 1840 followed a general reaction, from
which the political abolitionists profited. Numbers of Whig
members of anti-slavery societies, who had been carried away in
the excitement of the Presidential campaign, felt a desire when
1 Chapter VIII.
^ Mich2ga7t Freeman, Oct. 23, 1839 ; quoted in Liberator, Nov. 15, 1839.
4
50 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
it had passed to resume anti-slavery work. When Tyler suc-
ceeded Harrison, very many Whigs in the Northwest lost all
personal interest in the administration; and later, when the
accidental President became embroiled with his party in Con-
gress, their disgust made them turn for relief to the anti-slavery
organizations. Now, after 1840, although the old State and
local anti-slavery societies existed, the strength of the movement
no longer resided in them, but in the new " Liberty Party," as
it had begun to style itself. If the Birney nomination for a time
was regarded as merely sporadic, the action of State and local
conventions in the free States in 1841 dispelled this idea.
Almost immediately after "the election a movement began, from
Maine to Illinois, for a national and local reorganization of the
political abolitionists for distinct party action.
In Ohio the call for a convention said somewhat timidly : " It
will not be a third-party or anti-third-party convention. ... It
is not called with a view of deciding upon this question . . .
but to re establish harmony and to agree upon some rational,
effective plan of anti-slavery political organization." ^ Before
this State Convention met, the Western Reserve third-party
men were in the field with a convention for northern Ohio, at
Akron, on October 23-24, which resolved that " it was expedient
for the Liberty party to continue the nomination of men true to
the principles of equal rights " ; and it nominated Thomas Morris
for Governor in 1842, subject to the decision of the State Con-
vention. Committees were also appointed and lectures arranged.^
The State Convention, on January 20-21, in spite of the depre-
cating language of its call, proved no less in favor of the
"Liberty Party." Having defined the formal anti-slavery so-
cieties as purely moral agencies, the two hundred and eight
delegates from thirty-six counties wrestled for two days with
the problem of political action; and finally, late in the night,
by a vote of 87 to 30, rejected the old policy of question-
ing. A resolution was then passed, " that it be recommended
to the voting anti-slavery citizens of Ohio to adopt the policy
of previous independent nominations in all cases where they
are not perfectly assured that men in whom they can confide
1 Philanthropist y Dec. 16, 1840. '^ Ibid., Jan. 13, 1841.
THIRD-PARTY ACTIVITY AFTER ELECTIONS. 5 I
will be presented by one or both of the existing political
parties." ^ In this convention, which definitely established the
Liberty party in Ohio, Thomas Morris and Dr. Bailey were
again the leading spirits. Purdy, of the Xcnia Free Press, a
" Whig abolitionist," led the opposition with great pertinacity,
but was voted down ; and he finally separated from his old col-
leagues. From this time, although there were still occasional
protests and complaints from disappointed Whig or Democratic
abolitionists, predicting total failure and fearing that the at-
tempt to run a third ticket would " make a laughing-stock of
our holy cause," the Liberty party was established beyond
dispute.
In Indiana the reaction was still sharper. A meeting of in-
dependent abolitionists for the First Congressional District, at
Economy, Wayne County, began a movement for third-party
action in December, 1840, and recommended the nomination of
independent candidates for executive, legislative, and judicial
offices. The president of this meeting was Isaiah Osborne, a
son of the Quaker, Charles Osborne, who had been the prede-
cessor of Lundy and Garrison in advocating immediate eman-
cipation ; 2 his selection shows how the old emancipationist
movement, as well as the later abolitionism, was swallowed up
by the new political agitation. A convention for the Third Con-
gressional District, January i, i84r, resolved "that to oppose
slavery morally by speaking against it as a sin while we sustain
it politically ... is a gross inconsistency and paralyzing to our
moral influence." ^ A call was finally issued for a State Conven-
tion of the friends of independent political action to meet at the
same time with the State Anti-Slavery Society, to consider the
subject of nominating for Congress and for the legislature. On
February 8 the convention met, resolved almost unanimously to
support Liberty candidates, and thereby reversed completely the
action of that State Convention which six months before had
resolved to adhere to the old methods. The true explanation
^ Philanthropist, Jan. 27, Feb. 3, 1841.
2 Correspondence of writer with G. W. Julian, 1S95. See also Philan-
thropist, Dec. 23, 1840.
* Philanthropist, Jan. 27, 1841.
52 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
of this change is that abolitionists who favored acting with the
old parties no longer attended abolitionist conventions; and
those present, finding no opposition, gained courage to go
on by themselves.
Michigan followed Indiana. After the meeting of the State
Anti-Slavery Society at Jackson, on February lO-ii, a Lib-
erty convention organized, with Thomas McGee as president.
Ohio and Indiana had been content merely to record their
opinion in favor of independent action and to begin prepara-
tions ; but Michigan far outstripped them by selecting a State
Central Committee, and nominating Jabez S. Fitch, of Calhoun
County, and N. Power, of Oakland County, for Governor and
Lieutenant-Governor respectively: this was the first Liberty
State ticket in the Northwest. Furthermore, a ballot was taken
on the preferences for Liberty candidates for President and
Vice-President.^ There is no doubt that at this time Michi-
gan abolitionists were much better organized and more united
in sentiment than those of any other Northwestern State; but
we shall see that this superiority was held for a few years
only, and that after 1844 anti-slavery political sentiment in that
State rapidly lost its coherence.
Illinois followed close after her sister States. On February
25 a State Anti-Slavery Convention met at Lowell and adopted
a series of resolutions commenting on national affairs, urging
a National Liberty Presidential Nominating Convention, and
recommending abolitionists in Illinois to make nominations for
Congress, on the ground that " efficient political action can be
produced only by independent and united effort," and that " the
risjht of suffrage includes the right of nomination." A letter
from J. Cross describing this convention in the Emancipator
said: "The rallying shout of ' Hard cider' has lost its power.
A log cabin no longer has the charm of novelty. Many, very
many who voted with the prominent parties at the Presidential
election have seen their error and repented. . . . The plan of
^ The ballot resulted as follows : —
President : J. G. Birney, 49. Vice-President : T. Earle, 48.
T. Morris, i. A. Stewart, i.
See Emancipator^ June 3, 1841.
THE FIRST XATIOXAL CONVENTION. 53
independent nominations is rising rapidly in the estimation of the
more efficient aboHtionists." ^
Definitely to establish the new party, there met in New York
on May 12 the first really national Liberty convention. Dele-
gates were present from all the New England States, from New
York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, three from Ohio, and two
from Indiana; the delegates chosen by Michigan seem not to
have come. The composition of the meeting and the pro-
ceedings show that as yet the centre of gravity of the political
anti-slavery movement was in the East, and that the Northwest
was content to follow the leadership of such men as Joshua
Leavitt, William Goodell, and James G. Birney. On the first
day it was resolved to nominate candidates for President and
Vice-President in 1844, and on the first ballot Birney and Morris
were selected.^ On the second day the convention discussed
the question of organization. It was resolved " that the friends
of Liberty throughout the nation be requested to nominate and
to vote for township, county, and all other officers favorable to
the immediate emancipation of slavery"; and in furtherance of
this comprehensive scheme it was resolved to have State,
county, town, ward, and district committees, auxiliary to a
National Committee. These were to canvass every town and
ward in the free States, keeping a roll of Liberty voters and
reporting the same to the National Committee.^ The conven-
tion then adjourned, to meet again in two years at the call of
the Central Committee. It had pledged the political abolition-
ists to the policy of building up from the start a new political
party, a plan involving labors to which all previous work was
merely preliminary, but into which all the Liberty men of the
country now threw themselves with enthusiasm, high hopes, and
a complete lack of comprehension of the difficulties of the task
before them. Probably half of the delegates expected the Lib-
1 Emancipator, June 10, i<S4i.
2 The vote was as follows : —
President: J. G. Birney, 108. Vice-President: Thomas Morris, 83.
Thomas Morris, 2. Thomas Earle, 18.
Gerrit Smith, i. Gerrit Smith, 2.
William Jay, i. A. Stewart, i.
^ Emancipator, May 20, 1841.
54 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
erty party to carry the election of 1844; and even the most
cautious felt that by 1848 their party would be dominant in the
North. Yet nineteen years were to pass before a party in any
sense a descendant of the Liberty organization was to carry a
national election, and that by a minority vote.
In the spring of 1841, then, the Liberty party was placed on
its feet in all the Northern States. The system of questioning
candidates, and of waiting for favorable action on the part of
the old parties, were things of the past ; and a new organization
had begun its attempt to absorb all radical anti-slavery feeling
except that which still clung to the tenets of Garrison, Henry C.
Wright, and the other " Non-Resistants." The next three years
were a period of intense activity in the Northwest. To treat the
details fully, however, would be neither interesting nor profit-
able, since it would be nothing more than to give a list of
conventions, nominations, and votes cast. In no State of the
Northwest did the Liberty men succeed in electing any one ; nor
in these three years did their organizations succeed in produc-
ing any visible effect on the policy of the older parties. Their
activity was directed to agitation and protest, and not to legis-
lative action or questions of policy ; it was, as the Emaitci-
pator said, practically a continuation of the anti-slavery society
methods under a new organization, with some additional
principles of action.
In Ohio several local conventions were held, mostly on
the Western Reserve and in the territory near Cincinnati ;
but the process of disentanglement between Liberty and Whig
abolitionists was slow. At a political convention held after
the State Anti-Slavery convention, a last effort was made to
commit the party in favor of withdrawing its candidates in case *"
the other parties offered suitable nominations ; but, though
strongly supported, it met defeat. Still the Clinton County
convention resolved not to nominate, unless no sound candi-
dates were put up by the other parties ; and in Lorain and
Trumbull counties the fact that the Whig nominees were men
hitherto known as " abolitionists " prevented the Liberty ticket
from achieving much success. In some places nominations
were made too late to be widely known; but, in spite of all
LOCAL DOMINATIONS IN I84I. 55
drawbacks, the Ohio Liberty men succeeded in casting over
2,000 votes. ^
In Indiana there were not the same difficulties as in Ohio, for
there was no large class of abolitionists in the old organizations
to distract third-party men by claiming to be more anti-slavery
than they. The scanty numbers and scattered condition of
Liberty sympathizers, however, made concerted action very
difficult. In a few places county nominations were made for
the August election ; but how large a vote the Liberty party
cast is not known. There are returns of 594 votes from two
counties.^
In the spring of 1841, Michigan anti-slavery men opened
the campaign by running third-party tickets in town elections;
and in April the State Anti- Slavery Society declared itself in
favor of political action, condemned scattering votes — a favor-
ite Garrisonian device — as " a species of duplicity," and separ-
ated from the American Anti- Slavery Society. Following this
action, the third-party men made vigorous efforts at organiza-
tion. Besides the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant-
Governor, there were three nominations for the Senate and at
least twenty-five for the House. Conventions were held in a
large number of counties; and Birney, now a resident of the
State, took the stump for a part of the fall", Michigan being the
first Northwestern State to organize a distinct campaign. The
vote was as follows: Democratic — Barry, 20,975; Whig —
Fuller, 15,469; Liberty — Fitch, 1,214.^
In Illinois the Liberty men made only one nomination, that
of F. Collins for Congress in the Third District. There was
some agitation, but nothing like a campaign. The Liberty
^ For the Liberty campaign in Oliio, see Philanthropist, May 26-
Oct. 27, 1841 ; for the vote, see Er/tmicipator, Nov.-Dec, 1841, and Avicri-
can Liberty Almanac^ 1844. VVe have separate returns for twenty-one
counties, which amount to 1,782. The total was claimed to be 2,848, three
times as large as the vote of the preceding year.
^ Emancipator, Sept. 9, 1841.
» Ibid., June 3, Aug. 5, Sept. 23, 1841. For the vote, see Ibid., Dec. 10,
1841, and Detroit Advertiser, Dec. 9, 1841, Dec. 4, 1843. There are sepa-
rate returns from eight counties.
56 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
vote, for which we have full returns, amounted to 527, a con-
siderable increase over the 157 of the year before.^
In 1842 much the same programme was continued. In Ohio
a State Convention, on December 29, 1841, nominated Leicester
King for Governor, thereby showing the thoroughly practical
character of the Ohio leaders ; for King was a member of the
State bench, and had served two terms as State Senator.
Wholly in sympathy with the cause, and yet an experienced
politician, he was an eminently fit candidate. It would be easy
to fill pages with accounts of local conventions, with the labors
of King, Morris, and others, and with the signs of the growth of
anti-slavery feeling in portions of the State outside the Reserve
and the Cincinnati district; but it suffices to say that the
Liberty men made a more thorough canvass than had before
been attempted, and in October almost doubled their vote.^
The election returns are: Democratic — Shannon, 129,064;
Whig — Corwin, 125,621; Liberty — King, 5,405. Of the
Liberty vote the eleven Western Reserve counties cast 2,433 \
the sixty-seven others, 2,972. ^ For the first time the Liberty
men appeared to have the balance of power.
Indiana continued the same course as before, making several
local nominations, but having little or no State organization.
There was still so much timidity among professed anti-slavery
men about joining the Liberty party, that the Free Labor
Advocate felt obliged to adopt a somewhat apologetic air, say-
ing, as a justification for its course in advocating political anti-
slavery action : " We think the abolitionists of the West very
generally believe in the propriety of the measures mentioned."^
Of the vote, no exact returns are known, but it was claimed to
be between 800 and 900.^ In Michigan the activity of the pre-
ceding year was continued, largely owing to the influence of
Birney, who travelled and spoke indefatigably. Local and
legislative nominations received in the fall the support of at
1 Etnancipator, Aug. 5, 1841. For the vote, see Ibid., Dec. 10, 1841.
2 For this campaign, see Philanthropist, passim.
8 Vote in Whig Almanac, 1843.
* Free Labor Advocate, Sept. 24, 1842.
5 Emancipator, Sept. i, 1842; Liberty A bnanac, 1844.
LIBERTY CAMPAIGNS IN 181^-3. 57
least 1,665 votes.^ Illinois took a decided step in advance. A
State convention in May nominated C. W. Hunter, of Madison
County, and F. Collins, of Adams County, for Governor and
Lieutenant-Governor respectively; and regular Liberty nomina-
tions were made in twenty counties. In August the vote stood :
Democratic — Ford, 45,608; Whig — Duncan, 38,304; Liberty
— Hunter, 909.^
The opening of the year 1843 found the Liberty party estab-
lished and, although still very diminutive, apparently growing
at a rate to render it important in the near future. In Ohio the
activity of the Liberty men was unceasing; convention followed
convention in a majority of the senatorial districts of the State,
and the leaders of the cause lectured from spring until the elec-
tion. In spite of the facts that it was an " off year," with no State
ticket, and that the Whigs made urgent efforts to get the
Liberty abolitionists to support their nominees, the official
returns gave the Liberty vote a considerable increase in
eighteen out of twenty-one districts, as follows : Democratic,
102,335; Whig, 107,249; Liberty, 6,552. The Philanthropist
was dissatisfied with these figures and charged fraud, claiming
to have returns amounting to 7,466.'^
In Indiana, at the same time, a vigorous effort was made.
In September, 1842, a State Convention nominated the first
ticket for Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, naming E.
Deming and S. S. Harding respectively. Attempts were made
to carry on a regular campaign with the help of speakers from
Ohio; and in August of 1843 the vote stood: Democratic —
Whitcomb, 60,714; Whig — Bigger, 58,701; Liberty — Deming,
1,684. Of the Liberty vote, Wayne, Randolph, and Henry
counties gave 792, almost half.* Wayne County, with a large
Quaker population, was the centre of activity, its convention
1 Emancipator, Sept. I, Nov. 17, 1842; Detroit Advertiser, Dec. 15,
1842; Liberty Alma7iac, 1844. Probably there were more votes.
2 Vote in Whig Almanac, 1843. See Philanthropist, April 20, 1842;
Emancipator, Aug. 25, 1842.
8 Official returns in Whig Almanac, 1844. See Philanthropist, quoted
in Emancipator, Dec. 14, 1843.
' * Official returns in Whig Almanac, 1844.
58 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
resolving to form Liberty associations in every township, which
should pledge their members in writing to vote only Liberty
tickets.^
The Michigan Liberty men were also in the field with a State
ticket, nominating J. G. Birney and L. F. Stevens for Governor
and Lieutenant-Governor respectively, at a convention in Feb-
ruary. Besides these, there were candidates for Congress in
all the three districts, six candidates for State Senators, and
nominations for the Assembly in a dozen counties. At the
State Convention a ludicrous incident occurred : two colored
delegates were not allowed to participate in nominating because
they were not legal voters. This delightful inconsistency in an
abolitionist convention served to furnish Democratic papers
with endless amusement; and the Signal of Liberty i^tW. ill-con-
cealed mortification.^ Birney was again the life of the cause,
and in September drew a greatly increased vote. It stood :
Democratic — Barry, 21,414; Whig — Pitcher, 15,007; Liberty
— Birney, 2,775. This proportion showed Michigan to be one
of the strongest Liberty States in the country.^
In Illinois, in this year (1843), the Liberty party made great
gains. State conventions planned for organization ; local con-
ventions made nominations ; and before the election there were
Liberty candidates for Congress in every district except the two
in the southeast, called " Egypt," where, among former slave-
holders and the descendants of immigrants from Kentucky and
Tennessee, abolitionism found barren soil. In August the vote
stood at a figure more than twice as large as ever before —
1,954, of which the Fourth District, in the northeastern corner,
gave 1,174.*
In this year a new member joined the Liberty ranks, the
Territory of Wisconsin, hitherto hardly touched by the anti-
^ Free Labor Advocate, May 20, 1843.
2 Ann Arbor Michigan Argus, Feb. 13, July 26, Aug. 2, 1843.
8 Official returns in Whig Almanac, 1844.
4 Emancipator, Aug. 31, 1843; Albany Patriot, Aug. 22, Oct. 3, 1843.
The Western Citizen claimed a total of 2,171, and in all probability the vote
was larger than the official returns ; for the figures indicate in some counties
a suppression or an omission of Liberty votes.
SL/CHT.VESS OF THE PARTY'S GAINS. 59
slavery movement, but destined to surpass all the other North-
western States in the vigorous growth of its anti-slavery principles.
In 1838-40 had begun the invasion of this outlying Territory by
Eastern immigrants, many of whom, coming from New England
and New York, brought with them anti-slavery principles and
habits. Occupied as these people were, however, in frontier
pursuits, it was not until 1842 that a Territorial Anti-Slavery
Convention was held and a society organized. In 1843 the
Wisconsin abolitionists, in spite of the fact that their agitation
had hardly begun, were too impatient to join the Liberty party
to wait any longer, and accordingly called a Territorial conven-
tion to nominate a candidate for delegate to Congress. The
movement ended in almost a complete fiasco ; for the candidate
selected, a strong Whig, proceeded to advise people not to
vote for him, with the result that at the election there was only
a handful of Liberty votes, the ticket receiving almost no sup-
port in counties where anti-slavery sentiment was most prevalent.
The vote stood: Democratic — Dodge, 4,685 ; Whig — Hickox,
3,184; Liberty — Spooner, 152.^
Thus by the end of the fourth year of the Liberty party's
existence its vote had increased practically ten times since
1840;'-^ but it fell far short of the Liberty hopes of 1841. In
none of the States was it yet over ten per cent ; and in Ohio,
where for ten years abolitionist agitation had been active, it was
only three per cent. The reason was, that in this period the
Liberty party, gain as it might, entirely failed to convince the
public that it was called for by the national political situation.
This failure was not due to lack of leadership, or of adequate
effort ; for among the most active agitators were men who were
to become founders of a successful anti-slavery party.
1 Emancipator, April 6, Sept. 28, Oct. 26, 1843; Milwaukee Sentinel,
Sept. 23, 1843. For Spooner's action, see Milwaukee Democrat, Nov. 17,
1843-
2 This increase is shown by the following comparison: —
Ohio. Indiana. Michigan. Illinois. Wisconsin.
152
1840 . .
. 903
328
157
I84I . .
. . 2,800 (?)
599
1,214
527
1842 . .
, . 5,405
900 (?)
1,665
909
IS43 . .
, . 6,552
1,684
2,775
1,954
60 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
In Ohio the ebb tide after 1840 brought a number of brilliant
men into the Liberty ranks to aid Dr. Gamaliel Bailey, General
J. H. Paine, and the indefatigable Thomas Morris. Salmon
P. Chase had lived in Cincinnati for ten years without taking
part in politics. Falling in with J. G. Birney in 1835-36, he,
like Thomas Morris, was converted into a strong opponent of
slavery. He bore a creditable part in the events connected with
the mobbing of Birney's press ; but he did not identify himself
with the anti-slavery cause until, in May, 1841, he joined the
Hamilton County convention, and at once by his ability, per-
sonal impressiveness, eloquence, and remarkable power in con-
stitutional argument stepped into the lead.^ Fully as valuable
an accession was Samuel Lewis, also of Hamilton County. He
was a native of Massachusetts, a man of the most fiery elo-
quence heard in behalf of the anti-slavery cause in Ohio since
the days of Theodore Weld. Lewis had served a term as
Superintendent of Public Instruction, and in this capacity had
carried on a systematic educational propaganda, travelling the
State from end to end, stirring the people of backwoods coun-
ties into an appreciation of education, so that wherever he
passed schools sprang up and flourished. Into the anti-slavery
cause he now brought his zeal, his talents as a public speaker,
and a devotion and self-sacrifice unsurpassed by those of any
other man in Ohio.
With Morris, Bailey, Chase, and Lewis, there labored at this
time in the southern part of the State a number of men well
worthy of more extended notice than can be given here. Such
were Rev. W. H. Brisbane, formerly of North Carolina, now
an ardent radical Liberty man ; G. W. Ells, who had been
Morris's only supporter in the Democratic State Convention
of 1840, and who like him had been "kicked out of the party";
and William Birney, the son of J. G. Birney, showing already
his father's talent for organization. In the Western Reserve,
General J. H. Paine, of Painesville, a vehement speaker and a
practical worker, who had been for a time the only prominent
1 See R. B. Warden, Private Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland
Chase ; J. W. Schuckers, Life and Public Services of Salmon P. Chase; W.
Birney,/. G. Birney and his Times, 259.
LEADERS IN OHIO AND INDIANA. 6l
third-party man there, soon received strong reinforcements.
Leicester King, whose course in the legislature has been re-
ferred to above, was among the first, after the hurricane of 1840,
to bring his legal ability and philanthropic zeal to the aid of the
unpopular cause. ^ Then came Edward Wade, who in 1838 had
been zealous for political action, but who in 1840 was carried off
his feet by the " Tippecanoe " war-cry, and wrote a letter advising
abolitionists to support Harrison, Though of gentler tempera-
ment than his better-known brother, B. F. Wade, he had all of
the latter's dogged persistence and personal courage ; and from
this time until his death he was an unflinching, untiring worl^er in
the anti-slavery ranks.^ J. Hutchins, a Democratic convert, was
henceforward a persistent supporter of the Liberty party on
the Reserve, and led local sentiment in Lake County. Besides
these, a host of younger men joined the party in this period,
including Norton Townshend, destined later to be a stumbling-
block to Free Soilers. Such a group of able men as Morris,
Bailey, Chase, Lewis, Wade, and the rest, could not be paralleled
or approached elsewhere in the Northwest, or in any of the
Eastern States, except perhaps in New York and Massachusetts.
If the Liberty party, with such advocates, failed to attract
public notice, the reason was evidently something else than
deficient leadership.
In Indiana at this time there were in the Liberty party several
men of ability and self-sacrifice, but none to equal the Ohio
leaders. The most prominent leaders, perhaps, were S. S. Hard-
ing, of Ripley County, a strong radical speaker, efficient also
as an organizer ; S. C. Stevens, of Madison County, an able
lawyer, later a judge ; and E. Deming, a lawyer, of Tippecanoe
County, the candidate for Governor in 1843. All of these men,
as laborers in a field as discouraging as ever offered itself to
a reformer, deserve no little credit for their devotion, courage,
and persistency.
In Michigan we find the condition of things precisely opposite
to that in Ohio. The Liberty sentiment was strong, the vote
twice as large proportionally as that in Ohio ; but for want of
1 J. Hutchins, in Magazine of Western History, V. 6S0.
2 A. G. Riddle, in History of Ashtabula County, Ohio, 84.
62 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
real leadership, in addition to other causes, this early promise
was not justified by later events ; Michigan never produced a
Liberty man of national prominence ; its leaders were as de-
voted as those of any other State, but they seemed to lack the
vigorous personality of the Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin leaders.
In the period 1840-43, the most prominent man in the State,
overtopping every one else, was J. G. Birney, who had settled
in Saginaw County after several years spent mainly in travel-
ling over the country, agitating and organizing. His purpose
in going to Michigan seems to have been to retire from his
labors, and by farming to rest himself and repair his health
and fortunes with a view to the campaign of 1844. Hence he
seemed at first to avoid Liberty party work ; but before long
he found himself in the thick of it and at the head of the move-
ment. Dr. A. L. Porter, S. R. Treadwell, C. H. Stewart,
H, Hallock, and S. M. Holmes formed a coterie of Liberty men
in Detroit and its vicinity who well seconded Birney and on
their own account labored to promote the cause. Unlike the
leaders in other States, these Michigan men were not all law-
yers, and hence did not appear very often as candidates them-
selves ; but it is safe to say that the real management of the
party lay with the men mentioned above. Stewart, an Irish-
man, a "Repealer," and a fiery stump-speaker, was, after Birney,
the leading orator at this time.
In Illinois the cause of political abolition had passed from
such men as David Nelson into new hands. Here, as in Ohio,
there was a powerful local sentiment to build upon ; and as a
result the Illinois Liberty party leaders proved from the outset
an active, enterprising group. In some respects the most
important of the Illinois abolitionists was Zebina Eastman, for
thirteen years the editor and publisher of anti-slavery news-
papers. He was a hard worker, very earnest and practical in
both speeches and writings, but sometimes open to the charge of
prosiness. In contrast to him was Owen Lovejoy, who, having
knelt on the grave of his murdered brother, Elijah P. Lovejoy,
to swear eternal enmity to slavery, was a zealous, persistent
agitator, eloquent in speech, radical, and sometimes bitter to
the point of virulence, a man capable of inspiring the greatest
OTHER LEADERS IN THE NORTHWEST. 63
respect and confidence in the anti-slavery men of the north-
eastern counties, and for fourteen years the leader and personi-
fication of Illinois abolitionism. F. Collins was from the first a
consistent Liberty man, and from his business ability and devo-
tion to the cause was a favorite anti-slavery candidate. Dr. R.
Eells and C. V. Dyer also deserve mention as leading agitators,
as well as the radical, fiery-tongued Ichabod Codding, formerly
of Maine and Connecticut, who in 1843 joined the Illinois
forces. In short, the Liberty men of the northern counties,
although not equal perhaps to the group of Cincinnati leaders,
were fully the peers of the Western Reserve men in point of
ability and of enterprise.
In Wisconsin, which had just begun its work in this period,
leaders had not yet shown themselves. Jacob Ly Brand, Vernon
Titchener, an able lawyer, and S. Hinman were at this time
prominent, but later yielded to the leadership of others. As
will be seen later, the eventual Liberty leaders were Charles
Durkee, of Racine, a prosperous and extremely popular farmer,
a clear-headed and reliable man ; E. D. Holton, of Milwaukee,
a business man and a banker, a good speaker, and a fine figure-
head ; S. M. Booth, formerly of Connecticut, later an editor,
agitator, and leader in Milwaukee, and defendant in the famous
fugitive slave case of Ableman v. Booth, a tireless, sharp-
tongued radical, of just the kind needed to give an impetus to
the anti-slavery cause ; S. D. Hastings, formerly a Liberty
pioneer in Pennsylvania ; and some others of less prominence.
The Wisconsin leaders were not men of such strength as their
Illinois or Ohio coadjutors, but their success proved them fully
equal to the leaders of Indiana or of Michigan.
These, then, were the men at the head of the new movement.
Their methods were much the same as those of the old anti-
slavery societies ; but, owing to their more definite immediate
aims, they showed a more organized activity. The first thing
the third-party men in each State tried to do was to establish a
paper, for they well knew that a press was indispensable to their
party's success. In Ohio, the Philanthropist continued under
Dr. Bailey to be the organ of the southwestern counties, and to
64 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
exercise a great influence.^ In 1840-41 there were several
attempts to establish a paper in Cleveland, but none succeeded
on the Western Reserve until the Liberty Herald at Warren,
Trumbull County, was established in 1843.^ In Indiana, Arnold
Buffum tried for some time to start an abolitionist paper, and
for a time published the Protectionist ; but he finally abandoned
the project. In 1841-43 the Free Labor Advocate, ,2. Quaker
paper of New Garden, Wayne County, was the organ of
Indiana aboHtionists. In Michigan, the Michigan Freeman
of Detroit was finally superseded by the Signal of Liberty,
published at Ann Arbor in 1841. In Illinois, Z. Eastman
started the Genius of Liberty at Lowell, Lasalle County, in
1 841. It ran until 1843, when the editor moved to Chicago,
where, under the auspices of the State society, he started the
Western Citizen, which soon became the organ of Illinois,
Wisconsin, and Iowa anti-slavery sentiment.^ In Wisconsin,
after one attempt, in 1844, to start a paper at Racine, the
American Freeman was in the same year begun, at Southport
(later Kenosha), with the aid of the State society.^ In Iowa no
attempt was made in this period to establish anti-slavery papers.
The policy of the Liberty party during these three years was
consistent and simple. It asserted the overmastering impor-
tance of the one question of the existence of slavery, and the
necessity of bringing about a separation of the national gov-
ernment from all connection with the institution. It claimed
no unusual powers, believing that its sole opportunity of attack-
ing slavery lay in the District of Columbia and in the Terri-
tories, and that for slavery in the States it had no direct
responsibility. For this reason the Philanthropist said that it
was incorrect to style it the " Abolition Party," for its purposes
were not directed toward abolition anywhere except in these
two places.^ This caused some amusing outbursts. Said one
1 A file may be found in the Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleve-
land, Ohio. See Appendix B, below.
2 Ibid.
8 File in Chicago Historical Society,
4 File in Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison.
6 Philanthropist, Feb. 16, 1842.
THE PARTY PROGRAM AND METHODS. 65
correspondent of a new York paper: "We are amazed,
astounded, dumbfounded, at the leading article from the pen
of Dr. Bailey. . . . Let us understand each other. Where are
we? . . . We look upon it as a direct and bold attempt to sell
the abolitionists of Ohio to one of the political parties, and we
cry, Beware ! ! " ^
The means adopted by the political abolitionists to gain their ^
end, was the building up of a new party whose sole purpose
should be to urge the separation of the national government
from slavery. This party was to remain absolutely distinct and
separate from all pre-existing organizations, indifferent alike to
Whig and Democrat; it was to nominate and vote for those
only who accepted in detail all its tenets in regard to slavery
and party action ; and, for gaining political success, it was to
rely simply and solely upon the presentation of its principles
to the people. The adoption of such a course was inevitable
after the reaction from the non-partisan questioning expedient
of 1830-39, and the consequent loss of all faith in the possibility
of reforming the old parties ; but the alternative now chosen by
the Liberty party presented several difficulties equally grave with
those avoided. If the old method left the anti-slavery voters
at the mercy of the nominating conventions of the old parties,
which seldom resulted in the presentation of a man whom they
could fully trust, it did allow them a direct influence on the
results of elections. The Liberty-party methods, on the con- •
trary, prevented anti-slavery voters from securing any represen-
tation or from directly influencing the results of elections, until
they were, in any given district, more numerous than either of
the opposing parties. Practically, the only hope of success
for Liberty men lay in the possibility that Whigs or Democrats
would unite with them in nominating a Liberty man, a contin-
gency extremely unlikely to happen. The political self-efi"ace-
ment required in joining the new party was beyond the reach
of many who sympathized with its doctrines, and hence its
growth was slow.
Moreover, the new party had to meet a still more fatal diffi-
culty, in that it was unable to convince people that the slavery
1 Philanthropist, March 16, 1842.
5
66 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
question was at the time paramount to all others. In 1840-43 the
bank struggle was in its expiring agonies, and the tariff question
was hotly debated in Congress : to the eyes of most people these
seemed the real issues. Slavery was just what it had been since
the beginning of the Union ; though not attractive to a farmer of
northern Indiana or Ohio, it was certainly not a grievance with
him ; and attacks disturbing the status quo seemed unnecessary,
if not dangerous. Had either of the old parties adopted an anti-
slavery plank, many of their adherents would have acquiesced;
so long as this was not done, the anti-slavery platform of the
Liberty party, devoid of reference to tariff, bank, public lands,
internal improvements, or any of the commonplaces of politics,
was not likely to prove attractive. The " one idea party," as it
was commonly called, was trying to force an issue, — almost to
create one.
During this period the old parties and their organs at first
said little about their new opponents. In 1840, as we have
seen, there had been occasional outbursts of condemnation;
but after the election the party papers either ceased to notice
the new organization, or dismissed it with a few contemp-
tuous words. During the whole period of 1841-43, Democratic
men and newspapers, whenever they spoke of abolition, gen-
erally condemned it. Now and then they went to considerable
lengths, as in the following outburst of the Madison (Wisconsin)
Democrat : " It is quite apparent that these people as a political
party will soon pass away. . . . Providence has doomed them
to that certain fate which in an intelligent age and among an
honest people must sooner or later overtake all political factions
whose existence and support depend upon ignorance and hypoc-
risy. . . . We firmly believe Providence decreed that the white
race should guard and protect, clothe and feed the negro race,
and that the latter should be hewers of wood and drawers of
water for those who feed and protect them. God has made the
two races so distinct that on earth they can never be equal." ^
Such language could not hurt the Liberty party ; in fact, it was
calculated rather to help it; and the Liberty newspapers and
speakers took comparatively little notice of the Democrats.
1 Oct. 12, 1843.
ATTITUDE OF THE OLD PARTIES. 6/
Between the Whig and Liberty parties in the Northwest, how-
ever, the case was quite different. Each recognized in the other
a dangerous antagonist ; the success of the Whigs was im-
perilled by third-party organization ; the very existence of the
Liberty party was endangered by the Whig position. When
the Liberty party rose out of the decay of the old anti-slavery
society movement, the majority of those abolitionists who re-
fused to follow Birney went into the Whig party, claiming that
in so doing they were fully as desirous to help the cause as were
the Liberty men. Some, in their revulsion of feeling after
1841-42, returned to the third-party ranks, furnishing probably
most of the increase in the Liberty vote ; but the majority con-
tinued to adhere to the party of Clay, Webster, and Adams ; and
the result was a bitterness between the anti-slavery Whigs and
the Liberty men which very largely occupied the interest and the
energies of the latter. Some of the Whig opinions of 1840 have
been quoted ; the main purport of them was that the Whig party
was really opposed to slavery, and that the Liberty party, by
drawing from the Whig ranks, was wasting its vote and was
virtually electing pro-slavery Democrats. In the period under
discussion such expressions occurred with increasing frequency
as time went on. At every election the cry was repeated, in
the words of the Detroit Advertiser : " Let every Whig aboli-
tionist remember that every vote cast for the third party is in
effect, if not in intention, cast for the locofoco ticket." ^
The growth of the Liberty party in this period had no effect
upon the legislation of the Northwest. We find the southern
section of the three Ohio River States still dominant in the State
government ; and the same expressions of disgust at abolition
and of dislike for the negro. In Ohio a Whig legislature did,
it is true, repeal the Fugitive Slave Act of 1839; but efforts
made at the same time to repeal the Black Laws met with
crushing defeat. In February, 1842, resolutions were adopted
denouncing John Quincy Adams for presenting a petition for
the dissolution of the Union. ^ In 1843 the House of the Illinois
legislature, composed mainly of natives of the slave-holding
^ Nov. II, 1842.
2 Philanthropist, Feb. 9, 1842 ; Laws of Ohio (1841-42), 213.
68 LIBERTY PARTY ORGANIZED.
States, signalized itself by adopting resolutions which from any
point of view can be considered only humiliating. The pre-
amble stated that the distributions of public land were unduly
favorable to the South, which would not consent to any change
unless it received some concession ; that the legislature of
Illinois " viewed with deepest concern the continual increase
of desertion of the slaves of our brethren of the slave-holding
States," and thought that measures to check the evil should be
taken. Therefore, it recommended to the States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri,
Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan to meet in convention at Jones-
borough, Illinois, on July 4, to make arrangements in regard to
the public lands and in regard to a new fugitive-slave law.^
With the year 1843 the formative period of the Liberty party
was complete. Its leaders had done their best; its newspapers
had cried aloud and spared not; its lecturers had traversed all
the States ; at three elections all the faithful had cast their votes
unflinchingly for men whom they knew they could not elect;
and still the party remained diminutive, almost insignificant.
The experiment of forcing an issue upon an indifferent people
had been tried, and, as always, it had proved futile.
1 National Era, June 3, 1847.
CHAPTER VI.
THE LIBERTY MEN HOLD THE BALANCE OF POWER.
1 843-1845.
In the year of the national election of 1844, the Liberty party
of the United States suddenly found itself in the presence of a
new and pressing issue, in the outcome of which it was vitally
interested. The annexation of Texas had been since 1836 the
subject of intrigue, but in this year for the first time it loomed
up as a probable event. In the winter of 1843-4 it became
evident that while the South almost as a unit was in favor of
annexation, the two old organizations, in the Northern States
at least, seemed inclined to divide upon this question. There
was no need for the Liberty party to force or to create an issue ;
there stood one, threatening, unavoidable. How were they to
meet it?
Pursuant to a resolution adopted at that New York conven-
tion of 1 841 which had nominated Birney and Morris, the
Liberty party, after the elections of 1843, met in national con-
vention at Buffalo. At the Ohio Liberty Convention in Janu-
ary, 1843, Morris had withdrawn from the nomination, feeling
that, as so many able and leading men had joined the cause
since the spring of 1841, it would be only fair to allow the party
to choose one of them, if it thought politic or desirable. The
business before the convention, then, consisted in filling the
vacancy caused by Morris's resignation and in organizing the
party for the campaign of 1844 ; and for the first time was seen
a really national, or at least a Northern, political anti-slavery
gathering. No longer was the management, as in 1841, almost
entirely in the hands of New York and Massachusetts men ; for
70 BALANCE OF POWER.
the Western delegates shovv'ed on the whole greater distinction
than did the older leaders of the cause. The Ohio constellation
in particular took the lead : Leicester King presided ; Samuel
Lewis was a vice-president, speaking often with great effect ;
and Chase drew up the resolutions. Among other Northwest-
ern men those from Illinois were prominent, C V. Dyer being
a vice-president, and Owen Lovejoy a secretary. Regular pro-
cedure was adopted, modelled on that of the Whig national
conventions. Birney and Morris were unanimously renominated
with great enthusiasm; a long series of well-written resolutions
embodying the party creed was adopted ; and the convention
adjourned with cheerfulness, if not with all the high hopes that
had been cheribhed in 1841. An interesting incident was the
appearance in the convention of Stephen S. Foster and Abby
Kelly, of the Garrisonian or non-resistant abolitionists, who made
various remarks, partly conciliatory and partly otherwise, until
the patience of the members was exhausted, and the zealous
Abby Kelly was with difficulty silenced.^
The Liberty party, then, in the opening of 1844 had its Presi-
dential ticket in the field, but had no statement in its platform
in regard to Texas ; for at the time the platform was adopted
that question had not risen into prominence. In January and
February the local Liberty organizations started in on the long
campaign, calling conventions, passing resolutions, and, in gen-
eral, continuing the processes used in the three preceding years.
They condemned both the old parties, urged the necessity of
separating the national government from slavery, and reiter-
ated the usual arguments, now beginning to be familiar. Pres-
ently the Texas matter began to come into view ; and, as the
\year wore on, the fact grew more and more evident that Demo-
jcrats and slave-holders favored annexation and Whigs opposed
lit. This condition of things did not, however, suggest to the
Liberty party any alteration in the line of conduct which they
had been pursuing. Though the Whigs and Democrats were
divided over the slavery issue, how did that concern the Liberty
party? The Whigs, on the contrary, thought that it concerned
1 For the Liberty convention of 1843, see Emancipator, Sept. 7, 14, 1S43;
Albatiy Patriot, Sept. 12, 1843; R- B. Warden, Life of Chase, 300.
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS THREATENED. 7 1
the Liberty party very closely whether or not Texas were an-
nexed ; and in the spring and early summer of 1844 they began
with a vehemence hitherto unknown to urge upon abolitionists
that the only way to keep Texas out was to vote the Whig
ticket for Presidential, Congressional, and State offices. After
Polk was nominated, and it became still more evident that the
Democratic party was committed to annexation, their appeals
and arguments came with increasing fervor. " Friends, Chris-
tians, honest men," said the Indiana State Journal, " how can
you, by throwing away your votes, hazard the election of Texas
and slavery men to the legislature from this county? Our op-
ponents . . . are tickled to death with the prospect of thus using
you as tools. Shall it be done? Will you minister to their
success? Ponder on these things."^
The abolitionists were forced to ponder, particularly those
who had been Whigs in 1840. The exigency seemed pressing,
but there was no provision for anything of the sort in the
Liberty programme. All their training in the years 1841-43
bade them to ignore or to condemn the old parties, and to scorn
as a temptation of Satan the idea of voting for a Whig, even
though an anti-slavery man, unless he were also an abolitionist
in good standing and already a Liberty nominee. Yet there
stood Texas, a whole slave empire in itself, waiting only the
election of a Democratic President and Congress in order to be
annexed. So long as there was any hope of preventing this
step by direct action, to vote for a third party seemed, as the
Whigs said, simply to minister to Democratic success.
Had the Whigs at this juncture offered a candidate who by
any stretch of logic could be called anti-slavery, the existence of
the Liberty party would have been imperilled ; but the Whigs,
fortunately for the Liberty men and unfortunately for them-
selves, had at the head of their ticket the one man least likely
to attract abolition votes. In Henry Clay, the idol of Whigs
North and South, the abolitionists could not find a redeeming
trait. He was himself a slave-holder, a fact which, according to
the Liberty creed, hopelessly disqualified him. Moreover, for
seven years he had publicly deprecated their aims, and ridiculed
1 Aug. 3, 1844.
72 BALANCE OF POWER.
and condemned their methods. His only possible claim to their
support was his avowed opposition to Texas annexation ; and
this in the summer of 1 844 he destroyed by his famous Alabama
letter, saying that he should " be glad to see it annexed . . .
on honorable terms." In spite of these patent facts, the Whig
appeals for Liberty support continued so vigorous, and the
exigency seemed so pressing, that desertions from the Liberty
ranks began, and the third-party leaders became alarmed. And
now the least lovely traits of the political abolitionists came into
view : their insistence that a candidate completely conform to
their creed ; their mastery of the art of exasperating abuse. To
prove that Clay was no abolitionist was easy ; to show that
he was unsound on the question of Texas was not difficult; but
with this the Liberty men were by no means satisfied. They
attacked him on altogether irrelevant grounds, impugning his
personal character as that of a gambler and a duelist, and em-
ploying the old-time anti-slavery language in calling him a "man-
stealer " because he held slaves.'' The Ohio State Convention
at Akron, June 6, adopted a resolution offered by Edward Wade,
that "no law-abiding citizen can support Mr. Clay for President,
because he is a duelist." ^ When excited, the Liberty men
sometimes went beyond all bounds of prudence. M. R. Hull, of
Indianapolis, for example, having been mobbed by a Whig
crowd, published a letter in a Democratic paper saying: " This
is the party who^e leader is a gambler, a man-stealer and a duel-
ist ; this is the party, with all their bitter, bloody, burning out-
rages on abolitionists, that has the impudence to call on Liberty
men to support their gambling, dueling, negro-robbing chief." ^
Devotion to Henry Clay was almost a cardinal point in the
Whig creed; they could hear their party and their platform
abused, but attacks on Clay they could not stand. As an indig-
nant anti-slavery man had written to the Philanthropist in 1842:
" I think too much of Henry Clay to longer support a paper
that abuses him as much as you do." ^ Consequently these
bitter Liberty attacks on Clay's character drove the Whigs
1 Warren Liberty Herald, June 12, 1844.
2 Indianapolis Sentinel, Sept. 5, 1844.
» Philanthropist, Sept. 17, 1842.
CONTROVERSY WITH THE WHIGS. 73
simply to madness. Argument vanished in a flood of mutual
invective.
Meanwhile in the Northwest the Liberty forces had been for
some months preparing for the election. In Ohio, on February
7, a State Convention in Columbus, with J. H. Paine presiding,
adopted a long series of resolutions, appointed Presidential elec-
tors, and nominated Leicester King for Governor. One hundred
and sixteen delegates were present, representing all parts of the
State. Their temper is shown by one of the resolutions : " That
Liberty men should . . . suffer no election, local or general, to
go by without nominations and a struggle ; our constables and
justices of the peace, our trustees, clerks of townships, school
directors, our judges, sheriffs, coroners, and clerks of courts,
our representatives and senators in the legislature and in Con-
gress, our Governor, President and Vice-President and all the
other officers of our State and National Government should be
Liberty men." ^ From this time on, not a week passed without
Liberty meetings somewhere in the State; and in June a regular
campaign began, with stumping tours in the southwest and on
the Reserve. King was in the field with Brisbane, Sutliff, Morris,
Wade, Chase, and William Birney; and by the end of the
summer, as the time for the October State election approached,
the Liberty party of Ohio was better organized than ever before.
In Indiana a State Convention, on May 30, nominated electors,
and adopted measures to circulate a quantity of anti-slavery
literature. The calm and undisturbed course which third-party
men had held, when left to themselves by the old parties, was
now interrupted, and the conflict of 1840 returned. In every
county where Liberty men were strong, Whig candidates made
direct appeals for their votes. In the words of the Democratic
State Sentinel, " The stump orators made speeches which tlie
abolitionists themselves declared were up and down abolition
speeches in everything but voting for Henry Clay." ^ At the
Liberty State Convention, the same Mr. Rariden who four years
before had played a prominent part in preventing the Indiana
State Convention from ratifying the nomination of Birney, now
1 Warren Liberty Heratd, Feb. 22, 1844.
2 Indianapolis Sentinel, Aug. 15, 1844.
74 BALANCE OF POWER.
reappeared, and spoke twice urging Liberty men to support
Clay.^ Consequently the Liberty vote in the Indiana State
election in August showed the effect of this concerted Whig
attack. As the Free Labor Advocate said, " The new-born zeal
of the Whig orators against the annexation of Texas had made
a strong impression in their favor . . . and the argument in
favor of voting wrong this one time ... in order to save the
country prevailed."^ During the interval between this and the
national election the abolitionists of Indiana made strong efforts
to act together; but, although matters were somewhat improved
by November, their organization was still very incomplete.
In Michigan the Liberty organization created by Birney and
his sympathizers in the preceding year was working effectively.
The usual State and local conventions met, and by the middle
of the summer a full ticket for Congress and the legislature
was in nomination. The State campaign became active when
Birney took the stump in July and by a joint debate with
Z. Piatt in Detroit excited wide-spread interest.^ The differ-
ences between Whigs and Liberty men reached an acute stage
in Michigan sooner than in any other Northwestern State; and
by July the newspaper controversy became acrimonious to a
degree, which gave intense delight to the Democrats.
In Ilhnois we find much the same state of things.* The
northern counties, hotbeds of anti-slavery feeling, were busy
from early in the year; and Lovejoy, Codding, Eastman, Dyer,
and the others by their activity brought about a distinct increase
in the Liberty vote at the State election in August. In the
Fourth District the vote was 1,408, as against 1,174 in 1843, and
the other returns were said by the Western Citizen to be equally
encouraging.^ The Illinois leaders, Lovejoy and Codding, were
fortunately of a temperament to be exhilarated rather than
discouraged by the Whig abuse poured out in the summer
of this year.
1 Emancipator, July 3, 1844. ^ Quoted Ibid., Aug. 28, 1844.
8 Ibid., Aug. 14, 1844.
4 Western Citizen, April 18, June 20, 1.844.
5 Ibid., July 4, Aug. 8, 1844; quoted in Emancipator, July 23, Aug. 19,
1844.
LOCAL ORGANIZATION IN ISU- 75
In Iowa Territory there was as yet little anti-slavery feeling,
and no attempt at Liberty organization ; but in Wisconsin the
methods of Illinois were being imitated. The Liberty men of
that Territory could not participate in the national election, nor
even in any general State election ; but they ran local tickets
with considerable vigor, and were extremely active in organiz-
ing. Their vote as returned by the Western Citizen was at least
450, and probably more, — a substantial increase over the 152 of
the preceding year.^ The Territorial Anti-Slavery Association,
in its annual report, pointed with pride to the fact that " in
Walworth County the Whigs ascribe their defeat in the election
of county officers to the influence of the Liberty Party."-
By October, then, the Liberty men in all the Northwestern
States were hotly engaged in the fiercest conflict which they
had as yet experienced, their attitude on the Texas issue being
well illustrated by a quotation from the Michigan Signal of
Liberty: " Liberty men ! Now is the time to act ! Stand forth
for your principles and show that you are men. . . . Polk is for
immediate annexation, Clay for it as soon as it can be had upon
such terms as he may think peaceable, etc. The question is
not, shall Texas be annexed? but when and how shall it be
annexed? What have Liberty men to do with this issue? Let
the pro-slavery parties settle it between them.selves."^
In opposition to this view, the appeals of Whigs grew more
urgent, and their denunciations sharper, fairly drowning in a
flood of vituperation the Liberty replies, bitter and violent as
they became. Here and there in the Liberty ranks appeared
signs of weakening, which were loudly trumpeted by Whig
papers to all corners of the country. In Michigan and in New
York manifestoes appeared signed by anti-slavery men, announc-
ing their reluctant purpose of supporting Clay on the Texas
issue;* but although here and in Indiana the third party sus-
tained some losses, Ohio abolitionists held firm, and in the
October election increased their vote even more than Illinois
^ Ematicipator^ Nov. 20, 1S44.
2 Racine, Wisconsin Aigis, March 2, 1844.
8 Quoted Detroit Free Press, Sept. 12, 1844.
* Cincinnati Gazette, Oct. i, 1844.
-je BALANCE OF POWER.
had done in August. The official return was as follows : Demo-
cratic — Tod, 146,461; Whig — Bartley, 147,738; Liberty —
King, 8,411.^ Again, as in 1842, the Liberty men showed that
they held the balance of power.
/ In October, however, there came to light in Michigan a most
remarkable state of things, which, more than any possible Whig
arguments or abuse, damaged the Liberty cause. It was
learned that, on September 28, just after starting on an
electioneering tour to the East, James G. Birney, one of the
founders of the party and its candidate for President, had been
nominated for the legislature by a Democratic convention.
Nothing could have been more opportune for the Whigs.
In their indignation at Liberty obstinacy, they had been crying
that nothing could explain it except a bargain between Birney
and Polk; and here was an incident that seemed to confirm
their claim. As soon as the discovery was reported to the
Michigan Whig Committee, then under the lead of Jacob M.
Howard, the news was sent all over the country. " There is
no earthly doubt of this," said Howard, in a letter to R. C.
Winthrop, of Massachusetts. " Use it then ! It will influence
20,000 votes in the North." ^ The news, accompanied by sting-
ing comments, appeared in every Whig paper, followed often
by a crop of stories regarding statements made by Birney
to the effect that he preferred Polk to Clay, and admissions that
he favored free trade and, most incredible of all, the annexation
of Texas ! ^
The effect on Liberty men was stupefying. In spite of all
Birney's sacrifices, his labors, his repeated condemnations of
Democrats and of slavery, it seemed to many as if he had actu-
ally played them false, or had at least committed a stupendous
piece of foll}^ Birney himself hastened to explain, though
1 Whig Almanac, 1845. These published figures are almost certainly in-
complete, for there are no returns for Carroll, Cuyahoga, or Highland County,
and but 16 for Harrison County; whereas these had given 715 votes in 1843.
A later version, also official, makes a total of 8,898, giving Harrison 216
Liberty votes, and Cuyahoga 364; but even this count seems inadequate.
The Libferty vote was probably over 9,000.
2 Einancipator, Oct. 21, 1844.
8 A^ew York Tribune, Oct. 10, 19, 26, Nov. 2, 1844.
THE WHIGS ATTACK BIRNEY. TJ
not to satisfy. In letters to the New York Tribune and to the
Liberty party at large he made it evident that the nomination
was simply the result of local questions in Saginaw County; that
the Democrats in nominating him had done so without regard
to anything but a desire to break up a local ring which had been
mismanaging affairs ; and that he himself, when he gave them
permission to nominate him, regarded the nomination as com-
ing from the people and not from any party.^ The fact
remained, however, that it was an extraordinary performance on
his part, particularly since the Michigan State Liberty Conven-
tion, which nominated him for Governor in 1843, had resolved:
" That in the opinion of this Convention great injury will be
suffered by the Liberty party if the members permit their
names to be placed on the tickets of other parties unless they
are taken up by them distinctly as Liberty men, and this ought
to be ascertained by the fact of their nomination then existing
on the Liberty party ticket."^
Birney denied the accuracy of the stories regarding his
alleged preference for Polk, but admitted the truth of their
main contention, namely, that he preferred Polk to Clay. The
reasons which he assigned were, that Clay, as well as Polk, had
expressed himself in favor of annexation, and that Clay could
and would lead his party, while Polk was incompetent to lead
his. The question suggests itself at once whether Polk's party
needed any leading to bring it to favor annexation. Birney's
position was not perfectly logical, and his statement was a piece
of very unnecessary frankness; for the Whig papers, in the heat
of the campaign, brushed aside without ceremony his fine dis-
tinctions, as weak attempts to justify Democratic leanings; and
they continued to repeat phrases taken from the affidavit of
one Driggs, who had been sent by the Michigan Whig Com-
mittee to investigate the matter and to work up the case against
Birney, and who reported that the latter " had sought the nomi-
nation, . . . expressed himself a Democrat, [and] had promised
if elected not to agitate the slavery question in the legislature." ^
1 New York Tribune, Oct. 10, 19, 1844; E7nancipator, Oct. 15, 1844.
2 Emancipator, March 16, 1843.
^ Driggs's affidavit, New York Tribune, Oct. 26, 1844.
78 BALANCE OF POWER.
Seasoned abolitionists knew Birney too well to heed the uproar ;
\ but recent recruits became doubtful. In Ohio, Giddings, always
^ a tower of strength to the Whig party, spoke with great effect,
never missing an opportunity to excoriate Birney; until, in
alarm at the havoc that he was making among the abolitionists
of that region, the Ohio Liberty Committee issued an address
written by Chase begging Liberty men to stand firm and to trust
in Birney: "To say that such a man has united himself to the
Democratic party, bound as it is at present by the atrocious
resolutions of the Baltimore Convention, is base beyond meas-
ure. . . . Reject with scorn this gross libel. . . . We entreat
you to stand ! For God and Duty stand ! Stand this once ! "^
Perhaps the Liberty men would have stood, had matters
rested at this stage ; but suddenly, one or two days before the
national election, there appeared in most of the Northern States
a copy of a letter written by Birney to J. B. Garland, of Sagi-
naw, sworn to by Garland himself, and taken from a copy of the
Genesee County Democrat Extra of October 21. In the letter
Birney concluded to accept the Democratic county nomination,
authorized Garland to say that he was a Democrat of the Jef-
fersonian school, and promised if elected to forego the agitation
of the slavery question in the State legislature.^- This docu-
ment, apparently unimpeachable, was sprung upon the country
with consummate skill. It appeared on the same day in Port-
land, Boston, Washington, Columbus, Cincinnati, and elsewhere,
in other cities a little earlier, in Detroit, significantly enough,
considerably later. It was printed as a handbill and distributed
by the Indiana Whig Central Committee.^ It was circulated all
over the Western Reserve, endorsed by the Ohio Whig Central
Committee,* and carried, as indignant Liberty men said, "by
the hands of deacons and church members."^
1 A. G. Riddle on J. R. Giddings, in History of Ashtabula County,
Ohio, 81 ; Philanthropist, Oct. 23, 1S44.
2 Washington A^afional Intelligencer, Nov. 2, 1844.
^ W. Birney, /. G. Birney and his Times, 355 ; Indianapolis Sentinel,
Nov. 21, 1844.
* Liberty fferald, Nov. 6, 1844.
^ Herald aftd Philanthropist, Nov. 13, 1844. In this year a daily edition
of this paper took the name Cincinnati Herald.
THE GARLAND FORGERY. 79
Birney was at this time travelling westward ; but the letter
was not published in western New York, — Rochester, Syracuse,
and Buffalo, — until he had passed by,^ and he did not see it
himself until he reached Painesville, on the Western Reserve.
As soon as he read it, he pronounced it an utter forgery
throughout;^ but it was too late: the document had done its
work. Following after his Democratic nomination and the
flood of Whig innuendo, containing the very phrases repeated
by the Whigs and seeming to confirm them, signed and sworn
to with all due forms, it had turned hundreds of abolitionists
from Birney to Clay, had kept hundreds more away from the
polls, and had in New York and Ohio seriously reduced the
Liberty vote. In New York the vote was 1,000 less than in
1843; in Ohio it was probably at least 1,000 less than in the
State election a month before.^ Even in far-off Illinois, the
Western Citizen reported that fifty voters in one county were
kept from the polls.^
But argument, appeal, and Garland forgery together, failed to
save the Whigs in the November election. In spite of all dis-
tractions, enough Liberty men supported their candidate in the
State of New York alone to give the electoral vote to Polk,
Had there been no Liberty party, most of those who composed
its membership would probably have voted for Clay, — enough
of them, the Whigs claimed, to make his election certain.
Whether this last assertion is true, it is of course impossible to
say ; but in any case it is safe to conclude that, had not Birney
been in nomination. Whig chances would have been much
better.
The Liberty vote in the country at large in this year amounted
to 62,000, showing a very slight increase over that of the pre-
ceding year./* In the Northwest each State made a substantial
increase except Ohio, whose decrease from October we may
^ Detroit Free Press, Dec. 15, 1844.
2 Cincinnati Gazette, Nov. 5, 1844. See Garland's affidavit, Detroit
Free Press, Dec. 18, 1844.
8 For the Garland forgery, see W. Birney,/. G. Birney 'and his Times,
354 seq.
*■ Emancipator, Dec. 7, 1844.
8o BALANCE OF POWER.
ascribe in no small degree to the effect of the Garland forgery
on the Western Reserve.^
- / The election of 1844 was decisive for Liberty men; for by
their own conduct they had succeeded in putting out of their
own reach all success along the line which they were pursuing.
From the Democratic party they had from the outset nothing
to hope, since its strength lay in the South and in the ruder
classes of the North and West, among whom anti-slavery
principles would be the last to penetrate. To the Whig party
alone could they look; and now after 1844 accessions from
that quarter were rendered infinitely less likely than hereto-
fore. Liberal people were repelled by the intolerance of the
Liberty men for any opinions but their own; practical men
/were displeased by their adherence to Birney, when by voting
for the other candidates they would have influenced directly the
election in regard to Texas; Old-Line Whigs were disgusted
at their refusal to accept the Whig view of the duty of anti-
slavery men, and were enraged beyond control by their unspar-
ing and bitterly personal condemnation of Clay. In the opinion
of hundreds of thousands of Whigs, the persistence of Birney
in running in 1844 could be explained only on the theory that
he was a Democrat in disguise, subsidized by Polk to aid the
latter's election. When the news of his nomination by the
Democrats of Saginaw County, of his own honest but ill-judged
acceptance of the name " Democrat" " in the true sense," and
of his still more unwise preference for Polk over Clay were
spread abroad, the last shadow of doubt vanished, and from
1844 to the end of the Whig party's career neither Birney nor
the Liberty party was ever forgiven.
In the fall of 1844 and the winter of 1844-5 Whig execrations
fell heavily on the heads of the culprits. That any other
causes had co-operated to defeat Clay never entered their heads ;
1 The vote was as follows : —
Democratic.
Whig.
Liberty.
Per cent.
Ohio . . . 149.117
iS5»o57
8,050
.027
Indiana . . 70,181
67,567
2,106
.015
Michigan . . 27,703
24,037
3,632
.064
Illinois . . 57.920
45,528
3,570
•033
WHIG HATRED OF THE LIBERTY PARTY. 8 1
that Clay's own vacillation in any degree accounted for his fail-
ure they never admitted : for upon the Liberty party alone
they laid the blame of their idol's defeat. " Refine and revise
as we please," said the Cincinnati Gazette, " the responsibility
of this whole matter rests with the third party." ^ " We believe
that thousands of political abolitionists," said the Cliicago
Journal, " if they had their own votes to cast over again would
cast them for Henry Clay. ... If their mission was the un-
loosing of the bonds of the captive, and the giving of liberty
to the slave, they have proved recreant to their holy trust.
For, instead of circumscribing the area of slavery, they have
added to it, . . . have given the slave-holders a power which
will prove for years if not for centuries resistless. Their work
has been surely done, and a fearful and awful work it is." ^
"Where's the Liberty party ?" asked the O/iio State Journal.
" The leaders have gone over to the Texas and slavery party ;
will the rank and file follow? The next we shall see of their
leaders, with Mr. Birney at their head, will be hanging about the
executive ofifices at Washington receiving their pay." ^ More
influential in the Northwest than any local paper, the New York
Tribune thus poured out its wrath : " You third-party wire-
workers forced this man [PolkJ upon us instead of the only
anti-Texas /candidate who could possibly be elected. On your
guilty heads shall rest the curses of unborn generations ! Riot
in your infamy and rejoice in its triumph, but never ask us to
unite with you in anything." *
It was upon Birney himself that the hatred of the ultra-
Whigs was especially poured forth.^ Their feeling is best
shown in a letter of J. M. Howard, of Detroit, to Birney, in
the spring of 1845: "Will the low arts of the demagogue,
1 Aug. 22, 1844. 2 Nov. 19, 1848.
' Quoted in Milwaukee Senthiel, Dec. 7, 1844.
* Nov. 28, 1844.
^ The Detroit Advertiser, for example, during the campaign, said that
"there was no scandal too low, no perversion of truth too glaring for his
use, , . . his whole speech was a tissue of rancorous personal abuse, sly and
unmanly innuendo, and harsh and brutal calumny," . . . that he " added
cowardice to falsehood," and was "a Polkat in the skin of a mink." — Detroit
Advertiser, July 11, 1844; Emancipator, hw^. 14, 1844.
6
82 BALANCE OF POWER.
assaults upon private character, the petulant whining tone of a
charlatan who has been detected in a dirty transaction . . .
will these miserable follies break the shackles of a slave? . . .
You well knew that if left to themselves nine-tenths of your
followers would vote the Whig ticket. . . . You knew and saw
with your own eyes that the Democratic party was anxious that
you should thus act. They encouraged you, . . . you knew it
and they knew it. Talk of it as you may — sneer at it — ex-
plain — deny as you please, this is evidence of a conspiracy in
favor of slavery which ... no arguments can ever remove or
shake." ^
In the course of a year or two the Whig party began to re-
cover from its soreness ; but the bitterness between the two
parties remained. In the Northwest, the efforts of the Michigan
Liberty men to unearth the forgers of the Garland letter nour-
ished hard feeling. The history of this curious matter is not,
perhaps, worth relating at length ; but it should here be com-
pleted. The Whig papers, after the election, all admitted that
the letter was a forgery, but they admitted it often in the most
irritating way possible. The Oliio State Journal remarked on
the needless folly of the forgers, " when it is considered that the
evidence of a coalition between the leaders of the Loco and
Liberty parties was manifest from the evidence furnished by
Mr. Birney himself in his letters and speeches."^ The New
York Tribune said that the Garland letter was of questionable
authenticity, but that " there was much internal probability of
the verity of the letter." ^ Several of the Whig papers, it is
true, said that they hoped the forgers would be hunted down;
but the avowed disposition to retract promptly and to act
was* due probably to the recent libel trials of James Feni-
more Cooper, the outcome of which led all newspapers to act
circumspectly ; when the Michigan Liberty Committee tried
to get evidence, the Whig editors and leaders obstinately
blocked the way. They refused to tell where they got the let-
1 Milwaukee Sentinel^ March 28, 1845.
2 Quoted in Indiana State Journal, Nov. 9, 1844.
8 Nov. 2, 1844.
^ Indiana State Journal, Nov. 9, 1844.
END OF THE FORGERY CONTROVERSY. 83
ter, refused to let the supposed original be seen, declined in any
way to assist the Liberty Committee, and covered them with
abuse. The result was an envenomed newspaper controversy
in Michigan and elsewhere, ending finally in the refusal by the
Whigs to continue the subject.^ The Liberty Committee,
working with what clews they could get, managed to trace the
forged "Extra" to the Michigan Pontine Gazette press-room,
and implicated as its printers one of the editors of the Detroit
Advertiser, and one or two leading Whigs. Their evidence,
however, was not very strong from a legal point of view, and
the obstinate silence of the Whigs finally succeeded in prevent-
ing a complete exposure. By the time the Emaiieipator, the
organ of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, felt
able in 1846 to print what evidence it had, the matter was
already lapsing from the public memory, and after some abor-
tive libel suits the whole affair was suffered to drop.^ Jacob M.
Howard, who had done most to spread the forgery, was not
among those named as involved in its concoction, although the
Liberty Committee would have been glad to find him guilty.
Thus in 1846 the last echoes of the election of 1844 died away;
but in the hearts of Henry Clay Whigs its memory remained,
keeping alive a consuming hatred of the Liberty party and of
all political abolitionists.
When we consider what the Liberty party was, how it had
been formed and built up by years of hard work, and what were
its aims, it seems not quite just to condemn it for not dis-
solving in 1844. Its leaders as a rule were neither states-
men nor politicians, but rather philanthropists and agitators ;
and with such men, and with their followers, the doctrine that
means are justified by any end is not likely to flourish. The
Liberty party was formed to support anti-slavery candidates, by
men whose consciences would not allow them to vote for any
others. Henry Clay was in no sense an anti-slavery man, except
^ Detroit Free Press, Dec 15, 1844.
2 Final statement in Emancipator, March 4, 1846; quoted in Cleveland
Ajnerican, March 18, 1846 ; N'e%u York Tribune, April 6, 1846. W. Birney
(/. G. Birney and Jiis Times, 355) thinks that the forgery was concocted in
New York. He offers no proof.
84 BALANCE OF POWER.
that as an advocate of preserving the status quo he was inclined
to object to slavery encroachments; and when his Alabama let-
ter appeared, even this claim was gone. Had the Liberty men
voted for Clay in 1844, the step might have proved an act of
magnificent statesmanship, or more likely a useless sacrifice ;
as it was, they simply acted consistently, although in so doing
they seemed in the eyes of the Whigs to wreck their own cause.
The fault, however, was Clay's, not theirs. The case for the
Liberty party cannot be better stated than by Birney himself, in
a letter to the New York Tribune, in 1852 : " It was Mr. Clay's
indecision about the admission of Texas that defeated him.
His letters, even if they were not so intended, made many of his
friends believe that he was undecided. From his supposed
wavering on the subject he lost the votes of many that were
opposed to the annexation of Texas as well as those who were
in favor of it. That in either event Texas would have been in
the Union now appears very certain to me, as I believe it does
to most others, though a decided party man might express him-
self difierently." ^
^ Quoted in National Era, March 11, 1852.
CHAPTER VII.
DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
1845-1847.
The Liberty party, in the three remaining years of its exist-
ence, was even more isolated than before 1844. It held con-
ventions, nominated candidates, voted for them, and continued
to agitate, but with less effect than heretofore.
The Liberty work in Ohio in 1845 was chiefly local, the
activity of the State Committee being exercised in stimulating
county and district conventions, and in nominating for legisla-
tive and local offices. " We earnestly recommend," it said,
"the nomination of full Liberty tickets in each county where
there are Liberty men enough to form a ticket. We are aware
that many reasons are urged why under peculiar circumstances
Liberty men should make no nominations, but we are fully
satisfied that it is a bad policy to pursue such a course under
any circumstances." ^ The Liberty vote in the fall seems to
have been about the same as that in 1844, incomplete returns
giving 7,954 as against 7,449 in the same counties the year
before.^
One leader whose voice had long been heard was now miss-
ing. On December 7, 1844, ex-Senator Thomas Morris died
suddenly, at the age of sixty-eight; and by his departure the
Liberty party lost an indefatigable worker, a clear thinker, and
a man of incorruptible courage and honesty. Unfortunately
for his posthumous fame, Morris's modesty was so great as to
^ Herald and PJiilanthrppist, Au^e;. 6, 1845.
"^ Scattering returns in Liberty Herald, 1845, and in American Liberty
Almanac, 1846.
86 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
lead him, in the period from 1841-44, to prefer to exercise his
talents in the comparatively humble sphere of local canvass-
ing. He shrank from, or at least made no effort to retain, the
prominence warranted by his legislative record in Ohio and at
Washington, and allowed men more eloquent, but of far less
political ability, to overshadow him. Although his age made
his chosen work very exhausting, he continued up to the day
of his death, in spite of ill health and family afflictions, to labor
in his self-appointed sphere. Morris's death was deplored and
his memory honored in resolutions of local and State societies ;
but a few years sufficed to cause him to be forgotten except
by Bailey, Chase, and others of his fellow-workers, who realized,
as Chase said, that " Thomas Morris was far beyond the time in
which he lived." ^
In Indiana, as in Ohio, there was at first a continuation of
interest into the winter and spring of 1845. A new paper was
started, the Indiana Freeman ; local conventions nominated can-
didates for Congress and for township and county offices ; and
a State Convention at Indianapolis, on May 30, nominated S. C.
Stevens and S. S. Harding for Governor and Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor respectively in the campaign of 1846; but in August this
impetus, surviving from 1844, began to die out, and the vote
in six out of ten districts was 1,755, i^ counties where Birney
had received i,97S votes.^
In Michigan the interest in the controversy over the Garland
forgery lasted into the spring of 1845. The Democratic press,
delighted at the chance to defame Whig leaders, printed all
Liberty documents in full, and quoted with zest every editorial
of the Signal of Liberty which condemned Whig leaders and
methods ; until the Whigs, exhausted with raging at Birney,
decided to ignore his existence and that of his party so far as
possible, a policy which from this time was fairly well adhered
to. Partly to show their confidence in Birney, and partly
because he was the natural leader, the State Liberty Conven-
tion, which met at Marshall on June 9, nominated him for Gov-
ernor. In the campaign that followed — if campaign it can be
^ B. F. Morris, Life of Thomas Morris, Introd., xi.
2 Official returns in Whig Almanac, 1846.
LOCAL ELECTIONS IN IS^S. ^y
called where no resistance but indifference is offered by the
party attacked — Birney's Democratic principles came out
clearly in a series of replies to questions about his views on
State policy. He disapproved of internal improvements, wished
salaries and offices reduced, and used much the same language
as that of the traditional Democratic creed. ^ He was at this
time gradually coming to the opinion that the "one idea" was
not broad enough for successful action, but that a general
reform party would stand a better chance. In the fall election
the Liberty vote showed the same falling off as had appeared in
Indiana, the total amounting only to 3,363, marking a decline of
269 from the vote of the preceding year.^
Illinois abolitionists, as they had surpassed their fellow-
laborers in their success in 1844, now exceeded them in their
reaction after it. In 1845 there were hardly any conventions,
few nominations, and a decided falling-off in the Liberty vote.
There are no general returns accessible.
In Wisconsin the growing Liberty sentiment found an outlet
this year in voting for a delegate to Congress. The Territorial
Convention, meeting on February 9, nominated E. D. Holton,
of Milwaukee, and local conventions met in a majority of the
southeastern counties. In the fall election the vote for delegate
stood: Democratic — Martin, 1 1,803 ; Whig — Collins, 10.788;
Liberty — Holton, 790; showing an increase of about 300 over
the Liberty vote of the preceding year.^
In Iowa an effort was made in this year to run local Liberty
tickets. In the anti-slavery cause this State was eight years
behind the other Northwestern communities: at a time when
the Liberty party was strongest, the Iowa movement was still
in the lecturing and church-action stage. The attempt to begin
a Liberty party seems to have drawn a slight vote, 60 being
returned from one county; but in the condition of things in
1845 the step was premature.*
^ Etnandpafor, Oct. 29, 1845.
2 Partial returns in Whig Almanac, 1846; others in Emancipator, }-^xi.
27, TS47.
^ Moses M. Strong, History of Wisconsin Territory, 481 ; Emancipator,
Oct. 22, 1845; I^tilwaukee Sentinel, Oct. 8, 1845.
* Clevela7id American, Oct. 8, 1845.
88 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
In the summer of 1845 an effort was made to unify Western
sentiment by holding a " Great Southern and Western Con-
vention " at Cincinnati, on June li and 12. Although the call
said : " It is not designed that this convention shall be com-
posed exclusively of members of the Liberty party, but of all
who . . . are resolved to use all constitutional means to effect
the extinction of slavery," ^ neither Whigs nor Democrats
would attend, and the convention amounted practically to a
Liberty meeting. Two thousand delegates were in attendance
from Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, Virginia, and
Wisconsin, and considerable enthusiasm was manifested ; but
there appeared certain tendencies new to the Liberty party and
destined to trouble it hereafter. Those most prominent in this
meeting, besides Birney and Chase, were Dr. Bailey, Samuel
Lewis, Owen Lovejoy, and Rev. E. Smith, like Lovejoy a
political minister of the gospel. Letters were read from Cassius
M. Clay, Governor Seward, and others. Horace Greeley aroused
some anger in the convention by a letter, written in bitterness of
soul over the recent Whig defeat, which was due, as he firmly
believed, to the Liberty party; but aside from this incident the
proceedings were harmonious.
S. P. Chase, like Birney, participated in the reaction against
the Whigs, and, as a natural consequence of his views on
slavery, had begun to conceive of himself and of the Liberty
party as " Democratic " in the same sense as the " Loco-foco "
wing of the Democracy; the only difference in his eyes was
that the " Loco-focos " had neglected to carry out their Dem-
ocratic principles logically, to include anti-slavery.^ When
it is borne in mind that at this time Chase was the author
of as many Liberty resolutions and addresses as he could be
induced to write, the importance of this change of mind is
evident.
In writing the resolutions of this convention, Chase intro-
duced some phrases explaining his creed. "That party only,"
he said, " which adopts in good faith the principles of the
Declaration of Independence and directs its most decisive action
* Herald and Philanthropist, April 23, 1845.
2 Cleveland American, June 26, 1845.
THE SOUTHWESTERN LIBERTY CONVENTION. 89
against slavery ... is the true Democratic party of the United
States."^ Birney, who presided, undoubtedly sympathized to
some extent with Chase's views ; but recent events in Saginaw
County had taught him a severe lesson, and he now was keenly
on guard against the appearance of evil. When Chase submitted
the "address to the people" which he had prepared, Birney
detected in it certain passages that might be interpreted as
proposing a coalition with the Democratic party, and by his
skill as a manager secured the reference of the address to a
committee, by whom the obnoxious passages were expurgated.
The address was then adopted by acclamation.^
In this year another movement began in the Liberty ranks
which was destined to disrupt the little party a few years later.
This was the appearance of the doctrine that the United States
Constitution was " an anti-slavery document," a questionable
theory at best, but one very welcome to the souls of impatient
abolitionists. Conventions in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio took
this ground, as did also a great Eastern " Convention of the
Friends of Freedom " at Boston in October, which had been
called as a complement to the Southern and Western Liberty
Convention just described.
In 1846 the Liberty party in the Northwestern States put
all its energy into what proved to be its last great effort ; but
the rising enthusiasm of 1841-44 was lacking. A complaining
tone, sometimes perilously near that of desperation, permeated
its utterances, even when matters seemed to be going well. In
fact, the Liberty party was beginning to realize its failure. A
convention for the Northwest, held this year in Chicago, proved
in every respect inferior to the Southwestern Convention, of
the preceding year. J. G. Carter, of Massachusetts, presided,
flanked by five vice-presidents and two secretaries. None of the
Ohio leaders were present ; and in their absence E. S. Hamlin,
an anti-slavery Whig of the Western Reserve, spoke for Ohio
with liberality and good sense, holding to his Whiggery, but
avoiding anything that could rasp his Liberty audience. G. W.
1 See the Proceedings of the Convention, published in pamphlet form,
1845-
2 W. Birney,/. G. Birney atid his Times, 364.
90 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
Clark, the famous Liberty singer from New York, was also
present and aroused enthusiasm.
The real management of the convention, however, was in the
hands of Codding, Lovejoy, and Eastman of Illinois, by whose
influence an attempt to "broaden the platform" of the Liberty
party was defeated. Birney since 1845 had begun to think that
the party ought to have more than one idea, and in 1846 many
of the Michigan leaders had fallen in with his plan. Two of
these, Foster and Beckly, of the Signal of Liberty, advocated
declarations in favor of making the Liberty party an agency of
general reform ; but after a prolonged debate this proposition
was defeated, nearly all the leading men opposing it.^ One of
the most important things done by the convention was the
appointment of a committee to consider the plan of starting a-
newspaper at Washington. The committee did their work
admirably, and in 1847 succeeded in establishing the National
Era, with Dr. Bailey, of Cincinnati, as editor, and this paper
did more than any other, until 1854, to promote anti-slavery
action in the North.^
^ In Ohio in this year took place the last, and in many respects
the most interesting. State Liberty campaign. As its result
turned on a new development in the Ohio Whig party, it may
be well to notice how that organization had changed since the
days when it condemned Thomas Morris for misrepresenting
Ohio. It was no longer possible entirely to ignore questions
relating to slavery. The Whigs of the Reserve were for all
practical purposes abolitionists, and in case of an unsatisfactory
Whig nomination there was nothing to prevent them from vot-
ing the Liberty ticket, except indeed the bitterness between the
two organizations. This exasperation, it is true, had since 1842
been continually on the increase; but there were signs in 1846-
47 that it would fail to prevent bolting in the last resort.
^ Cleveland A mericaft, July 15, 1846; New York Tribu7te,]\i\y 11, 1846;
Einancipator, July 15, 1846. For an account written by one of the other
side, see Signal of Liberty, July 4, 1846.
2 Ema7icipator, Nov. 4, 1846. The committee was: C. V. Dyer and
Zebina Eastman, of Chicago; Charles Durkee, of Wisconsin; J. J. Deming,
of Indiana, and C. Beckly, of Michigan.
OHIO WHIGS OPPOSE BLACK LAWS. 91
On the subject of the Black Laws the Western Reserve was
a unit, and by 1846 had succeeded in forcing the subject into
prominence. In 1845 bills to repeal the Black Laws had been
defeated by a smaller margin than before. In 1846 another
repeal bill met defeat ; but a majority of the Whig members
favored it, and the Reserve was of course solid on that side.
Although the convention of the two regular parties nominated
candidates for the campaign of 1846, without taking any ground
on the subject, so large a portion of the Whig press began to
advocate repeal that the question was certain to enter into the
election.
The Liberty State Convention had met, December 31, 1845,
nominated Samuel Lewis for Governor, and adopted some
resolutions written by Chase, — among others one declaring
" that we professedly revere the doctrine of true Democracy." ^
Early in February Lewis began an extraordinary campaign
of stump-speaking. From February 18 until September 28,
with the exception of a i&w weeks in the summer when he
was ill, this indefatigable apostle of freedom traversed Ohio,
arousing interest where Liberty speakers had never been
heard before, and in places like the Reserve creating great
enthusiasm.
Soon interest centred in the position of the three candidates
with regard to the Black Laws. Tod, the Democratic nominee,
tried the virtues of silence ; Lewis, of course, favored the aboli-
tion of the laws ; and, to the delight of the Western Reserve,
Bebb, the Whig candidate, took the unheard-of step of coming
out boldly in favor of the repeal of the law invalidating negro
testimony against whites.^ From the first, Liberty men sus-
pected him, but could find no good cause for denying his sin-
cerity. So consistently did he hold to his position while he
traversed the Reserve that the Liberty eaders found their
party's growth seriously threatened. The Democrats, who had
hitherto been enjoying the spectacle, thought the tide seemed
to be setting towards Bebb, and, in hope of sustaining the
courage of Liberty men, printed an absurd and unreal eulogium
^ Herald and Phila7ithropist, Jan. 7, 1845.
2 Ibid., Feb. 25, 1846; New York Tribune, July 6, 1S46.
92 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
on Lewis in the Ohio Statesman} In the Twentieth Congres-
sional District an attempt was made to bring the Liberty party
to support Giddings, As usual, the effort failed ; for, said the
Cleveland American, " he [Giddings] would vote for a slave-
holder for President, provided he were pledged to Northern
rights. Is this Liberty ground? Will Liberty men vote for a
slave-holder on any considerations whatever? " ^ Edward Wade
received the third-party Congressional nomination, and took the
stump against Giddings.
In September, the Democrats, hitherto silent on the subject
of the Black Laws, were unwillingly drawn into the fray by the
discovery that Tod, in 1838, when a candidate for the legisla-
ture, had replied to anti-slavery questioners that he favored
repeal. In their alarm at this appalling revelation, Democratic
papers violently disclaimed any such position, attacking Bebb
as a man who would make Ohio a receptacle for broken-down
and runaway negroes.^ The three-cornered fight grew hotter,
with Lewis on one side, Tod's supporters on the other, and
Bebb, now beginning to be alarmed at the possible effect of his
speeches in the southern counties, trying to hold the balance.
He wanted the anti-slavery Whig and the Liberty vote, but he
wanted still more the Southern Whigs from the Ohio River
region. He therefore told a quite different story in speeches in
southern counties, admitting that he was in favor of equalizing
blacks and whites before the courts, but asserting warmly that he
was opposed to equal political or educational advantages, and
suggesting that a good way to keep negroes out of the State
would be to lay a special tax on their land.* This was, to say
the least, sharp practice ; but owing to the difficulties of com-
munication between the northern and southern parts of the
1 " Mr. Lewis, the candidate of the Liberty party, is winning golden
opinions. Mr. Lewis sets out to discuss a great principle and his whole
bearing is marked by a candor and sincerity which induce his listeners to
respect even his errors. Mr. Bebb is his antipode. His special pleading
commands no more respect than his grimaces." Quoted in Herald and
Philanthropist, July 15, 1846.
2 Sept. 2, 1846.
8 New York Tribune., Sept. 9, 1846.
* Cleveland American, Oct. 22, 1846.
OHIO ELECTION OF I846. 93
State, the fact was not known on the Reserve until after the
election. In the meantime, Bebb's anti-Black-Law utterances
had saved him. At the last moment, B. F. Wade, who had re-
tired from politics, but was still dear to Western Reserve people
for his anti-slavery record in 1838-39, made a vigorous appeal
in his behalf; and thus Bebb, while he was advocating negro
exclusion in the southern counties, carried the Western Reserve
on his anti-slavery professions.^ The vote in October stood :
Democratic — Tod, 116,489; Whig— Bebb, 1 18,857 ; Liberty —
Lewis, 10,799.^ This result marked an increase for the Liberty
vote over its highest previous total ; but, as all agreed, the gain
was not so great as it would have been but for Bebb's advocacy
of Black Law repeal. It is needless to say that the Liberty
men were sore and angry, and felt in regard to Bebb that " his
election to the gubernatorial chair has been secured by one of
the vilest frauds that ever disgraced a political contest." ^
In Indiana, in 1846, there was an attempt on the part of
Liberty men to increase their vote. Left strictly alone by the
old parties, their campaign lacked the interest of that in Ohio,
and it suffered furthermore from lack of organization. " There
does not seem to be any common understanding among the
friends scattered in different parts of the State," complained the
Herald and PhilantJiropist ; ^ and again, " this is a hard State,
in which little has been done." The Indiana Freeman said :
" Liberty men seem to forget that the Liberty party originated
in a firm belief that slavery could never be abolished until such a
party was formed. If this conviction was well founded, Liberty
men ought not to absent themselves from the polls on election
days."^ In August, 1846, the vote stood : Democratic — Whit-
comb, 64,104; Whig— Marshall, 60,697; Liberty — Stevens,
2,278.^ This result showed an increase of only 172 over the
vote in 1844. The cause had evidently come to a standstill.
^ Cleveland American, Nov. 4, 1846.
2 Complete returns, Ibid., Nov. 11, 1846; also in Whig Almanac, 1847.
8 Cleveland American, Oct. 22, 1846.
* Herald and Philanthropist, Nov. 12, 1845.
^ Quoted in Emancipator, Oct. 28, 1846.
* Official in Indianapolis Sentinel, Sept. 12, 1846.
94 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
In Michigan the party had a good organization and a com-
pact band of workers; but in the autumn of 1845 it lost its
leader, and decay seemed at once to begin. James G. Birney
suffered an accident which so injured his brain that, while his
mental faculties remained unimpaired, his speech was almost
lost, and writing became painful and at times impossible. The
Liberty cause in Michigan and in the country at large thus sus-
tained a loss that it could not repair. Mr. Birney was an able,
active man, a born organizer and manager, a good judge of
men and of measures. His principal fault, strangely enough,
lay in his inability to realize that frankness in a candidate is
sometimes almost as great a mistake as undue secretiveness, and
that expediency may advantageously be regarded in connection
with dealings outside as well as with those inside the party. He
would undoubtedly have played a large part in later political
history, had not his injury put an end to his career. From this
time until his death, in 1858, he remained in retirement, writing
letters occasionally, but in the main observing quietly, although
with keen interest, the course of politics.
With his retirement the anti-slavery cause in Michigan seemed
at once to decline. His candidacy in 1845 had brought the
Liberty vote nearly to the level of that of the year before ; in
1846 it fell off. On February 4 the State Anti-Slavery Society
met and received a communication from Birney advocating a
broader basis. After due consideration the convention voted:
" It is neither consistent with our present objects, nor expedient,
to add to our present political principles." ^ Shortly afterwards,
at the annual Liberty convention at Ann Arbor, the same pro-
posals were made, but after an animated debate were again
postponed.2 Having disposed of this question, the Liberty men
proceeded to organize, and by October had reasonably full
tickets in the field. On the eve of the election the Central
Committee issued a hopeful address, saying: "This year we
have endeavored to do something. We have effected a good
State organization. Almost every town has its committee. Be
assured, friends, that our vote for 1846 will startle friends and
1 Emancipator^ March 18, 1846.
2 Cincinnati Gazette, March 12, 1846.
LIBERTY DECLINE IN MICHIGAN. 95
foes by its increase if we are faithful." ^ The vote did indeed
startle the friends of the cause ; ^ for it resulted in a decrease of
478 from that of the year before, and of 747 since 1844, and it was
larger than the vote in 1843 by no only. The mortified Lib-
erty men attributed their loss to lack of organization ; but that
was not the real reason. The abolitionists of Michigan were
beginning to tire of the apparently hopeless effort to build up a
new party. Since Birney's retirement they were without any
very strong leader; the struggle over the broader platform had
diminished confidence and caused quarrels;^ and, under the cir-
cumstances, no amount of organizing could bring them to the
polls.
In Illinois, the northeastern counties, after their relapse of
1845, returned to the charge with redoubled vigor, and in this
year reached their highest point. Although a State ticket was
to be elected, the main anti-slavery interest lay in the Fourth
Congressional District. On January 14 a convention at St.
Charles, attended by crowds from ten or twelve counties, unani-
mously and with great enthusiasm nominated Lovejoy for
Congress. In Chicago arrangements were made early in the
year to hold bi-weekly meetings in every precinct, and to build
a permanent Liberty headquarters.'* On May 24 the State
Convention nominated Richard Eells for Governor and A.
Smith for Lieutenant-Governor; candidates for Congress were
nominated in all the districts except " Egypt " ; Codding, St.
Clair, and Cross were constantly in the field ; and a flood of
tracts were issued.^ So great was the enthusiasm in the Chicago
^ E)?iancipator, Oct. 14, 1846.
* It was as follows : —
Democratic.
Whig.
Liberty.
First District
. 7,877
6,442
777
Second District .
• 9,515
8,678
1,127
Third District .
. 6,492
5,780
981
Total .
• 23,884
20,904
2,88s
See Whig Abnanac, 1S48.
2 Signal of Liberfy, May 11, 18, 1846.
* Emancipator, Feb. ii, March 11, 1846; Herald and Philanthropist,
May 20, 1846.
^ Western Citizen, June 10, 1846; Chicago Journal, July 24, 1846.
96 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
district, that the Western Citizen began to hope that Lovejoy
would lead Kerr, the Whig, and thus be next to " Long John
Wentvvorth." Although this hope proved vain, Lovejoy polled
in his own district a Liberty vote equal to the Liberty vote of
the whole State in 1844. One of the most serious difficulties
encountered by Lovejoy in his canvass was the bad impression
left by preceding abolitionist orators. At Lowell, for example,
he could do little, for a " rash, violent, ranting, denunciatory
preacher" had spoiled everything. "I wish," he said, "our
ministers would learn to be a little more prudent, use a little
more oil and not so much of the fire and hammer."^
The vote for Governor resulted as follows: Democratic —
French, 58,576; Whig — Kilpatrick, 36,937; Liberty — Eells,
5,147. For Congressmen the total Liberty vote was a little
larger, — 5,221. Lithe Fourth District the vote was: Demo-
cratic — Wentworth, 12,026; Whig — Kerr, 6,208; Liberty —
Lovejoy, 3,531. In De Kalb, Kane, Kendall, Lake, and Mc-
Henry counties, the Liberty vote was ahead of the Whig, and
in Bureau and Du Page practically equal to it.^
In Iowa, there is no record of any Liberty vote in 1846;
but there was a gradual strengthening of anti-slavery sentiment.
The State Anti-Slavery Society resolved on November 26 to
establish a newspaper and to hold a convention in the winter of
1847, preparatory to organizing a State Liberty party. Wiscon-
sin had no general territorial ticket ; but there were members
of a Constitutional convention to be chosen, for which the
Liberty party in many places ran separate tickets. Agitation
by lecturing and the establishment of a newspaper occupied
anti-slavery interest in the Territory.
N^ The year 1846 marks the flood tide for the Liberty party in
the United States. In some of the New England States, indeed,
it kept on growing after this, but in the Central and Northwest-
ern States it fell off. Already in 1846 the coming decline was
foreshadowed in New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan ; but
1 Western Citizen, June 10, 1846.
'^ Returns in Whig Attnanac, 1847; district returns in Cincinnati Herald,
Sept. 16, 1846; some county returns in Emancipator, Sept. 9, 1846.
GENERAL POLITICAL LASSITUDE. 97
on the whole the Liberty vote in this year reached its maxi-
mum, in a total of 74,017, against 62,200 in 1844.^
The next year, 1847, was uneventful; for other questions had
risen which drew the attention of anti-slavery men away from
local politics. In Ohio there was no State Convention, nor was
there any action of importance beyond some county nominating
conventions and two general meetings in the Western Reserve,
engineered by J. H. Paine and Edward Wade. The vote for
local offices in the fall was less than at any time since 1841.^
Three thousand votes are reported for counties which cast 4,300
in the preceding year. In Indiana there was about the same
state of things ; local organization was kept up and nominations
were made ; but the main interest was not in the election, and no
record of any vote is known, beyond a few county returns. In
Michigan, even a State election for Governor failed to arouse
much interest, or to stop the local Liberty party on its down-
ward course. The State Convention nominated C. Gurney for
Governor and H. Hallock for Lieutenant-Governor. There was
almost no campaign, no interest in the election, and a very small
vote in September. In the absence of any State election, Illi-
nois leaders devoted themselves to agitation and organization.
Local conventions met and deliberated, and a Liberty conven-
tion for southern Illinois was held at Eden, in Randolph County.
Delegates were present from seven counties, — for even in the
vicinity of " Egypt " there were traces of anti-slavery senti-
ment.^ Iowa, now a State, remained in much the same condition
as Illinois : her anti-slavery men were able to agitate, but did not
feel strong enough to form a Liberty organization. In Wiscon-
sin the local Liberty party remained unaffected by the lassitude
1 Maine 9i-44- New York
12,027
2,028
10,797
2,278
2,885
5,147
New Hampshire . . 10,403 Pennsylvania
Vermont 6,671 Ohio . . .
Massachusetts . . . 10,134 Indiana . .
Rhode Island ... 155 Michigan .
Connecticut . . . 2,248 Illinois . .
2 According to some papers the vote was as follows : Democratic,
105,385: Whig, 103,822; Liberty, 4,379. Se.G.NatiotialEra,'Hov. 11, 1847.
8 National Era, Sept. 30, Oct. 28, 1847. For a notice of Madison County
in this region, see A. C. McLaughlin, Lewis Cass, 302.
7
98 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
which had seized upon it in the other States. In the winter a
State constitution was submitted to the people, and with it, on
a separate ballot, the question of negro suffrage. This subject
stirred up Liberty interest ; but, although the party labored hard,
it produced little effect upon territorial sentiment, and negro suf-
frage was rejected by a vote of 14,615 to 7,664.^ At this time
Ichabod Codding and G. W. Clark, the Liberty singer, came from
Illinois to make a lecturing tour of the Territory; and Codding
remained for a time in order to help the new American Freeman.
His presence was a great stimulus, and helped the Liberty men
in October to increase their vote as follows : Democratic — M.
M. Strong, 9,648 ; Whig — J. H. Tweedy, 10,670; Liberty —
C. Durkee, 973.^
In 1847, then, the Liberty party in the Northwest and in
the country at large seemed to be slacken-ing its efforts. The
tide had begun to ebb; for, as Dr. Bailey said, "Not to ad-
vance is to recede ; no new and small party can live simply by
holding its own." ^ The fact was, that many adherents were
getting tired of the bootless work of seven years and were im-
patient for change. Hence, about this time we find a number
of new doctrines springing up among Liberty men, and a ten-
dency toward faction threatening to shiver into fragments the
party, already none too numerous.
One such phenomenon, already noted above, was the growth
of a theory that the United States Constitution was an anti-slavery
document, and, as a sort of corollary, that slavery must be un-
constitutional in the States."^ The latter doctrine was worked
out with ingenuity by Lysander Spooner on historical and legal
grounds ; but although he and William Goodell, who had reached
the same conclusion by a different method, had a considera-
ble following in the Eastern States, they found little support
west of New York. It was evident that their view, if accepted,
would vastly broaden the opportunities for anti-slavery action ;
^ F. E. Baker, The Elective Franchise in Wisconsin^ in Wisconsin His-
torical Society, Collections^ 1894, p. 9. See below, Appendix D.
2 Official returns in Whig Almanac, 1848.
8 Herald and Phila7ithropist, Nov. 12, 1845.
* Lysander Spooner, Tlie Unconstitutionality of Slavery, Boston, 1853.
NEW ANTI-SLAVERY DOCTRINES. 99
but it was so entirely contrary to the received Liberty creed
that the practical Ohio and Illinois leaders looked on it with
disfavor. In Ohio, in 1845, a few county conventions resolved
that Congress could abolish slavery in the States ; ^ but in 1846
the Black Law campaign caused theoretical questions to be laid
aside. In 1847 the idea gained renewed vigor from the discus-
sions in the East, and again Ohio abolitionists defined their po-
sition. The Cleveland American ^ inclined toward Spooner's
views ; but the Philanthropist, now under the name oi National
Press and Herald, and edited by Stanley Mathews, held to the
received doctrine. Local conventions also seemed to have grown
conservative. Logan County, which two years before had re-
solved that the Constitution was an anti-slavery instrument, now
voted down a resolution declaring slavery unconstitutional ;3
and Hamilton County also rejected the new doctrine.*
In Indiana, a convention at South Bend, in 1845, had resolved
that slavery was unconstitutional,^ but the matter does not seem
to have aroused much interest; nor is there any record of con-
troversy on the subject in Michigan. In Illinois, a convention
at Fulton, in 1845, ^''^d resolved that the Constitution was an
anti-slavery document;^ but in 1847, when the subject was
brought up at the convention for southern Illinois, the tradi-
tional interpretation prevailed.'' Wisconsin had shown a ten-
dency toward radicalism by adopting at its Liberty Territorial
Convention, in 1845, the position that the United States Con-
stitution was anti-slavery ; ^ but after that time its interest ceased
to rest upon theoretical questions, until in 1847, ^^ith the Liberty
League (hereafter mentioned), these questions arose once more.
Another tendency toward altering the Liberty programme was
that shown by Chase in his use of the term " democracy " as
synonymous with "anti-slavery." In 1845 he had given indica-
tions of a tendency in this direction, and by 1846 his correspond-
^ Herald and PJiilaiithropist^ March 5, Sept. 17, 1845.
2 March 31, 1847. ^ A^aiiojtal Press and Herald, Sept. i, 1847.
* National Ei'a, Sept. 23, 1847.
^ Emancipator, May 14, 1845.
8 Ibid., April 3, 1845. '' National Era, Oct. 28, 1847.
^ Emancipator, July 30, 1845.
100 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
ence shows a rapid growth in his mind of the conviction that the
Democratic party was the natural ally for anti-slavery men. " I
think that the political views of the Democrats are in the main
sound," he wrote to Giddings in August, 1846, " and the chief
fault I have to accuse them of is that they do not carry out their
principles in reference to the subject of slavery. ... I have some-
times thought," he added, " that if all the anti-slavery men whose
opinions are Democratic should act with that party in this state
they might change its character wholly." ^ In the same vein he
wrote to John P. Hale: "At the present moment there are
doubtless more abolitionists in the Whig party than in the
Democratic party, but I fear that the Whig party will always
look upon the overthrow of slavery as a work to be taken up or
laid aside as expediency may suggest, whereas if we can once
get the Democratic party in motion regarding the overthrow of
slavery as a necessary result of its principles, I would have no
apprehension at all of the work being laid aside until accom-
plished." ^ For holding such views, Chase and the whole Ohio
Liberty party, which he was supposed to represent, were looked
upon with suspicion by many abolitionists. In 1846, a letter
to the Northwestern Convention, in which he suggested a new
non-partisan league, caused the editors of the Michigan Signal
of Liberty to say: " This last proposal confirmed our previous
impressions that the Liberty party of Ohio did not expect or
wish to be a permanent National party, but are ready when an
opportunity offers to merge themselves in some other body." "^
A more important movement was one started by Birney to
transform the Liberty party into a general radical reform party.
The " one idea " had proved too narrow; if the platform should
contain planks pledging the party to all kinds of reform, many
men favoring one or more of these might come in who would
otherwise be unable to do so. This movement began in Michigan,
with a letter from Mr. Birney, and a circular sent by Beckly and
Foster of the Signal of Liberty to all the leading Liberty news-
papers in the country, requesting co-operation in bringing the
^ August 15, 1846: J. W. Schuckers, Life of Chase, 99.
2 May 12, 1847: R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 312.
8 Signal of Liberty, July 4, 1846.
BROADENING THE LIBERTY PLATFORM. 1 01
party to broaden the platform.^ In Ohio this project attracted
almost as Httle notice as did the dogma of the unconstitutionaHty
of slavery. Chase might possibly have favored it, had he not
been at the time contemplating "Democracy"; others found it
unnecessary. On December 30, 1845, the State Liberty Conven-
tion laid on the table resolutions on the Free Bank law and on
sugar duties; and this action is the only suggestion of any move
to broaden the platform.^ In Indiana Mr. Birney's plan pro-
duced no disturbance ; but in Michigan, where the movement
originated, it aroused much debate. In February, 1845, the
State Anti-Slavery Society, as has been said, rejected the pro-
posal to broaden the party, and at a later meeting the State
Liberty Convention did the same. In Illinois, as we have seen,
at the Northwestern Convention, a motion to broaden the plat-
form was made, but was defeated. Again, in 1847, at the Con-
vention for the Fourth District, at Elgin, a resolution looking in
that direction was laid on the table, but adopted later, in a very
mild form.-^ In Wisconsin alone of the Northwestern States
did the new doctrine meet with much welcome. In 1845 the
Territorial Liberty Association resolved that " the one idea em-
braces opposition to sin and tyranny in all forms";* and in
1847, while it asserted the paramount importance of the slavery
question, it reiterated its purpose to oppose evil of all kinds.^
Nevertheless, advocates of a broader platform went forward,
until their movement culminated in the formation, by William
Goodell and some of his sympathizers, of a new radical party
called the " Liberty League." Their convention at Macedon
Lock, New York, in June, 1847, nominated Gerrit Smith and
Elihu Burritt for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency respec-
tively, and adopted a long series of resolutions setting forth the
views of Goodell and Spooner. Even among those who sym-
pathized with the idea of a radical party, this movement found
little support, except in New York. In the Northwest, when-
^ Emancipator, March 18, 1846.
2 Herald ajid Philanthropist, Jan. 7, 1846.
3 National Era, March 18, 1847; American Freeman, March 17, 1847.
* Eiiiancipator, July 30. 1845.
^ American Freeman, Feb. 10, 1847.
102 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
ever the action of the Macedon Lock convention was noticed
by newspapers or by conventions, it was generally with regret.
The Cincinnati Herald ^■a\d.: " It will be as impossible for the
Liberty party to support the nomination of Mr. Goodell's uni-
versal reform party, as it will to vote for the Whig or Democratic
candidates, and to propose it in either of these cases is a betrayal
of the party." ^ Even Wisconsin Liberty men regretted the
action. The Milwaukee American Free7nan called the address
of the Liberty League " a truly able one," but added " to support
Messrs. Smith and Burritt, Liberty men as such cannot labor.
To do so would be to make the manifesto of Goodell and others
the creed of the Liberty party and to exclude from . . . our sup-
port . . . any believers in even a revenue tariff. . . . Still we have
no quarrel with these men." ^ The Wisconsin Liberty Associa-
tion resolved, on July 14, that "we regret the organization of a
new political party, and regard it as uncalled for."^
During part of this period another circumstance undoubtedly
tended to a certain extent to distract the Liberty party: this
was the growth of a Garrisonian movement in Ohio and Michi-
gan. At first, after 1840, there had been no organizations other
than the old State anti-slavery societies; but in a short time the
followers of Garrison rallied and set up their separate State asso-
ciations. Stephen S. Foster and Abby Kelly, and later Parker
Pillsbury, made frequent lecturing tours on the Western Reserve
and in Michigan, and succeeded in securing a certain following
for the "Disunion" movement. Once started, this compara-
tively small body showed a persistency and a unity of purpose
which entirely surpassed the ardor of the bulk of the Liberty
party. From 1845 onward, they supported a newspaper, the
Anti-Slavery Bugle, at Salem, Ohio, while Liberty papers, one
after another, with a nominal support ten times as large, rose
and fell by the wayside on the Western Reserve.
The sentiments expressed by these persons did not, however,
attract very much attention, except when, as not uncommonly
happened, they were accredited to the Liberty party by Old
^ June 2, 1847.
2 American Freeinan, July 14, 21, 1847.
8 Ibid., July 28, 1847.
LIBERTY MEN AND CARRISONIANS. 103
Line Whig and Democratic presses. Almost the only formal
action taken with regard to them by the political abolitionists
was a resolution adopted at a convention at Elgin, Illinois, on
February 16, 1S47: "We regret, as evil in its tendencies, the
dogma of the so-called Garrisonian or non-resistance abolition-
ists." ^ At about the same time, the Wisconsin Territorial Con-
vention passed a resolution to the effect that voting was a
Christian duty.^ In general, there was not that intense bitter-
ness between Liberty men and Garrisonians which prevailed in
New England. Outside sentiment was made plain when in
1847 Garrisonian disunion petitions were presented to the Ohio
legislature; a committee indignantly advised that a copy of
Washington's farewell address be sent to every school district in
the State, in order to prevent any similar occurrence in future."^
By 1847 ths Liberty party was showing signs of fatigue and
discontent. It had done good work, it had stood to its guns,
firing them apparently into vacancy for seven years, and yet
popular sentiment failed to support it. In spite of all its efforts,
the densest ignorance of its aims and methods prevailed in many
of the free States, as is well illustrated by a letter from Morgan
County, Illinois, dated June 20, 1845: " Quite a large portion
of our Western people who are anti-slavery in principle and who
will subscribe to all the views of the abolitionists when presented
to them in private conversation, still abhor the name abolitionist.
They attach to the name everything that is false, such as amal-
gamation, circulating inflammatory papers among the negroes
. . . and a desire to do away with slavery by physical force.
They also attach to the name all the views of Garrison. Many
of them are honest men . . . but they believe multitudes of false
stories that are studiously circulated on purpose to prevent
honest people from coming to the light." *
As the election of 1848 drew near, all the diverse elements in
the Liberty party began to demand a nomination and a platform V
which would be a ratification of their own peculiar position.
1 National Era, March 18, 1S47.
'^ American Freeman, Feb. 10, 1847.
* idth Annual Report of the Mass. Anti-Slav. Soc, 184S.
* Emancipator, July 16, 1845.
104 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN.
Lysander Spooner wanted the convention to declare slavery un-
constitutional ; Goodell and his sympathizers wanted it to adopt
the principles of the Liberty League, and thus turn itself into a
universal reform party; conservative Liberty men desired it to
keep on in the same old rut, separate, sufficient unto itself; and
Chase, Lewis, Leavitt, and others hoped by a more liberal nom-
ination and platform to place the party in a position to gain
from existing circumstances.
These last, with truer insight than the other leaders, realized
that since 1844 the Liberty party had deliberately chosen to
exclude itself from action with regard to a living issue, and had
thus made its task infinitely harder than it would otherwise
have been. Ever since the Texas annexation project had been
brought up, the question of the extension of slave territory had
been boiling in the ranks of the old parties, growing more noisy
and more violent as the Mexican War came on, and still further
annexation for the benefit of the South seemed inevitable. Men
were making reputations as anti-slavery leaders in both Whig
and Democratic parties ; splits over slavery questions took place
in State organizations; John P. Hale, in New Hampshire, for
doing the same thing that Thomas Morris had done, received
Morris's punishment, but, instead of dropping unnoticed, he
carried with him in revolt a large section of his party. Still
the Liberty men clung to their old isolation. It was in fact
an impossible situation: either the Liberty party must use the
existing circumstances to its profit, or it must inevitably fall
to pieces.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE LIBERTY PARTY IN THE WILMOT PROVISO
CONTROVERSY.
1846-1S48.
In 1848 the Liberty men were confronted with a new set o
conditions, which gave them unexpected alHes. Before going
on into the history of the memorable campaign of 1848, we
must clearly understand the complications caused by the issue of
territorial slavery. Although in the years before 1840 the mass of
the people in the Northwest declined to follow the abolitionists,
and repudiated the Liberty party, it was not because they liked
slavery more, but agitation and innovation less. They wanted
above all things to preserve the status quo, and objected to
abolitionism because it sought innovation; but they were just
as likely to object to any alteration of the existing state of
things in favor of slavery. This fact was first clearly
brought out in the Missouri Compromise struggle, when the
North unmistakably showed that it was opposed to the exten-
sion of slave territory. Again, after 1836, when the project of
annexing Texas was agitated, signs of a distinctly Northern
attitude appeared in the form of legislative protests, such as
that of one House of the Indiana legislature in 1836.^ In 1837
there were some public meetings which resolved that it was
" inexpedient and ruinous to the best interests of the United
States of America to admit the province of Texas into this
government."^ In 1838 a committee of the Michigan House
of Representatives reported, on January 19, a joint resolution
^ Anfi-Sla7'ery Examiner, No. 8: Correspondence between F. H. Elmore
and J. G. Birney, 1838, p. 14, note.
2 Philanthropist, Oct. 24, 1837.
I06 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY.
declaring that the annexation of Texas would " create discon-
tent which might endanger the stabihty of the Union," and
instructing the Senators and Representatives to oppose the
project; and this resolution passed the House by a vote of 42
to 4; ^ a similar report in the Senate seems to have produced
no result.^ In Ohio, B. F. Wade reported from a select Senate
committee a strong series of resolutions condemning the pro-
posed annexation of Texas as " unjust, inexpedient and destruc-
tive of the peace, safety and well-being of the nation; " and it
passed both Houses by large majorities.^ These protests
indicate that in 1837-38 the same legislatures that passed
resolutions condemning abolitionists were aware of the objec-
tion to the extension of the area of slavery.
After the election of 1844 had seemed to show that the
country would sanction annexation, the project advanced
rapidly to its consummation, in the last days of Tyler's ad-
ministration. Since the Democratic party, which carried all
the Northwest except Ohio, was committed in favor of annexa-
tion, no protest was raised in Indiana and Michigan, where
objections had been made seven years before ; and Michigan
even went so far as to instruct its Senators and Representatives
" to use all proper exertions " for the annexation of Texas " at
the earliest practical period."^ Ohio, which was under Whig
control, continued its opposition to slavery extension by pass-
ing resolutions, on January 13, 1845, instructing its Senators
to oppose the annexation of Texas on anti-slavery grounds.^
Both the Senators, however, Allen and Tappan, were Demo-
crats, and felt no obligation to regard the wishes of a Whig
State legislature. Their disregard of the instructions is said
to have aroused no little irritation even in the Democratic
press of the State ; but in Ohio there was nothing like the
popular and legislative protests, party upheavals, bolts, and
1 Philanthropist, Feb. 13, 1838.
2 Report of a Conunittee of the Seriate on State Affairs in relation to the
Annexation of Texas, etc., 1838.
8 Philanthropist, Jan. 30, 1838 ; Laws of Ohio (1837-38), 407.
* Laws of Michigan (1844-45), I54-
^ Laws of Ohio (1844-45), 437 > ■''Ww York Tribune, Jan. 22, 1845.
WHIGS OPPOSE NEW TERRITORY. 10/
Other interesting events that disturbed the Eastern States at
this time. No Northwestern Representatives except Giddings
and later Jacob Brinkerhoff made anti-slavery reputations ; for
in these Ohio River States the Southern-born element still
controlled politics, and in Michigan the prominence of Lewis
Cass kept the State from joining its natural allies in New
England in opposing slavery extension.
When the Mexican War broke out, a few conservative Whig
papers, like the Cincinnati Gazette, protested ; but the martial
temper of the Northwest was too strong to allow much opposi-
tion. Legislatures of several of the States adopted resolutions
laying the blame of hostilities on the perfidy of Mexico, and
urging a vigorous prosecution of the war; and for a time the
undercurrent of Northern feeling was buried by an outburst of
militarism. When, with the successful prosecution of the war,
came the prospect of new annexations, this feeling rose to view
once more. In every Northwestern State the Whig party, which
since 1844 had been more or less avowedly anti-slavery, became
strongly in favor of excluding slavery from all newly acquired
territory ; and in the northern counties of the four southernmost
States, and in many localities in Michigan and Wisconsin, anti-
slavery Democrats began to adopt the same position. It was
the South which now threatened the status quo, and North-
western conservatism found itself at once ranged on the other
side.
In 1846 the Wilmot Proviso discussion began to be active
in the Northwest; and by 1847 numbers of Whig newspapers
had declared themselves in favor of it. " We are against any
new territory," said the Cincinnati Gazette, " any new slave
territory . . . and against extending the constitutional in-
equality in favor of slave-holders beyond the states already
in the Union." ^ " We are satisfied," remarked the Ohio State
Journal, " that the free states will never consent to the annexa-
tion to this republic of slave territory." ^ The Chicago Journal
repeated the foregoing, and added : " We will always be found
on the side of freedom against oppression whatever shape it
assumes. The Whig party has a great duty to perform in this
1 Oct. 7, 1847. 2 Quoted in National Era, Aug. 12, 1847.
I08 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY.
matter, ... to avoid on the one hand the untempered zeal and
fanaticism of the Liberty party, and on the other the opposite
extreme into which warring against this is too apt to lead." ^
In this year began a " boom " (to use the modern phrase) for
General Taylor. With memories of 1840 ringing in their ears,
Whigs found the idea of a military candidate very fascinating;
and, as the year advanced, newspapers began with increasing
fervor to advocate his nomination. But Taylor was a slave-
holder, and his views on the Wilmot Proviso, as well as on all
other Whig measures, were entirely unknown. Among anti-
slavery Whigs in the Northwest much repugnance was exhibited
toward his candidacy, though in most of the States it was not
loudly expressed. A correspondent wrote from Indiana to the
Wisconsin Amcricaji Freeman : " A strong distrust of Taylor can
be found among Hoosier Whigs, but an unholy fear of party pro-
scription restrains multitudes from saying or doing anything." ^
The Chicago Journal, whose anti-slavery utterances are quoted
above, became alarmed at the threatening attitude of anti-
Taylor Whigs in the East, and said : " However much the
Whigs of Massachusetts and the North may differ from their
political brethren in other states in reference to slavery and its
evils, yet in National politics they are simply Whigs." ^
There was one place in the Northwest, however, where anti-
slavery Whigs were thoroughly aroused on the subject of
slavery in the Territories. From the beginning of the year
1847 the Western Reserve had been filled with ominous mut-
terings. Whig conventions in Cuyahoga and Trumbull coun-
ties resolved to " support no man unless he is openly pledged
against any further annexation of territory or extension of
slavery."'* The Cleveland Trne Democrat, founded by E. S.
Hamlin as a radical Whig paper, declared " that at the next
Presidential election we will not support a slave-holder for Presi-
dent or Vice President."^ Still more significant was an incident
at a meeting in Ashtabula County : Giddings, hitherto an inde-
1 July I, 1846. ^ American Freeman, Sept. i, 1847.
8 Dec. 5, 1846.
* National Era, Sept. 16, 1847; Cleveland True Democrat, Jan. 4, 1848.
6 Jan. 3, 1847.
GENERAL HOSTILITY TO SLAVERY EXTENSION. 109
pendent Whig, " became much excited, and boldly proclaimed
. . . ' Sooner shall this right arm (lifted above his head) fall
from its socket and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth
than I will vote for Zach. Taylor for President . . . and I think
I can say the same for every true Whig of Ashtabula.' " The
meeting then resolved with enthusiasm that " we will support no
man . . . who is not fully and publicly pledged against the
extension of slavery." ^
While anti-slavery Whigs were growing alarmed at the pro-
gress of Taylor's candidacy, anti-slavery Democrats in the
Northwest had been showing equal solicitude in regard to
the question of slavery in the Territories. As early as June,
1846, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the leading Democratic paper
on the Reserve, said boldly: ** The West has but to say that no
more slave territory shall be annexed to this Union, and the dark
tide of slavery will be stayed. ... It is time that the lovers of
freedom should unite in opposing the common enemy by fixing
bounds to their aggression." ^ In the same year the Hamilton
County Democratic Convention demanded that the Ordinance
of 1787 should be extended "over our Pacific empire present
and future."^ In 1847 Democratic papers in Ohio continued
with increasing emphasis. " We shall not discuss the question
whether the exclusion of slavery [from the Territories] is a
needful rule," said the OJiio Press; " public opinion has long
since decided it. Such is the almost unanimous opinion of
the people of every Northern state." ^ The Sandusky Mirror
defied Southern dictation : " So far from the conduct of the
South being any reason for yielding in the matter, we see in it
only additional reasons for standing by the Proviso and carrying
out its principles regardless of all opposition."^ Democratic
conventions for Paulding, Richland, Jefferson, Columbiana, and
several other counties passed resolutions against the extension
^ Cleveland American, May 26, 1847 ; National Era, June 10, 1847.
2 Quoted in New York Tribnne, June 29, 1846.
8 National Era, June 29, 1848. * Quoted ibid., Sept. 16, 1847.
^ Quoted ibid., Dec. 9, 1847. Similar sentiments were uttered by the
Springfield Democrat, Cincinnati Morning Signal, Ohio Patriot, and
Wayne Coiinty Democrat. Ibid., Sept. 16, 1847.
no WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY.
of slavery.-^ In Michigan some Democratic papers spoke out
boldly. Said the Ann Arbor Tnie Democrat, in October : " The
North is strong enough to submit no longer like Southern
slaves to the dictation of the South, especially when it is asked
to extend slavery beyond its natural boundaries,"^ In Illinois
the Democrats of the northeastern counties, much in sympathy
with the Barnburner faction of the New York Democracy, were
uttering vigorous sentiments. Said the Chicago Democrat^
owned by John Wentworth : " The acquisition of territory is
unavoidable, . . . the question then must arise, shall the wide
domain which will be added to our country be given up to
slavery?"^ The Jacksonville Prairie Argus said: "We
acknowledge and will ever defend the vested rights of the
South. But here our acknowledgement and defence con-
clude. We will never consent to an extension of slavery over
countries which we may acquire and in which it does not
exist."*
The growing feeling in the Northwest in favor of the Wilmot
Proviso led to the passage of strong resolutions in two State
legislatures. On February 15, 1847, the Ohio legislature
adopted a joint resolution instructing the Senators and request-
ing the Representatives to vote so as to secure the exclusion of
slavery " from Oregon Territory, and any other territory which
may hereafter be annexed to the United States."^ At the same
time Michigan spoke more directly by resolving "That in the
acquisition of any more territory ... we deem it the duty of
the general government to extend over the same the Ordinance
of 1787 with all its rights, privileges, conditions and immuni-
ties."^ J. H. Cravens, a Whig, introduced similar resolutions
into the Indiana legislature ; but they failed to pass.'^
Had this not been an "off" year in politics, the question
would undoubtedly have played a part in elections ; but Ohio
and Illinois were without any important contests, and in Michi-
1 National Era, June 29, Sept. 30, Dec. 9, 1847.
2 Quoted ibid., Dec. 9, 1847. ^ Quoted ibid., Sept. 16, 1847.
4 Quoted ibid., June 10, 1847. ^ Laws of Ohio (1846-47), 214.
* Laws of Michigan (1846-47), 194.
' National Era, Feb. 4, 1847.
CHANGED POSITION OF LIBERTY LEADERS. Ill
gan and Wisconsin interest was very slight. In Indiana only,
where there was an election of Congressmen in the summer of
1847, <^i<^ the VVilmot Proviso enter largely into the result. The
effect on the Northwest will be shown later.
It was evident, then, by the summer of 1847, ^^^'^ anti-slavery
questions bade fair to play in the coming Presidential campaign
an even larger part than in 1844, and that in all probability
they would be accompanied by great party changes. What was
the Liberty party to do in this contingency? It was an un-
doubted fact that since 1844 anti-slavery sentiment had increased
a hundredfold in each of the old parties; and yet the Liberty
party had come to a standstill. Chase stated the case very
clearly in a letter to John P. Hale: "I see no prospect of
greater future progress, but rather of less. As fast as we can
bring public sentiment right the other parties will approach our
ground and keep sufficiently close to it to prevent any great
accession to our numbers. If this be so, the Liberty party can
never hope to accomplish anything as such, but only through
its indirect action upon the other parties."^
In such circumstances, it is not surprising that Chase, Leavitt,
Stanton, and others came to the conclusion that it was time to
adopt a new policy, and by some appropriate nomination and
platform to place the Liberty party in a position to absorb
discontented Whigs and Democrats without insisting on the full
Liberty creed. Such a proposition ran directly counter to
Liberty precedent. Thus far it had been the rule to vote for
no man who would not separate from the old parties ; coalition
had been decried as treason to liberty, as practical perjury, as
a sin against God's law. In the Northwest and in the country
at large scarcely any cases of Liberty fusion occurred in the first
five years of the party's existence. In Lorain County, on the
Western Reserve, E. S. Hamlin, an anti-slavery Whig, had
received Liberty votes in 1843 ;^ and in Wayne County, Indi-
ana, there was one case of Democratic and Liberty fusion in
1844;^ Indiana furnished another case in 1845. J. H. Cravens,
1 May 12, 1847: R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 312.
2 Philatithropisf, Nov. 8, 1843.
* Emancipator, Aug. 28, 1844.
112 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY.
a Virginian born, who " hated human slavery with an intensity
akin to madness," had lost a renomination to Congress because
of his anti-slavery opinions. On becoming a candidate for
the legislature, he issued an address giving under thirteen
heads his views on slavery, which agreed substantially with the
opinions of Giddings. " I do not believe the Whigs," he con-
cluded, " will incorporate a pro-slavery article in their political
creed. Should they do so they will drive many good and true
men from their ranks in grief and sorrow." This address won
the hearts of the Liberty men of his district; they resolved,
under the lead of S. S. Harding, to support him ; and, in spite
of disaffection in his own party, he was elected.^ Except in
these cases, nearly every attempt to induce Liberty men to sup-
port candidates of the old parties had been defeated, the nearest
approach to success being in Indiana in 1845, when the Liberty
convention for the Tenth Congressional District refused by
a majority of one to support the Whig candidate, who had
made a direct appeal for their support.^
Perhaps the place where the Liberty leaders found it hardest
to keep their followers true to the party creed was in the
Twentieth Ohio Congressional district on the Western Reserve,
where Giddings enjoyed unmeasured popularity. His relations
to the Liberty party up to 1844 have been already referred to
as peculiar. In 1842, when he was censured, and resigned from
Congress, Liberty men voted heartily to secure his re-election ;
and Chase and some other Liberty leaders tried hard to get
him to join the new party.^ He did not think, however, that
the time had come for an organization separate from the Whigs,
and explained his reasons, over the name " Pacificus," in a series
of letters published in the Ashtabula Sentinel. The result was
that strict Liberty men found themselves unable to support him in
1843, and nominated Edward Wade. True, as the Liberty Herald
of Trumbull County admitted, Giddings had done all that a man
1 W. W. Woollen, Biographical and Historical Sketches of Early In-
diana, 276.
2 Emancipator, May 28, July 30, 1845.
8 See letters of Chase to Giddings, in G. W. Julian, Life of J. R. Gid-
dings, 130.
GIDDINGS AND THE LIBERTY PARTY. II3
could do in Congress, but he was still a member of the Whig
party. "No Liberty man therefore could vote for Mr. Giddings
without voting with and for the Whig party." The Liberty
Herald concluded this exhibition of rigid partisanship by cry-
ing, with whimsical inconsistency: "Liberty men, abolitionists,
Whigs, Democrats, and all, come out and vote for Edward
Wade ! " 1
Giddings at once took up the challenge thus offered. So
great was the effect of his criticisms of the Liberty party that
in this election, wherever he spoke, its vote fell off.^ In 1844
the breach widened ; for the Liberty men found in Giddings
a formidable obstacle to their progress, and Giddings recog-
nized in them a possible source of danger to the Whig party.
J. Hutchins and L. King each had joint debates with him;
but, in spite of all Liberty efforts, his popularity was so great as
to hold the Whigs firm, and even to draw from the Liberty
ranks. The result was that, in the Presidential election, Ashta-
bula County, where he had been working, cast a heavier major-
ity for Henry Clay than any other county in the country.^ The
animosity of the Liberty men toward Giddings now became
bitter in the last degree. He had believed implicitly in the
Garland forgery, and had used it with deadly effect; and
when its spurious character was proved, he couched his apol-
ogy in terms that added vigor to the Liberty hatred. He
had believed in it, he said, because " no man of the intelli-
gence which Mr. Birney was supposed to possess could close
his eyes to the consequences which were likely to result from a
division of those who were opposed to the annexation of Texas,"
and because collusion with Democrats was the only rational
explanation. He still believed that Birney was in league with
Polk, and that the letter " was a fabrication based almost entirely
upon truths existing previously to the writing of the letter and
wholly independent of it."'^ The anger of Liberty men was so
great that when, in 1845, Abby Kelly and Stephen S. Foster
made a lecturing tour on the Western Reserve, the Liberty
1 Liberty Herald, Sept. 28, 1843. 2 /^/^/.^ Qct. 12, 1843.
3 G. W. Julian, Life of J. R. Giddings, 167.
^ Ohio American^ April 24, 1845.
114 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY.
Herald, in terms that can scarcely be regarded as less than
scurrilous, accused Giddings of having imported them for the
purpose of breaking up the party.^
Yet his popularity with the masses was still so great that, in
1846, a Liberty convention at Painesville resolved that the Dis-
trict Congressional Convention ought not to nominate, but that
it should leave the field open in his favor. The District Con-
vention promptly repudiated the suggestion, saying: "We
stand ready to unite with Whigs or Democrats in a political
organization for the overthrow of slavery, but we spurn all over-
tures of union for the attainment of any mere party triumphs." ^
Nevertheless, Liberty men on the Reserve could not help under-
standing that Giddings really represented their principles in
Congress, nor could seven years of separatism prevent them
from desiring to support him. The Cleveland American found
it necessary to devote pages to a definition of its position. In
January, 1847, it said: "We had supposed that no one could
misunderstand by this time our views in relation to Mr. Gid-
dings. . . . And yet a friend assures us that when we publish
a speech of his without comment, our views and motives are
liable to misconstruction. ... As a faithful anti-slavery Repre-
sentative we give and have always given him full credit, but it
is his deportment to the Liberty Party . . . his utter refusal to
say after all that he would not continue to vote for slave-holders
. . . these and other inconsistencies we have condemned and
shall continue to condemn. ... It has been fear of the Liberty
Party that has driven the wire-pullers of his party to keep him
in Congress . . . and yet he will condemn and abuse and mis-
represent the Liberty Party without stint, and after election
taunt it with having been unable to elect its candidates or with
having decreased its vote because Liberty men had been de-
ceived and wheedled by his blandishments."^ The idea of
rugged Joshua Giddings offering blandishments to any body
of men may seem ludicrous ; but to the Western Reserve Liberty
men it was a very real danger. So great was their suspicion
1 Liberty Herald, April 17, 1845.
2 Cleveland American, Sept. 2, 1846.
« Ibid., Jan. 20, 1847.
OBSTACLES TO ANTI-SLAVERY FUSION. 115
that, in 1847, when Giddings in his wrath swore publicly never
to vote for Zachary Taylor, his action was looked upon as a
Whig trick. " That a deep plot," said the Cleveland American,
" is laid by the universal Whig party to absorb or use up the
Liberty movement in the canvass of 1848, is evident." ^
When such a man as Giddings was looked upon as unfit for
Liberty support, it was evident that Chase, Bailey, and the
others who favored a nomination for the sake of expediency,
had a hard task before them. In 1847, however, the strictness
of Liberty action seemed in several places to be breaking down.
In Ohio, in places where there were no Liberty nominations,
it was stated that " there was considerable fusion or rather
voting of Liberty men for old party candidates;"- and in Indi-
ana, in the election of congressmen there was a general return
to fusion and to the old system of interrogation. This election
has peculiar interest as the only one in the Northwest in which
the Liberty party turned its back on the usual programme and
gave itself up to coalition. One reason for this course was
probably that its adherents were few and were tired of third-
party action ; but another reason, without doubt, lay in the
interest displayed by Indiana Whigs and Democrats in the ques-
tion of slavery extension. Perhaps, also, they took to heart the
case of New Hampshire, where in 1845-46 a fusion of Whigs,
Liberty men, and independent Democrats had overthrown for
the moment the " Loco-foco " rule of the State, and had sent
to Congress John P. Hale and Amos Tuck as the first inde-
pendent anti-slavery men. If this departure from the Liberty
programme had proved so successful, why might not another
have a like success?
Early in April, signs of an intention to coalesce led the Anti-
Slavery Chronicle to insist on straight-out independent action ; ^
but such advice was of no avail. In the summer Liberty nomi-
nations for Congress were made in three districts; but all of the
nominees eventually withdrew in favor of the Whig candidates.
1 Cleveland American, May 26, 1847.
2 National Era, Oct. 28, 1847; National Press and Herald, Oct. 20,
1847.
8 Quoted National Era, April 29, 1847.
Il6 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY.
In the Fourth District, the centre of anti-slavery sentiment, the
Wayne County Convention resolved " That to vote for any man,
on account of his antislavery profession, to fill any office, who
would under any circumstances support the candidate of [the
Whig or Democratic] party would be an act of consummate
folly." ^ A district convention also resolved that " there is no
safety or propriety for us as Liberty men in adopting or pursu-
ing any other course than that of nominating good and true men
who will not bow the knee to the dark spirit of slavery" ;^ but,
in spite of these resolutions, T. R. Stanford, the Liberty candi-
date, withdrew in favor of C. B. Smith, the Whig nominee. In
the Fifth District the Liberty party propounded a series of
questions to the Whig and Democratic candidates regarding
the admission of new slave States, the Mexican War, and
other matters not usually deemed of vital importance by abo-
litionists ; and it nominated D. W. De Puy, the editor of the
Indiana Freeman, with instructions to withdraw should either
of the other candidates answer properly. This he did, in favor
of McCarthy, the Whig, although McCarthy's answers were not
very strong.^
Even in districts also where abolitionism had little strength,
the slavery question disturbed the course of politics. In the
Third District, on the nomination of a "War" man by the
Whigs, there was a bolt centring around J. H. Cravens ; but
the latter eventually withdrew. In the Second District H. J.
Henly, the Democratic candidate for renomination, who had
voted against the Wilmot Proviso, became so alarmed at the
consequences that "he declared most emphatically and un-
equivocally . . . that he was in favor of the Wilmot Proviso
and had always been in favor of it . . . and that he intended
to vote for it and support it with all his power, and farther that
he had always supported it when introduced, and had never
voted against it'' '' When the election occurred, the Whigs
gained two members on this issue: Owen, Democratic, lost in a
strong Democratic district; Henly's majority of 843 in 1845
was reduced to 40; Wick's majority was reduced from 1,400 to
^ National Era, July 8, 1847. 2 /^/^.^ July 29, 1847.
8 Ibid., July I, 29, 1847. * Ibid., Jan. 6, 1848.
THE INDIANA ELECTION OF 1847. 11/
298, — the loss resulting in each case from the candidate's record
against the VVilmot Proviso.^
Time for maturing any well-defined plans was not, however,
permitted to the advocates of a new policy; for in the spring of
1847 began a movement to call the National Nominating Con-
vention in the ensuing fall. This was exactly what the expedi-
ency men did not want ; for by an early nomination the party
might put out of its power an opportunity to profit by the rising
Wilmot Proviso excitement. The coming session of Congress
promised to be of immense importance, and a nomination and a
platform adopted a year before the election might prove hope-
lessly unsuited to the conditions.
A brisk newspaper controversy sprang up over the date of
the convention. The Eastern press, and those who favored
Gerrit Smith, William Goodell, and the new " Liberty League,"
wished an early day ; but most of the Western papers, except
those in frontier Wisconsin, preferred some time in the spring
of 1848. In Ohio the National Press and Hcj'ald strenxxousXy
opposed. "We have observed with regret," it said, "an effort
upon the part of some influential Liberty papers to precipitate
the party into a nomination of its candidate for the next Presi-
dency. Would it not be better to wait the developments of
next winter in Congress and of the other political parties?"^
Later it argued : " There are thousands of good men and true
in the Whig and Democratic parties. ... It would be a great
object to secure their co-operation with us, which can only be
done by a charitable and conciliatory course. . . . We are will-
ing to accomplish it by the sacrifice of anything short of our
own anti-slavery principles." ^ It said that the sentiment of Ohio
was strongly in favor of postponement : " We do not know one
individual who has been specially active and self-sacrificing in
the Liberty movement who favors a nomination this fall."* The
Cleveland American agreed with these sentiments, as did also
the Liberty Advocate, the Indiana Free Labor Advocate, and the
1 National Era, Ang. 19, 1847.
2 National Press and Herald, April 21, 1847.
8 Ibid., June 2, 1847. * Ibid., June 30, 1847.
Il8 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY.
Michigan Signal of Liberty} The Western Citizen, of Chicago,
said : " Our opinion is that the Convention should not be held
till the middle of the month of May, 1848. It is folly for us to
shut our eyes to the future and act regardless of consequences.
As there is no special haste for a nomination, let us wait and see
what Providence and the course of events may develop for the
next twelve months before we are committed to our candidates." ^
The Michigan State Liberty Convention in June, by a three-
fourths majority, passed a resolution in favor of postponement.^
On the other hand, the New Lisbon Aurora in Ohio, and the
American Freeman in Wisconsin, desired an early convention.
" We have been from the beginning for an early nomination,"
said the Freeman; " it is difficult for mankind at large to be held
together without a representative. . . . Real anti-slavery action
by either the Whig or Democratic party is out of the ques-
tion . . . then why wait?"* The small band of third-party
men in Wisconsin was decidedly more radical than Bailey, Chase,
and other founders of the party; for the Wisconsin Liberty
Association resolved to " approbate the decision of the National
Committee of the Liberty Party to call a convention to nomi-
nate in the ensuing autumn."^
The question was settled by the Liberty National Committee
appointed in 1843, who, against the protests of Chase of Ohio
and Stewart of Michigan, issued a call for a convention on
October 20, 1847. On that date, accordingly, met at Buffalo
the third and last National Convention of the Liberty party.
There were present one hundred and forty regular delegates
quite fairly proportioned among the Northern States, including
twenty-three from Ohio, eight from Illinois, five from Michigan,
four from Indiana, and three from Wisconsin. Besides these,
many Liberty League men were present and a considerable
number of voluntary delegates, all of whom, according to the
somewhat irregular habits of anti-slavery conventions, partici-
pated on an equal footing with those regularly appointed. The
Liberty Leaguers had adopted Spooner's doctrines; and at the
^ National Era, June 24, July 8, 1847.
2 Quoted ibid.. May 20, 1847. » Ibid., July 8, 1847.
* American Freeman, June 2, 1847. ^ Ibid., July 28, 1847.
THE LAST NATIONAL LIBERTY CONVENTION. 1 19
very outset, before the Convention was organized, Bradburn of
Cleveland moved not to nominate any one who did not believe
that slavery was unconstitutional. This motion was laid on the
table ; and the convention organized, with Western men as
usual in prominent positions. Sam Lewis ^ was president, and
six of the sixteen vice-presidents and secretaries were North-
western men.
The proceedings of the convention are too much involved
with parliamentary questions and with discussions over methods
of voting to be discussed in detail ; for the purposes of this study,
it will be enough to summarize their results. The struggle be-
gan when Joshua Leavitt reported a series of resolutions from
the Business Committee. The first of these resolutions, asserting
the object of the Liberty party to be the abolition of slavery in a
constitutional manner, was adopted unanimously. The second,
declaring that the Constitution gave the government no power
to institute slav^ery, was also adopted unanimously. The third
resolution, however, which stated that slavery was unconstitu-
tional in the Territories, proved a crucial point; for here Gerrit
Smith offered an amendment that slavery was unconstitutional
in the States also. A long discussion followed between Smith,
Goodell, and others on one side, and the conservatives on the
other. In the evening session the amendment came to a vote
and was rejected, 137 to 195. The fourth resolution stated that
the duty of anti-slavery members of Congress was to vote for
the repeal of slavery in the District of Columbia, for the repeal
of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, and against the introduction
of slavery into the Territories. More debate followed ; but the
amendments of Gerrit Smith were all voted down, and the
remaining resolutions were adopted without a struggle.
When the resolution to nominate was offered. Chase moved
to postpone action until May, 1848 ; but after a long debate the
convention rejected his amendment, 37 to 128, and proceeded to
nominate. Here the expediency party made a great effort,
determined that if they must nominate they would present the
right kind of man. Ever since the spring they had been advo-
1 Lewis's name was Samuel ; but he was always called Sam by the press,
an infallible sign of popularity.
\l
120 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY.
eating the selection of John P. Hale, now the national anti-
slavery champion in the United States Senate, whose election
had been brought about by Whig, Democratic, and Liberty votes.
He was not technically a member of the Liberty party, a fact
which, in the eyes of dyed-in-the-wool abolitionists, was enough
to condemn him ; but when Lewis Tappan, one of the originators
of anti-slavery action, read before the convention a letter from
Hale expressing his willingness to run on a Liberty ticket,
scruples were so quickly quieted that on the first ballot Hale
had 103 votes to Gerrit Smith's 44, and was thereby nominated.
To designate a Vice-President two ballots were necessary,
Leicester King being successful over Owen Lovejoy on the
second. The convention then appointed a National Liberty
Committee, and after an address by Sam Lewis adjourned. It
had been in some respects a drawn battle : Chase and the
Western men who favored postponement had been defeated,
but had secured the nomination of Hale ; the conservatives had
maintained the Liberty platform practically unchanged, but
they would have preferred some other candidate. The Liberty
League people alone had been routed at every point. ^
Hale's nomination aroused much discontent among the nar-
rower Liberty men of the East ; but in the West it proved very
popular. Only in Wisconsin Territory did it meet with dis-
approval, and there it seemed to be a bitter pill. " As for John
P. Hale," said the American Freeman, "we are slow to believe
it necessary to leave the circle of noble men who have been the
life of the cause. . . . We will put his name at the head of our
column, but do not wish to be considered pledged."^ The
Wisconsin Liberty Association showed a similar regret when it
resolved " That, although the course taken by the Buffalo Con-
vention last fall was of doubtful propriety, . . . yet if John P.
Hale shall be found to espouse the great principle which is the
basis of our organization . . . we will support him." ^ Even as
late as the spring of 1848, Wisconsin leaders continued to protest
against Hale's candidacy, and to show strong signs of a desire
to join the Liberty League.
^ Proceedings of the Convention, in National Era, Nov. 11, 1847.
^ Nov. 10, 1847. ^ American Ereenian, Feb. 2, 1S48.
CHAPTER IX.
COMBINATION OF THIRD-PARTY MEN ON THE FREE
SOIL ISSUE.
After the Liberty nomination, the prediction of Bailey,
Chase, Stewart, the Cincinnati Herald, and the Western Citizen
proved true; for so great was the change in pubhc sentiment,
and so high the excitement over the question of slavery in the
Territories, that by the summer of 1848 national politics were in
a state hardly dreamed of by Liberty men in October, 1847.
The anti-slavery sentiment of which the growth in both Whig
and Democratic parties had for two or three years been grad-
ual, now increased with unparalleled rapidity, until it was
powerful enough to do in one year what the Liberty party had
been unable to do in seven, namely, to split the old parties in
nearly every Northern State.
When the year 1848 opened, it became almost certain that
Cass would receive the Democratic nomination ; but, although
he was a representative Northwestern pioneer statesman, there
were very many Democrats in each of the Northwestern States
to whom the prospect was anything but pleasing. Anti-slavery
sentiment had much increased in the ranks of the Democratic
party. In Ohio the year opened with a resolution in favor
of free territory by the Hamilton County Convention;^ and
on January 8 the Ohio State Democratic Convention, breaking
with all precedents, resolved " That the people of Ohio look
upon slavery as an evil in any part of the Union, and feel it
their duty to prevent its increase, to mitigate, and finally to
eradicate the evil." 2 This resolution was by no means clear as
1 National Era, June 29, 1848. 2 Tntc Democrat, Jan. 14, 1848.
122 THIRD-PARTY COMBINATION.
to the particular question at issue; but, considering the fact that
it came from a Democratic convention, it was an immense for-
ward stride. No other State Convention took so strong ground.
Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Iowa Democrats ignored the
subject of slavery; and the Illinois Convention, dominated by
members from " Egypt," condemned the Wilmot Proviso
movement "as an intemperate discussion and an unnecessary
agitation of the subject," ^
Several of these conventions, including that of Ohio, went
so far as explicitly to recommend Cass for the Presidency ; but
in many localities distrust of him could be neither placated
by anti-slavery resolutions nor frowned down by State Conven-
tions anxious above all things for harmony. Even in Mich-
igan protests were heard. " How General Cass reconciles his
views with those expressed by the Democrats of the State
which he has the honor to represent we do not know," said the
Fontiac Jacksonian. " Michigan is fully committed to the Wil-
mot Proviso. Our last legislature, almost wholly Democratic,
passed a resolution in favor." ^ When in February, sixty-six
Democratic members of the legislature signed a paper recom-
mending Cass as their choice for the Presidency, five refused to
sign, including F. J. Littlejohn, a favorite Democratic stump-
speaker. This was the first token of a Democratic discontent
which was destined to trouble Cass thereafter.^
The region where Democratic anti-slavery views were strongest
was the northeastern counties of Illinois and the contiguous
southeastern counties of Wisconsin. Here, in addition to
anti-slavery objections, Cass's probable nomination met with
hostility on the ground of his suspected disapproval of internal
improvements. This last feature deserves more attention than
can here be given, for the question of river and harbor im-
provement was one peculiarly interesting to the Northwest. In
the years preceding 1848 nearly every Northwestern State
legislature had demanded national aid to interstate commerce,
and nothing had so disgusted Western business men as Polk's
^ CJiicago Journal, May I, 1848.
^ Quoted in Detroit Advertiser, Jan. 19, 1848.
8 Ibid., Feb. 9, 1848.
DEMOCRATIC DISLIKE OF CASS. 1 23
veto. A great Northwestern River and Harbor Convention had
been held in Chicago on July 5, 1847, to which Cass, as a repre-
sentative Northwestern politician, was invited. Faced by the
dilemma of either failing to support Polk or displeasing a
strong popular sentiment, he took the futile course of writing a
note, saying, without a word of comment favorable or other-
wise, that circumstances would prevent his attendance. This
attempt at dodging was of course a lamentable failure, and pro-
duced unmeasured ridicule. Northwestern Democrats lost con-
fidence in him at once ; for their pockets were so vitally affected
by bars in harbors and snags in rivers that with them Polk's
interpretation of the party creed had little weight.
The dozen or more anti-slavery counties in Illinois and Wis-
consin were equally urgent for internal improvements, and they
now protested vigorously against Cass. When it was reported
that the Wisconsin delegates to the Democratic convention
were pledged to Cass, the SontJiport Telegraph remarked : " If
such be the case, Wisconsin will be most outrageously misrepre-
sented, for we firmly believe that of the Democratic voters five
out of six would prefer some other man to Cass. ... If his
Southern subservience were not in itself sufficient to condemn
him in their eyes, his standing in relation to national works of
improvement . . . would most effectually do it." ^ In northern
Illinois four or more Democratic county conventions passed
resolutions demanding the Wilmot Proviso; ^ and the Chicago
" Barnburners," — as they called themselves, in imitation of
the New York Free Soil Democrats, — not satisfied with ex-
pressing their own opinions, proceeded to suppress utterances
of opposing views. At a meeting called " to sustain the
administration and blink the Wilmot Proviso," a number of
the partisans of " Long John Wentworth " moved anti-slavery
resolutions. The chairman, amid a violent clamor, declared
the meeting adjourned; but the anti-slavery men, led by
Thomas Hoyne and I. N. Arnold, called a new meeting on
the spot, and after a bitter struggle carried the resolution :
" That while the Democracy of Chicago . . . will adhere to
1 Quoted in MilwauJcce Sentinel, May I, 1848.
2 National Era, May 4, 1848.
124 THIRD-PARTY COMBINATION.
the compromises of the Constitution . . . they declare their un-
compromising determination to prevent the extension of slavery
into territory now free which may be acquired by any action of
the Federal Government." ^
On May 22 the Democratic National Convention nominated
Lewis Cass upon a platform framed to suit the South ; and from
all over the free States broke out at once cries of rage and dis-
appointment. In New York the revolt of the Barnburners at
once shattered the Democratic party from top to bottom ; and
though this bolt was due as much to factional hatred of Cass
as to anti-slavery feeling, the action found a response in every
Northwestern State. Only in Illinois and Wisconsin, however,
did revolt break forth at once ; in the other States Democrats
sulked and nursed their wrath, waiting for events. In Wiscon-
sin the Racine Advocate said : " We do not put the names of
Lewis Cass and W. O. Butler at the head of our columns, be-
cause we can in no event cordially support the nomination of
the Baltimore Convention, and very probably may not be able
to support it at all. . . . The course of General Cass on the
Wilmot Proviso was one that ought to have the reprobation of
men of all parties. . . . We honestly hope another nomination
may be made by Democrats." ^ The Soiithport Telegraph said :
"We do not place at the head of our columns the name of
Lewis Cass or W. O. Butler. . . . We do not consider them,
or at least the Presidential nominee, as a fit representative
of Democratic principles. . . . There is not a Democratic
editor in the state, however he may try to deceive himself
and his readers, but thinks a more unfortunate and objection-
able nomination than that of Lewis Cass could not be made." ^
Shortly after this a call appeared for a meeting of the "Demo-
crats of Racine and vicinity opposed to the election of Lewis
Cass " ; * and the first straight bolt in the Northwest had
begun.
In Illinois, John Wentworth's paper, the Chicago Democrat, re-
fused, in spite of the taunts of the Whig Chicago Journal, to
^ N^ational Era, April 6, 1848.
2 Quoted in Mihuaukee Sentinel, June i, 1848.
8 Quoted ibid., June 5, 1848. •* Ibid., June 15, 1848.
REVOLT OF THE BARNBURNERS. 1 25
place Cass's name at the head of its columns.^ In June the
Fourth District Congressional Convention met, and after a
stormy time refused to ratify Cass's nomination, and renomi-
nated Wentworth for Congress without a platform. The Cass
delegates, forty in number, then bolted, and nominated J. B.
Thomas. An Illinois Presidential elector of 1844 wrote:
" There are thousands of voters . . . who will never vote for
Cass. . . . You can scarcely conceive the enthusiasm for the
Wilmot Proviso." ^
By the end of June the Democratic opposition to Cass, led by
the New York Barnburners, had taken definite form in a con-
vention at Utica, which with tremendous enthusiasm nominated
Martin Van Buren for the Presidency. This meeting had a
semi-national character; for delegates were present from Massa-
chusetts and Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin, those
from the last-named State having been regularly chosen by an
anti-Cass Democratic meeting at Racine. J. VV. Taylor, of Ohio,
made a speech promising aid to the Barnburners, and two in-
teresting telegrams were read. One from Lafayette, Indiana,
declared: "We have our eyes upon you. Desire prompt
action. Will throw heavy vote. An enthusiastic mass meeting.
Whigs and Democrats in Tippecanoe have spoken in unmistake-
able terms." The other, signed by Woodworth, the mayor of
Chicago, T. Hoyne, I. N. Arnold, " and one hundred others,"
said : " Please to make known to the Convention that Northern
Illinois is ready to fraternize with New York. The undersigned
Democrats, with thousands of others, are ready to second any
national movement in favor of Free Territory and would suggest
a National Mass Convention."^
When the news of the nomination went over the country,
coupled with a call for a national convention at Buffalo, North-
western Democrats fairly broke loose, and ratification meetings
were held in every State. Wisconsin and Illinois, as usual, felt
the greatest excitement. In Wisconsin, the Sonthport Telegraph
1 Chicago Journal, June 3, 1848.
2 Naiio7ial Era. June 22, 1848.
^ The Great Issue, New York, 1848, 107, seq., describes the Utica
Convention.
126 THIRD-PA ^TV COMBINATION.
and Racine Advocate ran up the Van Buren flag; the Rock
County Democrat remarked : " In this vicinity truth compels us
to say that the Utica nomination is well received by a large
portion of the Democracy. ... If there were any prospect of
a general uprising, if the question of free territory could be
brought to a direct issue, ... we would cheerfully take hold
and help." ^
In Illinois, the protesting Chicago Democrats rivalled their
New York friends in noisy excitement. " Had a bombshell fallen
into our quiet city yesterday," said the Whig Chicago Journal,
" it could not have created more consternation. . . . Our
Barnburning friends fairly swarmed and were in ecstasies. , . .
Knots of men on every corner were busy canvassing the merits
of the nominees. . . . They evidently gloated over the prospect
of the defeat of Cass." ^ A call very soon appeared, signed by
several hundred of the most influential Democrats, for a meet-
mg in favor of Free Soil and Van Buren. On July 4 the
meeting convened, "numerous and enthusiastic," and after
making fiery speeches for Van Buren, and scoring Cass, re-
solved " That General Cass having . . . avowed the opinion
that Congress has no Constitutional power to prohibit slavery,
... no man can support him without an utter abandonment of
the great principle of Free Soil." ^
Meanwhile, Whig bolters had been keeping pace, step by
step, with the Free Soil Democrats in the Northwest. Whig
State Conventions in Ohio and Michigan passed resolutions in
favor of restricting slavery; but in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin,
and Iowa the subject was not mentioned. By the beginning of
1848 the Taylor " boom" was so powerful that nothing seemed
able to stand before it, and anxious Whigs could only protest
unavailingly or watch in gloomy silence. What made their
situation the more trying was the fact that the papers which
supported Taylor were the loudest in asserting anti-slavery prin-
ciples. " The Whig party, North, is the true anti-slavery party
of the Republic ! " cried the Detroit Advertiser. * In Illinois,
1 Quoted in Milwaukee Sentinel, July 4, 1848.
2 June 24, 1848. 8 National Era, July 20, 1848.
4 Feb. 17, 1848.
WHIG DISTRUST OF TAYLOR. 12/
the Cook County Whig Convention resolved that the Wilmot
Proviso " is now and ever has been the doctrine of the Whigs
of the free States," and that " the Whig party has ever been the
firm, steady, and unchanging friend of harbor and river appro-
priations." ^ The Milwaukee Sentinel cXdXviXQd. : " It is known to
the whole Union that the Whigs of all the free States are . . .
uncompromisingly opposed to any further extension of slav-
ery";^ and it invoked the people of Wisconsin to vote the
Whig ticket in the spring election in order to " bear testimony,
in favor of Free Soil and against the further extension of slave
territory." ^
With their party papers making such vigorous assertions,
Whigs in most of the Northwestern States refrained from open
complaint; but on the Western Reserve such circumstances
had no weight. By the beginning of 1848 the anti-slavery
Whigs of that region were preparing for the worst. The State
Whig Committee made some efforts to keep them quiet by ad-
vocating McLean or Corwin as a candidate; but nobody was
deceived. Every one knew that Taylor's nomination was
inevitable; yet, with their eyes open, Whig conventions in
Trumbull, Lorain, Warren, Stark, Cuyahoga, Belmont, Lake,
Geauga, Green, Clinton, Ashtabula, and other counties resolved
" That we will support no man for the office of President in
1848 who is not a true friend and an earnest advocate of the
Ordinance of 1787."* The True Dcmoerat began to consider
the possible necessity of bolting. " Can party allegiance," it
asked, " relieve a man from the discharge of moral obligations?
Suppose the Whigs nominate General Taylor for President,
must we as Whigs vote for him? Can party obligations bind
us to become accessory to the extension of slavery? " ^
As the spring approached, the excitement of Ohio anti-slavery
Whigs increased. A " Clay " meeting in Cincinnati, taken pos-
session of by anti-slavery men, passed a resolution not to
support any man " not avowedly and heartily in favor of the
exclusion of slavery from all the Territories." *^ Evidently times
1 Chicago Journal, Aptil 3, 1848. 2 April 28, 1848.
3 May 2, 1848. ■* Trtie Democrat, Jan. 4, 1848.
6 Ibid., Jan. 10, 1848. « Ibid., April 1 1, 1S48.
128 THIRD-PARTY COMBINATION.
had changed since 1844, if such sentiments were deemed appro-
priate at a "Clay" meeting. In Cincinnati, early in March,
there was circulated among Whigs a paper receiving a large
number of signatures, declaring: "We, the undersigned, hav-
ing acted with the great Whig party of the United States, . . .
while we would not meddle with slavery where it now exists, yet
deem it our duty to use all lawful and peaceable means to stop
its progress, . . . and we do most solemnly pledge ourselves to
vote for no man . . . who is not known to be, or who will not
most positively declare himself, opposed to the introduction of
slavery into any of the territory now owned by these United
States or into any territory that may be acquired by purchase
or otherwise." ^
When, on the loth of June, the Whig National Convention
nominated Zachary Taylor without any platform and howled
down the Wilmot Proviso, the Western Reserve Whigs rose as
one man to repudiate him. "As we anticipated," said the True
Democrat, " the Whigs have nominated Zach Taylor for presi-
dent ! And this is the cup offered by slave-holders for us to
drink. We loathe the sight. We will neither touch, taste nor
handle the unclean thing. We ask the Whigs of Cuyahoga
County to live up to the pledge they have made." ^ They did
so. Within a week after Taylor's nomination, in every county
of the Western Reserve a people's meeting, without regard
to party, had repudiated Taylor and demanded a national
Free Soil candidate. Eight Whig newspapers bolted without
hesitation.'^ Outside of Ohio, open bolting was not common;
although the Lafayette Journal oi Indiana said: "The nomina-
tion of Gen. Taylor is a disgrace to the Convention and an
insult to the intelligence and virtue of the American people.
The Whig party is basely betrayed — aye, sold to the Southern
slave-holder. For ourselves we are against the nomination
might and main, heart and soul." *
1 Cincinnati Gazette, May I, 1848. 2 June 10, 1848.
8 True Democrat, June 30, 1848; A. G. Riddle, Rise of the Anti-Slavery
Sentiment on the Western Reserve, in Magazine of Western History, VI.,
145-156.
^ Quoted in American Freeman, July 18, 1848.
BOLT OF THE FREE SOIL WHIGS. 129
When so many Whigs and Democrats were filled with anti-
slavery sentiment and with disgust at their respective party
nominations, common action was inevitable. As early as the
summer of 1847, non-partisan Wilmot Proviso meetings were
held in Ohio on the Reserve and in Cincinnati ; ^ these became
more common in 1848; and as the spring advanced and every
day made the nomination of Taylor and Cass more certain,
they grew larger and more emphatic. Finally, May 20, a call
appeared in the Cincinnati Gazette, signed by three thousand
voters of thirty counties, for a great State Mass Free Territory
Convention to express the sentiment of the people on the exten-
sion of slavery. "We ask no man to leave his party," it said,
" or surrender his party views. . . . Let all come who prefer
free territory to slave territory and are resolved to act and vote
accordingly. If candidates have been already nominated who
represent our principles, let us approve them ; if not, let us our-
selves form a ticket we can support." ^ This call was written
by Chase, whose position in this matter will be explained
below.
After Taylor was nominated at Philadelphia, a meeting of
dissatisfied Whigs was held in a committee room, among
whom were Vaughn, Campbell, Galloway, and two others, be-
sides Stanley Mathews, the Liberty party editor of the Cincin-
nati Herald. After much discussion, it was resolved to hold a
Free Soil convention at Buffalo ; and in order to get an
impressive non-partisan call, it was deemed advisable to ask the 1/
Ohio Free Territory Convention to issue it.^ On June 21 the
People's Convention met at Columbus, with one thousand dele-
gates, including prominent Whigs, Democrats, and Liberty
men. J. C. Vaughn made an address urging the calling of a
national convention ; and the meeting so resolved, expressing
the opinion that it should be held in August at Buffalo. The
presiding officer was N. Sawyer, of Cincinnati, a leading
Democrat, and the other officers were nearly all Whigs and
Democrats. A letter from Giddings was read by E. S. Hamlin,
1 National Era, July 29, 1847 ; Natiotal Press and Herald, Oct. 6, 1847.
2 National Era, May 25, 184S; R. B. Warden, Life qf Chase, 316.
* Henry Wilson, Slave Power., II., 142.
9
130 THIRD-PARTY COMBINATION.
committing the old warrior fully to the movement for a new
party. Liberty men also were very much in evidence ; Chase,
Lewis, and Birney addressed the convention, and Harding, of
Indiana, made a speech claiming that his State would poll a
large vote for an independent candidate. It would be profitable
to repeat the admirable series of resolutions, written of course
by Chase ; but it must suffice to say that they were practically
the same as those which the later Free Soil platform adopted at
Buffalo. One noteworthy feature was the wide recognition which
they gave to anti-slavery action, by mentioning with honor men
of all parties, — the New York Barnburners, McLean, Gid-
dings, Palfrey, Wilmot, Henry Wilson, L. D. Campbell, and
John P. Hale.i
With the call for a national convention issued simultaneously
by this meeting and the one held at Utica, the movement for
independent action grew with intense rapidity. In Ohio, anti-
slavery men rushed into non-partisan conventions in nearly
every county of the State, until in July the National Era said:
" We could not find room for even brief notices of all the Free
Soil meetings in Ohio. The people there seem to be cutting
loose €71 masse from the old party organizations." ^ Most of
these conventions passed strong, even violent, resolutions, going
far beyond the mere question of slavery extension, and into abo-
lition ground ; and many of them chose delegates to Buffalo.
The other States did not lag behind. In Indiana, Free
Soil conventions held in several localities passed resolutions and
elected delegates to Buffalo. On July 26 a State Convention
was held at Indianapolis, over which the mayor, J. B. Seamans,
presided. Disregarding the objections of some Taylor men, the
convention went on with great enthusiasm to pass uncompro-
mising resolutions, elected delegates to the Buffalo Convention,
and appointed a State Central Committee.^ Michigan kept
pace with Indiana. In June and July meetings without distinc-
tion of party were held, which resolved to " bury all political
1 National Era, June 29-July 6, 1S48; Tme Democrat, June 27, 1848;
J. W. Schuckers, Life of Chase, 84.
2 July 20, 1848.
3 National Era, Aug. 10, 1848 ; Free Territory Sentinel, Aug. 16, 1848.
NON-PARTISAN FREE SOIL CONVENTIONS. 131
animosities and strike hands for the one great cause of Free
Soil and Free Labor." ^ On July 3 the State Convention
appointed a Central Committee, made arrangements to start a
Free Soil newspaper, and elected delegates to Buffalo. The
Ann Arbor True Democrat and the Monroe Advocate, which had
at first followed the Baltimore nomination, pulled down the Cass
flag and turned to Van Buren ; and leading Democrats followed
their example. At one Free Soil convention, two former presi-
dents of Cass ratification meetings took part.'"*
In Illinois, the excitement, already prodigious, increased ten-
fold with the call for a national convention. The Democrats of
the Fourth District, who had begun their bolt on a party basis,
now cordially joined the " People's " movement. Early in July
mass meetings in Cook and Lake counties, without respect to
party, nominated independent Free Soil candidates, the first
apparently in the Northwest.^ Kendall, Dupage, and other
counties followed, electing delegates to Buffalo and passing
resounding resolutions, until by the end of July the whole
northern section of the State seemed to be throwing itself heart
and soul into the third party. Wisconsin Democrats were fully
abreast of their neighbors. Non-partisan meetings flourished
in the central and the southeastern counties, and on July 26 a
State Free Soil Convention met at Janesville, attended by men
of all shades of political opinion, although most of the officers
were Democrats. The meeting adopted resolutions, and after
stirring speeches appointed twenty-five delegates to the Buffalo
Convention.* Lastly, signs of life appeared in Iowa, hitherto
barren territory. Free Soil non-partisan meetings were held in
the southeastern counties, where New England men had settled,
and measures were begun for a State organization.^ Thus the
months of June and July passed with constantly swelling excite-
ment, until, on August 9, the movement reached a climax in the
famous Buffalo Convention, one of the landmarks of anti-slavery
action in the United States.
1 Detroit Advertiser, July 15, 1848. 2 /^/^^ ^yg^ jq^ j3^g^
8 Chicago Journal, July 17-31, 1848.
* Afnerican Freeman, Aug. 9, 1848; Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug. i, 1848.
* National Era, Aug. 10, 1848.
132 THIRD-PARTY COMBINATION.
But what had the Liberty party been doing all this time, while
Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Wiscon-
sin seemed rushing bodily into anti-slavery action? By July,
1848, events had gone far beyond the wildest dreams of the
Liberty convention of 1847; but they had gone also without
any regard to the Liberty party. True, the nomination of Hale
was very suitable for the support of anti-slavery Whigs and
Democrats, but in 1848 most of the bolting members of the old
parties seemed entirely to ignore it. Some Whigs, perhaps, in
Indiana and Ohio looked upon the Liberty platform with favor;
but no Democratic bolting conventions ever considered it for a
moment. By July, 1 848, Van Buren had been nominated at Utica.
and seemed to be the popular choice to lead the new movement.
What were Liberty men to do? Were they to continue the
old policy of separation, or should they join the new movement?
The latter alternative was rendered difficult by the fact that
they had a party ticket already in nomination. It was a trying
situation, and there was great vacillation throughout the coun-
try. What orthodox Liberty men feared most was some devia-
tion from the line of strict abolitionist consistency. On July
6, the executive committee of the American and Foreign Anti-
Slavery Society issued a warning address, urging at great length
that " non-extension is not abolitionism although included in it,
and it will be time to consider overtures of coalition from fellow-
citizens who have recently awakened to see the disastrous pol-
icy of slavery extension when they shall have embraced the great
anti-slavery principles we avow. . . . Neither can we believe,"
it added, making an indirect but evident allusion to Van Buren,
" that any Liberty party man will cast his vote for a politician
who has, when in power, proffered his aid to the slaveocracy." ^
This address was signed by the Tappans of New York and by
nine others, making a bare majority of the executive commit-
tee. The names of William Jay, A. Stewart, Arnold Bufifum,
and others were conspicuously absent. On the other hand, the
National Era threw its powerful influence in the direction of
conciliatory measures ; and between these two positions Liberty
men throughout the country wavered.
^ A'ational Era, July 6, 1848.
VACILLATIONS OF LIBERTY MEN. 1 33
In Ohio, matters tended from the first in the direction of
co-operation with the new movement. The Cincinnati Herald,
which, through the prestige of Birney and Bailey, was still the
leading Liberty paper in Ohio, warmly advocated a union of all
anti-slavery men, and condemned the American and Foreign
Anti-Slavery Society manifesto as " too transcendental for our
common sense." ^ Swayed by these counsels, the party ab-
stained from its usual midwinter and spring activity. Such
conventions as were held discussed and resolved, but did not
nominate. Chase, Lewis, King, and Wade were waiting-. In
the spring Liberty leaders began actively to co-operate with the
Free Soil movement ; and several of them, as we have seen,
were prominent at the Free Territory Convention. Chase in
particular welcomed the Barnburner movement; for a large
part of the Democratic party, whose redemption had occupied
his thoughts since 1845, seemed actually on the point of be-
coming anti-slavery. He threw himself with great vigor into
the cause, wrote letters right and left, and after the autumn
of 1847 participated in non-partisan meetings. He wrote the
call for the People's Convention and also furnished the reso-
lutions, although, through fear of seeming too prominent, he
caused them to be introduced by some one else,^ and he
induced a number of Cincinnati men of all parties to unite
in inviting Hale to pay them a visit.
After the call for the People's Convention had been issued,
another call appeared, signed by Chase, Lewis, Mathews, and
others, summoning a Liberty State Convention to meet at
Columbus on June 21, with an avowed purpose of influencing
the action of the Free Territory Convention. " Let us attend,"
ran the call, " and share the deliberation of the Independent
People's Convention. If possible, let us agree with them ; if
not, let us nominate, and go into the approaching contest with
resolution and energy."^ This convention adopted resolutions
approving the Buffalo Convention, but declaring that the party
would support no man who would not adopt Liberty principles.
^ Cincinnati Herald, IvXy 19, 1848.
2 R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 316.
* National Era. May 4, 1848.
134 THIRD-PARTY COMBINATION.
A State Committee was appointed, and the convention
adjourned. This was the last official meeting of the Liberty-
party in Ohio.i Among the most significant illustrations of the
recent change of mind among Ohio Liberty men was a resolu-
tion passed at a convention for Lake and Ashtabula counties.
A favorite taunt of the Western Reserve Liberty men against
Giddings had been that the local Whig party kept renominating
him only through fear of losing abolition votes ; now that he was
repudiating Taylor, the same men who had fought him bitterly
for six years resolved that " his re-election does not now depend
on our opposition, but may consist with our co-operation." ^
Indiana followed more slowly in the same course. On June
12, a State Liberty Convention passed resolutions in favor of
Hale and King, demanding the Wilmot Proviso and condemn-
ing the old parties ; and it nominated an electoral ticket ; but in
July, with the call for a national convention, abolitionists altered
their course and began to join the Free Soil movement. When
the State Free Territory Convention met on July 26, S. S. Hard-
ing and S. C, Stevens, the two leaders of the Indiana Liberty
party, both wrote approving letters.
The Michigan Liberty party met in convention on February
4, 1848, and nominated an electoral ticket. A last echo of the
struggle in the Liberty National Convention of 1847 occurred,
when this body found itself obliged to reject a proposition to
endorse the platform of the Liberty League.^ Resolutions
were introduced at this meeting inviting Whigs and Democrats
to join the Liberty party in supporting Hale, and proposing an
alliance with the Whigs in order to carry the State against
Cass. After some debate they were withdrawn; but a little
later a Liberty man, in a letter to the Detroit Advertiser, re-
newed the discussion, and suggested a Whig and Liberty
" deal," the Liberty party having the electors, the Whigs taking
Congressmen and the State ticket.* These suggestions came
to nothing ; but, as will be seen, there was something in them
1 National Era, July 6, 1848.
^ True Danocrat, May 31, 1848.
8 National Era, Feb. 24, 1848.
^ Detroit Advertiser, Feb. 17, 1848.
LIBERTY LEADERS DECIDE TO COALESCE. 135
almost prophetic of later Michigan politics. By July, Michigan
Liberty men were joining heartily with the Free Soil organiza-
tions.
The Illinois Liberty party in this year stood in a somewhat
peculiar position. On February 9 and 10, at a State Conven-
tion, the party, recovering with its usual elasticity from the in-
action of 1847, prepared for a vigorous canvass. Later in the
year a convention for the Fourth Congressional District renomi-
nated Lovejoy, who took the stump at once, trying, amid the
turmoil and excitement of the spring and summer months, to
hold the local third party together. On July 4, at a time when
Liberty men in Ohio and Indiana were in the thick of the Free
Soil movement, Illinois abolitionists held a State Convention at
Hennepin, and nominated Dr. Dyer and H. H. Snow for Gover-
nor and Lieutenant-Governor respectively. When the election
took place, it was found that the Liberty vote had fallen off;
but, considering the distraction of the time, its showing was
creditable : Democratic — French, 67,453 ; Liberty — Dyer,
4,748. In the Fourth District, Lovejoy made a fair showing, but
did not urge his cause with the vehemence which he had shown
two years before. His sympathies were always with practical
measures, and he saw that the time had come to abandon sep-
arate action.^
In Wisconsin a State election occurred to retard the union of
Liberty and Free Soil men. The adoption of a State constitu-
tion having necessitated an election in the spring, the Wisconsin
Liberty party met in convention on April 19 and nominated a
full ticket. It was in this frontier State, it will be remembered,
that John P. Hale's nomination had met with the greatest con-
demnation, and that the tendency of the local party had been
toward Gerrit Smith and the Liberty League. This convention
elected delegates to a convention called by the Liberty League
1 Chicago Jo7ir7taI, Aug. 4, 1848. The Liberty vote in this Congres-
sional election was as follows : —
Democratic.
Fourth District . • 11,857
Sixth District . . . 9,302
Seventh District . . 7,201
Whig.
Liberty.
8,312
3,130
10,325
666
7,095
166
136 THIRD-PARTY COMBINATION.
to meet at Buffalo in June; but it refused to adopt Goodell's
favorite doctrine, that the Liberty party ought to be a national
reform organization. It did declare, however, that the United
States Constitution was an anti-slavery document, and it laid on
the table resolutions to support Hale. When a resolution was
introduced offering to unite with any or all parties who would
pledge themselves to support the VVilmot Proviso, it was unani-
mously rejected.^ On this rigid and narrow basis the Wiscon-
sin Liberty party made an active campaign, and succeeded, in
May, 1848, in increasing its vote as follows: Democratic —
Dewey, 17,238; Whig — Tweedy, 14,049; Liberty — Durkee,
After the local election of 1848, the question of the relation
of the Liberty party of Wisconsin to the Free Soil move-
ment absorbed all the interest of the party. When, in June, the
purpose of the Ohio Liberty men to join the People's Conven-
tion became apparent, the American Freeman in great disgust
said: " In doing this they have left the platform of the Liberty
party. . . . That was established not to enact the Wilmot Pro-
viso, but to abolish slavery throughout the Union. . . . We
regard this movement as an abandonment of the Liberty party.
And so Wilmot Provisoism and not abolitionism is henceforth
to be the creed of the Liberty party ! We wash our hands of
all participation in this business ! " ^ But by the end of June, the
direction of the current had become so obvious that the more
practical Wisconsin abolitionists realized that they must do as
their brethren were doing, or be stranded. Therefore Charles
Durkee and others called a State Convention, which met at
Southport, and after prolonged debate adopted resolutions
favoring the Buffalo Convention, with the proviso that "the
Liberty party of Wisconsin can sustain no candidates except
those who are not only pledged against the extension of slavery,
but are also committed to the policy of abolishing it." ^ It then
appointed thirteen delegates to Buffalo ; and thus the Liberty
party of Wisconsin finally placed itself in line with that of the
other States.
1 Awerican Freeman^ April 26, 1848.
2 Ibid., June 7, 184S. » Ibid., July 26, 1848.
LIBERTY PARTY IN STATE ELECTIONS. 137
In Iowa the State Liberty party was organized in December,
1847, and in 1848, at Fort Madison, A. St. Clair began the pub-
Hcation of an anti-slavery paper, the Iowa Freeman. In the
August election the party ran separate candidates for the
legislature in Des Moines and Van Buren counties, and suc-
ceeded in defeating the Whigs.^ Before the organization
could do much, however, it was swallowed up by the Free
Soil revolt.^
All over the Northwest, then, Liberty men, as well as anti-
Taylor Whigs and Wilmot Proviso Democrats, were anxiously
awaiting the action of the great Buffalo Free Soil Convention.
^ Iowa Free Democrat^ Jan. 15, 1850.
2 National Era, April 12, 1849.
CHAPTER X.
CAMPAIGN OF THE FREE SOIL PARTY.
Detailed study of the Buffalo Convention as a national
movement belongs to the general history of the country ; for
our purposes, it will be enough here briefly to summarize
its action and to give some account of the part played in it
by leading Northwestern men. In this spirited assemblage
were mingled at least four diverse and not always harmonious
elements : the Liberty men ; " Conscience " Whigs ; Free Soil
Democrats; and, distinct from the preceding, the New York
Barnburners, To find a common platform and candidate for
these incongruous groups bade fair to be a difficult task. In
the first place, would the Democrats be willing to adopt any
platform more radical than the Wilmot Proviso, pure and
simple? It did not seem likely. On the other hand, would
Liberty men accept anything less than their full party creed?
And, thirdly, would a merely anti-slavery platform of any kind
satisfy the Western men, who thought a demand for internal
improvements indispensable? In the matter of candidates there
was certain to be friction, since there were already two anti-
slavery nominations in the field, Hale and Van Buren ; while
the " Conscience " Whigs had their own favorites in Giddings,
McLean, and C. F. Adams. Of all the men named. Hale was
personally the most popular: Liberty men were zealous for
him ; Whigs had profited once by an alliance with him in New
Hampshire and felt kindly disposed ; and the great mass of
Democrats outside of New York would undoubtedly have been
GROUPS IN THE BUFFALO CONVENTION. 1 39
well satisfied with his candidacy. Van Buren, however, had the
prestige attaching to an ex-President, and, still more important,
was the candidate of the strongest single element of the con-
vention. The New York Barnburners, in contrast to Hale's
supporters, were a united body, led by trained politicians, and
were masters in the art of wire-pulling and convention manage-
ment, whereas Liberty men and Whigs were philanthropists
rather than politicians.
Had the tumultuous mass of delegates which, on August 9,
invaded Buffalo voted at once on a candidate, Hale would have
had as good a chance as Van Buren ; but such a proceeding
would have been far too irregular to satisfy the leaders. A
Committee of Conferrees was arranged, in which each State had
a number of delegates equal to three times its Congressional
representation ; and by this body of some five hundred men
was transacted the business of the convention, instead of by
the thousands in the public square. While fiery orators de-
claimed and the crowd shouted itself hoarse, the leading mem-
bers of the Liberty and Barnburner factions were privately
arranging a " deal," which practically decided the outcome
of the convention. Three Liberty men, Chase, Leavitt, and
Stanton, had become convinced that the Barnburners would
have Van Buren or nobody, but that they were not very par-
ticular about the platform. On their part, they cared more for
a plank regarding the duty of separating the national govern-
ment from slavery than they did for the nomination of Hale;
and on this basis they determined to approach the Barnburners,
offering them the candidate in exchange for the platform. The
Democratic sympathies of Chase inclined him powerfully in
favor of Van Buren as against McLean, Giddings, Adams, or
any former Whig ; and at this crisis his belief that the real
hope of the country for anti-slavery action lay in the Democratic
party seemed to be justified ; hence he worked from the outset
in complete harmony with Preston King and B. F. Butler, of
New York, At some informal caucuses a provisional platform
was adopted, and a plan of operations agreed upon, which, on
August 10, was carried out in the Grand Committee. A Com-
mittee on Resolutions, after full discussion, reported a platform
I40 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
drawn up by Chase, containing planks enough to equip any-
party. The following is a condensed summary: — ^
Whereas the nominations of the old parties are unfit ones,
and circumstances demand a " union of the people under the
banner of free Democracy," therefore be it resolved that : —
I. We plant ourselves on the national platform of freedom in
opposition to the sectional platform of slavery. 2. Slavery
depends on State law alone, and Congress has no power over
slavery in the States. 3. The early policy of the Union was
to discourage slavery. 4. The Federal Government has no
power to deprive of life, liberty, or property without due pro-
cess of law. 5. Therefore Congress cannot institute slavery;
6. And it is the duty of the Federal Government to abol-
ish slavery where it possesses power; 7. And to prohibit
slavery extension. 8. " No more slave states, no slave ter-
ritory." 9. We condemn the recent attempted compromise
in Congress. ^10. We demand freedom for Oregon.
II. We favor cheap postage, retrenchment, abolition of unneces-
sary offices, and election of officers, where suitable, by the
people. 12. We favor internal improvements. 13. We
demand a homestead law. 14. We favor the early payment
of the public debt and a tariff for revenue. 15. We in-
scribe on our banner Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and
Free Men, " and . . . under it we will fight on and ever until a
triumphant victory shall reward our exertions."
The sixth resolution satisfied Liberty claims ; the twelfth and
thirteenth attracted Western approval ; and the demands for
cheap postage, economy, and tariff for revenue, together with
the phraseology flowing naturally from Chase's pen, served to
give the platform a Democratic air. This admirably con-
structed document served to give all a common ground at the
outset, and it was adopted with enthusiasm by the convention.
By satisfying Liberty men it also promoted Van Buren's suc-
cess, for, with a platform to suit them, the Liberty party cared,
as usual, much less about having their own candidate.
The question of nomination now came up ; and B. F. Butler
1 The full text of the platform is in Stanwood, Presidential Elections,
and in many other compendiums.
LIBERTY AND BARNBURNER BARGAIN. 141
in a long speech presented the name of Van Buren, explaining
his candidate's position on public issues, and asserting, in
answer to questions, that the same President who in 1836 was
pledged to veto a bill for abolition in the District of Columbia
now stood ready to sign one. Joshua Leavitt, on his part, with
the sanction of Chase, Lewis, and Stanton, read a letter from
Hale submitting his name to the will of the Convention.
Giddings was also nominated, and some others ; but the choice
evidently lay between the Barnburner and Liberty candidates.
Another name which might have roused the Convention was
withheld. McLean was a favorite among antislavery Whigs;
and during 1847-48 Sumner, as a representative of the "Con-
science" Whigs of Massachusetts, had corresponded at length
with Giddings and other Western men, and also with Chase,
who was McLean's son-in-law, in the endeavor to make out
McLean's position. The latter, however, was cautious in his
utterances as to principles, and fairly sphinx-like whenever the
subject of a nomination was broached, and Chase exhausted his
ingenuity without coming to any definite conclusion. At the
Buffalo Convention, Chase was obliged to take the responsi-
bility of managing McLean's case, and, under the impression
that he was not desirous of a nomination, and believing that
Van Buren was the man for the hour, he prevented the name
from coming before the Committee of Conferrees.^
On the first ballot, Chase, Leavitt, and numerous Liberty men
voted for Van Buren instead of Hale, the vote resulting as fol-
lows: Martin Van Buren, 244; John P. Hale, 183; Joshua
R. Giddings, 23; Charles Francis Adams, 13; scattering, 4.2
This gave Van Buren a clear majority of 21 over all; but since
some Hale men voted for^him in order to make a nomination
on the first ballot, and since the Giddings and Adams men
1 Cleveland True Democrat, Aug. 4, 1852.
2 The figures as above given are impugned in an indignant letter to the
National Era, September 14, 1848, from that centre of radicalism, Salem,
Columbiana County, Ohio. The writer says that there were only sixty-nine
Ohio delegates in the Grand Committee, and that the vote of that State was
not 37, but 27, for Van Buren. If this be the case, the totals were: Van
Buren, 234; Hale, 183; all others, 40; giving Van Buren a majority of
only II.
142 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
would undoubtedly have preferred Hale to Van Buren, it seems
clear that but for the bargain Hale would have had a good
fighting chance. When the vote was announced and the wild
applause of the Barnburners silenced, Joshua Leavitt, an original
abolitionist since 1832, rose, and with deep emotion moved that
the nomination be made unanimous. Samuel Lewis seconded
the motion, and it was carried amid rapturous excitement.
Charles Francis Adams was then quickly nominated for Vice-
President, and the convention adjourned sine die. Most of its
leaders, except possibly the far-sighted Barnburners, supposed
that they had founded a new and a powerful party, the "Free
Democracy" of the United States.
During the proceedings, Western men had been very promi-
nent. Of the Democratic contingent, Brinckerhofif and Gillet
of Ohio, and Wilson and Miller of Michigan, made addresses;
and Chandler and Sawyer of Ohio, Wright of Indiana,
Christiancy and Wilson of Michigan, Arnold of Illinois,
Crocker and Wilson of Wisconsin, and Miller of Iowa, served
on committees. Among the smaller contingent of Wilmot
Proviso Whigs, Giddings was exceedingly prominent. His
name was greeted with enthusiastic applause by the mass meet-
ing, and he was repeatedly called on to speak. Other anti-
slavery Whigs who spoke or served on committees were Briggs,
Vaughn, and Hamlin of Ohio, and Julian and Cravens of
Indiana. More important than any of the foregoing bolters
from the two great parties were the Western Liberty men.
Judge Stevens of Indiana called the meeting to order, and
with Harding of the same State, Treadwell of Michigan, Love-
joy of Illinois, and Codding, Booth, and Holton of Wisconsin,
served on committees. The Ohio galaxy, however, shone
brighter in the convention than any other body of men, except,
perhaps, the New York Barnburners and the Massachusetts Lib-
erty delegates. Lewis, Smith, and Paine addressed the conven-
tion ; and Guthrie, Townshend, and others served on committees
or held offices. Chase was the most influential person in the
convention, with the exception of Leavitt and Butler. His
agreement with Butler, which his position on the Committee on
Resolutions enabled him to carry out, his own literary and
WESTERN MEN IN THE CONVENTION. 1 43
political skill, which placed the convention on a strong plat-
form, and his support of Van Buren, carrying with it the
votes of numerous other anxious Liberty men, — all these cir-
cumstances contributed essentially to the outcome of the
convention.^
As the news of the nomination and the platform travelled
over the country, it aroused various feelings among anti-slavery
men. Free Soil Democrats were of course delighted at the
choice of an undeniably Democratic candidate on a platform
largely Democratic ; Liberty men, satisfied with the platform and
impressed by the large part taken by Leavitt, Chase, Stanton,
and Lewis, in the proceedings at Buffalo, put aside, for the time,
unpleasant memories of Van Buren, and applauded the new
party; Hale and King shortly withdrew from the Liberty nom-
ination of October, 1847; and no reason remained why enthusi-
astic abolitionists should hesitate to support the ticket. As
Edward Smith said in the Buffalo Convention, "The Liberty
party had secured its principles, and it was no more than fair to
give others the men."
The Free Soil ferment, which during the Convention had
calmed down, now broke out again with redoubled vigor.
Ratification meetings were held, from district school assemblies
up to State Conventions. Especially noteworthy for enthusiasm
were the great meetings in Cincinnati on August 25, in Chicago
on August 22, and in Milwaukee on August 26; in all of which
Democrats and Liberty men took the leading part. Almost
simultaneously organization and campaign work began. Chase
and Vaughn stumped the Reserve, and Giddings traversed the
southern counties of Ohio. It is almost impossible to keep
count of all Free Soil meetings on the Reserve. Those reported
average two a day from August 10 to the eve of the election.
By the first of September, Brinckerhoff, Lewis, and Root were
on the stump, pushing organization ; and the Free Soil Central
1 For details of the Buffalo Convention, see Oliver Dyer, Phonographic
/?^;^(?r^, etc., published in pamphlet form in 1848, and Great Senators, 93
seq.j ?i\so National Era, A\ig. 17, 24, 31, 1848. The inside history espe-
cially of the dealings between the Liberty men and Barnburners has yet to
be written.
144 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
Committee, to stimulate local activity, issued an address written
by E, S. Hamlin. " We are stronger than the most fearful of
our adversaries admit," it said ; " we are stronger than our own
most sanguine estimate. In every township, in every county,
let some trusty Free Soil man be present at the polls with
tickets for all. Your committee call upon each of you to lend
your whole aid and influence to carry this state." ^
In Indiana a State Convention met on August 30 at Indian-
apolis, and after lively debate, in which Liberty men took a
leading part, nominated an electoral ticket with alternates, the
list containing the leading Liberty men and the prominent
Whig and Democratic Free Soilers of the State. Local meet-
ings then began to be held, but not with such vociferous
enthusiasm as in Ohio.
The Michigan Free Soilers opened a lively campaign led by
Littlejohn, Christiancy, Clark, and other former Democrats,
many of whom found a motive for bolting in their dislike of
Cass, rather than in their antislavery sympathies. County con-
ventions began organization in August, and on September 20 a
State Convention at Ann Arbor nominated a full set of electors.^
In this list, as in those of Ohio and Indiana, former members of
the old parties were given the lion's share of positions. Liberty
men being willing to stay in the background.
More ardent and more numerous than Indiana or Michigan
Free Soilers, the Barnburners of Chicago and northern Illinois
rushed with enthusiasm into the new movement. A State Con-
vention at Ottawa, on August 30, in which sixty-six counties
were represented, nominated with great harmony an electoral
ticket composed mainly of former Democrats, and claimed for
Illinois a Free Soil vote of 40,000. Following this beginning,
local meetings kept the northern counties in a constant up-
heaval until the election.
In Wisconsin it seemed for a time as if the whole State were
rushing into the Free Soil ranks. A mass State Convention,
on August 24, at Janesville, chose a central committee and
ratified the nomination of Van Buren, and another State Con-
1 Cincinnati Globe {Herald), Sept. i, 1848.
2 Ann Arbor True Democrat, Sept. 28, 1848.
LOCAL ORGANIZATION OF THE NEW PARTY. 145
vention at Madison on September 27, attended by delegates
from twelve counties, nominated a ticket of electors, mostly
Democrats. Meanwhile county conventions were held to nom-
inate independent tickets ; and Codding, Durkee, and dozens of
others were on the stump. An enumeration of the various
meetings in Wisconsin would require almost as much space as
would a list of those in Ohio.
In Iowa the news of Van Buren's nomination gave strength
to the incipient Free Soil feeling, which in August led to local
conventions, and in the latter part of September to a People's
State Convention at Iowa City. This meeting passed the usual
resolutions, and nominated a set of electors comprising tw^o
Democrats, one Whig, and one Liberty man.
By September, then, it seemed to be shown conclusively that
the radical anti-slavery men of the Northwest were prepared to
follow the Buffalo movement ; but, beneath all this noisy activ-
ity, there lay in the minds of the more sagacious observers the
consciousness that the Buffalo Convention had not united all the
anti-slavery sentiment of the North. Orthodox Liberty men felt
Van Buren's nomination as a slap in the face : the man who in
1836 had announced his purpose to veto any bill abolishing
slavery in the District of Columbia, who in his long career had
never by word or deed shown the slightest sympathy with abo-
litionists, was little better suited for their support than Henry
Clay, whom, four years before, they had repudiated because
they could never vote for any but an abolitionist. Notwith-
standing this feeling, when the nomination of Van Buren was
made upon a thoroughly anti-slavery platform, most of them
joined the new party. Here and there a few zealous abolition-
ists declined to follow Chase and Leavitt; and to such Gerrit
Smith's nomination and the Liberty League offered an easy
asylum. The wonder is, that, trained in a school of narrowness
for seven years, so few of the faithful refused to follow the Buf-
falo movement ; and even they preferred to sit in dejected silence,
while their less sensitive brethren stifled scruples by joining the
Democratic Free Soilers in vigorous work for the new party.
In most of the States the Liberty organization vanished with
the news of the Buffalo Convention; but here and there the
146 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
name survived for a short time. In Ohio a Liberty convention
in Medina County made a local nomination and stuck to its
own ticket throughout the campaign, although a subsequent
Free Soil convention ratified the Whig candidate. In Mich-
igan the State Liberty party formally dissolved. In the latter
part of August, a State Convention at Jackson unanimously
resolved to support the Buffalo ticket, thus "putting an end to
all the hopes of the Cass and Taylor factions that Liberty men
would distract the Free Soil party by adhering to their sepa-
rate organization."^ The Liberty leaders, with very few ex-
ceptions, were the first to join the new party, although many
of them did it with wry faces. In Indiana, for example, at the
State Free Soil Convention, S. S. Harding said publicly that
" it was with some difficulty that he got his own consent to go
for Van Buren."^ In Wisconsin, on the contrary, where for
some months the local party had seemed on the point of join-
ing the Liberty League, a sudden revulsion of feeling carried
the leaders heart and soul into the new party ; even the radical
Booth, of the Milwaukee Freeman, returned from Buffalo a
strong supporter of Van Buren, though a week earlier he had
been threatening to vote for " the Man of this nation, Gerrit
Smith." 3
If the Liberty men, with a platform drawn by one of their
own number, found it hard to join the new party, the anti-
slavery Whigs of the country found it still harder. Great as
was the abolitionists' dislike of Van Buren, it was nothing com-
pared to the traditional Whig hatred, dating from the very foun-
dation of their party. He was the same Van Buren in 1848
that he had always been; not one of the distinctly " Loco-
foco" doctrines had he abjured, except, perhaps, that of the
unconstitutionality of internal improvements. He had not
made a single concession. The ex-Whig editors of the Indi-
ana Free Territory Sentinel could find no heartier praise than
to say: "For our part, although we have hitherto acted with
the Whigs and have opposed Mr. Van Buren (as we probably
1 Detroit Advertiser, Aug. 31, 1848.
2 Indiana State Jourtial, Sept. i, 1848.
8 American Freeman, Aug. 2, 1848.
DISSATISFIED WHIGS AND ABOLITIONISTS.
147
should do again under the circumstances), yet . . . we cannot
agree with Taylor men in charging him with being an absolute
Demon. . . . That he has faults we readily admit, . . . but
looking at the crisis in which our country is now placed, . . .
we feel bound by the most solemn considerations, moral and
political, to do what may be in our power in advocating the
claims of Mr. Van Buren."^
Moreover, aside from the nomination, there were many
things at the Buffalo Convention which failed to satisfy
"Conscience" Whigs. Their delegates returned to their
homes in New England, New York, and Ohio with long faces,
and not infrequently gave vent to assertions of trickery and
underhanded bargaining on the part of Chase and the Barn-
burners; in this opinion many Liberty men joined, feeling
that Chase, Leavitt, and Stanton had played them false and
had sacrificed Hale. Besides, things had too Democratic
an air; Barnburners were too much in evidence, insisting on
their own "regularity"; and the name "Free Democracy"
applied to the new party had an unpleasant sound. Anti-
slavery Whigs, outraged as they were at the conduct of their
own party, felt their opposition to Taylor die away when
the only opportunity offered them by the Buffalo Convention
was that of supporting an unmitigated Democrat on a Demo-
cratic platform against their own party. Giddings^ in close
touch with the people, saw this clearly, and wrote to Sumner:
"Our letters from Ohio assure us that it can be carried for any
other man than Van Buren, and probably with him. There is
a large class of Whigs, however, that would come to the sup-
port of almost any man who will not support him."^ It was
evident to the dullest observer that, should the Taylor advo-
cates in the North have the shrewdness to take Free Soil
ground, the chances were strong that Whig Free Soilers would
return to their old ranks.
Political animosities developed new and strange forms hi
this campaign. Throughout the Northwest, Old Line Demo-
crats — that is, either men of Southern birth or those on whom
^ Free Territory Sentinel, Aug. 30, 1848.
2 July 23, 1848: Sumner MSS.
148 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
anti-slavery principles had made no impression — acted in one
way. At first deprecating the action of the New York Barn-
burners, they soon came to condemn it; and when the Utica
and Buffalo nominations were made, they broke out into bitter
maledictions. No term was too harsh, or sometimes too vile,
to apply to Van Buren, the " traitor," the " hypocrite," the
"Judas Iscariot of the nineteenth century." Everything that
had ever been said against "abolitionists" was raked up and
used again, to blacken the character and the motives of the
ex-President. Far more dangerous to the success of the Free
Soilers, however, was the attitude of those Democrats who,
while supporting Cass, claimed to be fully as antislavery as
Van Buren's followers. At the 'present day it seems incredi-
ble that these Free Soil Democ^rats could have believed, in
view of the Nicholson letter, that Cass was a suitable anti-
slavery candidate ; yet such is the force of persistent assertion
that it seems highly probable that its power was successful in
hundreds of cases. Democratic papers, without a shadow of
evidence to sustain them, claimed "Cass and Free Soil" as
their party cry. "The Democratic party of Wisconsin is the
true Free Soil party," said the Milwaukee Wisconsin ^ again
and again. " Will you believe," cried W. P. Lynde, a Demo-
cratic Congressman from Wisconsin, " that Lewis Cass, whose
interests and associations are all identified with the West, is
not a Free Soil man? No! Gentlemen I"^ "Gen. Cass,"
said the Waukesha Democrat, " is the friend of Free Territory,
and his course on this subject is and has been consistent!"^
The Democrats of the northern counties of Illinois went far-
ther than this, and had the eff'rontery — no milder term is
adequate — to issue an address to the Free Soilers, saying:
"Gen. Cass is a Northern man and Western man, — born among
the free hills of New England, reared and educated in the
free West. At no one period of his life did he ever bend to
the slave power. No one act of his long public career ever
went to favor slave institutions."'*
1 Oct. 24, 1848. 2 Wisconsin Freeman, Aug. 30, 1848-
8 Quoted ibid., Sept. 20, 1848.
* Chicago Journal, Oct. 27, 1848.
ATTITUDE OF THE OLD PARTIES. 1 49
With the Whigs matters took a somewhat different course.
At first they were incHned to applaud the Free Soil movement,
with the expectation that it would be confined to the Demo-
cratic party. " We rejoice that a portion of the Democrats of
our State," said the Detroit Advertiser, " have given in their
adhesion to the Whig principles of the Wilmot Proviso." ^
" Cheering indeed it is to Whigs," said the Chicago Journal,
** to see this movement on the part of those against whom
they have so earnestly battled. Whatever be the course of the
[Buffalo] Convention, Whigs can look on without anything to
fear from its action. . . . We are therefore pleased to see this
Free Soil movement." ^ When the Buffalo Convention met,
however, and the action of Massachusetts and Ohio Whigs,
together with the spectacle of^a son of John Ouincy Adams on
the ticket, showed that members of the party might, and prob-
ably would, vote the new ticket, a rapid change took place in
the Whig attitude. Complacency vanished, and a vigorous
denunciation of the new party took its place. From this time
onward the Whigs aimed to prove two things: that Van Buren
was unfit for any Whig to support ; that the Whig party, with
Taylor, was for free soil. " We claim to be as much opposed
to the extension of slavery as any other person," said the
Indiana State Journal. " If Gen. Taylor stood pledged, as
Cass does, to veto [the Wilmot Proviso], we could not vote for
him. Gen. Taylor stands upon the only true ground, — that of
submission to the will of the People." ^ " What possible bene-
fit," asked the Detroit Advertiser, " is to accrue from the delib-
erations of the Buffalo Convention? They can say nothing
in favor of free soil, free men, or free speech that is not said
daily by the Whig party. The members of that Convention
know full well that the Whig party is the true anti-slavery party
of the country. To ask a Whig to vote for Martin Van Buren
is an insult." *
When the Liberty men participated in the new movement,
all the smouldering rancor of 1844 flamed up to aggravate
Whig objections. " The readiness with which the political abo-
1 Jan. 15, 1848. 2 July 24, 1848.
8 July 31, 1848. * Aug. 4, 1848.
I50 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
litionists fraternize with the new faction calling itself the Free
Soil party," said the Indiana State Journal^ " is conclusive
proof that it is but another name for abolitionism. The past
acts of the abolitionists will best test the sincerity of their con-
victions." ^ After rehearsing the "crime" of Birney in 1844,
the Milwaukee Sentinel said : " And now the same leaders who
helped to fasten these wrongs upon us are engaged in a like
hopeful task. . . . Now can it be that any Whigs, with a keen
remembrance of the campaign of 1844 still in their minds,
will lend themselves to a repetition of the same third-party
swindle?"^ The Whig State Central Committee of Michigan
summed up the argument by saying: " Every Whig vote given
to a third candidate helps to elect Cass. The Whig party of
the North has always gone to the utmost verge of the Consti-
tution in its opposition to the slave power. It is, it ever has been,
a true free soil party. . . . Beware of the impracticable course
which in 1844 made the loudest professed friends of freedom
the means of annexing Texas." ^
With all three parties claiming to be in favor of free soil, and
each assailing the candidates of the other two as liars and hypo-
crites, the campaign had by September grown acrimonious to
the last degree. In two places, particularly, the bitterness
reached its greatest strength, — in the Fourth Congressional
District of Illinois, and on the Western Reserve of Ohio. In
Illinois everything hinged upon Wentworth's course. He had
been a staunch Wilmot Proviso man, and in his paper, the
Chicago Democrat, had constantly advocated Free Soil prin-
ciples; and although he placed the name of Cass at the head
of his columns, not a word of comment appeared. Day after
day passed and still no sign was made, in spite of the taunt
of the Whig Journal, " Keep it before the people that Went-
worth dares not say a word in favor of Gen. Cass." * While
Wentworth was " on the fence," the district Democratic Con-
vention met, and, under his influence, tabled a resolution sup-
porting Cass, thus causing a bolt and a separate nomination
1 July 31, 1848. 2 Sept. l8, 1848.
8 Detroit Advertiser, Oct. 10, 1848.
* Chicago Journal, June 3, 1848.
LOCAL FREE SOIL LEADERS. 151
of J. B. Thomas as an " Administration Democrat." Had
Wentworth at this juncture possessed the courage to throw in
his lot with the new party, the history of Free Soil in the
Northwest might have been different ; for his personal popu-
larity, joined to the intense anti-slavery feeling of that region,
would have insured his election to stand beside Giddings and
Durkee, and might have made the counties of northern Illinois
as famous as the Western Reserve. After Taylor's nomina-
tion, however, the Democrat began to support Cass ; and, to
the disappointment of thousands in Illinois and Wisconsin, it
was apparent that " Long John" had chosen to stay with his
party. The bolting candidate then withdrew, and Wentworth
was again triumphantly elected over Scammon and Lovejoy.
In Ohio, as usual, we expect to find the most interesting
events during the time that elapsed between the Buffalo Con-
vention and the national election. Since the Free Soil revolt
was greatest among Whigs, the fight between Taylor men and
Free Soilers was a repetition, on a larger scale, of the strug-
gle of 1844. At the head of the Ohio Free Soil Whigs stood
Giddings, whose popular hold on the Reserve was very strong;
his power is only realized when we consider that he was able in
one year to split in two the Whig party of that region, and to
turn the strongest Whig district of 1844 into one of the strong-
est for Van Buren in 1848, and this in the teeth of a Free Soil
Presidential nomination as distasteful to the Reserve as could
possibly have been devised.
It would be interesting and profitable to consider the causes
of Giddings's hold, and the ways in which it was manifested in
1848 ; the biographer of Cass sums it up in a sentence: "John
Q. Adams led his district and showed it the way. But Giddings
was the child of his surroundings, the voice and expression of
the will of his constituents."^ Upon his head fell the curses
of all those Whigs who clung to the old party. When, in
January, 1848, he refused to vote for Robert C. Winthrop for
Speaker, and justified his course in a public letter, the Chicago
Journal ^^xd.'. " It will take more than one such letter to con-
vince the Whigs of his district and the country that he acted a
^ A. C. McLaughlin, Lewis Cass, 253.
152 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
manly or patriotic part ; " -^ and the Cleveland Herald said warn-
ingly : " We tell Mr. Giddings that for all he is, he is directly
indebted to the Whig party. Their caucuses have nominated
him. Whig votes have elected him. For twelve years he has
been fed and clothed upon Whig bounty." ^ From this time
the dislike of regular Whigs for Giddings increased daily, until,
when he renounced the Whig party, the Indiana State Jonr-
nal called his action " the most cheering news we have heard
lately,"^ and the Chicago Journal observed: *' It is usually the
case when individuals part with their honor they abandon them-
selves to the worst passions of human nature."* On the Re-
serve itself, in spite of his " apostasy," enough Whigs stood by
him, at the regular convention of the party, to bring about his
nomination by 71 out of 95 votes. This was more than the
Taylor men could endure, and they supported an independ-
ent Whig candidate, in whose favor the regular Democratic
nominee presently resigned. In the intense bitterness of the
struggle, a former law instructor of Mr. Giddings, Mr. Elisha
Whittlesey, issued a printed leaflet charging Giddings with
having drawn unnecessary mileage as Congressman^ and this
sheet was distributed all over his district.^
While this three-cornered fight was raging, the State election
took place in October. As the Free Soilers had no ticket,
and seemed to hold the balance of power, they counted on
deciding the election, and eagerly expected the result to show
their strength. Between Seabury Ford, the Whig nominee,
and J. B. Weller, the Democratic, no true anti-slavery man could
hesitate for a moment. Ford was not especially strong in his
opposition to slavery, but he was at least inclined that way,
whereas Weller was unqualifiedly pro-slavery ; indeed, it was he
who had moved the censure of Giddings in 1842. Though not
supporting Ford with any enthusiasm, Free Soil papers in general
advised their readers to vote for him in order to rebuke Weller; ^
1 Jan. 15, 1848. 2 Quoted in True Democrat, Jan. 8, 1848.
« July 12, 1848. " July 18, 1848.
6 See G. W. Julian, Life of J. R. Giddings, 253-255; and A. G. Riddle,
in Magazine of Western History, VI., 154-156.
^ True Democrat, Oct. 9, 1848.
OHIO STATE ELECTION. I53
and it was confidently expected that the Whig ticket would
receive a handsome majority. Ford, in order to avoid the
fate of Henry Clay in 1844, absolutely refused to commit
himself on political questions farther than to say that he should
vote in November " by ballot." When the vote was counted,
however, to the amazement of all, the expected Whig gains did
not appear; and after some days, during which Weller was
credited with the victory, Ford's election by a bare majority
was finally conceded, as follows: Whig — Ford, 148,666; Demo-
cratic — Weller, 148,32 1.^
The effect of this vote on the Whig managers in Ohio was
terrifying. In their alarm they at first tried to make it appear
that more Free Soilers had voted for Weller than for Ford ; but
this supposition was manifestly absurd. They were soon left
face to face with the fact that their State candidate, aided pre-
sumably by the major part of the Free Soilers, was just able to
win. It therefore seemed likely that, in November, Ohio, though
a Whig State in national elections since 1836, would now go for
Cass through the defection of former Whigs, now Free Soilers,
to Van Buren. Such cries of rage went up, and such urgent
appeals for help, that from every side Whig leaders rushed to
the rescue. Said the National Era : " The most powerful
efforts are being made to break down the Free Soil movement
in Ohio. Messrs. Granger and Seward, we perceive, are to
make a descent on the Western Reserve, and a large importa-
tion of Kentucky orators is announced. Horace Greeley, too,
over his own name issued a few days since a manifesto as long
as a Presidential Inaugural, appealing with weeping and wail-
ing and lamentation to the Buckeyes to come to the help of
' Old Zach.' " 2 To these influences Tom Corwin, Ohio's favorite
son, and B. F. Wade added their eloquence ; they stumped the
Western Reserve ; while, as the Cleveland True Democrat said,
" the country was flooded with New York Tribtincs."
The closing weeks of October were stirring times. After the
Whigs and Democrats of the Northwest had exhausted the
capabilities of the English language in condemning, abusing, and
vilifying the Free Soil party and its leaders, and in claiming for
1 Trite Democrat, December, 1848. 2 Qct. 26, 1848. .
154 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
themselves the true Free Territory position, they now seemed
to unite in an effort to cry down the new movement. It was
asserted and reiterated ad infinitum^ from Maine to Iowa, that
the movement was dying away, that former Whigs and Demo-
crats were returning to their parties, that the people had seen
through the Buffalo swindle, and that on election day the dis-
credited and exposed leaders of a hopeless cause would be left
with only those behind them who four years before had fol-
lowed the fanatic Birney. The Free Soilers, on their part, kept
on hitting right and left, and with each succeeding week grew
more and more determined. In spite of its newness, the party
had no lack of mouthpieces, for there were at this time prob-
ably sixty-five or seventy nevv'spapers in the Northwest that
supported Van Buren.^ In Ohio and Wisconsin, up to the eve
of the election, the Free Soilers talked as if they really expected
to carry the State. There was no flagging, except among a few
Whigs, and no loss of courage. As the storm of abuse grew
fiercer, the Free Soilers responded in kind, and from stump and
newspaper hurled back their defiance and hatred of Cass and
Taylor in terms fully as opprobrious as those with which Van
Buren was assailed.
The campaign came to an end on November 9, after a
contest of unparalleled bitterness and blackguardism. In the
country at large the vote stood as follows: Taylor, 1,360,099;
Cass, 1,220,544; Van Buren, 291,263. Cass carried every
Northwestern State.^ Distasteful as was his attitude on slavery
and on internal improvements to many people, particularly to
^ Of these the names of fifty-three are known, of which eight were Lib-
erty, eight Whig, thirteen Democratic, and twenty-four campaign papers.
Ohio had twenty-one, Illinois eleven, Indiana eight, Michigan eight, Wiscon-
sin six, Iowa two. On the Reserve alone there were nine papers.
Cass.
Taylor.
Van Buren.
2 Ohio . . .
• 154775
138,360
35,354
Indiana . .
74,745
69,907
8,100
Michigan . .
30,687
23,940
10,389
Illinois . . . .
56,300
53,047
15,774
Wisconsin . .
15,001
13,747
10,418
Iowa . . .
12,093
11,144
1,126
See official returns in Whig Almanac, 1849.
FREE SOIL VOTE IN THE NORTHWEST. 1 55
business men, there were thousands of farmers and backwoods-
men to whom these matters were of small account beside the
fact that the Democratic candidate was a representative North-
western man and a pioneer. Nevertheless, in Illinois and Wis-
consin the Free Soil revolt came very near giving these States
to Taylor. In Ohio, on the contrary, Cass profited directly
from the third-party movement, for there the Whig revolt was
much greater than the Democratic, so that, though Cass re-
ceived the highest Democratic vote on record, the Whig vote
was less than that of 1844.
In the States taken separately the Free Soilers had varying
fortunes, but in none of them, except perhaps in Wisconsin, did
they begin to approach the success which they had anticipated.
In Ohio the total Free Soil vote of 35,000 was less than it
might have been because of Van Buren's candidacy, especially
on the Western Reserve ; for, as the T^'ue Democrat said, "In
no portion of the Union were prejudices so strong against
Martin Van Buren. . . . There were many Free Soil men who
could not vote for Mr. Van Buren, they had not confidence in
the man. . . . John P. Hale, Judge McLean, or any other man
would have received at least 10,000 more votes on the Reserve
than were cast for Martin Van Buren." ^ The net diminution in
the total vote was 8,474, nearly all of which was due to disap-
pointed Whigs and Liberty men, who in the event of another
nomination would have voted the third ticket. The low vote in
the State at large, as well as on the Reserve, was charged by
Chase to the eft'orts of the Whig orators who had stumped the
State in October. Of Corwin's work he said : " He traversed
the whole State speaking to large assemblies and to small, at
the principal points and in obscure villages, saying, *7 know
Gen. Taylor will not veto the Proviso.' Though we did all
we could to counteract it, yet, being scattered over a large
1 Nov. 14-18, 1848. This claim is probably not excessive, for the votes
of 1844 and 1848 compare as follows: —
Democratic. Whig. Liberty. Total.
1844 . . . 20,460 28,017 3.254 5^731
1848 . . . 12,876 14,511 15,870 43,257
-7,584 -13,506 +12,616 -8,474
156 'FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
territory with hardly any pecuniary resources and a very imper-
fect organization and Httle or no mutual concert or co-operation
among our committees or speakers, all our efforts did not avail
much." ^ The result merely goes to show how difficult it is,
when party feeling is high, to get men to abandon old associates
for new. Chase, Lewis, Giddings, Root, Brinckerhoff, had done
all that men could do ; yet the Free Soilers outside the Reserve
were but slightly more successful than the Liberty party had
been.
\\\ Indiana, the vote of 8,100, although large as compared with
the previous Liberty maximum of 2,278, was too slight to have
much significance in the result. It seems to have been com-
posed of Whigs and Democrats in equal proportions. In
Michigan, Cass's personal popularity raised the Democratic
vote considerably above any previous mark. The Free Soil vote
of 10,389 was almost three times as large as the Liberty maxi-
mum, and singularly like it in details of composition and dis-
tribution ; it was drawn largely from Whigs and was very evenly
scattered over the State. The leaders of the party were mainly
Democrats.
In Illinois, the total of 15,774, almost exactly three times the
Liberty vote of 1846, came from the northwestern counties, and
was drawn almost entirely from Democratic ranks.^ Had
Wentworth thrown his influence on the side of Van Buren, it
seems not unlikely that the Free Soil vote, increased to still
greater extent in this region, might have drawn enough Demo-
cratic votes to give the State to Taylor. Wisconsin made the
best proportional showing in the Northwest, its 10,418 Free Soil
votes marking an increase of 9,284 over the vote of the Liberty
party, and making twenty-six per cent, of the total. The intimate
connection of the vote with local conditions of settlement with-
out regard to State lines is indicated by the fact that it was con-
centrated in the southeastern counties, closely contiguous to the
Free Soil regions of Illinois. Of the new members of the party
1 Chase to Sumner, Nov. 27, 1848: Sumner MSS.
Democratic. Whig. Antislavery.
2 1846 58,576 36.939 5,147
1848 56,300 53>o47 I5'774
ELEMENTS OF THE NEW PARTY. 157
rather more were Democrats than Whigs. Iowa made its first
appearance in a national election with an anti-slavery vote of
1,126, concentrated in the southeastern counties bordering on
Illinois. Many, probably half, of the Iowa Free Soilers were
Liberty men ; the remainder were largely Whig.^
In Congressional and State elections the Free Soilers of the
Northwest exhibited toward the old parties all possible relations,
from complete identity to absolute separation. The phrase
" Free Soil " had no significance in local matters during the
summer, for it was as freely claimed by candidates of the regular
parties as by the followers of Van Buren. Since the Buffalo Con-
vention was not held until August 9, the Free Soil party had no
time to organize in those States which held elections in summer
or in early autumn. Men who had intended to support Van
Buren voted as they saw fit, usually for men of their previous
political faith, in whose behalf, from August to October, the cry
of " Free Soil " was raised in deafening chorus by eager parti-
sans of both parties, in every district where the anti-slavery sym-
pathies of voters might afiect the result. In Ohio, Giddings and
several other Congressmen who were classed as Free Soilers
were put in regular nomination by Whig conventions, and were
elected. Fusion, properly so called, was absent ; but confusion
reigned. In the State legislative elections the same conditions
existed, " Free Soil " Whigs and Democrats being chosen, as well
as unclassified members of the old parties, together with two or
three independents.
The Indiana State election occurred in August, while as yet
the Free Soil movement was inchoate. No Free Soilers as such
were chosen, although there were some coalitions of Liberty
men and Democrats. Illinois and Iowa, having summer elec-
tions also, usually lacked distinct Free Soil candidates ; al-
though in Illinois the Liberty party still existed and in Iowa
some third-party tickets were run. Wisconsin and Michigan
alone in the Northwest, held State and national elections on the
same day and hence had time to disentangle the new party from
the old ones. In both States separate Free Soil candidates were
nominated for each Congressional district, and many separate
1 Letters of I. H. Julian to the author, May, 1896.
158 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN.
legislative and local nominations were made. By November,
Wisconsin Free Soilers were more thoroughly organized than
those of any other Northwestern State ; and in the election they
had the extreme satisfaction of electing to Congress, from the
southeastern district, a stanch Liberty man, Charles Durkee ;
they also chose nearly twenty members of the legislature,
some of them by coalition.
In Michigan the course of events took a different turn. In
October, after Free Soil organization had progressed far toward
completeness, a movement began toward Whig coaHtion. In
Oakland, Wayne, Monroe, and probably in other counties, con-
ventions of these two parties fraternized, and united on common
tickets. " We do not differ upon any question of State or local
policy now before us," said the Wayne County Free Soilers ;
" let us arouse from our slumbers, throw to the winds our dis-
sensions, and present a common front to our common foe." ^
The fact that the name of S. M. Holmes, hitherto a leading
Liberty man, was attached to the foregoing appeal indicates a
radical change in anti-slavery policy. Still farther to signalize
this feeling for union, D. C. Lawrence, the Free Soil nominee
for Congress in the Second District, in a public letter resigned
in favor of W. Sprague, the Whig candidate. This action was
greeted with a salvo of Whig applause, the same newspapers
which the day before had been vituperating the Free Democracy
now beginning to find the new party not wholly bad. " The
Hon. D. C. Lawrence," said the Detroit Advertiser, " shows a de-
votion and attachment to Free Soil principles alike honorable
to himself and the cause of freedom. ... Is it policy under these
circumstances to contend about men while the enemy secure
the victory? We think not. Let those among the Free Soil
[/. e., Wilmot Proviso] candidates who have done most in the
cause during the campaign be united upon and supported." ^
The self-abnegation of the Michigan Free Soilers might be ex-
cellent policy ; but some element other than mere devotion to
principle is suggested by the fact that coalitions were all between
Free Soilers and Whigs. The real reason lay in the strong per-
1 Detroit Advertiser, Oct. 31, 1 848.
2 Ibid., Nov. I, 1848.
FREE SOIL COALITIONS IN MICHIGAN. 1 59
sonal antagonism felt toward Cass by very many of the Free
Soilers, who, in their desire to destroy his hold on the State,
were willing to go to the length of union with Taylor Whigs. ^
Michigan's action was the first unmistakable sign that the
Free Soil party, in spite of the large admixture of Liberty men,
was to adopt a fundamentally different policy from that adhered
to by political abolitionists since 1840 ; but in every North-
western State there was in this election a confusion between
parties, a vagueness in the sense of the term " Free Soil," and a
willingness to coalesce, all pointing the same way. If the new
party was ready for coalition, this election of 1848 opened a
wide field ; for in each Northwestern State the Free Soilers held
the balance of power. This advantage was not unprecedented
in Liberty party annals ; but, owing to the separatist policy
of the abolitionists, hitherto it had not been pushed to its
result ; thenceforth it was destined to become of the utmost
importance.
1 Ann Arbor Trtie Democrat., Sept. 21, Oct. 12, 1848.
CHAPTER XI.
THE OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST.
1849.
When the election of 1848 was over, the exhausted Free Soil
leaders of the country sat down to consider the state of their
cause. It was evident even to the most enthusiastic among
them that the political revolt, dramatic as it had been, had
failed to create at a blow the hoped-for Northern anti-slavery
party. No State had been carried for Van Buren; nor was the
Free Soil ticket higher than third in number of votes, except in
New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Possibly this result
was due to the fact that Van Buren's candidacy had hurt the
cause by repelling anti-slavery Whigs ; for it is certain that
thousands who, after the Philadelphia Convention, had vowed
never to support Taylor, preferred to eat their words rather
than to vote for the hated " little Van." " The recent vote,"
said an lowan, " was no test of opinion in the Northwest. Many
strong Free Soilers would not support the Van Buren ticket
for various reasons, — dislike of the man and of the managers
and of some points in the policy of the party, and because they
believed that to vote for it was virtually to defeat the object in
view."^ The Wcslcru Citizen, of Chicago, said: " By the nomi-
nation of J. P. Hale as candidate, the Free Soilers would have
secured a much firmer hold upon the moral sentiment of the
country. . . . Mr. Hale would have polled a much larger vote
than Van Buren. He probably would not have secured as
many from the old Democratic party, but we mistake if the de-
1 Quoted by H. Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States,
III., 403, note.
FREE S OILERS DETERMINE TO PERSEVERE. l6l
flclency would not have been more than made up by adherents
from the Whig ranks," ^ In any case, regrets were of no use,
and the Free Soil leaders recognized their failure.
Had the new party, then, any reason for continuing? Had
not the Barnburners done all that could be expected by their
effective protest against Cass? Would it not be proper in
State matters to allow other considerations than the Wilmot
Proviso to shape the course of the party? The Buffalo plat-
form had resolved " to fight on, fight ever, till victory shall re-
ward our efforts " ; and now in 1848 the Free Soil press in the
Northwest almost unanimously avowed itself in favor of keep-
ing up the party until its objects should be attained. " The cam-
paign of 1848 is now ended," said the Cleveland True Democrat,
" but not so the mission of our party. Yesterday's sun went
down upon a field of political strife where truth and principle
were worsted. To-day it rises in glory upon our invincible host;
. . . this day begins the campaign of 1852." ^ " Rapid as has been
our progress," cried the Ravenna Star, " from this hour we date
the commencement of a more rapid progress. F/j^/it on ! " ^ The
Sandusky Dat/j/ Mirror asserted : " There is nothing in the
present aspect of affairs to dishearten the friends of Freedom.
. . . The great Northwest will stand shoulder to shoulder with
New York in the contest." ^ The Western Reserve Chronicle, after
a regretful farewell to the Whig party, said, " By the conduct of
the Hunkers our organization is made a distinct one, and it be-
comes our duty to use every laudable exertion to extend Free
Soil influence by electing Free Soil champions to ofiice." ^ " The
present Free Soil movement is not restricted to a single elec-
tion," said the Western Citizen. " Even if we should be suc-
cessful and elect our candidates we should not disband. Much
less will we do so before we have elected any to carry into exe-
cution the will of the Free Soil people. We feel more encour-
aged to work on and fight on. The right will triumph, though
the reformer may be despised and a radical party overborne by
numbers for the time being. Work on and keep working."^
^ Quoted in the Milwaukee Wisconsin, Nov. 17, 1848.
2 Quoted in National Era, Nov. 23, 1848.
8 Quoted ibid., Nov. 30, 1848. ' Quoted ibid.
II
l62 OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST.
If the new party were to be permanent, it was confronted
by the same problem which had vexed the Liberty men for
seven years, — the task of building up a new political organiza-
tion until it should be strong enough to supplant one of the
older ones. This end the Liberty party had tried to attain by
absolute separation ; but such a course the Free Democracy, in
1849, almost without exception, declined to adopt. They pre-
ferred instead to bring their influence to bear directly upon
State and Congressional candidates of other parties, whenever
it was possible to do so, — a decision that plunged the new
party into a career of intrigues, bargaining, and "practical
politics," strikingly unlike the open, independent action of its
predecessor.
The policy of opportunism was more thoroughly carried out
in the Northwest than elsewhere, owing to the peculiar nature
of the Western parties. In New England, although coalition
played a small part, the Free Democracy showed much of that
fixity which since 1841 had characterized the Liberty party.
In the Middle States the Free Soil party simply vanished, more
completely even than had the Liberty party after 1844 ; but in
the Northwest the third party, having some of the toughness
of the New England wing, exhibited a greater daring in coali-
tions and political manoeuvres, which led to prodigious fluctua-
tions. In each State the local organization so followed its own
course that in no two do we find a closely similar, or even
parallel, party history; until in 1852 a Presidential campaign
brought local managers once more into line. To treat the
States together chronologically is, then, impossible, and the
method adopted will be to take each separately for the years
1849-50.
The new party suffered in Ohio as in all the other Western
States except Wisconsin, from the fact that it had not had time
to disentangle itself entirely from the old parties till after the
State election in October. Hardly was the national election
over, when the evil results of this confusion became apparent.
In the Senate of the legislature which met in December,
1848, there were seventeen Democrats, fourteen Whigs, and
three Free Soilers; there were thirty-two Democratic Repre-
PARTIES IN OHIO LEGISLATURE. 1 63
sentatives, thirty Whigs, and eight Free Soilers .; besides some
contested seats.^ A serious difficuhy, which confronted the
legislature at the outset, was a dispute over a law passed by
the Whigs the year before, dividing Hamilton County into
Representative districts. The Whigs expected thus to gain two
members ; but the Democrats held the law unconstitutional
both in its substance and in the manner of its enactment. To
mark their convictions, the Democrats of Hamilton County
had voted without regard to the new law; and to their candi-
dates, Pugh and Pierce, a Democratic election clerk had given
certificates. Party feeling ran high, overriding for the time even
national issues. V/hen the day for convening the Legislature
arrived, in December, the Democrats, breaking into the Capitol
at an early hour, swore in all their claimants, and, when the
astonished Whigs appeared, were in session as the regular
legislature. Without any hesitation the Whigs formed a
House of their own in another part of the room, and a dead-
lock was the result, neither side willing to yield an inch. This
was the great opportunity of the eight so-called Free Soil mem-
bers, who held the balance of power; but they lost their heads
and went with their former parties. Five had been elected by
Whig votes, one by Democratic, and two only, Townshend of
Lorain, and Morse of Lake, as independent third-party men.
In the Senate, meanwhile, the Free Soilers, holding the bal-
ance of power, had controlled organization by an arrangement
with the Whigs ; and their example inspired the House Free
Soilers to recover themselves and take the lead in overtures for
some plan of organization. For this purpose A. G. Riddle was
sworn into both the rival lower Houses, serving as an official
mouthpiece. Townshend, a former Liberty man, was first in
the field, with a proposal to begin by excluding all the contest-
ants till the House should have appointed certain designated
persons as temporary officers ; and then to make it the first
business to decide the contested cases, no man being allowed to
1 For general accounts of the Ohio session of 1848-49, see A. G. Riddle,
in Magazine of Western History^ VI., 341 seq., and in Republic, IV., 179
(1875) ; N. S. Townshend, in Magazine of Western History, VI., 623 ; D.J.
Ryan, History of Ohio^ 144 seq.j Ohio Standard, Dec. 7, 1848-Feb. 28, 1849.
1 64 OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST.
vote on his own case. To this proposition the Democrats
agreed ; but the Whigs were unwilHng by any such arrange-
ment to admit even temporarily the Democratic Representatives
from Hamihon County to whom the clerk had illegally given
certificates, and hence refused to adopt it. Some days passed in
bitter wrangling, until Riddle brought forward a second plan
much like Townshend's ; and after nearly three weeks of un-
seemly division the Houses finally came together on the basis
thus suggested.
So far the Free Soilers had acted successfully and skilfully;
but meanwhile trouble was brewing. In anticipation of the
success of their scheme for organization, they had held a caucus
to determine their action in regard to offices. " There was
present," says a survivor, " a gentleman of large political ex-
perience, although not a member of either House, who coun-
selled perfect unity of action." ^ This may have been E. S.
Hamlin, formerly a Whig Congressman, J. A. Briggs of Cleve-
land, or, less likely, S. P. Chase, all of whom were in Columbus
at the time ; but, whoever it was, his advice was not conclusive.
Two of the Free Soilers, Morse and Townshend, both elected
independently, and the latter a Liberty man since 1841, were
not willing to pledge themselves to follow the caucus, because
they felt strong suspicions of the other Western Reserve mem-
bers, on the ground that they had too recently become mem-
bers of the Whig party to act impartially. The results were
hard words and a split, Morse and Townshend ceasing to con-
sult with the others. Nevertheless, with the hope of conciliat-
ing the two recusants, the Free Soil caucus planned to nominate
Townshend for Speaker and Mathews for clerk; but on the
day of the election Townshend declined, and Johnson, a Free
Soil Whig, was nominated in his place, and the Whig caucus
also designated him.
In fact, two distinct intrigues had begun between the separate
factions of the Free Soilers and the old parties. Riddle, Lee, and
the other ex-Whigs had entered into a " deal " with the Taylor
men in regard to the offices, hoping to get their support later
in the one overshadowing event of the session, the election of a
^ N. S. Townshend, in Magazine of Western History, VI., 626.
TM'O SEPARATE FREE SOIL INTRIGUES. 1 65
United States Senator to succeed William Allen. On the other
hand, Morse and Townshend, with the active assistance of S. P.
Chase, and of E. S. Hamlin, the editor of the Ohio Standard,
had, with the same purpose in view, begun negotiations with the
Democrats.^ Chase's Democratic leanings, continually growing
in strength since 1845, had now reached such a point that he felt
himself in all essentials a member of the national Democratic
party, and held firmly the conviction that in that party lay the
hope for anti-slavery action. In his eyes the Free Soil party
was as " Democratic " as the Old Hunkers themselves. There
was in his mind no room for doubt that the Democratic view
in the Hamilton County case, as in all other matters, was cor-
rect; and to this opinion he soon brought Hamlin, Morse, and
Townshend, although, by the testimony of many persons,
Townshend had declared in 1848 that the Whig statute was
constitutional.^
The first inkling of the truth in regard to the position of
Townshend and Morse came to the other six Free Soilers when,
immediately after temporary organization, the House, accord-
ing to programme, voted upon the Hamilton County contest.
Townshend voted for the admission of the Democrats, and had
Morse done likewise they would have been admitted. To the
surprise of both parties, the result was a tie, 35-35. The Demo-
crats, who had been led by Chase to think that the two inde-
pendent Free Soilers would vote with them, were furiously
angry; but Chase's efforts soothed them.^ The other six Free
Soilers, on their part, and the Whigs also, scented mischief.
"It is a question upon which men may and do honestly dif-
fer," wrote J. A. Briggs to the Cleveland True Democrat, " but
there are strange rumors." *
The next day came a second surprise. Townshend and
Morse, in the election of Speaker, voted for Breslin, the Demo-
cratic nominee, electing him over Johnson, the " regular " Free
^ R. B. Warden, Life of Chase ^ 329. See entries in Chase's diary, Jan.
I and 2, 1849.
"^ True Dei?wcrat, April 4, 1849.
8 R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 330 ; Chase's diary, Jan. 2, 1849.
■* True Democrat, Jan. 6, 1848.
1 66 OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST.
Soil and Whig candidate, by a vote of 36 to 34. Stanley
Mathews, like Tovvnshend a former Liberty man and a personal
friend of Chase, was then by Democratic votes elected clerk
over Swift, the Free Soil and Whig nominee. It was evident
that Townshend and Morse held the power in their own hands,
and were using it without regard to the wishes of the other six
Free Soilers. When this fact became generally known, anti-
slavery men in all parts of the State began to take sides. In
Cincinnati, the home of Chase and Mathews, they congratulated
themselves on the successful course of matters in the legislature,
and applauded Townshend and Morse ; but on the Western
Reserve, where a majority of Free Soilers had been Whigs, and
where Democratic success was utterly hateful, there was an out-
break of dismay and distrust. " We don't see how they can jus-
tify their conduct," said the True Democrat; "we shall not
undertake to do it for them." " There is a good deal of un-
pleasant feeling here," wrote J. A. Briggs from Columbus. "We
are afraid that the ambition of some individual for a seat in the
Senate will lead Free Soilers to pander to Loco-focoism." ^
This shaft pointed directly at Chase, whose activity in arranging
matters could not pass unnoticed. Townshend, on his part,
wrote a defiant letter. It seems that some Free Soiler had ap-
proached him with the proposal that, if he were elected Speaker,
he should resign to let in a Whig. This he construed as an
insult, and so voted for Breslin to " save the Free Soil party
from being dissolved in Whiggery." " The whole charge of
bargain and sale amounts to this," he concluded, " that Messrs.
Chase, Hamlin, Morse, and myself were not willing to be sponged
up and identified with Whiggery." ^ Naturally, such a letter as
this failed to help matters, and by the second week of January the
split between the two and the six was hopeless. In the Senate,
meanwhile, to keep up the excitement, an outbreak occurred
when Randall, the Free Soil Speaker, announced the election of
Governor Ford. At this news the Democrats, who had hoped
to get in Weller, raved and cursed and threatened violence.^
^ True Democrat, Jan. 10, 1849.
2 Ibid., Jan. 19, 1849; Ohio Standard, Jan. 23, 1849.
' Ibid., Jan. 13, 1849.
RUPTURE BETWEEN FREE SOILERS. 167
During these days of intrigue and distrust, the first delegated
State Free Soil convention met at Columbus. D. R. Tilden, an
ex-Whig, presided ; and after a prolonged debate, in which
considerable diversity of opinion was manifested, a platform was
adopted to define the new party s position in State affairs. The
main points emphasized were, a repeal of the Black laws, a pro-
portional property tax, homestead exemption, a ten-hour law,
opposition to the chartering of corporations and to the banking
law, and a demand for a new constitution, — matters hitherto
foreign to anti-slavery platforms. Many ex-Whigs from the
Western Reserve, according to a correspondent of Dr. Bailey,
" dissented from all in the platform of a Democratic character
and tendency, and especially from the last resolution which
contemplated a permanent organization. Only one, however,
declared openly that he could not act with us as a distinct and
permanent party." ^ .The convention adjourned without having
made much impression on public feeling ; for, in view of the
state of things in the legislature, declarations of harmony
counted for little.
Meanwhile the course of politics pursued its tortuous way.
An election committee of five was appointed by the chairman,
with Townshend, the Free Soil Representative, in possession of
the casting vote ; it reported in favor of the Democratic contes-
tants from Hamilton County, and, by the usual majority of two,
Pugh and Pierce were given the contested seats. Townshend
and Morse, however, still held the balance of power. The Whig
party all over the State was by this time fairly maddened by
these continual Democratic successes, and raised a chorus of vitu-
peration against Townshend, Morse, and especially Chase, who
by common consent was accused of having come to Columbus
during the session with the sole purpose of lobbying for his own
election as Senator. The Democratic press said little ; and
Chase's only defence was found in the Cincinnati Globe, for-
merly edited by Stanley Mathews, who, it will be remembered,
had been elected clerk by the " deal " ; in the Washington
National Era, whose editor, Dr. Bailey, was one of Chase's
warmest admirers, and who gained his knowledge of the pro-
1 True Democrat, Jan. 4, 1849; National Era, Jan. 18, 1849.
1 68 OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST.
ceedings at Columbus mostly from Chase himself; and in one
or two other papers. These journals claimed that Tovvnshend
and Morse were the only independent men in the legisla-
ture ; that the Whig Free Soilers pressed their views in caucus
" with an earnestness bordering on dictation " ; that they were
" mere nominal Free Soil men whose object appeared to be to
make the Free Soil organization subservient to the success of
mere Whig measures and ideas " ; and that, if Townshend and
Morse were not sustained, " they must not be surprised to see
the Free Soil organization resolve itself into its original ele-
ments." As to Chase, they said that the insinuation of a bar-
gain for the Senatorship was " purely gratuitous and utterly
false," that "the political position of Mr. Chase could have been
suggested by no other considerations than the most disinterested
convictions of duty." -"• " It is true," said the Ohio Standard,
edited by E. S. Hamlin, " that Mr. Chase, by the solicitations
of many Free Soilers, is a candidate for the United States
Senate. He has a right to be a candidate for that or any other
office, and the fact that he is such is no evidence that he is for
selling out the party." ^ Having arranged the organization of
the House and the settlement of the Hamilton County case.
Chase's " duty" no longer kept him at Columbus. He returned
to Cincinnati, but continued in daily communication with his
friends.
Morse now brought forward a bill to repeal the Black Laws,
which on January 30 passed the legislature as follows: Senate,
24-11; House, 56-10. Thus the "blot on the statute book,"
the object of anti-slavery attack for fourteen years, was finally
removed by a bargain with the Democrats. In view of the large
majorities, it was claimed by the Whig Free Soilers that no bar-
gain was needed, and that Townshend and Morse could derive no
credit from the repeal ; but this claim seems not very plausible.'^
The prevailing sentiment among Democrats was so strongly
against repeal, that without a bargain it seems doubtful whether
enough of them would have voted with the anti-slavery Whigs
and Free Soilers to carry the measure. As it was, they voted
1 CincUmati Globe, Jan. 24, 1849. * pgb. 2, 1S49.
2 A. G. Riddle, in Republic, IV., 183 (1875).
REPEAL OF THE BLACK LAWS. 1 69
only under severe party pressure. One of them, together with
a Whig, tried by hiding to dodge the vote, and had to be
dragged in by the sergeant-at-arms amidst the ironical applause
of the Assembly Chamber.^
The legislature was next obliged to face the questions of a
choice of a Senator and two State judges. The Whig Free
Soilers had been from an early date hoping to elect their idol
Giddings to the Senate, while the Cincinnati Globe and the Na-
tiona! Era had been urging Chase. As early as October 26,
1848, Dr. Bailey in the National Era suggested Chase as " a man
uniting in an eminent degree fitness for Senatorial office, trust-
worthiness and availability." The Cincinnati Globe preferred
him to Giddings, saying: "Mr. Giddings' peculiar sphere of
usefulness and distinction is on the floor of the American Com-
mons. The omission to select him for the present vacancy
should be regarded as the best tribute to his character and
position. . . . We respectfully present the name of S. P. Chase
as a worthy and capable candidate." ^ The True Democrat, on
the other hand, said: "The Free Soil men will present J. R.
Giddings as their candidate. . . . S. P. Chase has been named.
. . . Mr. Chase is a young man and high honors yet await him.
Work and wait is a good motto." ^
By January, 1 849, it was perfectly well understood that the
choice lay between these two, and feeling ran constantly higher.
Chase, anxiously watching affairs from Cincinnati, wrote numer-
ous letters to Dr. Bailey, who in Chase's interest urged upon
Giddings to use his influence to calm the excitement of his
followers. Bailey wrote to Chase : " He is modestly ambitious,
would like to be U. S. Senator ... if the Free Soil men will
unite on him. If they cannot or will not ... he says that you
and you alone, by all means, are the man. I told him he ought
to write to one of his Free Soil friends in the legislature." ■*
Giddings at once wrote to Randall, Townshend, and others,
urging them to combine on Chase if he himself were out of the
question. A little later, finding the breach still unhealed. Chase
^ Cincinnati Globe, Feb. 7, 1S49. ^ Ibid.
3 Jan. 24, 1849.
* Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Jan. 20, 1849. Chase MSS.
I/O OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST.
wrote directly to Giddings, practically asking him to withdraw.
No sooner was the letter gone than he repented, and wrote to
his friend Hamlin at Columbus : " I said to him that he beingf
in Congress, and I out, the interests of the cause required my
election or that of some other reliable man rather than his. I
may be wrong in this, misled perhaps by the ' ambition ' so freely
ascribed to me. If so, let Giddings be chosen, I shall not com-
plain. I cannot help thinking, however, that the election of one
who has been longer convinced of the necessity and is more
thoroughly identified with the policy, of a distinct and perma-
nent free Democratic organization, will do the cause and the
friends of the cause more good." ^ Naturally, Chase's " ambi-
tion " did not prevent his friends from continuing to work hard
in his interest, so long as such excellent reasons were furnished.
Moreover, Giddings's modesty led him to agree with Chase as
to the advisability of remaining in the House. He wrote in his
journal, January 24: "By the mail of this evening I received
letters from Columbus which speak cheerfully of my prospects
for the Senate. One from Dr. Townshend gives me some little
hope of election, for which however I do not feel anxious, as I
think I can do more good in the House, where I have established
an influence, than I can in the Senate, where I should meet with
intellects of a higher order, — men of nerve, experience, and of
far greater intelligence. But the moral effect of my election
would be great, and on that account I feel a desire to succeed
to that office." 2
No combination could be formed for Giddings. During the
month of January the ex-Whig Free Soil men made persistent
but vain efforts to get all the Taylor men to support him. Though
a majority of the Whig caucus were willing, the members from
Cuyahoga County could not be induced to condone his " apos-
tasy," ^ and the attempt finally had to be given up. " For some
time past," said the Standard^ " the Whigs have been urged to
consent to vote for Giddings . . . but they have steadily refused.
Why? They were afraid that by so doing they would render
^ Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Jan. 28, 1849.
2 G. W. Julian, Life of J. R. Giddings, 267.
8 Ibid.
DEMOCRATS ELECT CHASE SENATOR. I /I
themselves offensive to the incoming administration. On all
questions of National policy they knew him to be a Whig. But
if elected he would not sustain the administration in its pro-
slavery course. This they knew, and because of this he was
defeated." ^
The way, then, seemed clear for the ex-Whig Free Soil
members to follow Giddings's advice by uniting on Chase ; but
even with Giddings out of the race they would try some other
man rather than unite with Townshend and Morse. The Whig
caucus offered to support Judge McLean, but he telegraphed
his refusal.^ At the last minute an effort was made to unite on
J. C. Vaughn, but it failed, and the Whigs and Free Soilers went
into the senatorial convention with their original candidates,
Ewing and Giddings.
Townshend, Morse, and Hamlin as Chase's agent, had taken
an impartial course: they had offered to support Giddings for
Senator and to vote for Whig nominees forjudges, or to support
Chase and vote for Democratic caucus candidates for the judge-
ships. Townshend's belief that the Whigs, anxious to save what
they could from the wreck of the session, would all accept the
offer, proved ill founded. Eventually the Democrats proved more
complaisant, as they had every reason to be, and an arrange-
ment on the basis of Townshend's offer was perfected. When
the fateful day came, the result of the balloting showed Chase
to be elected by the fifty-three Democrats with Townshend and
Morse, the other Free Soilers voting to the last for Giddings,
and the Whigs, except three, adhering grimly to Ewing.^ One
1 Ohio Standard, Feb. 23, 1849.
2 Notes of an interview with E. S. Hamlin, taken by Albert Bushnell
Hart; see also National Era, Feb. 22, 1S49.
8 The four ballots ran as follows : —
I. II. III. IV.
Chase 14 52 55 55
Ewing 41 41 39 39
Giddings 9 ^ 9 11
Vaughn — — 2 I
Allen 27 I — —
Scattering 4 — — —
Blank 11 4 2 —
The third ballot was void, since there was one vote too many.
172 OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST.
of the Whig Free Soilers, A. G. Riddle, who throughout the
session had shown greater independence than his colleagues,
stood ready to vote for Chase if his support should be necessary
to secure his election ; but the others would sooner have seen
even a pro-slavery man go in. The "deal" was then consum-
mated by the election, as judges, of R. P. Spaulding and W. B.
Caldwell, Democrats, over Edward Wade and B. S. Cowen, the
Free Soil caucus nominees; and the legislature soon adjourned,
after one of the most important sessions in the history of the
State.
The repeal of the Black Laws and the election of an anti-slavery
Senator met with approbation on every side, even from Free
Soil Whigs, who loathed from the bottom of their souls the
means by which these results had been accomplished. " No
event has given us more satisfaction than the election of Mr.
Chase," said the Western Citisen, although it admitted that
Chase's " conservatism " had caused " many of his friends
to suspect his unwavering constancy to the anti-slavery move-
ment." ^ The True Democrat, swallowing its wrath, said : " The
election of Mr. Chase will be gratifying to the Free Soil men of
the country. . . The slave propagandists will find him a match
for the strongest." ^ " Hurrah for Ohio ! " cried the Western Re-
serve Chronicle. " Our first choice has been Mr. Giddings. We
preferred his election not because we thought him the best man,
. . . but out of personal preference. . . . Our next choice was
Mr. Chase. We certainly have no regrets." ^ The Ashtabula
Sentinel CdiWed the election of Chase " a triumph of principle,"
and the National Era and the Cincinnati Globe, which had all
along supported him, were of course delighted.
On Townshend and Morse, however, and in a less degree on
Mathews and Hamlin, fell condemnation more violent than had
been heard since the days of Birney and the Garland forgery.
They were accused of bargaining away their principles for office,
and of changing front on the Hamilton County question for the
sake of obtaining Democratic votes. An extract from the
Cleveland Herald illustrates the amenities of the Whig papers.*
1 Feb. 27, 1849. 2 peb 34, 1849. ' Feb. 28, 1849.
* " Of all wretches known in the records of infamy none can ccmpare
WRATH OF WESTERN RESERVE. 1 73
What cut the Western Reserve Free Soilers to the heart was the
vote of Townshend and Morse for Spaulding and against Ed-
ward Wade, on the ground, as E. S. Hamhn said, that " after
obtaining the Senator the Free Soilers could not well obtain the
Supreme judges." " Out upon such ethics, away with such
hypocrisy ! " cried the True Democrat ; " it smells of corrup-
tion." ^ Even the mild Western Reserve Chronicle, while approv-
ing the election of Chase, added: "We do not hesitate to
condemn in strong terms the election of Mr. Spaulding." '-^ It
would be easy to fill pages with the laments and bitter male-
dictions of the ex-Whig Free Soilers ; but perhaps the recent
statement of one of the leading participants in the election shows
how deep an impression this incident made upon the minds of
Ohio Whigs : " Whatever may be said of the morality or the
expediency of the course pursued, no doubt can exist of its
efTect upon Mr. Chase and his career. It lost to him at once
and forever the confidence of every Whig of middle age in Ohio.
Its shadow, never wholly dispelled, always fell upon him and
hovered near and darkened his pathway at the critical places in
his political after life." ^
Just what verdict to pronounce on this memorable contest is
a question hard to decide. Judged by the results, it was a great
success and an equally great failure, for, though it elected an anti-
slavery Senator to stand beside John P. Hale, it nearly ruined
the Ohio Free Soil Party. A bargain of some sort, however,
was inevitable ; and to condemn Townshend and Morse, as the
other Free Soilers did, because they co-operated with the Demo-
crats, was really absurd, though it seems that the same end
might have been attained with less friction, and consequently
with this black-hearted miscreant from Lorain County. Of Morse I say
little. He is so far below the heathen in everything that goes to make a
man that time spent over him would be poorly appropriated. He is more
fool than knave, and a good deal of both. It would require an act of om-
nipotence to bring Townshend up to the level of a Judas Iscariot,or a Bene-
dict Arnold ... or Morse to the level of a fool. The Free Soil party is as
badly treated by the traitors as Jesus Christ by Judas Iscariot or the Ameri-
can army by Benedict Arnold." Quoted in Tr7ie Democrat, Feb. i, 1849.
1 Ibid., March i, 1849. ^ Feb. 28, 1849-
fi A. G. Riddle, in Republic, IV., 183 (1S75).
174 OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST.
with less heart-burning. The real burden of the complaint
was not that a bargain was in itself blameworthy. Most of
the Whigs would have supported Giddings in return for the
judgeships. The real crime was coalition with the " Loco-focos."
Chase, Hamlin, Townshend, and Morse, when the immediate
results of their operations are considered, accomplished all that
could have been done in the repeal of the Black Laws and the
election of an anti-slavery Senator. For Free Soilers to vote
against Edward Wade was not agreeable ; but, from the nature
of things, such a bargain must have a seamy side, and a Whig
arrangement would undoubtedly have presented some similar
requirement. We may, then, at the outset dismiss all talk of
" bargain and corruption," as entirely beside the mark. The
mistake made by Townshend and Morse lay in their defiant
attitude, taken up at the very beginning of the struggle. The
ex-Whig Free Soilers were no more prejudiced in favor of their
old companions than Chase was in favor of the Democrats. In
bolting from the Free Soil caucus, Townshend and Morse made
a tactical mistake; for it threw on them, as the minority of a
party, the burden of proving that they were right, and it need-
lessly enraged both their fellow Free Soilers and the regular
Whigs.i
Precisely what part Chase played in the matter is not easy to
make out. He seems not to have thrust himself into affairs,
but when once involved he took a leading part in arranging the
early stages of the bargain. That his planning, as the Whigs
asserted, went so far as to include his own nomination for
Senator, is almost certainly untrue. There is no trace of this
aim in his private letters to Hamlin, his confidential friend at
Columbus; and the men connected with him at the time,
especially Mathews, Hamlin, and Townshend, have all repeat-
edly said that he did nothing in his own favor. Nevertheless,
his nomination was only the logical working out of the bargain;
for Chase and Hamlin well knew that if the Democrats were to
unite with the Free Soilers in voting for a Senator, Chase and no-
body else would be the man. The Cincmnati Globe, in answer
1 See a speech of Townshend in the Ohio Legislature, reprinted in the
National Era, March 22, 1849.
PART PLAYED BY CHASE. 175
to Chase's critics, said : " His intercourse with members of the
General Assembly and others was characterized by a frankness
which no one should misconstrue and a delicacy which a fair
opponent cannot fail to appreciate." ^ Chase was frank in one
sense, in that he told no lies; but between his guardedly correct
statements and the open frankness of a man like Giddings lay a
world of difference. At this juncture Chase minded his own
business strictly, made no public appearances, gave the soundest
advice to Townshend and Morse, wrote the most unimpeachable
letters to the National Era about " conscientious action," " re-
gard for the cause of liberty," etc., and, while so doing, with the
utmost skill he paved the way for his own advancement. His
whole connection with the affair, his dealings with Townshend
and Morse, his intense anxiety to settle the Hamilton County
case in favor of the Democrats, and especially his action toward
Giddings, leave an unpleasant impression. One cannot point to
a single questionable act on his part ; but the feeling remains
that, in this emergency, a man like Lewis or Giddings would
have paid less attention to the settlement of the Hamilton
County snarl and the rights of the Democrats, and more to the
unification of the Free Soil party.
1 Jan. 24, 1849.
CHAPTER XII.
COLLAPSE OF THE FREE SOIL PARTY IN THE THREE
OHIO RIVER STATES.
1849-1850,
So great was the bitterness stirred up among Free Soilers by
the circumstances of Chase's election, that the prospect for har-
monious action in the campaign of 1849 seemed gloomy. The
whole Western Reserve was fuming over the Democratic suc-
cesses, Whigs were cursing, and Democratic legislators were
trying to explain to irate constituents how and why they came to
vote against the Black Laws and for Chase. In the midst of the
turmoil, Giddings exerted himself to bring about peace. He
would undoubtedly have been very glad to get the senatorship,
and he had fairly earned promotion by ten arduous years of
single-handed fighting; but he showed no signs of irritation.
"From the bitter attacks made on Messrs. Morse and Towns-
hend for their support of Mr. Chase, you may suppose," he
generously wrote to Sumner, " that I am dissatisfied with them.
Such is not the case. They both acted by my advice in that
election. ... I felt neither mortification nor disappointment at
his success over me. On the contrary, I regarded his election
as a great victory." ^ " Mr. Chase," he wrote in a later letter,
"is an able man, and will prove an able Senator"; but, putting
his finger on the weak spot, he added, " he lacks a knowledge
of popular sentiment and is not qualified to lead a party." ^
With this feeling, Giddings, through his organ, the Ashtabula
Sentinel, worked for harmony, and urged that the matter might
drop, that recriminations might cease, and bygones be by-
^ G. W. Julian, Life of J. R. Giddings, 267.
2 Giddings to Sumner, Oct. 19, 1849: Sumner MSS.
HARMONY RESTORED IN OHIO. 1 77
gones.^ Such magnanimity was beyond the attainment of most
Ohio Free Soil men; and consequently the quarrel went on
until a vigorous effort to allay enmities was made at a conven-
tion for the Western Reserve, which met on May 2, 1848, at
Cleveland. To symbolize reconciliation, Edward Wade, Morse
Townshend, and others were assigned dignities and were placed
together on committees. A series of resolutions, reported by
Giddings with the design of setting affairs to rights, urged an
" early, efficient, and thorough party organization ; " and said
that " the existing controversy relative to the law dividing
Plamilton County and all other questions of a mere partisan
or temporary nature are of minor importance and ought not
to be the subjects of strife or tests of fidelity with men pledged
to the great principle of liuman Freedom." ^ Conciliatory
speeches were made by Giddings, Riddle, Vaughn, and Towns-
hend ; and for the time being it seemed as if, in the words of
the True Democrat, " the spirit of discord was alla}-ed, and
mutual confidence was restored." ^
This meeting, at the suggestion of Indiana Free Soilers, ap-
pointed a committee to call a convention at Cleveland to cele-
brate the Ordinance of 1787, in other words, the Wilmot
Proviso. This step was presently taken, and on July 12, 1849,
the convention met, with a large attendance. The time of the
opening exercises was announced to the assembled crowd by
the firing of cannon. Could Thomas Morris have returned to
earth, he would undoubtedly have felt that time brings its re-
venges; for in the president's chair sat the very man who ten
years before had supplanted him in the senatorship, the Hon-
orable ex-Senator, Benjamin Tappan, With him were five
vice-presidents, one from each of the States preserved for free-
dom by the Ordinance of 1787. Addresses were made by Ells-
worth of Indiana, Austin Willey of Maine, Giddings, Taylor of
the Cincinnati Globe, and, most eloquent of all, John Van Buren.
In addition, Bibb, the fugitive slave, who for several years had
been prominent in Michigan anti-slavery work, made a speech,
as did also Judge Spaulding, whose election by Townshend and
^ Cincinnati Globe, March 28, 1849.
2 National Era, May 17, 1849. ^ Quoted ibid.
12
178 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
Morse had caused ex-Whig Free Soilers to wince. Letters were
received from a dozen eminent men, including Martin Van
Buren, Henry Clay, J. A. Dix, J. G. Palfrey, Horace Mann,
C. F. Adams, Charles Sumner, Lewis Tappan, and C. M. Clay;
and a series of strong resolutions was adopted reiterating the
Buffalo platform.^
These two peace-making conventions seemed, for the mo-
ment, to have done something to reunite anti-slavery men, and
to put the Ohio third party on its feet; but, as the summer
advanced and organization began, appeared a tendency — new,
and, for Ohio, abnormal — toward Free Soil and Democratic
coalition. Why should the Free Soilers coalesce at all? And,
above all, why should they seek allies among Cass Democrats,
among those whose leaders at Washington were slave-holders
and advocates of slavery extension? This paradox demands
explanation.
In the first place, the fundamental reason why the Free
Soilers coalesced and the Liberty men did not, was that the
new party was led to a considerable extent by politicians, with
whom immediate gains were of much more relative consequence
than had been the case with the philanthropists of the Liberty
party. The New York Barnburners, the Western Reserve
Whigs, the Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin Free Democrats
wanted, if possible, to make their influence felt in every elec-
tion ; and if any party or body of men were willing to unite
with them on a common platform, or on common candidates,
so much the better. Another reason why Free Soilers in Ohio
and in some other places coalesced with Democrats is found in
the overshadowing influence of the New York Barnburners,
who formed undeniably the strongest single numerical element
of the new party, and were to a great extent its founders. Now,
it was the boast of the Barnburners that they were " regular "
Democrats, and that in voting for Van Buren they were more
" regular," and more " Democratic," than the followers of Cass.
The party name adopted at Buffalo, although seldom used in
1848, was the "Free Democracy"; and from this fact an im-
pression prevailed, similar to the belief held by Chase since
1 National Era^ July 26-Aug. 2, 1849.
FREE SOILERS AND DEMOCRATS COALESCE. 1 79
1845, that the Free Soil party was essentially an offshoot of
the Democratic. If, then, there were to be any union, what
more natural than that it should come about between the two
kinds of Democrats?^
In Ohio, by far the larger part of the third-party vote of 1848
was Whig in origin ; yet we find this idea of the Democratic
character of the Free Soilers very prevalent. Its currency was
undoubtedly increased by the sudden development of an anti-
slavery spirit in the ranks of the Old Line Democracy. Early
in 1848 the party convention had adopted a Free Territory
clause in its platform, and its mouthpieces after the election
used language that would have seemed extreme in a Birney
organ of 1844. "Rather than see slavery extended one inch
beyond its present limits," cried the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
"we would see this Union rent asunder! "^ Similar expres-
sions, hardly less violent, may be found in the MaJioning Index,
Norwalk Experiinejtt, and in other Democratic papers in the
northern counties. It is not, then, surprising that, with the
Democratic press of the North incessantly calling for a " re-
union," and the Barnburners of New York and the Free Soilers
of Vermont negotiating terms of coalition, local conventions in
Ohio began to yield to the current. In April a " union Demo-
cratic " ticket was nominated in the Sandusky city election, and
the same thing occurred in Cleveland and Toledo, to the great
disgust of many ex-Whig Free Soilers. Later, Portage, Summit,
Carroll, and Tuscarawas, Lucas, and Henry, Erie, Morgan, and
Washington, Montgomery, Warren, and Medina counties, all
saw Free Soil and Democratic conventions unite on a common
ticket. In a few places, such as Summit and Ashtabula coun-
ties, where the Whigs made an effort to gain Free Soil aid by
adopting its full platform, their offers were laughed to scorn.
Democratic fusion swept nearly every county, even on the
Reserve.
In many places the Hamilton County question, for a time
suppressed, boiled up again. In Lorain County, where the
Free Democratic convention renominated Townshend, a minor-
ity seceded and coalesced with the Whigs. In Summit County
^ See Cinchmati Globe, Jan. 3, 1849. 2 Nov. 17, 1S4S.
l80 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
the Whigs made an effort to gain Free Soil votes by nominating
McChire, an anti-Taylor man. The Free Soilers, however, nom-
inated Spelman, who took the Democratic view of the Hamilton
County affair; whereupon the Democrats indorsed him, " and
thus," said the True Democrat, " the principles of Free Soil are
merged in a little dirty squabble about an apportionment law." ^
In Cuyahoga County, Johnson, the Free Soil candidate for
Speaker in the preceding legislature, found Edward Wade's
views on the Hamilton County case unsatisfactory, and, in a
public letter, went back to the Whig party. All the bitterness
which the Western Reserve and Northwest Ordinance con-
ventions had begun to allay, blazed up again with redoubled
vigor.
All this time Chase was working hard to secure complete
Democratic and Free Soil fusion. From the outset he felt that
his reputation was at stake on the Hamilton County case, and
he spared no efforts to secure vindication in the next election.
Giddings tried to induce him to let the matter drop; but he
replied at great length that it was impossible, that the question
was one of principle and must be decided at the polls, and that
the Free Soilers could not ignore it.^ Accordingly he wrote
scores of letters in all directions, urging fusion. " To me it
seems clear that the true interest and duty of the Democracy
in the free States," he wrote on August 6, " points to union
with the Free Democrats instead of alliance with the slave-
holders. ... I am rejoiced to hear that in Portage and Summit
the two wings of the Democracy will be united on principle. I
wish it could be done throughout our State." ^ The Natiojial
Era and the Cincinnati Globe also applauded " reunion." Said
the former: "The union so far as it has taken place has been
honorable to both parties, the work of reformation has begun
in the right place."* The Globe went farther: "Aside from
the slavery question," [as if that were a minor matter,] " there
1 Sept. 27, 1849.
2 Chase to Giddings, April 4, 1849: Chase MSS.
3 Chase to L. W. Hall and to A. Dimmock, Aug. 6, 1849 : R. B. Warden,
Life of Chase, 332.
* National Era, Sept. 20, 1849.
FREE SOIL LOSSES TN OHIO ELECTIONS. l8l
are numerous things common to the old Democracy and the
Free Democrats," such as strict construction, " superior rev-
erence for human nature and human rights, hostihty to special
privileges, progress, ct cetera. ... It has now become the
interest of the Democratic party ... to seek the alliance of
Free Soil men ... to promote the cause of Freedom and
Right." 1 To many ex-Whigs, of course, the whole series of
fusions in New York, Vermont, and Ohio seemed woful mis-
takes. The True Democrat cried : " We can have no coalitions !
It would be treachery to the cause of the people to enter into
them " ; it called them " adulterous connections," " nefarious
schemes," ^ and considered them all to be part of a plot to ruin
the Free Soil party.
When the election day came, the Democrats profited to some
extent by these coalitions, electing six more members of the
House than before, and one more Senator. How the Free Soil
party fared it is difficult to make out. As before, they had eleven
members of the legislature, four of whom had been Whigs, one
a Democrat, and six Liberty men. Since most of these were
elected by Democratic fusion, the Free Soil vote cannot well
be estimated. It seems, for the most part, to have held its
own proportionately wherever there were separate tickets.^
Giddings thought that the vote had fallen off, and laid the
blame to Chase. " His policy last winter," he wrote to Sum-
ner, " came near ruining us in this State. Had we on the
Reserve adopted his plan of making the division of Hamilton
County a test we should have been blown sky high. It was a
most singular coincidence that the Old Hunker Whigs and
Democrats and Mr, Chase were at the same time all laboring
to make that the question. On the Reserve we took a bold
determined position to have no reference to it but leave our
Representatives to act as they pleased in regard to it. It was
that subject alone that dimiiiished our vote!' * The stormy year
> Cincinnati Globe, May i6, 1849.
2 April 12, Sept. 20, 1849.
* The Free Soil vote in eleven counties in 1848 was 14,457; in 1849,
I2,8[I.
* Oct. 29, 1849: Sumner MSS.
1 82 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
1849 thus came to a close, and for the time being no man could
say just where the Free Soil party of Ohio stood. The only
thing certain was, that it would take a prolonged, strenuous
effort to place it again where it had been in August, 1848,
united, self-reliant, enthusiastic, and ready to " fight on, fight
ever."
The next year carried the Ohio Free Soil party still farther
on the downward path. In the legislature nothing of import-
ance took place except squabbles over organization. In the
House mutual distrust, arising from the Hamilton County case,
caused the Free Soilers again to divide. After some futile bal-
loting, in which A. G. Riddle, supported by Whigs, came within
one vote of being elected Speaker, Leiter, a Democrat, secured
the office by an obscure intrigue, much as Breslin had done
the year before. Beyond some squabbling over this inci-
dent, nothing of further interest took place in the House.
In the Senate the irrepressible Hamilton County case made
trouble; for a Whig claimant appeared, whom the Whig clerk
of the preceding Senate insisted upon swearing in. This made
one Senator too many, a fact w^hich blocked all organization.
For some weeks the Senate wrangled, taking three hundred and
one ballots, all illegal, since each party teller insisted on receiv-
ing the votes of all the Senators of his own party. At length,
through a union of Free Soilers and Whigs, organization was
effected and the extra Senator disposed of.
In the spring, elections were held for a Constitutional Con-
vention, and again fusion was the order of the day. Only in the
two election districts of Trumbull and Geauga, and Ashtabula
and Lake counties, where the two old parties united, did the Free
Soilers stand alone ; of eight men classed as Free Soilers who sat
in the convention, three were elected independently, one by Whig
votes, and four, including Dr. Townshend, by Democratic coali-
tion. The main interest of the country in this year centred
upon the Congressional struggle over Clay's compromise. With
Southern threats of disunion filling the air, and with President
Taylor, on the other hand, ready to use force to prevent the
execution of those threats, local elections became more or less
perfunctory, particularly as they could not in any way influence
RADICAL FREE SOIL CONVENTIONS. 1 83
the state of aftairs at Washington. The Free Soil State Con-
vention met at Columbus on May 2, 1850, and adopted some
resolutions which indicated that the unlimited coalition which
for over a year had bewildered anti-slavery men had begun to
lose its charm. " While we deprecate affiliation with any other
political organization," said the convention, " we will hail with
pleasure accessions." ^ The meeting was thinly attended, and
many of the southern counties were unrepresented. A strong
desire was shown to nominate Sam Lewis for Governor. On
his refusal, D. R. Tilden, of Summit County, formerly a Whig
Congressman, was designated ; but he, in turn, felt obliged to de-
cline, although adhering strongly to the Buffalo platform, and
** highly gratified by the honor " of the nomination.
To fill this vacancy, a " mass convention " met at Cleveland
on August 22. The few persons present are said to have re-
presented the extreme radical element of the Western Reserve,
and they signalized themselves by passing the most remarkable
resolution ever entertained by a Northwestern Free Soil con-
vention. After nominating for governor Rev. E. Smith, an old-
time Liberty man, and adopting the customary platform, the
convention resolved : " That notwithstanding slavery is neces-
sarily the creature of local State law, yet in the language of
Madison, * if it becomes a source of expense or endangers the
stability of the nation, it ceases to be local and becomes a fit
subject for the legislation of the General Government.' That
time has now come. . , . We therefore hold that it is not only
the duty of the General Government to forbid its extension, but
that humanity, justice, mercy, and self-preservation demand,
and the constitution permits, its immediate extermination in all
the States and Territories."^ No body of men claiming to be
Democrats ever unanimously adopted a more remarkable reso-
lution, in which a dictum of one of the " fathers " served as
the sole basis for a proposed line of conduct which had hitherto
been held to be absolutely unconstitutional by everybody in the
United States, except the extremest abolitionists. Through the
^ N^ational Era, May 30, 1850.
2 Western Reserve Chronicle, Aug. 28, 1850 ; Author's correspondence
with G. Hoadly, May 10, 1S94.
1 84 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
vigorous opposition of George Hoadly and others the resolu-
tion was reconsidered and finally laid on the table ; yet its
previous adoption was well known outside, only the small size of
the convention and the general lack of interest in the Ohio
campaign prevented the fact from being used with annoying
effect against the party.
In the Congressional elections the third party made little
exertion. Fusion still continued, although the "union" con-
ventions showed a sinister desire to nominate nothing but Old
Line Democrats.^ In the Nineteenth Congressional District,
on the Reserve, the Free Soilers nominated Newton, and the
Whigs ratified the ticket. In the Twenty-first District a con-
vention of the United Democracy nominated Norton Towns-
hend for Congress, and " Old Line Hunkers " for local offices.
Therefore a bolt took place, and a separate Free Soil nomina-
tion of J. M. Root was made, more with the hope of defeating
Townshend than for any other reason.^ Here and there became
visible a similar tendency to withdraw from Democratic coali-
tion, the Fairfield County Convention resolving that " we can-
not as consistent Free Soil men longer act with said party." ^
Although there were separate Free Soil Congressional tickets
in seven districts, the campaign was dull. Except on the
Reserve, scarcely any efi"ort was made to bring out the vote;
and a feeling spread among anti-slavery men that the party's
usefulness had ended and that they might as well return to the
old organizations.
Both the old parties in this year made a distinct effort to
draw back into the fold wavering bolters of 1848. The Whigs,
on their part, were unreservedly anti-slavery, from Governor
Ford's message of January, which adopted the entire Free Soil
platform, to their State Convention of May 6, which nominated
Johnson, a former "Whig Abolitionist," and made the Wilmot
Proviso one of its planks. " The indications are," said the
National Era, " that the Whigs of Ohio have determined to
carry that State at the next election by adopting the faith of
the Free Soilers." * The Democrats, on their part, on January 8,
1 True Democrat, Sept. 4, 1850. 2 /^/,/.^ Sept. 28, 1850.
8 Ibid., Sept. 6, 1850. ■■' Feb. 21, 1850.
OLD PARTIES STAND FOR FREE SOIL. 1 85
1850, re-adopted verbatim their anti-slavery resolution of 1848,
and nominated for Governor Judge Wood of the Supreme
Bench, a Western Reserve anti-slavery Democrat. " A better
nomination," said the National Era, " aside from political con-
siderations, could hardly have been made."^ In spite of the
reluctance shown by many Democrats in adopting the Free
Soil resolution, their attitude and the nomination proved so
attractive to many still under the sway of Chase's logic that,
from early in the year. Free Soilers of 1848 began to show
signs of an intention to vote for Judge Wood. Chase, delighted
at the prospect, found time at Washington to write frequent
letters to Ohio urging with incessant reiteration the necessity
of Free Soil and Democratic union. " I still strongly hold the
faith," he said, "that it is to a regenerated Democracy that the
country must look for final deliverance from the thralldom of
the Slave Power"; and again, " I am anxious, as you know, for
union with and in the Democracy. I believe that Democratic
principles supply the only safe ground on which the battle with
the slave power can be fought." ^ There were, of course, vigor-
ous protests on the other side. " Is the Whig or Democratic
party," asked the True Democrat, " now any more sound on the
human rights question than in 1848? "^ " Let every one feel,"
wrote Sam Lewis, "that a vote for Wood or Johnson is a vote
for sustaining and extending slavery, not that they as indi-
viduals would do it, but their parties cannot exist on any other
principle."*
The tide, however, was setting against the third party:
individuals and groups rejoined the old parties; newspapers
like the Toledo Republican turned to Wood; and when the elec-
tion day came the vote stood as follows: Democratic — Wood,
133,092; Whig — Johnson, 121,095 ; Free Soil — Smith, 13,802.^
In the Congressional election Giddings was the only successful
third-party man, Townshend being elected by Democrats in
1 Jan. 17, 1850.
2 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Jan. 12, Feb. 2, 1850: Chase MSS. Also in
letters of March 16 and May 21.
3 Aug. 29, 1850. ■* True Democrat, Sept. 18, 1850.
6 Vote in Whig Almanac^ 1851.
1 86 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
spite of a Free Soil bolt, and Newton by Whig coalition. The
Whigs, in most places outside the Reserve, even where there
were three tickets, received Free Soil votes and made some
gains in the Congressional delegation. They also gained some
seats in the legislature and, as compared with the Presidential
vote of 1S48, increased the vote for Governor. In this result
we trace to a slight extent the effect of a popular reaction
against the Democracy on account of the behavior of its South-
ern leaders in Congress.
More striking, however, than anything else was the drop in
the Free Soil vote. Since 1848 it had lost 21,526, or nearly
two-thirds, of which about 15,000 vanished from the counties
outside the Reserve. In other words, the Western Reserve,
which in 1848 cast less than half of the total third-party
vote in the State, now, in spite of a decline, cast about three-
fourths. The fact that it was an "off" year does not explain
this decrease ; for the Whig and Democratic losses were both
numerically and proportionately less. Where had the absent
Free Soil voters gone? Several thousand did not vote at all;
these, doubtless, were the same persons who had voted the Lib-
erty ticket in 1844 and the Free Soil in 1848, but did not trouble
themselves about State elections ; in other words, they were part
of the regular stay-at-home vote. There were more, however,
who returned to their old parties, feeling that the Free Democ-
racy had shot its bolt ; or that, since the local parties had nomi-
nated anti-slavery candidates on anti-slavery platforms, principle
no longer required them to act independently. In this connec-
tion. Chase's notion of the " Democracy " of the Free Soil party
proved a double-edged tool: if it made the return of Demo-
cratic Free Soilers to the Old Line easy by minimizing their
difference ; it also made Whigs feel out of place in the " Free
Democracy," and anxious to get into more congenial company.
There were, moreover, since the repeal of the Black Laws, no
State issues for the third party. The sole remaining difference
in principle between them and the old organizations was anti-
slavery action ; and that distinction both the old parties, by
their platforms and nominations, had taken away.
When any persistent abolitionist tried to act independently,
DECLINE OF OHIO FREE SOIL PARTY. 1 87
the effect of the coahtions of 1849 became manifest in the ab-
sence, in most of the central and southern counties, in 1850, of
any Free Soil organization separate from the Democratic. So
marked was this inanition that it paralyzed all Free Soil action,
and reduced the third-party vote in these regions to a figure
smaller than any Liberty vote in a State election since 1842.
Outside the Reserve the Free Soil voters of 1850 were probably
nearly all Liberty men, and on the Reserve itself there were
only some five thousand faithful Whig or Democratic Free Soil-
ers of 1848. For all practical purposes, the Free Soil party of
Ohio ceased to exist in 1849; and in 1850 there emerged to
view once more the original, unreconciled Liberty party of
1840-47. Liberty leaders once more assumed the manage-
ment of the cause, and, with the exception of Giddings, Root,
Brinckerhoff, Riddle, and a few others, the enthusiastic bolters
of 1848 sank into the background. The Free Soil revolt had
plainly failed in Ohio, and, in spite of the results obtained by
coalition, succeeding years had only emphasized its failure. In
the autumn of 1850 the third-party men realized that they
stood once more at the foot of the ladder, with all the weary
work of agitation and organization to do over again.
The Free Soil party of Indiana had at no time in its career
any such stirring episodes as those which enlivened the winter
of 1848-49 in Ohio; but with even swifter pace it ran the same
course as did its eastern neighbor. For some months after the
Presidential election, newspapers and politicians of both the old
parties continued with unabated fervor to advocate the Wilmot
Proviso. The Democrats, though they had a clear majority in
the legislature, refused to re-elect Hannegan because of his
equivocal position in regard to slavery in the Territories, and
chose in his place Ex-Governor Whitcomb, whose answers to
Free Soil questions had been eminently satisfactory. On Janu-
ary 3, 1849, the Whig State Convention "calmly but firmly ex-
pressed the conviction that the extension of slavery over the
newly acquired territories ought to be prohibited by law," and
urged that "all constitutional and proper means should be
adopted to free our National Capitol from the last vestige of
1 88 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
human bondage";^ and local Whig conventions echoed these
sentiments. At about the same time the Democratic State
Convention resolved that, since "New Mexico and Cahfornia
are in fact and in law free Territories, it is the duty of Congress
to prevent the introduction of slavery within their limits."^ It
seemed as if an anti-slavery millennium were at hand.^
In spite of such inducements for the abandonment of separate
action, the Free Soil party had for some months after the elec-
tion of 1848 showed much activity in organizing; and the press
spoke at first very courageously. "Who says the Free Soilers
ought to disband?" asked the Tippecanoe Journal. "Bless your
soul, neighbor, you don't seem to understand anything about
the Free Soil movement. No, Sir, the Free Soil party — or
Free Democracy as some prefer calling it — WILL NOT DIS-
BAND ! . . . Ours is the campaign of Freedom, and it cannot
be closed until Freedom and Right, Liberty and Equality, have
finally triumphed."* " Shall we," asked the Free Territory Sen-
tinel, " having espoused a cause which all admit to be right,
and having already accomplished great good, shall we now aban-
don it? Organize! Organize! We must relax none of our
energies. Self-respect forbids that we should go back to our
old party allegiance after having been denounced and stigma-
tized without stint for doing what we firmly believed to be our
duty. We are therefore distinctly in favor of organization as
an independent and permanent party." ^
In January, 1849, the State Free Soil Convention met at
Indianapolis, and, still thrilling with the excitement of the re-
cent campaign, seemed at that time to be in favor of indepen-
dent action. When J. H. Bradley, a Free Soil elector, moved
that the convention, instead of making nominations, pass reso-
lutions in favor of the Whig ticket and adjourn, his proposal
was voted down ; and J. H. Cravens and J. W. Wright were
1 Eree Territory Sentinel, Feb. 17, 1849; Indiana State Journal, Awg. 2^
1853. See App. C.
2 National Era, Jan. 25, 1849.
8 Ibid., Dec. 21-28, 1848; Indiana State Journal July 29, 1854.
* Quoted in Eree Territory Sentinel, Dec. 6, 1848.
6 Ibid., Nov. 18, 184S.
INDIANA PARTIES ALL FOR FREE SOIL. 1 89
selected for the State ticket on the Buffalo platform.^ In its
enthusiasm, the convention issued a call for the mass meeting
described in the preceding chapter, to be held at Cleveland,
July 13, 1849, to commemorate the Ordinance of 1787. H.
L. Ellsworth duly appeared as a delegate appointed by the
Indianapolis Convention,
During the spring, however, the unanimous chorus of Whig
and Democratic anti-slavery professions began to have its effect.
In most of the Congressional districts where there were any
Free Soilers, the policy of questioning was resorted to by the
especial advice of the Free Soil Central Committee, who issued
an address containing a suitable list of questions.^ When the
August elections drew near, the campaign presented the spec-
tacle, hitherto unprecedented in Indiana, of all the candidates
claiming to be on the same anti-slavery ground. The term
"Free Soil," as describing a party, ceased to have any meaning
when it was assumed by every Whig candidate and by nearly, if
not quite, all of the Democrats. "We believe there are few
Whigs or Democrats," said the Democratic Indiana Register,
"that do not believe in the principle of non-extension."^
"There exists no possibility of the election of the Free Soil
candidates," said the Whig State Journal to the new party ;
"then what is to be gained by voting for them? By doing
so you may prevent the election of men who agree with you
on every single political question, including the question you
place above all others. Is it the part of wisdom thus to act?"^
Some Democratic candidates for Congress outbid even the
Whigs. Dr. Fitch in the Ninth District, when questioned in
regard to the principal points in the anti-slavery creed, asserted :
" If no older or abler member whose influence for them would
be greater than mine introduces them to Congress, I shall do so
myself, if I have the honor of holding a seat there." ^ It was
little wonder that, with such appeals re-echoing on every side,
the Free Democrats of Tippecanoe County, which had been a
1 Free Territory Senthiet, Jan. 24, 1849; Nfational Era, Feb. 8, 1849.
'^ Ibid., June 13, 1849; National Era, July 12, 1849.
8 Quoted in National Era, Aug. 23, 1849.
^ Quoted ibid., July 5, 1849. ^ Ibid., Sept. 20, 1849,
I90 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
hot-bed of revolt in 1848, now concluded to make no nomina-
tions, " inasmuch as both the Democratic and Whig candidates
in answer to letters of inquiry declared themselves in favor of
the Wilmot Proviso, prohibition of the slave trade in the District
of Columbia, and the removal of the seat of the Federal Gov-
ernment to a Free State." ^
The only place where the Free Soilers cut any figure in this
Congressional election was in the Fourth District, where there
were special conditions. This region contained a large Quaker
population, and had been a centre of abolitionism ever since the
movement began. The Whigs had hitherto shown a large ma-
jority; but in the summer of 1848 a great number had followed
the lead of G. W. Julian in support of Van Buren; and it was
seen that unless these bolters could be induced to return, the
Whig party was fatally weakened in this stronghold. On a re-
duced scale, the situation resembled that on the Western Reserve
in Ohio ; and here as there the Democrats, who hitherto had
had no hope of success, tended strongly to favor coalition with
the Free Soilers. Consequently, when the Free Soilers of the
District nominated Julian for Congress in 1849, and began a
vigorous campaign, most of the Democratic local conventions
adopted anti-slavery platforms and joined in his support.
The Whigs had been angling for Free Soil votes ever since
the preceding year ; and the call for the Henry County Whig
Convention had proclaimed that " Free Soilers generally, and
especially Free Soil Whigs who voted for Van Buren, or did not
vote at all, are invited to attend."^ S. W. Parker, the regular
Whig candidate for Congress, claimed to have been an aboli-
tionist for twenty years, that is, since 1829, and made direct
appeals for Quaker support. Upon Julian, the " renegade," a
flood of contempt was poured; and as Julian when aroused
was a hard fighter, the contest became extremely bitter and
personal. "This district," he wrote later, "in the matter of
liberality and progress was in advance of all other portions of
the state ; and yet the immeasurable wrath and scorn which
were lavished upon the men who deserted the Whig party on
^ Cincinnati Globe, July 25, 1849.
2 Free Territory Sentinel, Nov. 29, 1848.
JULIAN'S CAMPAIGN, 181(9. 19I
account of the nomination of Gen. Taylor can scarcely be
conceived. The friends of a lifetime were suddenly turned into
foes and their words were often dipped in venom. The contest
was bitter beyond all precedent." ^ Every effort was made by
Whig papers to spread the impression that Julian was a nonen-
tity, feeble physically and mentally, hardly more than half-
witted; and the Free Democrats, on their part, exhausted their
energies in proclaiming Parker a lying hypocrite, a blasphemer,
and a sanctimonious bully.^ So much were the Free Soilers
engrossed in this contest that the fact that there was an anti-
slavery State ticket was entirely overlooked. On the day
before the election, the Free Territory Sentinel suddenly recol-
lected it in time to remark apologetically: " We have said little
in regard to these two offices, but we wish Free Soilers will not
forget that our candidates are in the field . . . good and true
men. They should receive the vote of every Free Soiler."^
In August, 1849, Julian was elected over Parker by a narrow
majority; and elsewhere in the State the Democrats, profiting
by their Free Soil professions, carried every district but one,
and elected their State ticket.
In this way it happened that Indiana, from an anti-slavery
standpoint the most backward of the Northwestern States,
came to have a Free Soil Representative in Congress to stand
beside Giddings, Root, and Durkee. This result was due to
coalition, and seemed completely to justify the system ; but the
vote for Governor presented a different aspect of the matter.
It stood as follows: Democratic — Wright, 76,996; Whig —
Embree, 67,218; Free Soil — Cravens, 3,018.* As compared
with the vote of the year before, the total vote was smaller by
5,000; but this loss was confined to the Whigs and Free Soilers,
who had lost 2,000 and 5,000 respectively, whereas the Demo-
crats had gained about 2,000 over the preceding year. Possibly
some of this Democratic gain was due to the return of a few
Taylor Democrats to their old party; but in the main, no
1 G. W. Julian, Political Recollections, 72.
2 For both sides, see Free Territory Sentittel, Aug. i, 1849.
8 Ibid.
^ Official figures in Indianapolis Sentinel, September, 1849.
192 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
doubt, it was composed of Free Soilers. The logic of the Free
Soil Central Committee had been destructive to the party's
success ; for if it was proper to vote directly for local candi-
dates of the old parties, why not for Governor also, particularly
since both candidates were Wilmot Proviso men? In Julian's
district so cordial was the feeling between Democrats and Free
Soilers that a correspondent wrote to the National Era that
they were permanently united.^
The result of this year's operations was, that after the fall of
1849 the State Free Soil party of Indiana simply ceased to
exist. There was no life left; there were no leaders except
Julian, and he was in Washington. A call for a State Conven-
tion at Indianapolis to establish a central newspaper fell abso-
lutely flat; 2 nor in the winter of 1849-50 did even the hitherto
reliable Henry, Wayne, and Randolph County anti-slavery men
take any action. Now and then, as the spring approached and
elections were coming on for a Constitutional Convention as
well as for local offices, individuals called for action in the
columns of the Indiana Trne Democrat ;^ but still nothing was
done. "What has become of the friends of the slave?" asked
Daniel Worth, a lifelong abolitionist. " Where is the zeal,
devotion, and sacrifice of former years? I have watched with
deepest sorrow the declension of the anti-slavery spirit. It is so
long since we have had a meeting, let us look each other in the
face " ;* but he appealed in vain.
When nominations were finally made, whatever Free Soil
activity existed found its outlet in renewed coalition. In Wayne
County a Free Soil convention, on June 8, 1850, did nothing
more than nominate to fill certain gaps which a previous Demo-
cratic convention had left invitingly in its list.^ In Henry
County a similar union took place. In Union County a mass
union convention met ; and in Cass County a Free Democratic
convention at Logansport, on July 27, selected a ticket out of
^ National Era, Sept. 20, 1849.
2 Eree Territory Sentinel, Nov. 7, Dec. 5, 1849.
8 Known until 1850 as the Free Territory Sentinel.
^ Indiana Trice Democrat, May 22, 1850.
6 Ibid., June 12, 1850.
INDIANA FREE SOIL PARTY VANISHES. 193
those already in nomination by the old parties.^ All these
fusions aroused again the bitter wrath of Whigs, and called out
protests from some Free Soilers. Why is it, asked one, that
Free Soil Whigs never receive any nominations? Is it because
they are Whigs? or is it through intrigue and management on
the part of the leading old abolitionists and old Democrats ?2
The summer elections of 1850 showed that coalition had
begun to lose its effectiveness ; for in Wayne County the fusion-
ists were beaten, and to the State Constitutional Convention but
one Free Soiler was elected, I. Kinley, from Henry County.
The Free Soil party of Indiana had ceased to be a power of any
sort in the State. Without any of the bitter internal struggles
that convulsed the party in Ohio, it had sunk into a state of
almost complete decay. The only men who still adhered to its
principles and preferred a separate organization were some of
the old-time Liberty men and a few Whigs, in all a mere cor-
poral's guard. All this had been accomplished without any
reference to the Compromise of 1850, but solely through the
full acceptance by the Indiana Free Soilers of the anti-slavery
promises made so profusely by both Whigs and Democrats in
1849 and 1850.
In the autumn of 1848 the Free Soilers of northern Illinois
seemed on the threshold of a brilliant career. They were con-
centrated in several contiguous counties in two Congressional
districts, one of which for five years had been the "banner"
Liberty district of the country. Their leaders were experienced
politicians, their enthusiasm had been tremendous, they had an
active newspaper press, and they stood a good chance of carry-
ing a dozen counties for the legislature and of electing one
Congressman, perhaps two. Yet in spite of all this promise, no
third party experienced a more ignominious drop than did the
Illinois Free Soilers in the two years, 1849-50. For this fall
may be assigned several reasons, an important one, without
doubt, being the change brought about in the political situation
by the new constitution adopted in the spring of 1848. This
1 National Era, Aug. 8, Sept. 5, 1850.
"^ Indiana True Democrat, June 19, 1850.
13
194 COLLAPSE OF THE RIVER STATES.
instrument gave the Governor a four years' term, and made
legislative elections biennial. The first election held under
these requirements had been in August, 1848, before a separate
Free Soil party had been organized ; consequently there were
no third-party Congressmen or members of the legislature.
This circumstance at the outset left the new organization with
no accredited mouthpieces, with nothing more tangible than
principles to support, and with no immediate prospect of any-
thing else. In the next place, there would be no State or
national election of any importance until 1850; and thus the
new party was left for two years with nothing to do. The*
situation was calculated to make the revolt of 1848 seem
merely a temporary outburst; and since the Barnburners of
" Long John Wentworth's " district found no necessity for com-
mitting themselves at once on the point of a separate organiza-
tion, they had plenty of time to cool their Wilmot Proviso
enthusiasm of 1847-48.
Yet at first in Illinois, as in Indiana, it seemed as if Free Soil
sentiments ruled the State. All the papers of the northern
counties talked boldly; on January 24, 1849, the legislature,
in which the Democrats had a large majority, by a strict sec-
tional vote of the northern counties against " Egypt," in-
structed its Senators and Representatives to vote for the
Wilmot Proviso. Party lines could scarcely be said to be
drawn ; but when the Western Citizen claimed this action of the
legislature as a triumph of the Free Soil Party principles, the
Chicago Journal in its anti-slavery enthusiasm retorted that it
was good Whig doctrine. " Every Whig in both houses," it
said, " voted for these resolutions, as they have done on similar
ones before the humbug of the Free Soil party had a begin-
ning." ^ The instructions were so repellent to Senator Douglas
that an effort was made to sweeten them to his taste by the in-
troduction of a resolution covering him with flattery, and
begging him, in case he disagreed with the instructions, not to
resign. Even the members from " Egypt" declined to stoop so
low, and the resolution was rejected with scant courtesy .^ In
the election of a Senator the Whigs were powerless, and there
1 Jan. 13, 1849. "^ National Era^ Feb. i, 1849.
INACTIVITY OF ILLINOIS FREE SOILERS. 1 95
was no distinct struggle on the slavery question ; but the Wil-
mot Proviso received recognition by sending to the Senate
General Shields, who was reported to be in favor of its
principle.
The next year (1850) came a Congressional election, and the
Free Soil party of Illinois had an opportunity to assert itself.
By this time, however, matters were much changed since 1848:
coalition had run its course in the Northwest, and — most
impressive of all to Illinois ex-Democrats — the New York
Barnburners had rejoined the Hunkers. The excitement of
1848 had died away, and the " Union-saving" cry of 1850 had
begun to be strong. Nevertheless, in spite of inaction among
Illinois Barnburners during 1849, and of their apathy in
1850, local Free Soil conventions continued, as if independent
action were the course to be followed ; and, as usual, interest
centred in the Fourth District, where in 1848 the Free Soil vote
for President had been larger than that of either of the old
parties. The party was now, however, in a rather disorganized
condition. Its three elements were more irreconcilable here
than in any other Northwestern State, and each thoroughly
distrusted the others: the Liberty men of the Lovejoy type
felt ill at ease beside the Barnburner politicians, Hoyne and
Arnold ; and both of these groups were to the Whigs equally
repugnant.
In the summer of 1850, while all eyes were turned toward
Washington, Free Soil county conventions passed vigorous
resolutions, and on August 28 the district convention nomi-
nated for Congress W. B. Ogden, a former Democrat. Appar-
ently the coalition examples of their brethren in other States
were to produce no result. The Lake County Convention,
having been approached by the regular Democrats, resolved
" That we regard all overtures made by either of the old parties
to unite with us as unworthy of serious consideration,"^ — a
show of independence which proved delusive. Shortly after this
the Democratic district convention nominated Dr. Molony, but
from the conflicting accounts it is not clear whether it adopted
a Wilmot Proviso platform. At any rate, Molony, extremely
^ Chicago Journal, Aug. 29, 1850.
196 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES.
anxious to get the Free Soil vote, hastened to declare himself a
strong anti-slavery man. Apparently the Barnburners were
waiting for some such sign, for within a few days Ogden, their
nominee, resigned in Molony's favor, " thinking two Democratic
nominations needless" ; and without further hesitation the ma-
jority of those who in 1848 had shouted the loudest for Van
Buren marched back into the old ranks. ^ Some local meetings
declared outright that the Free Soil party was at an end. If
the Chicago Journal is to be believed, a Bureau County Union
Convention resolved " That the Democratic and Free Soil par-
ties be united and that so far as the action of this meeting can
effect this end they are hereby united one and inseparable now
and forever." ^ To Lovejoy, Codding, and others of the old-^
Liberty guard, this action was simply intolerable, and on Octo-
ber 23, in a convention at Aurora, they signalized their devo-
tion to a third party by nominating in Ogden's place an
old-time Liberty candidate, J. H. Collins."^
Meanwhile the Illinois Whigs were talking pure Free Soil
doctrine. Local conventions in Kane and McHenry counties,
for example, resolved " That we are ceaselessly and eternally
opposed to human bondage, and we believe it to be the duty
of Congress to prohibit by positive enactment its increase." *
P'inally the Fourth Congressional District Convention nominated
C. Cofifing, a strong anti-slavery man, on an outright Free Soil
platform. If Free Soilers wished an unexceptionable candidate
and platform, there stood the Whigs ready to receive them ;
and it is probable that many of them, in their disgust at what
they called the Barnburners' " betrayal," voted for Coffing. In
any case, the Congressional vote in November showed the
astonishing fact that the Illinois Free Soil party, without much
formal coalition, had simply ceased to be. Only in the Fourth
District was there any third-party vote, and there it was smaller
than any Liberty vote since 1843. On the contrary, the Whigs
gained so largely in this district and all over the northern part
^ A^ational Era, Oct. 24, 1850.
2 Chicago Jotifiial, Oct. 7, 1850.
3 Ibid., Oct. 17-25, 1850.
* Chicago Journal, Oct. 17, 1850; Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug. 22, 1850.
DECAY OF ILLINOIS FREE SOIL PARTY, 1 97
of the State, that one can beHeve what was asserted at the
time, — that most of the Free Soilers voted the Whig ticket.^
Even in the Fourth District, Coffing " ran " Molony so closely
as to indicate that, had Collins been nominated a little earlier,
Coffing might possibly have won. But the leaders of the Barn-
burners were once more safe at home in their old party, and the
brilliant Free Soil promise of 1848 had faded into darkness.
What distinguishes the fate of the Illinois Free Soil party is
the quiet way in which it died out, with none of the bitter strug-
gles of Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Its end shows, as does
the similar fate of the party in Indiana, how shallow in its anti-
slavery basis was the Democratic bolt of 1850 in these two Ohio
River States. The hard contest that Cass waged in his own
State with members of his own party, the sharp dealings of
1849 in Wisconsin and Ohio, were unknown alike in Indiana
and in Illinois, where the Free Soil party of 1848 disintegrated
almost without a struggle.
^ The vote in 1850 stood as follows : —
Democratic. Whig. Free Soil.
Fourth District Molony 11,231 Coffing 10,587 Collins 804
Collins's vote is elsewhere stated as 1,213 ; in any case, it was about equal
to the liberty vote of 1843, which was 1,174. See figures in Whig Almanac,
1 85 1, and in Chicago Joternal, 1S50.
CHAPTER XIII.
COLLAPSE OF THE FREE SOIL PARTY IN MICHIGAN,
WISCONSIN, AND IOWA.
1849-1850.
In the three northernmost States of the Old Northwest, coali-
tion assumed more ambitious forms than in Ohio, Indiana, or
Illinois ; but the result on the Free Soil organization was quite
as disastrous. In Michigan the one great difference at the
outset was that the State, unlike its neighbors, was in the hands
of a " boss." Lewis Cass, though an honest, able man, was a
thorough politician and partisan, and kept a controlling hand
over every movement of his party in the State. On accepting
the Baltimore nomination of 1848 he had resigned his seat in
the Senate ; and when, after his defeat for the Presidency, he
returned to offer himself as a candidate for re-election, he met
with violent opposition on every side. Whigs and Free Soilers
were eager to complete his discomfiture in every possible way,
and (still more ominous) there were signs of a strong anti-slavery
revolt in his own party.
When the legislature had convened, Governor Ransom directly
challenged Cass's position by a message arguing strongly in
favor of the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Terri-
tories, and crying, " Should it be suffered to extend a single
line into territory now free? No, never !" ^ Following this,
members of both parties introduced resolutions instructing Sen-
ators to vote for the Wilmot Proviso, and on January 9 and 13
such a series was passed by votes of 14 to 7 in the Senate,
35 to 26 in the House: nothing could have been more clearly
defiant of Cass, or more ominous for the success of a candidate
^ Detroit Advertiser., Jan. 3, 1849.
FREE SOIL ELEMENTS IN MICHIGAN. 199
who thought the Wilmot Proviso unconstitutional. When the
matter of choosing a Senator came up, it looked as if Cass
were doomed ; for seven Democratic Senators and ten Repre-
sentatives signed a declaration that they could not vote for
Cass, because he had been improperly nominated for President
by the Baltimore Convention, because they disliked his opin-
ions on slavery, and because it was the turn of the western half
of the State to have a Senator.^ The seven Senators holding
the balance of power prevented a joint session for several days.
It was generally believed that there would be no election, but
at last one of the seven gave way, finding party pressure too
severe to endure ; the bolters thus lost control of the Senate,
and on January 23 General Cass was re-elected by a vote of 44
to 38. It was the narrowest escape from defeat that the " boss "
of Michigan experienced until the rise of the Republican party
in 1857.
Encouraged by the presence of so much Free Soil sentiment
in Cass's own party, the various elements of opposition began
to think of combining against him and his followers in the com-
ing State election. In the early months of 1849 ^^^ Whigs
especially showed a strong desire to make common cause with
the Free Soilers, a course for which a precedent was furnished
by several instances of coalition in 1848. Negotiations were soon
under way, and by June matters had progressed to such a point
that Whig and Free Soil State conventions were called for the
same day, the Whigs taking the initiative to secure the coin-
cidence. Their action, however, met with strong opposition in
both parties ; for the " regular " Whigs were, of course, alarmed
at any appearance of coalition, while many of the Free Soilers,
particularly the leaders, looked for allies rather to the anti-Cass
branch of the Democratic party than to the Whigs.^ The
Detroit Advertiser, which, it will be remembered, had been
Birney's severest critic in 1844, now took the lead in advocating
a coalition of Whigs and anti-slavery men ; it asserted that
the non-extension of slavery was " part and parcel of the Whig
creed," whereas the Democrats had adopted it purely for par-
1 Detroit Advertiser, Jan. 23, 1849.
2 National Era, May 17, 1849.
200 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
tisan purposes ; and it called for co-operation. " We ask you,
Free Soil men of Michigan," it said, " is it not better that we
should work together and teach these hypocrites that the prin-
ciple of Free Soil with us is something which cannot be put on
and off at pleasure?"^ The two conventions met on the ap-
pointed day, but no coalition resulted, in spite of the Adver-
tiser s hints, and of the evident desire for union on the part of
very many of the delegates in both. The Whig convention
had been preceded by a mass meeting, which, under the lead
of J. M. Howard, adopted resolutions supporting Taylor and
declaring slavery extension not a party question,^ Although
the State Convention adopted six resolutions comprising the
Buffalo platform, and offered them through a conference com-
mittee to the Free Soilers, the latter could not overlook the
resolution of the preceding day, and declined to co-operate.
Accordingly, separate candidates were nominated, the Whigs
selecting John Owen for Governor, G. A. Coe for Lieutenant-
Governor, and H. H. Duncklee, of the Detroit Advertiser, for
State printer; the Free Soilers presenting F. J. Littlejohn, A.
Blair, and E. Hussey, a Democrat, a Whig, and a Liberty man
respectively.
During July and August, politicians of all three parties con-
tinued actively at work. The Free Soilers undoubtedly hoped
that the anti-Cass Democrats would swing their party conven-
tion in favor of Littlejohn, who, until the preceding year, had
been a very prominent Democrat ; or that they would bolt from
an unacceptable Democratic nomination. During the summer,
however, Cass himself entered the field, determined to save his
own credit by making the State Convention nominate one of
his followers and indorse his policy. By September his exer-
tions had begun to tell, and little by little the Democratic press,
hitherto nearly unanimous for the Wilmot Proviso, changed
front. It was evident that General Cass and his machine were
too strong for the opposition ; but when the Democratic Con-
vention met on September 19, it was equally evident that with-
out Cass's personal exertions the Democratic party of Michigan
would never have indorsed him. The opposition maintained a
1 Detroit Advertiser, June 4, 1849. ^ Ibid., June 22, 1849.
CASS SUPPRESSES FREE SOIL DEMOCRATS. 201
Steady vote of 57 to Cass's 65 ; consequently, the change of but
five votes would have been enough to alter the outcome. On
a test vote of 65 to 59, McClelland, a Free Soil Democrat, was
defeated for Gov^ernor by Barry, Cass's choice ; and when one
of the western delegates moved the Wilmot Proviso as an
amendment to the regular platform, it was met with hisses and
cries of " no niggerism." The convention then adopted some
vague anti-slavery-extension resolutions, and adjourned. Cass
had a second time saved his credit by the narrowest of mar-
gins, and through his own extreme exertions.^ Immediately
after this, he made a tour of the State, " under the guise," said
the National Era, of " attending county agricultural fairs," but
really for the purpose of whipping local Democratic organiza-
tions into line.2 In this aim he was eminently successful, the
National Era enumerating eight Democratic county conventions,
previously Free Soil in doctrine, which now swung over to Cass's
position of non-interference with slavery in the Territories.
The Free Soil party had, then, nothing to hope from the
Michigan Democracy so long as Cass was at its head. All
that it could expect was some accession from the defeated
minority. At this juncture the Whigs reopened the coalition
question. Early in the summer their candidate for Governor,
Owen, had resigned, and the Whig managers began the task of
getting the party into a frame of mind to support Tittlejohn.
In this action the Detroit Advertiser took the lead. Finally a
Whig convention was called to meet directly after the Demo-
cratic convention on September 21. The Advertiser "-.^Ad. : " It
is not to be disguised that upon the subject of state nomina-
tions there exists at the present time a wide and marked differ-
ence of opinion in the Whig party. It is the duty of all good
Whigs to take care that this subject be there harmonized and
set at rest." ^
The convention, after four ballots, nominated F. J. Littlejohn,
the Free Soil candidate, thereby consummating the union for
which the Whig leaders had been so anxious ; but the opposi-
1 Detroit Advertiser, Sept. 22, 26, 1849.
2 National Era, Oct. 25, 1829.
8 Detroit Advertiser. Sept. 17, 1849.
202 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
tion which this action aroused was alarming. After the nomi-
nation two members of the Central Committee resigned, and
others broke out into violent language. " Who is Littlejohn? "
cried Kellogg, of Allegan County. " He is an arrant radical
Loco-foco — I say he is a Loco-foco ! Is this a Whig Conven-
tion? I beg of you, I entreat, nay, I pray, do not nominate
this man." Another called the nomination " a miserable farce,
too barefaced to merit contempt," " a bitter and nauseating
draught," and " many delegates declared openly that if they
voted at all it would be for Barry. It was a choice between
Loco-focos." ^ Littlejohn accepted the nomination in a letter
full of Free Soil doctrine, but without anything which could
by any remote interpretation be called Whiggism ; and Austin
Blair, the Free Soil nominee for Lieutenant-Governor, then re-
signed in favor of Mr. Coe. From the outset, however, the
chances for the success of the ticket seemed poor. True, the
Democratic party was torn in two by feuds ; but the prospect
that the anti-Cass men would vote for Littlejohn was lessened
by the Whig indorsement. The Whigs also showed unmistak-
ably that the coalition had failed to attract them. The Detroit
Advertiser worked heroically. On September 24 it said : " By
accepting the nomination of the Whig Convention, Mr. Little-
john becomes one of us, so far at least as our state interests are
implicated " ; and again : " It is useless to disguise the fact that
a difference of opinion and feeling has existed upon this ques-
tion, but it is now full time ... to come up as one man to the
rescue of the ticket ... to drag down into the grave forever
the prospects and aspirations of Lewis Cass, the traitor to the
rights and feelings of those whom he misrepresents." Again
it said, and reiterated the statement: "Recollect, Whigs, the
only source to which our opponents look for success in the ap-
proaching canvass is to your disaffection." It would be inter-
esting to quote more from the Detroit Advertiser 2S\^ from other
papers, such as the Adrian Expositor and the Grand River Eagle,
which, though " frank to admit that there were some Whigs upon
whose ears the name of F. J. Littlejohn would grate harshly, yet
upon full and careful consideration . . . became thoroughly con-
1 Detroit Free Press, Sept. 29, 1849.
WHIG AND FREE SOIL FUSION FAILS. 203
vinced that the poHcy pursued was the wisest and best." ^ It is
enough to say that, by the end of October, party discipline and
hatred of Cass and Barry had brought every Whig newspaper in
the State to give its support to the ticket.
In local matters, fusion between Whigs and Free Soilers went
on at a rapid pace. In at least eleven counties the two parties
united completely; indeed, the Whigs and Free Soilers were
so inextricably confused that, before the election, the Detroit
Advertiser printed the list of candidates without any attempt to
distinguish one from the other. In the Munroe County district
the regular Democratic convention, — by advice of Cass, it is
said, — made an attempt to get Free Soil votes by nominating
I. P. Christiancy ; but as both Whigs and Free Soilers joined in
the nomination, the move proved fruitless. One of the humorous
aspects of the campaign appears in the way in which Demo-
cratic and Whig papers regarded coalition in other States. The
Detroit Free Press, while loudly applauding " Democratic re-
union " in New York and elsewhere, thought that nothing could
explain Free Soil and Whig fusion except " an unhallowed thirst
for spoils " ; and the Detroit Advertiser, in the intervals of its
hard work to get Whigs to support Littlejohn, found time to
condemn the " venal truckling and dicker coalition between the
Cass Hunkers and Abolitionists in Vermont."
The election came off in November, and the legislature
showed some Whig and Free Soil gains ; but in the vote for
Governor the coalition was decisively beaten. The vote was
as follows : Democratic — Barry, 27,837 ; Fusion — Littlejohn,
23,541.^ The decrease in the total vote as compared with
that of 1848 was 13,638. The explanation is probably to be
found in the fact that great numbers on both sides refused to
vote at all, including, besides the usual "off year" indifferents.
Democrats who hated Cass yet would not aid the Whigs, and
Whigs who found it "a choice between Locofocos." Plainly
Whig discontent was the greater, since the coalition vote was less
than the combined Free Soil and Whig vote of 1848 by fully
10,788, while the Democratic vote had fallen off but 2,850. In
1 Detroit Advertiser, Oct. 6, 1849.
2 Partial returns in Whig Almanac, 1850, and in Detroit Advertiser.
204 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
commenting on the election, the Advertiser \xw^o\xh\^6\y told the
truth when it said : " Many of our friends looked upon a union
of Whigs with the Free Soil party upon any terms as pregnant
with mischief, and as having a direct tendency to denationalize
the Whig party. Many Whigs who were in favor of a union
disliked the terms upon which the union was effected, thinking
that in the present numerical ratio of the two parties too much
was conceded to the Free Soil party on the ticket ; while still
another portion was actuated by a strong distaste toward the
gubernatorial candidate. These causes combined produced a
general apathy through the state in the Whig ranks and gave
rise to open opposition ... in other portions of our state, giv-
ing to our opponents an easy victory and a large majority." ^
Irritation was inevitable between the two wings of the
defeated coalition, and lively recriminations were exchanged.
The Old Line Democrats gleefully contributed to increase the
discontent and mortification of the Whigs by constantly assert-
ing that " the Democratic Free Soilers would not coalesce with
the Whigs, but went for Barry and Fenton ; this is true both of
the rank and file and of the leaders "; ^ until the Detroit Adver-
tiser, apparently convinced, said bitterly of the Free Soil-
ers : " If the non-extension of slavery is the only great, ultimate
object for which that party was organized, it becomes more and
more difficult to reconcile with the prosecution of that object
the results which have just taken place." ^ The P eninsidar
Freeniaji, on the other hand, said : " The Free Soil men generally
turned out and voted the union ticket, while large numbers of
Whigs absented themselves from the polls and hundreds of others
voted the Barry ticket entire or the union ticket with the names
of the Free Soil candidates erased." *
The next year carried on the struggle between Cass and his
opponents to a further stage, and again the Free Soilers, in
1 Detroit Ad7'criisrr, Nov. 9, 1849.
^ Detroit Free Press, Nov. 13, 1849. ' Nov. 13, 1849.
* Quoted in National Era, Nov. 22, 1849. The election returns in some
degree substantiate this latter claim ; for of the twenty-one counties where
full returns are found, Coe led Littlejohn in seventeen by from 20 to 140
votes, having a net lead of 845 votes.
CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO CASS. 205
their eagerness to oppose him, threw away their consistency as
a party. In the legislature of 1850, in spite of the efforts of
Cass's friends, Free Soil sentiment was still strong enough to
secure in February the passage of resolutions instructing Sena-
tors and Representatives to favor the admission of California as
a free State. By March the efforts of Webster, Clay, and Cass
together began to have some effect on public sentiment in
Michigan, long before they were felt in Ohio or in the other
Northwestern States; and although a resolution formally eulo-
gizing Clay and Cass for their efforts in behalf of the Union was
defeated, yet Cass's desires were finally satisfied by the passage
of resolutions rescinding the Wilmot Proviso instructions of a
year before. Cass affected to consider this action an expression
of the will of the State; but in view of the way in which the
resolution was passed his claim seems hardly admissible.^ In
the House the vote was 24 to 20, with twenty-two absentees, and
in the Senate the resolution was carried only by the casting vote
of the Lieutenant-Governor, who during the previous election
had posed as a Wilmot Proviso man. " The vaunted expression
of Michigan," said a correspondent of the National Era, " is an
expression of a minority of the Legislature obtained by treach-
ery and deception." ^ In the spring, elections were held for a
Constitutional Convention ; and in a few places, where Demo-
crats were rash enough to resolve in favor of the rescinding
resolution. Whig successes were the result. In general, how-
ever, as in Ohio and Indiana, the Democrats were in a great
majority, the delegation standing as follows: Democratic, 75;
Whig, 18 ; Free Soil, 3. This convention and those of Indiana
and Ohio will be considered together later.
The Free Soil party of Michigan did not in this year drop
into the inanition of that of Indiana. It still retained spirit
enough to hold two conventions, one in May, 1850, which
resolved against Clay's Compromise and urged a thorough
organization ; and another in September, which nominated a
full ticket for Secretary of State, auditors, and for other
minor offices. Still, the main interest of the Free Soilers
1 See A. C. McLaughlin, Leisiis Cass, 273.
2 National Era, Sept. 5, 1850.
206 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
was not in the general State election, but in the choice of
Congressmen.
The year 1850 was to set the Democratic party free from that
anti-slavery opposition which had been annoying Cass ever since
1848 ; for the intimate connection of Cass with the Compromise
measures brought his followers in Michigan into line before
those in any other Northwestern State. As the Congressional
campaign came on in the summer, the Democratic press called
for conservative nominations, objecting particularly to K. S.
Bingham, who, elected in 1848 as a " Free Soil Cass man," had
voted in Congress entirely without regard to his distinguished
superior ; and to Sprague, chosen by Whig and Free Soil
fusion in 1848, and now a strong Wilmot Proviso man. "We
want a delegation in Congress," said the Jackson Patriot, " who
will labor for the nomination of our great statesman. We want
no more Binghams in Congress." " The delegation," said the
Kalamazoo Gazette, " must reflect the wishes of the people and
coincide in sentiment with General Cass ; must be both his
warm personal and political friends. We want no more
Spragues or Binghams." ^ The result was the nomination in
all three districts of men whom the Whigs and Free Soilers
considered unmitigated doughfaces. In the Second District,
Stuart was renominated ; in the First, A. W. Buel, one of
Cass's intimate friends; and in the Third, General Hascall, in
place of Bingham. The Whigs were quick to seize their oppor-
tunity, and to these candidates opposed Williams, Penniman,
and Conger, all sound Whigs and anti-slavery men. In the
Third District, K. S. Bingham at first appeared as an independ-
ent candidate; but after J. S. Conger, the Whig nominee, had
written, in reply to questions asked by a Free Soiler, his full
acceptance of the Free Soil creed and his condemnation of the
Fugitive Slave Law, Bingham withdrew in his favor.^ The Free
Soilers made no nominations, but joined the Whigs in all three
districts. The Peninsular Freeman said in regard to Penniman :
" Their support of him will be given freely, cordially and with-
out solicitation, bargains or pledges on the part of Mr. Penniman.
^ Quoted in Detroit Advertiser, Aug. 31, 1850.
2 Ibid., Oct. 23, 1850.
FREE SOIL DEC A Y IN MICHIGAN. 207
. . . Decency requires the election of Mr. Penniman and the
defeat of Mr. Buel." ^
The campaign that followed was very brisk ; for General
Cass, bound to secure "vindication," took the stump himself
in Buel's district. For once, however, popular sentiment found
a chance to express itself directly, with the result that Buel
and Hascall were decisively beaten and Stuart barely suc-
ceeded.^ Had the whole Democratic ticket. State and Congres-
sional, been defeated, the Whigs and Free Soilers could not
have been more exultant than they were over their partial
victory. Buel was Cass's right-hand man ; he had voted for
the Fugitive Slave Law ; and Cass's labors on the stump had
not saved him ! In this election the Whigs profited more by
the sins of their opponents than by their own virtues ; for their
State Convention had adopted resolutions in favor of the Com-
promise, and during all the campaign the party organs, so
zealous in appealing to the Free Soilers a year before, had
ignored the existence of the latter party, and had avoided dis-
cussion of the slavery question whenever they could. After the
election the Whig papers expressly denied any coalition, and
it is true that there was no formal union ; nevertheless, the
Whigs owed their success to Free Soil votes ; but the Free Soil
party of Michigan had by this time practically disappeared,
having been absorbed in the Whig ranks.
The Free Soil vote for Secretary of State was about the same
as the Liberty vote of 1842, — Democratic, 32,372 ; Whig, 26,33 1 ;
Free Soil, 2,228. Probably none but a few former Liberty men
voted the ticket, for in a majority of the counties the Free Soil
organizations had disappeared.
In Michigan, Whig coalition had proved quite as deadly to
the growth of the Free Soil party as had Democratic coalition
1 Quoted in National Era, Nov. 14, 1850.
2 The vote this year was as follows : —
Democratic. Opposition.
First District Buel 8,909 Penniman 10,741
Second District Stuart 11,923 Williams 11,508
Third District Hascall 8,427 Conger 8,623
See returns in Whig Almanac, 1851.
208 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
in Ohio and Indiana; but unlike the Free Soilers in the latter
States, who had Chase, Giddings, and Julian to represent them
in Congress, the Michigan anti-slavery men had no party gains
in the national government to recompense them for the sacrifice
of party consistency.
Wisconsin was a State from which Free Soilers had apparently
very much to hope. In the fall of 1848 they had one-fourth
of the total vote, a good organization, and a Representative at
Washington, Charles Durkee, elected from the southeastern dis-
trict. In this State, however, the local Democratic and Whig
parties were both as anti-slavery in 1848 as the Free Soilers
themselves, and now after the election they began to insist
with increasing emphasis that a third party was unnecessary.
The Wisconsin Democrats in particular began to clamor for
"reunion," with a vigor surpassing that of the New York
Hunkers themselves.
In the legislature of 1848-49 Wisconsin had to choose a
Senator, and before the Free Soilers could form any settled
policy they found themselves in the midst of the struggle. The
Democrats had a nominal majority over both Whigs and Free
Soilers ; but many of their number were Wilmot Proviso men,
and by a coalition of some sort it would have been possible
to defeat the party candidate. Although some negotiations
were begun, none were seriously prosecuted; and, after a little
reluctance on the part of the House of Representatives, the two
bodies of the legislature met in joint convention and by a vote
of 45 against Whig 18, Free Soil 18, scattering 4, re-elected
I. R Walker, chosen in the preceding June as a strong Wilmot
Proviso man. Had any coalition been attempted between
Whigs and Free Soilers, it would have met the same fate as did
that in Ohio; for from the outset two men elected to the legis-
lature as Free Democrats acted with the " Old Line," attending
their caucus and voting for Walker.
When the State Free Soil Convention met at Madison on
January 11, the feeling in favor of Democratic reunion carried
everything before it. After adopting the Buffalo platform, with
sundry additional planks in favor of land reform, free trade,
FREE SOIL STRENGTH IN WISCONSIN. 209
direct taxation, and election of all federal officers by popular
vote, it resolved " That we are ready to unite and co-operate
with any party or the members of any party that cordially
approve the principles embodied in the foregoing Resolu-
tions."^ Moses M. Strong, a "regular" Democrat, then ap-
peared and spoke in favor of union. Nothing could have
presented a more striking contrast to the Liberty convention
which, engineered by Booth, Codding, and some of the very men
most prominent in this Free Soil meeting, had less than nine
months before refused to co-operate on the basis of the Wilmot
Proviso. The Whig elements of the party were thoroughly
alarmed at this tendency to unite, and no less at the free trade
resolutions; but their occasional protests passed unheeded, and
every day seemed to bring the Wisconsin Free Soilers and
Democrats together, to the joy of such papers as the Oshkosh
True Democrat. " We have a strong love for the Democratic
party," it said, " and after having left it we look with yearning
anxiety to see it assume a position that will warrant our return
to its support."^
The legislature adopted by large majorities a set of instruc-
tions, introduced by S. D. Hastings, directing their Senators
and Representatives to vote for the Wilmot Proviso ; but
Senator Walker, although elected as an anti-slavery man, failed
to obey them. On February 21 he introduced a scheme organ-
izing the new Territories without providing for the exclusion of
slavery, and at once he became the mark for unsparing con-
demnation throughout his State. So great offence at his
treachery was felt by all parties in the legislature that reso-
lutions of censure, requesting him to resign, were passed in both
Houses, in the Senate 10 to 6, in the House 42 to 9. Shortly after
this the final steps were taken toward Free Soil and Democratic
" reunion," to which such incidents as union conventions in
Waukesha and Winnebago Counties had been pointing. A
conference of Free Soil and Democratic members of the Legis-
lature was held on March 30, 1849, at which, after some discus-
sion, the Buffalo platform was unanimously adopted as a basis
1 Madison Express, Jan. 16, 1849.
2 Feb. 23, 1849.
14
210 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
of action, and the following resolutions in substance were agreed
on: —
"Whereas it appears that the principles held by the great
majority of the Democratic and Free Soil parties in this state
are the same ;
" Resolved that we recommend that the State Central Com-
mittees unite in caUing a State Convention to be held at Madi-
son September 5th.
" Resolved that we recommend to our friends in all parts of
the state to abandon their separate organizations." ^
The Free Soil party of Wisconsin was running its career at a
pace calculated to startle its members. Born in August, 1848,
it had cast 10,000 votes in November, and now in April of 1849,
in the seventh month of its existence, it was joined to the "Old
Line in one grand party of progress." By June, however, a flaw
appeared in the new union. The Free Soil Central Committee
had invited the Democratic Central Committee to co-operate
with them as suggested by the resolutions of March 30; but
for nearly a month the latter body had refused to make any
reply. The Democratic members of the legislature had gone
rather too fast for their constituents, and Old Line Democrats
wished to pause. At the end of June a reply came in the shape
of a call for a Democratic State Convention, with an explanation
appended to the following effect: Union, it said, was desirable,
but for the Democratic Committee to act outside its own party
was to exceed its powers ; moreover, no practical method had
been suggested ; two simultaneous conventions were clumsy
and would quarrel over officers; one convention composed
equally of the two parties would be unfair to the Demo-
crats, who outnumbered the Free Soilers one-half; and, finally,
since the point on which the Free Democrats had separated
had no reference to State issues, they might as well express
their preferences in the regular Democratic primaries, for " a
return would be attended with no degradation of feeling." ^ This
proposal was a dash of cold water which left the bewildered
Free Soilers gasping. The dream of power in which most of
^ Milwaukee Wisconsin, April 11, 1849.
2 Ibid., July 5, 1849.
DEMOCRATS OUTWIT FREE SOILERS. 211
them had been indulging since April was rudely shattered by
the information that they could, if they chose, "rejoin" the
Democratic party as individuals, but not as an organization.
Unless they proposed to lose their identity, there was nothing
to do but to call a convention of their own. This they did,
appointing it for September 7, two days after the Democratic
meeting. " We are coolly told that we went off without reason,"
said the Kenosha Telegraph, " and the most we can ask is the
privilege of coming back unquestioned. We see but one course
for the Free Democrats to pursue. Hold their Convention, make
their nominations, and elect their ticket if they can." ^
During the summer of 1849 the Free Soil party of Wisconsin
was in a chaotic state, with the Liberty element eager to act
alone, the Whig members disgusted at the coalition negotiations
and the free-trade platform, and the Democratic members torn
between irritation at the trickery of the Democratic Central
Committee and a strong desire to rejoin their old associates if
they consistently could. In many of the counties local fusion
took place, the union Democratic meeting choosing delegates
sometimes to one State convention, sometimes to both, in-
structing them in nearly every case to work for harmony. On
September 5 the Democratic convention met, and although
composed, as the Free Soil organs claimed, of office-seekers
and their particular friends, it showed much political sagacity.
It nominated a full set of irreproachable Old Line Democrats,
and then, to emphasize the absorption of the Free Soilers, it
adopted the platform recommended in the union resolutions of
March 30. Except by a few delegates, no notice was taken of
the Free Soilers; consequently the feelings of the convention
of that party, which met two days later, were those of almost
unmixed bitterness. They saw the trap into which they had run
by their offer to coalesce with any party adopting their prin-
ciples ; and the Democratic acceptance of their offer left them
no way of escape.
Although the Free Soilers had called a "union" convention,
there were present only a few more than forty delegates, of
whom eighteen had already attended the Democratic meeting.
1 July 6, 1849.
212 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
These latter, under the leadership of A. W. Randall and A. E.
Elmore, moved that, since the Democrats had adopted the
platform of the Free Soilers, the latter should appoint a com-
mittee to question the Democratic nominees, and then adjourn ;
but this course involved greater self-effacement than the major-
ity of those present could endure. It was resolved, 25 to 18, that
this was a union convention; and, 28 to 13, that it proceed to
nominate; whereat the minority withdrew.^ The remaining
handful of Free Soilers nominated a ticket largely of Barn-
burners, headed by N. Dewey, the Democratic nominee, and
attacked the Democrats' hypocrisy in nominating Old Hunkers
upon a Free Democratic platform ; but this ground was almost
immediately cut from under their feet by the action of the
seceding delegates. That faction, continuing to act together,
had addressed each of the Democratic candidates, and each, in
answer to a specific question, had declared that he was in favor
of the platform upon which he was nominated, and that he saw
no difference between it and the Free Soil platform.^ Thus
completely outwitted, the Free Soil party approached election
day without a leg to stand on, presenting to the public merely
the spectacle of a band of men who, denied the spoils for which
they had hoped, refused to live up to their promises. In all
the history of political manceuvring in the Northwest, there
is nothing to surpass the consummate ease and skill with which
Wisconsin Democrats in this year took the Free Soilers at
their word, deprived them of logical consistency, and put them
in the wrong.
During these intrigues the Wisconsin Whig party had been
keeping on its own way, filled, of course, with holy horror at
the corrupt coalition, but in the main enjoying heartily the
Democratic quarrels. " Go it," said the Wisconsin Express,
when there was a prospect of a Democratic Union Convention ;
" we shall like to see these elements of corruption come to-
gether ; the effervescence would be beautiful."^ On September
II the Whig State Convention nominated a set of regular party
^ Kenosha Telegraph, Sept. 21, 1849.
^ Milwaukee Wisconsin, Oct. 20, 1849.
* Madison Wisconsin Express, July 17, 1849.
DECLINE OF WISCONSIN FREE SOIL PARTY. 213
men, passed resolutions indorsing Taylor, and also demanded
" the invariable application of the Anti-Slavery clause of the
Ordinance of 1787 to every law organizing a new Territory or
creating a new State." ^ Such a platform offered an attractive
refuge to Whig Free Soilers, who were disgusted at the coali-
tion fiasco; and there is little doubt that, parallel with deser-
tions to the Democratic party, a slight exodus of returning
Whigs took place from the Free Soil ranks. Before the election
day, to complete the Free Soil discredit, one member of their
Central Committee resigned, " seeing no necessity for a separate
organization ; " and Dewey and one other candidate refused to
run on the Free Soil ticket. Their places were filled by
W. Chase and E. D. Holton respectively, through a mass con-
vention on October ii.
The vote in November was as follows: Democratic — Dewey,
16,649; Whig — Collins, 11,317; Free Soil — Chase, 3.761.2 As
compared with the preceding year, the Democrats had gained
1,648, the Whigs had lost 2,430, and the Free Soilers 6,657.
If the parties had maintained their proportional strength, the
Democrats and Whigs would have lost about 2,700 apiece, and
the Free Soilers 2,000; as it was, the Democratic gains indicate
that about 4,000 Free Soilers voted the Democratic ticket, about
200 the Whig, and that some did not vote at all.
By these interesting operations the Free Soil party of Wis-
consin had at the end of 1849 reduced itself to a condition of
almost complete helplessness. Its press, broken-spirited and
dejected, knew not how to meet the exultant assertions of
Whigs and Democrats that the Free Soil party was dead and
would never run another independent ticket. " What shall the
Free Soilers do?" asked the Kenosha Telegraph. "At present
it strikes us the Free Soilers have nothing to do except simply
to keep an eye upon the dominant party. It is not at all im-
portant to us who has our thunder, so it is used, and used effec-
tively. Let us quietly observe the dominant party." ^ In the
next year (1850) the party made no sign of life except through
three newspapers which still remained faithful, and through the
^ Milwaukee Sentinel Sept. 17, 1849.
^ Vote in Whig Almanac^ 1850. » Nov. 30, 1849.
214 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
few local conventions which coalition had not swallowed up.
In the Legislature nothing of note occurred except the fusion
of Free Soil and Democratic Senators " under a call for all
those in favor of the Resolutions of the Democratic State Con-
vention," ^ and later the unanimous passage of resolutions
instructing Senators Dodge and Walker to vote for the Wilmot
Proviso.
As in Michigan and Ohio, the political interest of the State
centred, in 1850, in the election of Congressmen. In the Second
District, where Orsamus Cole, the Whig incumbent, had an
excellent anti-slavery record, and where Eastman, the Demo-
cratic candidate, pledged himself in favor of the Wilmot Proviso,
no Free Soil nomination was made, nor was any party action
taken. In the Third District, J. D. Doty, like Bingham in Michi-
gan, was thrown over by the Democrats on account of his Free
Soil action in Congress. After a short time Doty came out as
an independent anti-slavery candidate, and as such received the
enthusiastic support of both Whigs and Free Soilers. The
campaign in his district became extremely embittered ; for
Doty carried with him five bolting Democratic journals, and the
personalities and abuse which passed between these papers
and their old associates were of full frontier flavor. It was in
the First District, however, that the Free Soil sentiment of the
State centred. As the Western Reserve in Ohio was now stand-
ing faithful and alone, so the southeastern counties of Wiscon-
sin — Walworth, Racine, and Kenosha — alone kept up Free
Soil organizations, and it was their absorbing purpose to re-elect
Charles Durkee. In the hope that his good record in Congress
might procure him an unopposed return, no formal nomination
was made ; but a petition of a thousand names was sent, urging
him to stand. To this request he acceded in September. Some
Free Soilers undoubtedly hoped that the Democratic machine
would indorse him; but when the Democratic district conven-
tion met and nominated A. E. Elmore, one of the seceders from
the union convention of a year before, the last flickering hope
of Democratic and Free Soil coalition died out. The Walworth
County Free Soilers resolved, " That the course of the leaders
^ Kenosha Telegraph, Jan. 18, 1850; National Era, Jan. 31, 1850.
WISCONSIN WHIGS SUPPORT DURKEE. 215
of the old Democratic party of this State subsequent to the last
State Convention ... in their marked hostility to the re-election
of Messrs. Doty and Durkee," shows that " the adoption of the
Free Soil party platform in the Convention of September 5th
last was faithless and hypocritical . . . and it will be the fault
of the Free Democrats themselves if they shall hereafter be
deceived by any reiterations of the same professions." ^
Now happened an unexpected piece of good fortune. The
Whig papers began to shower praise on Durkee; and when
the local Whig conventions nominated J. H. Tweedy for Con-
gress, that gentleman instantly resigned in Durkee's favor. As
in Michigan, this line of action met with strenuous opposition ;
and when a second Whig convention adjourned without nominat-
ing, a public meeting was held in Milwaukee to censure this
conduct as an abandonment of Whig principles. The Whig
leaders, however, with the Milwaukee Sentinel, Madison Express,
and State Journal, fell upon the protestors with such energy
that the revolt was nipped in the bud. Tweedy " did not hesi-
tate to avow a decided preference for Mr. Durkee as an upright,
honest, reliable man. He characterized the resolutions [of
censure] as insidious, dastardly, and uncalled for." ^ Through
the vigorous support of the Whig papers, the preference of
many Free Soil Democrats for Elmore over Durkee was coun-
teracted, and in the election the latter gained a well-earned
victory.^
Thus, by the end of 1850, the Free Soil party in Wisconsin
was indistinguishable as a separate organization, except in the
southeastern counties. There anti-slavery sentiment insured the
return of a real Free Soiler to Congress ; but even this success
was due to Whig help. In 1849 coalition had dragged the Free
Soil party into the dust, where it lay during 1850; but so long
1 Milwaukee Sentinel, Oct. 8, 1850. 2 /^/^/.^ Oct. 28, 1850.
* The vote in the three districts was as follows : —
Democratic. Opposition.
First District Elmore 5,574 Durkee 7,512
Second District Eastman 7,262 Cole 5)852
Third District Hobart 5,374 Doty 11,159
See Whig Abnanac, 1851.
2l6 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
as coalition could secure the return of a man like Durkee, Free
Soil prospects in Wisconsin were by no means in total eclipse.
The Free Soil party of Iowa, diminutive as it was, in com-
parison with those of Michigan and Wisconsin, held a similar
balance of power, and consequently in 1849 found itself involved
in coalition. Little was to be hoped from the local Democratic
party. Its members were of the same stamp as those of
"Egypt" and of Missouri, and its record in the legislature and
in Congress had been uniformly such as would seem to put
coalition out of the question. Nevertheless, in some localities
efforts were made to bring the two *' Democratic " parties to-
gether,! and there is reason to think that local fusion did take
place, — a circumstance merely indicating how much stronger
was the feeling for " Democracy" than for anti-slavery.
In Henry County, the centre of anti-slavery sentiment, a union
ticket was formed to overthrow Whig control, which the Mt.
Pleasant Free Soil paper called " the intolerable domination of
truckling doughfaces." '^ In Washington County the Old Line
Democrats placed three active Free Soilers upon the county
ticket ; but the Free Soil convention, though it ratified these
nominations, declined to complete the union by accepting the
other Democratic nominees. Some hopes were occasionally
expressed that the State Democratic party might " reunite "
with the Free Soilers ; and it was asserted by the Capitol Re-
porter that Kelsey, the editor of the Iowa Free Democrat,
attended the State Convention on June 28 with hopes of mak-
ing some " deal." However that may have been, the action of
the Democrats, who deprecated sectional parties and deemed it
" inexpedient to add to the further distraction of the public
mind by demanding in the name of the Wilmot Proviso what is
already amply secured by the laws of the land," ^ settled defini-
tively that no honorable coalition could take place between the
two Democracies.
The local Whigs were on a different footing; for in Iowa their
party contained whatever anti-slavery sentiment was to be found
^ National Era, July 26, 1849. 2 /^^^ fyge Democrat, July 31, 1S49.
8 National Era, Aug. 16, 1849.
UNION OF IOWA WHIGS AND FREE SOILERS. 21/
outside of the little band of Liberty men. Its members in the
legislature frequently spoke and voted in favor of anti-slavery
petitions and measures ; and although it had supported Taylor
and the Mexican War, and disclaimed, as did the Whig party
in most of the Northwestern States, any sympathy with abo-
litionists, it seemed to furnish the most promising ally to the
Free Soil body. The Free Soil State Convention, early in 1849,
nominated for State offices two Free Soilers, and W. H. Allison,
a Whig, whose record in the legislature was very creditable
from an antislavery point of view. On June 29 the Whig State
Convention adopted a solid Free Soil plank, and concurred in
the nomination of Allison,^ to the intense scandal of every
Loco-foco in Iowa, and of very many "Silver-gray" Whigs.
An avalanche of billingsgate descended upon the " disgusting
coalition," the "amalgamation," the "marriage of Whiggery to
abolitionism," the " sale of the abolitionists to the Whigs " ;
while the Free Democrat, on the other side, justified the partial
fusion as "manly and independent," and the WJiig and Reporter
held up to scorn the " ribald abuse and vulgar blackguardism "
of the Democrats.^ On the face of things, the coalition seemed
to have a fair chance of success, for according to the vote of
1848 the Free Soilers held the balance of power; but the
election of August showed as complete a fiasco as did the
Whig and Free Soil coalition in Michigan two months later.^
Just what caused the failure of the arrangement is not obvi-
ous. Very probably Free Soilers of Democratic antecedents
were so repelled by the nomination of a Whig that they pre-
ferred to act with their old party, in spite of its recent action ;
it is also likely that some "Silver-gray" Whigs bolted their
own ticket out of dislike to Allison's anti-slavery record ; so
that (as some dissatisfied Free Soilers claimed openly) the
1 Natiotial Era, July 26, 1849.
2 Iowa Free Democrat, July 31, 1849.
8 The vote stood as follows : —
Democratic. Whig. Free Soil.
Secretary Williams 12,154 Allison 10,978
Public Works Patterson 11,672 McKean 10,960 Dayton 564
See Whig Almanac, 1851.
2l8 COLLAPSE IN NORTHWESTERN STATES.
defeat of the ticket was due to Whig treachery.^ Probably
both causes operated. In the part of the ticket where there was
no coahtion we see the usual results; for the Free Soil vote
of 1,126 in 1848 was reduced exactly one half. After such a
defeat, with numbers shrunk to a mere handful, it is surprising
to find that the Free Soilers of Iowa continued their activity
into the next year.
In the early months of 1850 there was some talk of renewing
the coalition. VV. P. Clarke, a leading Free Soiler of Whig
antecedents, wrote a letter urging that the two parties were
practically agreed on anti-slavery matters, and ought to co-oper-
ate against their common enemy, the Democrats ; but the recep-
tion given to the letter showed that the time for fusion had gone
by. The Iowa Republican admitted that the two parties occu-
pied the same ground, and spoke favorably, although in general
terms, of the union of all true men ; but the Muscatine Journal,
representing the conservative Whigs, said sharply: "We are
decidedly opposed to having anything to do with the Free Soil-
ers and will not support any amalgamated ticket. Let us have
a Whig ticket or none at all." ^ The Democrats looked on with
jeering indifference, the lotva State Ga.'^ettc remarking that " to
the Democrats these movements are important only as passing
events of the day . . . Experience proves that such coalitions
frequently detract from the efficient strength of a party instead
of serving to augment it. A striking illustration of this truth
was furnished by the result of the last election and ... an
equally emphatic condemnation awaits any attempt that may be
made in August next to unite the Whig and abolition forces." ^
Thus the Free Soilers went on by themselves. Local conven-
tions in Linn, Henry, Lee, and other counties, passed coura-
geous resolutions; on May 8, 1850, a State Convention, led by
W. P. Clarke and S. L. Howe, nominated a full ticket,* and by
August there were two Congressional tickets in the field. The
manner in which these nominations were received led the Tnie
1 Letter in Indiana True Democrat, March 13, 1850.
2 Quoted in loiva Free Democrat, Jan. 15, 1850.
8 Quoted /(5/</., Jan. 22, 1850.
4 Iowa Trtie Detnocrat, May 28, 1850, same paper as the Free Detnocrat.
DECAY OF IOWA FREE SOIL PARTY. 2ig
Democrat to comment on the transparent hypocrisy of the old
parties: " The Cassite glories in our spunk in nominating a Con-
gressional candidate, but emphatically condemns the county
nomination ; whilst the Taylorite rejoices in our county nomi-
nation, but utterly abhors the Congressional. We hope," it con-
cluded, "we hereafter shall be able to maintain moral stamina
enough to resist all machinations of all the political demagogues
of all the political parties who approach us with their fraudu-
lent and delusive temptations." ^ Great efforts at organization
were made ; the party held three successive State Conven-
tions ; but in spite of an active campaign, the result of the
election was disheartening.^ The Free Soil party was evi-
dently reduced to its lowest terms, and under existing cir-
cumstances could hope for no more than 600 votes at the
outside. Nevertheless, the Iowa abolitionists refused to admit
their failure; and immediately after the election the party
showed its persistence by holding a State Convention at Yel-
low Springs, on October 30, which condemned the Fugitive
Slave Law and planned for further organization.^
The Iowa Free Soil party, it is evident, lost the greater part
of the Barnburner, or Democratic, elements in 1849, just as
happened in the other States ; but the remainder showed an
elasticity under defeat, and a persistence in organization, quite
different from the complete depression into which the party fell
in every other State except Ohio. The reason for this elas-
ticity lay in the fact that the Iowa Free Soilers were practically
all abolitionists; consequently their activity in 1850 should not
be compared with the almost total collapse of their Illinois and
Wisconsin neighbors in that year. It finds its parallel in the
Liberty Party action of 1841-44 in the latter States, and ex-
hibits the same courage, persistency, and zeal which that party
had shown before it was weakened by years of disappointment.
^ Iowa True Detnoc}-at,]\inQ. 25, 1850.
2 The figures are : —
Democratic.
For Governor I3»i92
For Congress 13,182
See Whig Almanac, iS$\.
8 National Era, ]2Ln. 23, 1851.
Whig.
Free Soil.
11,082
574
11,710
479
CHAPTER XIV.
CAUSES OF THE FREE SOIL COLLAPSE.
1849-1850.
We are now in a position to take a general view of the
years 1849-50 in the Northwest. It is obvious that beneath
the various forms of poHtical surface movements in the six
States ran a common undercurrent which, by the end of 1850,
had either engulfed the Free Soilers into the mass of the old
parties, or had left a small remnant stranded high and dry, in
much the same situation as that of the Liberty men of four
years before.
The causes of this phenomenon have been suggested incident-
ally in connection with the various States, but they may here be
summed up. The first reason why the Free Soilers desired
coalition lay in the character of the leaders of the movement.
In 1848, in every Northwestern State, the men in the forefront
of the new party had been prominent, ardent partisans and
practical politicians, who aimed at electing their candidates, —
Giddings, Hamlin, Riddle, Randall, and others, in the Western
Reserve; Christiancy, Littlejohn. Blair, in Michigan; Ellsworth,
Cravens, Wright, in Indiana ; Hoyne, Arnold, Ogden, in Illi-
nois ; Marshall M. Strong, Chase, Randall, Elmore, in Wis-
consin. These men and many others were active Whigs and
Democrats up to the time of the revolt, and most of them had
been or were office-holders. With such men the attainment of
office as an immediate end is of vastly greater importance than
the building up of a party by separation, agitation, and appeal
to popular sentiment. The best way to aft"ect the popular mind,
in their opinion, was to get some public representative. If such
THE YEARS 181^-50 A CRISIS. 221
a result could be gained by separate action, well and good ; but
if only by coalition, what did it matter, provided that principles
were not violated?
Secondly, it should not be forgotten that the years 1848-50
were a period of crisis. All eyes were on Congress, from its
meeting in December, 1848, until the final consummation of the
Compromise in the autumn of 18 SO - So long as the question
of slavery in the Territories was undecided, while California
clamored for admission, while the South threatened secession,
and Clay, Webster, and Cass pleaded for compromise, it was ob-
viously of the first importance to get the best antislavery men
possible elected to places where they could vote on the main
question ; and it was no time to split hairs over the propriety
of coalition, if that means would serve to secure this result.
With such ideas the Liberty men were not familiar ; but when
brought to the point few of them flinched. In Ohio, in fact,
Chase outstripped his ex-Whig associates in his interpretation
of the new doctrine.
Wherever the Free Soilers were willing to coalesce, the old
parties as a general rule met them more than half-way. From
the election of 1848 down to the very passage of the Compro-
mise of 1850, Democratic and Whig leaders, papers, and con-
ventions avowed the Wilmot Proviso as an integral part of their
creed. At no time in any State could the Free Soilers claim
to be the only anti-slavery party. In Ohio, Indiana, and Wis-
consin both parties asserted Free Soil principles ; and in Illinois
the local Whig and Democratic organizations in the northern
part of the State proclaimed anti-slavery doctrines. In Michigan
only did the Democratic party in 1850 drop its Free Soil atti-
tude, and even then two of its Congressional candidates, Has-
call and Stuart, wrote letters advocating the non-extension of
slavery.^
What determined the direction of coalition? To some extent,
the prepossessions of the politicians who led the new party. A
majority in the Northwest, outside of Ohio, were former Demo-
crats, and when their old party offered them the same principles
as the new one, the desire to return was inevitable. A still
1 Detroit Advertiser^ Nov. 7, 1850.
222 CAUSES OF THE COLLAPSE.
more powerful motive lay in the general tendency existing
toward Democratic coalition. The Buffalo nomination and plat-
form had been a combination, in which Liberty men had the
platform, Democrats the candidate; and now, after 1848, the
influence of the New York Barnburners continued. They were
and continued to be Democrats, regarding themselves as the
only legitimate New York State organization ; and when, in
1849, negotiations began between them and the Old Line
Democrats, the example powerfully affected other sections.
Throughout the Northwest, local ex-Democratic Free Soilers
found themselves adopting the Barnburners' vocabulary, and
freely speaking of " Democratic reunion," though a few months
before they had been urging each other to " fight on, fight ever,
till victory shall crown our cause."
To this tendency was added a strong feeling that the Demo-
crats, as the party beaten in 1848, were on the point of taking
anti-slavery ground. " Our opinion is," said the Oshkosh True
Democrat, " that there are to be only two parties in the state,
the Free Democratic and the Taylor; that the latter will be
composed of conservatives from the Cass Democratic and Whig
parties, while the former will embody the radicals of all parties
and be largely in the majority."^ "The Democracy of the
Free States," said the Ann Arbor True Democrat, " are released
from all further responsibility of protecting the supposed rights
of the slaveholders against the growing encroachments of Free-
dom. The Taylor party have taken their place. The Demo-
cratic masses will now join the standard of Freedom and
Progress. . . . The Buffalo platform is the only firm standing
ground amid the general wreck of old worn-out questions; . . . •
the mass of the party will adopt these principles and become
one with us. . . . All our institutions must be made thoroughly
Democratic." ^
Moreover, the influence of names, pure and simple, should
not be ignored. The name, " Free Democracy," was in itself
a strong plea for Democratic union; for if the Old Line' De-
mocracy should become "Free" by adopting proper principles,
where was the difference between the two parties? The as-
1 March 23, 1849. 2 No^. 15^ jg^S.
INFLUENCE OF NAMES. 223
sumption of the democratic character of anti-slavery principles
fascinated even the ex-Liberty men into believing themselves
Democrats; and hence such men as Chase were inclined to
expect the reformation of the pro-slavery, annexation, filibus-
tering, secession-threatening party of 1845-50, simply because it
called itself "Democratic." So effective did this fallacy prove
that, astonishing as it seems at the present day, the anti-slavery
men of 1849 almost uniformly looked for allies to the Demo-
cratic party rather than to the Whig, even in places where,
before 1848, such action was unthinkable. In Ohio, where,
outside of the Liberty party, nine-tenths of the Free Soil voters
of 1848 were Whigs, Democratic coalition swept everything;
also in Illinois, where one-third of the party were Liberty men ;
in Indiana, where numbers of them were Whigs, and throughout
Wisconsin.
Whig coalition took place in those regions only where Whig
principles were most widely spread, or where the nature of
the local Democratic party forbade Free Soil and Loco-foco
union. In Ohio, in 1849, the coalition of Whigs and Free
Soilers in the legislature, and in 1850 the union in the Twenty-
first Congressional District, were due to the fact that on the
Reserve the Free Soilers were largely ex-Whigs ; but it is note-
worthy that even here in 1849 coalition was chiefly with the
Democrats. In Wisconsin in 1850, in Iowa in 1849, and in
Michigan in 1849, Whig coalition did not take place until Dem-
ocratic fusion had become clearly out of the question. In these
States the Free Soil leaders themselves, though desirous of Dem-
ocratic union, were usually passive when Whig aid was proffered.
Had it not been for Cass's personal influence in Michigan in
1848-49, it seems possible that Democratic rather than Whig
fusion would have occurred ; but when once the tide had turned
in the latter direction, the Free Soilers without hesitation con-
tinued to coalesce with Whigs in local and Congressional mat-
ters, until nothing was left of their old separate party.
It is sometimes said that the Compromise of 1850 killed
the Free Soil party. In the Northwest this was certainly not
the case ; for although, when it did come, it put an end to the
widespread Wilmot Proviso feeling, the Compromise was not
224 CAUSES OF THE COLLAPSE.
completed until after coalition had run its course and the
Free Soil party was already reduced to its lowest point. In
the only elections that occurred after its passage — those in
Michigan and Wisconsin — the Compromise seems to have had
little effect, for in these States the Whig party continued anti-
slavery up to the time of the election.
Nevertheless, the fact should not be overlooked that the cir-
cumstances of the year 1850 tended powerfully to obliterate
party lines, and thereby to render exit from the Free Soil ranks
easy. In every Northwestern State the threatening attitude of
the Southern Democrats, coupled with the position taken by
Cass and Douglas, brought about a reaction against the Demo-
crats, which led many Free Soil men, especially in Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Illinois, to join the Whigs, not merely coalesc-
ing, but entirely abandoning all third-party action. In 1850,
then, the Free Soil party was hardly distinguishable as a sepa-
rate organization in the Northwest; in only three of the States
did it run third tickets, and in those it polled only a small frac-
tion of its former strength. Most of those who, in 1848, had
been the loudest in their devotion to the Wilmot Proviso had
gone back either to the Democratic or to the Whig party, their
return in every case being made easy by the strong anti-slavery
platforms of the old organizations.
Coalition for immediate results had played its part, and in the
various States had achieved some success. Ohio had a Free
Soil Senator, three Free Soil Congressmen, and several Free Soil
members of the legislature; through their balance of power in
the legislature, the Free Soilers twice secured Wilmot Proviso
resolutions and the repeal of the Black Laws. Indiana had one
Free Soil Representative, and a Senator, and several Congress-
men who avowed Free Soil doctrines. Michigan had several
Free Soil members of the legislature and two Congressmen.
Illinois had one Democratic Congressman, who, to secure his
election, had been obliged to advocate Free Soil views. Wis-
consin had one Free Soil Congressman, and two Senators who
asserted Free Soil doctrine; and it also had several third-party
Representatives in the legislature. Iowa alone had nothing
to show. For a party polling in the six Northwestern States
RESULTS OF COALITION. 225
only eleven per cent, of the total vote, this record was cred-
itable. As compared with that of the Liberty party, it showed
a vast difference in results; but also another difference: in
1841 the Liberty men made a better showing for a separate
party than did the Free Soilers in 1850. Coalition was a
two-edged tool, every time it was used it hurt the user almost
as much as the object attacked. So effective in both respects
had it proved to the Free Soilers that, by 1850, when it practi-
cally ceased for a time, it ceased because the Free Soil party
was virtually dead, and its former members had thus lost the
power of compelUng concessions.
IS
CHAPTER XV.
THE FREE DEMOCRACY STANDS AGAINST FINALITY.
1S50-1851.
In the opening months of 185 1 it seemed as if the last
remnants of the Free Soil party might as well disband. A
course of almost uninterrupted coalition had well-nigh destroyed
among them both the wish and the power for independent
action, had deprived them of faith in their own resources and
in each other, and had reduced their State and local organiza-
tions to impotence.
To this disintegration the Compromise of 1850 — passed in
September, 1850^— came as the finishing blow. People were
tired, thoroughly tired, of the slavery struggle; they desired
never to hear the words "Free Soil" or "Wilmot Proviso"
again; all they wanted was peace, and this the Compromise
offered.
In reality, the Compromise settled nothing; it left the terri-
torial question much as it had been before ; but this fact people
agreed to ignore, and with one accord statesmen, politicians,
and newspapers, hitherto strong for the Wilmot Proviso, joined
in the cry that slavery agitation must now cease, that a settle-
ment which was a "finality" had been reached. In the face
of this clamor the Free Democratic party for the time being
vanished from sight: its principles, just claimed by both
parties, were now repudiated with the oft-repeated assertion
that, since the question of slavery was settled, no one but a
rank disunion abolitionist would still maintain them. The
Barnburners in particular, who had already rejoined their old
associates, now reviled their temporary allies of 1848 as con-
OBJECTIONS TO FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 22;
stitution-breakers, fanatics, and fools, because they too did not
cease struggling.
Nevertheless, this year, when things were at their lowest ebb,
really marks the beginning of a new phase in the anti-slavery
history of the Northwest. There was a feeling that in the
hurly-burly of the last two years anti-slavery sentiment had be-
come perverted, that a return to first principles was demanded ;
and consequently there was a reappearance of religious, moral,
and non-partisan anti-slavery agitation, reminding one of the
days previous to 1840. The Compromise measures included a
statute against which anti-slavery people the country over could
band themselves; it was the new Fugitive Slave Law, which
indeed, upon its passage, had produced a sort of explosion in
the Northwest. In Ohio, the Western Reserve rose as one man
to condemn the obnoxious bill. Free Soil, Whig, and Demo-
cratic papers lamented its passage, and public meetings with-
out respect to party uttered fiery denunciations coupled v/ith
threats of disobedience. Clergymen took an active part, and
anti-slavery men who had hardly met since the days of 1838
found themselves for the moment side by side.
A few examples will illustrate the uproar. "We deem it
the duty of every good citizen," said a meeting in Cleveland,
"to oppose and resist by all proper means the execution of
said law."^ In Highland County a meeting, managed by Mr.
Chase and the old time abolitionists, John Rankin and Samuel
Crothers, resolved that "Disobedience to the enactment is
obedience to God." ^ Said Belmont County: "If the Federal
Government has any slaves to catch it may catch them, — we
will not aid or assist, nor do we believe any respectable or
high-minded citizen of the Union will."^ Washington County
resolved "That any man who in any way aids in the execution
of this law should be regarded as false to God and totally un-
fit for civilized society."* Similar sentiments were expressed
in Indiana, where one of the meetings, rising on the wings of
eloquence, resolved "That we will not assist, if called upon,
^ Trtte Democrat, Oct. 14, 1850.
2 National Era, Dec. 5, 1S50.
8 Ibid., Nov. 14, 1850. * Ibid., Dec. 5, 1850.
228 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
in capturing or securing a fugitive slave under this act, although
the penalty for refusing should deprive us of all our posses-
sions and incarcerate us between dungeon walls." ^ A Michigan
meeting resolved that "Any commissioner or marshal who
will not rather resign his office than consent to aid in carry-
ing this law into effect, has too little soul to appreciate the
blessings of freedom, and is unworthy of our confidence or
respect." 2 The northern counties of Illinois echoed these
protests. The anti-slavery sentiment of Wisconsin revolted
at the new law, expressing itself in dozens of protests; and
Iowa felt a ripple of the excitement and held indignation
meetings.^
Even legislative bodies felt the heat of this fierce indignation.
The Chicago Common Council passed a resolution that the
city police should not be required to aid in the recovery of
slaves.* While the feeling was at its height, an effort was made
in the Ohio legislature to pass resolutions instructing Senators
and Representatives to vote for the repeal of the law ; but it
was defeated in the House, 38 to 33. Toward the end of the
session, in March, some milder resolutions were passed, asking
merely for an amendment of the law so as to secure jury trial;
and, in default of that, for its repeal. This request was so
unsatisfactory to the Free Soil members that some of them on
the final passage voted against it.^ In Wisconsin similar reso-
lutions passed the Senate by a close vote, but were tabled in
the House.^ By the spring of 185 1 the excitement among
those who were not abolitionists had burnt itself out, and
people were beginning to accept the law as a disagreeable but
necessary part of the Compromise.
To all thorough-going anti-slavery men, however, the Fugi-
tive Slave Law remained an object of execration ; and its re-
peal formed the immediate aim of their agitation, now that
1 Indiana True Democrat., Nov. 15, 1850.
2 National Era, Nov. 14, 1850.
^ Iowa Triie Democrat., Feb. 5, 1851.
4 A. T. Andreas, History of Chicago., I., 608.
6 National Era, April 3, 1851.
® Kenosha Telegraph, Feb. 14, 185 1.
ANTI-SLAVERY REORGANIZATION. 229
the Wilmot Proviso had been compromised away.^ Anti-
slavery organization began once more at first principles, — on
the ground that slavery was unrighteous. In April, 1850,
during the Compromise debate, a Christian Anti-Slavery Con-
vention, in which veteran abolitionists of 1838 took part, had
been held at Cincinnati with great success ; ^ following this
model a Northwestern Christian Convention was held at Chicago,
in July, 185 1, at which eleven States were represented by clergy-
men and laymen, including many of the stamp of Samuel Lewis
and Owen Lovejoy. Both of these conventions revived the half-
forgotten language of 1836, insisting on the pre-eminently relig-
ious character of anti-slavery action.^ In the following years
local Christian conventions, held in all of the Northwestern States,
revived the old agitation ; and, little by little, movements began
toward resuming anti-slavery political action. Ohio and Wis-
consin, it is true, did not feel this impulse so much as did the
other communities ; for in these two States the Free Soil party
still lived on. Michigan anti-slavery sentiment still remained
prostrate, giving little or no sign of life.
In the rest of the Northwest the work of 1841 began anew.
In Indiana the old Quaker leaven began to work again, and a
call appeared in Wayne County, saying: "Years have elapsed
since we have had an anti-slavery meeting in the county and
all this time the foes of freedom have been triumphing. We
have surely lost strength by inaction. Come, let us have a
genuine, good, old-fashioned anti-slavery convention."^ Then
came a Christian Anti-Slavery Convention at Indianapolis, on
May 28, 1851, followed by a "Political Anti-Slavery Conven-
tion," in which, under the presidency of Judge Stevens, some old-
time Liberty men, with a few Free Soilers, adopted a long series
of resolutions of the old stamp, besides denouncing the Fugi-
tive Slave Law, advocating prohibition of the liquor traffic, on
the principle of the " Maine Law," and calling for a National
^ A meeting to organize a party against the law was held in Randolph
County, Indiana, Jan. i, 1851 : Indiana True Democrat, Feb. 27, 1851.
2 Report of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 1850.
8 National Era, July 10, 31, 185 1.
^ Indiana True Democrat, April 10, 1S51.
230 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
Political Anti-Slavery Convention at Cleveland. A State Cen-
tral Committee was appointed, and measures were taken to
sustain the Tnie Democrat.^
Illinois followed the example of Indiana by holding, on Jan-
uary 9, a State Anti-Slavery Convention at Granville. A new
State Anti-Slavery Society was formed on "religious, moral,
and political grounds," with J. H. Collins as president, Z.
Eastman as secretary, and with a full list of officers, nearly
all of whom were old Liberty men. A set of resolutions was
adopted, which, like those of Indiana, rang with radicalism;
so that even the National Era felt called upon to condemn
their tenor as " illegal and proscriptive." "Our efforts," it said,
"are not limited to the restriction of slavery, but we labor for
its abolition. An oath to support the Constitution never implies
an obligation to support any immorality it may contain. . . .
Slavery like piracy has no legal existence in the United States,"
and, in the language of the Liberty League, "it is unconstitu-
tional." ^ There was also a convention for southern Illinois in
Randolph County, which paid its respects to the "Union-saving"
cry of the Compromisers in the following prophetic language:
"We do not believe the union of these States is in the slightest
manner endangered by the agitation of this question. The
sagacious statesmen of the slave states know that a majority
of their citizens are in favor of the Union. A war destructive
of slavery, perhaps of the slaveholders, must be the results of
secession."^
Such language fell unheeded by the leaders of the old parties.
To them the non-extension of slavery was a dead issue ; and,
therefore, in most of the Northwestern States they proceeded
to rid themselves in all haste of the Free Soil doctrines which
they had been upholding so vigorously, and to plant themselves
squarely on the Compromise. In Indiana the legislature opened
the year by choosing, for Senator, J. D. Bright, who, in con-
trast to Whitcomb, elected in 1849, was "avowedly the friend
and ally of the South." The Indianapolis Sentinel, which in
1849 ^lad claimed that the Democratic party in its opposition to
^ National Era, June 26, 1851 ; Indiana True Democrat, June 12, 1851.
2 Ibid., Feb. 6, 1851, March 20, 185 1. » Ibid., July 3, 1851.
OLD PARTIES ADOPT COMPROMISE. 23 1
slavery "occupied a position of moral strength otherwise un-
rivalled,"-^ now came under the control of VV. J. Brown, who,
though a Free Soil Democrat in 1848, now placed his paper
among the unswerving advocates of the "finality " of the Com-
promise. Among the requisites for Democracy he placed " ad-
herence to the recent Compromise measures of Congress on
the subject of domestic slavery, and opposition to the repeal of
the Fugitive Slave Law and further agitation of the slavery
question. We are for the Compromise as a whole. On this
rock we have taken our stand. It is the rock of safety to the
Democratic party, and the rock of safety to the Union." ^ In
Ilhnois the Democratic party in the legislature, through the
influence of Douglas, passed resolutions indorsing the Com-
promise measures and rescinding the VVilmot Proviso instruc-
tions of two years before.
In Michigan the Democratic party, which already, under
Cass's dictation, had abandoned Free Soil ground, now signal-
ized the disappearance of old feuds by unanimously renominat-
ing Cass to the Senate, and later by nominating for governor R.
McClelland, a former Wilmot Proviso man, whose nomination
in 1849 had been prevented by Cass's personal effort. McClel-
land had been so consistently anti-slavery that the leaders of
the defunct Free Soil party, after consultation, expressly de-
clined to put a candidate in the field against him.^
The Democratic majority in the Wisconsin legislature passed
resolutions rescinding the censure of Senator Walker in 1849;
and the State Convention, in spite of opposition from some
returned Barnburners, resolved "That the Democracy of Wis-
consin now stand, where all true Democrats have stood since
1836, on the platform of principles drawn by that pure and
lamented statesmen, Silas Wright; and we would in their name
repudiate all extraneous issues and sectional tests of party faith
as disorganizing in their tendency."*
The Iowa Democracy had been throughout so pro-slavery
^ National Era, J uly 1 2, 1 849.
2 Indiana True Democrat, March 20, April 3, 1851.
2 H. K. Clarke, Detroit Post and Tribune, July 6, 1879.
^ National Era, Oct. 2, 1851 ; Racine Advocate, Sept. 17, 1851.
232 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
that no recantation was necessary to bring it into line with the
national party. In 1849, its majority in the legislature had
flouted and shelved some Wilmot Proviso resolutions, after
having made sport of them by proposing ludicrous and inde-
cent amendments. Now in 185 i the Iowa legislature proceeded
to pass joint resolutions favoring the Compromise; and enacted
a law forbidding free negroes or mulattoes to settle in the State
on penalty of fine and imprisonment, adding with cutting irony:
"This act is to take effect and be in force by publication in
the Iowa True Democrat, a weekly newspaper published in Mt.
Pleasant."^ The True Democrat naturally refused to publish
the law, saying in its disgust : " When we take into considera-
tion this new law, making Iowa a slaveholding state for slave-
holding monopolists, we think our legislature serves the Devil
with more alacrity than even their slave-holding lords could
desire." 2
With the Whigs matters were somewhat different. To be
sure party organs directly accessible to " influence " from
Washington said, in the language of the Detroit Advertiser :
" No threats of disunion will ever serve to drive a single true-
hearted Whig from the support of an administration which he
knows to be pure and true." ^ Yet the party conventions were
less eager than were their Democratic opponents to ratify the
Compromise. The Ohio State Convention resolved that, as
the Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Law were not adminis-
tration measures, every Whig was at liberty to hold his own
opinion concerning them ; and many local conventions passed
anti-slavery resolutions. In Indiana, although the leading Whig
newspapers assumed a non-committal attitude, party conven-
tions in two districts condemned the Fugitive Slave Law as
" impolitic, unjust, abhorrent to our feelings and repugnant to
our habits." * The Michigan Whig State Convention, " while
holding it to be the duty of every citizen to abide by and sup-
port all laws constitutionally passed on the subject of slavery,
1 Laws 0/ Iowa (1850-51), 172-73.
2 Quoted in Indiana Triie Donocrai, March 27, 1851.
^ Detroit Advertiser, Feb. 3, 1851.
* National Era, Aug. 7, 1S51.
INDIANA DEMOCRATS DESERT JULIAN. 233
nevertheless was now as always opposed to the extension of
slavery over territory now free." ^ In Wisconsin the Whigs,
still bolder, declared themselves opposed to the extension of
slavery, and defied the " finality " cry by saying: "We deem
it the unquestionable right of every citizen to canvass the merits
of every enactment, and if found to be unjust, oppressive,
or of doubtful expediency, to advocate their modification or
repeal." ^
In 1 85 1 the only elections in which organized anti-slavery
action was involved were in Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, and in
Iowa, where, although the third-party men took no State action,
enough vigor remained to run Free Democratic tickets in
several counties.^ In the Fourth Congressional District of
Indiana, G, W. Julian, who had been elected in 1849 by Free
Soil and Democratic coalition, was now, under very discourag-
ing auspices, nominated for re-election. The only supporters
upon whom he could certainly count were the Free Democrats
and Liberty men, for the Whigs of the district stood on the
Compromise, and the Democrats were wavering. In spite of the
efforts of W. J. Brown, of the Indiamipolis Sentinel, seconded by
those of Oliver P. Morton, the Democratic district convention
stood by him, since it knew that it had no chance of success
without Free Soil help ; it therefore passed some resolutions in
favor of the Compromise, and adjourned without nominating
anybody.^ Julian was thus left the only opponent of the Whig
candidate, and he made a gallant fight. He took the stump
and traversed the whole district thoroughly, combating the viru-
lent opposition of the Whigs and the underhand disaffection of
the Democrats. Some negotiations were opened for a joint
canvass ; but the scheme fell to the ground, and the air was
filled with charges and counter-charges of cowardice. When on
several occasions the two candidates did encounter each other,
their speeches were envenomed with personalities, Parker losing
his temper and Julian giving back with interest all that he
1 Detroit Advertiser, Sept. 12, 1851.
2 Milivaukee Sentinel, Sept. 25, 1851.
3 Iowa True Democrat, July 23, 1851.
4 National Era, July 17, 1851.
234 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
received. By his personal popularity and by his aggressive
bearing in the fight, Julian succeeded in holding the greater
part of the Democrats who had supported him two years before,
as well as a few Whigs; but the efforts of the Sentinel cut away
the ground from under him, and Parker was elected through
Democratic votes.^ The result of this contest was the end of
coalition between the anti-slavery and Democratic organizations
in Indiana.
In Wisconsin the third party raised its head in 185 1 for the
first time since October, 1849, and issued a call for a State
Mass Convention of all opposed to the Fugitive Slave Law, to
be held September 9. The convention thus called, evidently
remembered Durkee's success through Whig votes in 1850; for
it took an unusual step in nominating for Governor L.J. Farwell,
an anti-slavery Whig, expecting that the Whigs would unite on
him. The proceedings were almost entirely in the hands of old
Liberty men, Durkee, Holton, Booth. Ray, and J. H. Paine
formerly of Ohio ; but the ticket nominated had, as usual, a
large admixture of Barnburners, Though the platform had the
ordinary Free Soil flavor, the name "Free Democrat" was
avoided by this State Convention ; ^ but the affiliated local
organizations continued under their old names during the
campaign without any such qualms.
This nomination proved fortunate; for the Whigs, on their
side, ascertained that Farwell, in spite of his choice by the
"Mass Convention," was no Free Soiler, but a true Whig;
at their State Convention he was nominated on a strong anti-
slavery platform, largely through the personal efforts of S. M.
Booth, of the Milwaukee Free Democrat, who had gained
Farwell's assent to the plan and had managed the Free Soil
1 The comparison between the votes of the two years is shown as
follows : —
Whig. Coalition.
1849 4:583 4,737
1851 5,102 4.540
For the details of this campaign, see G. W. Julian, Political Recollections,
1 16-18, and Indiana True Democrat, Mar. 13-Aug. 7, 1851, and especially
Aug. 28.
^ Kenosha Telegraph, Sept. 26, 1851.
FREE DEMOCRATS AID WISCONSIN WHIGS. 235
convention.^ The Free Soilers at first did not think it prudent
to notify Farwell of their nomination, lest he should decline it.
Such fears were unnecessary; the Whigs were too much in need
of Free Soil votes to reject their unaccustomed allies ; they did
not revolt even when Durkee, to quiet the uneasy consciences of
the more radical anti-slavery men, wrote to Farwell asking him
his views. The reply was so thoroughly anti-slavery that the
Free Soilers rallied to Farwell's support, and secured his election.
The Whigs thus got not only a Governor, but — for the first time
in the history of the State — a plurality over the Democrats in
the lower branch of the legislature. Although Farwell could
not have been elected without the Free Soil vote, the Whigs
considered their victory was due to advocacy of State banks ; a
policy which, the Democrats said : " the enemies of the Democ-
racy stalked forth as a kind of war-horse to operate on the
nerves of voters."^ In the vote for Lieutenant-Governor may
be seen the usual damaging effect of partial coalition. The
Free Democratic vote had fallen now to even less than in 1849,
and, outside a few counties, comprised few except old-time
Liberty men.^
In Ohio in 1851 several incidents occurred which, like the
revival of anti-slavery agitation in Indiana and Illinois and the
renewal of party action in Wisconsin, marked the beginning of
a new growth. The first problem to confront the diminished
number of Free Soilers in the legislature of 1850-51 was the
question of the election of a United States Senator. For a
time it seemed as if the days of 1849 had come again; for the
third party still held the balance of power in each House, and a
Whig and Free Soil " deal " arranged the organization of the
Senate; while Morse, as though bound to repeat his achieve-
ments of two years previous, was chosen Speaker of the House
by Democratic agreement. When the time came for the sena-
1 Author's correspondence with S. M. Booth, July, 1896.
2 Letter in Racine Advocate, Jan. 14, 1892.
2 The vote was as follows : —
Democratic. Whig. Free Soil.
Governor Upham 21,812 Farwell 22,319
Lieut. -Governor Burrs 24,519 Hughes 16,721 Spaulding 2,904
236 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
torial election, however, no coalition of any sort had been
engineered : the Free Soilers held together in most exemplary-
fashion in support of Giddings ; the Whigs voted steadily for
Grisvvold ; and the Democrats, relinquishing all hope of Free
Soil aid, stood grimly by H. B. Payne. This condition of
things was very exasperating to Chase. " Of course I want a
man of decided Democratic sympathies and affinities," he wrote
to his agent, E. S. Hamlin ; and he suggested that " it would not
be amiss for the Free Democrats to elect some Democrat of the
Old Line in sympathy with them — say Spaulding," ^
After thirteen fruitless ballots, it became evident that a hard
struggle was inevitable; therefore the senatorial election was
postponed until the end of the session. Balloting was then re-
sumed, with the same candidates as before; until on March 13
the Free Soilers suddenly abandoned Giddings for Vaughn,
gaining by this manoeuvre a few Whig votes. By this time it
was common rumor that coalition, if any there were, must be
between Whigs and Free Democrats, a state of things which
caused Chase the utmost alarm. " Any arrangement with the
Whigs," he wrote, " would put a club in the hands of the
enemies of our cause with which they would infallibly break
our heads. If there is no hope for the triumph of our cause
through the progress and co-operation of the Democrats, there
is no hope for it, I see." Then, thinking of his own election, he
remarked: "Thank God I have never compromised principle
for political place and, with his blessing, I never will." ^ In
spite of Chase's warnings, a series of rapid changes now took
place on the part of Whigs and Free Soilers, each party testing
the other by some new candidate. The Free Soilers put for-
ward Giddings, Vaughn, Sutliff, and Hildreth ; the Whigs tried
Corwin, B. F. Wade, Lane, Williamson, and finally Wade again,
who on the twenty-ninth ballot, on March 17, received all the
Whig and Free Soil votes and was elected.^ This victory,
almost the last Whig success of any moment in Ohio, caused
great Whig rejoicing; for Wade, though a stalwart anti-slavery
1 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Dec. 9, 1850, and Jan. 15, 1851 : Chase MSS.
'^ Ibid., Jan. 17, 1851.
3 True De7jwcrat, ]?in. 3-March 17, 1851 ; National Era, March 27, 1851.
WHIGS AND FREE DEMOCRATS ELECT WADE. 237
man since 1838, had not flinched from his party in 1844, or even
in 1848. All Free Soilers, also, except Chase and his followers,
were well satisfied ; for in the previous autumn Wade had made
a fiery speech denouncing the Fugitive Slave Law, and they
felt sure that he would be no compromiser. " He is a true
Northern man," said the Cleveland True Democrat, " one who
will not yield the hundredth part of an inch where freedom
is at stake." ^ Giddings, however, though recognizing Wade's
anti-slavery position, could not forget that he had always
followed his party, and wrote to Sumner in words that sound
oddly in view of later events: " I have no distrust of his pres-
ent feelings. My objection to him is solely on account of his
want of straightforward determination of purpose. That leads
me to fear he may leave us at some future day." ^
"* In the State election of 1851 it became apparent that anti-
slavery principles were still a power in the land ; for while
Democratic and Whig parties in other States were hastening to
abandon Free Soil ground, those in Ohio stood unmoved where
they had been since 1848. The Whigs, meeting on June 3, re-
solved that, since the Compromise and the Fugitive Slave
Law were not party measures, every Whig was at liberty to
hold his own opinions concerning them ; but this refusal to in-
dorse the " finality " was weakened by the nomination for Gov-
ernor of G. F. Vinton, who while in Congress had changed
front on the slavery question.^ The Democrats went into the
campaign with high spirits ; for the new State constitution,
a thoroughly popular instrument, was their work, a fact by
which they were sure to profit. To make success certain, in
their State Convention they reaffirmed their anti-slavery plank
of 1848, omitted to notice the Compromise, and renominated
Governor Wood. It might be true, that the delegates greeted
the news of the success of negro exclusion in Indiana with yells
of applause ; ■* but as that fact did not appear on the surface,
1 March 18, 1851.
2 March 17, 1S51 : Sumner MSS. See also G. W. Julian, Life of J. R.
Giddings, 287.
8 National Era, July 10-31, 1851.
^ True Democrat, Aug. 8, 1851 ; N^ational Era, Aug. 14-21, 1851.
238 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
the Democrats of Ohio went into the State election of 185 1 with
a platform almost as anti-slavery as that of the Free Democrats
themselves.
The Free Soilers, meanwhile, plucked up courage, asserted
the permanency of their party, and called for a State Conven-
tion. As usual, the Western Reserve led the way; and on
May 6 a convention at Painesville fired a signal gun by passing
a set of courageous resolutions under the lead of Giddings,
Vaughn, Bissell, Morse, and others, recommending a Western
Reserve convention on June 25, a national Convention later,
and thorough local organization. The Western Reserve Conven-
tion at Ravenna, on June 25, presided over by J. F. Morse, was
an able body. The attendance was 2,000 ; Tilden, Chase, Lewis,
and Giddings made addresses; and great enthusiasm showed
that, whatever might happen elsewhere, the Western Reserve
was still true to independent action. The resolutions reiterated
the Buffalo platform ; condemned the old parties, the Compro-
mise, and the Fugitive Slave Law; recommended a national
Convention at Cleveland to organize for 1852, and appointed a
committee to call a State Convention. On August 21 the State
Convention assembled, and for the first time since 1848 the anti-
slavery forces of the State got into good working order. All
the old leaders were present; Giddings presided, J. Birney was
secretary, Spaulding, Vaughn, Lewis, Root, and Hamlin spoke;
and the utmost harmony reigned, except for a slight brush
between the ex-Whigs and the ex-Democrats over a clause in
the resolutions favoring a low tariff. A full State ticket was
nominated, headed by the name of the candidate for Governor,
Lewis. When the chairman of the' nominating committee read
Lewis's name, the veteran came forward and tried to withdraw;
but suddenly Root, from the audience, broke in : " Hold, hold,
sir, I beseech you ! The boys who listened to you when travel-
ling over the State and speaking in behalf of education are men
now, and they want a chance to vote for }'ou." Everybody rose
and cheered, and amid the thunders of applause, Lewis, much
moved, bowed his speechless acquiescence.^ The convention
adjourned with high hopes.
^ Trtie Defiwcrat, Aug. 23-25, 1S51 ; National Era, Aug. 28, 1851.
REVIVAL OF OHIO FREE DEMOCRACY. 239
Before the campaign had fairly opened, the party received a
blow between the eyes that fairly dazed it. In a long letter,
dated August 25, 185 1, S. P. Chase avowed his intention to act
with the Ohio Democrats in this election, and to support Judge
Wood against Sam Lewis. To prove that the Ohio Demo-
crats were an anti-slavery body. Chase adduced a long list of
Free Soil opinions and resolutions from local conventions and
papers of the years 1849-50, and pointed out, as finally conclu-
sive, the action of the recent convention in not approving the
Compromise and in renominating Wood. " I regret," he said in
conclusion, " that I cannot expect the concurrence of all the
devoted friends of freedom and progress, with whom I have
been accustomed to act. ... I must abide also the censures
of those Free Soilers who allow themselves to see in Democracy
only a malign spirit servile to all wrongs and hostile to all good,
and look to a dissolved and reconstructed Whig party for the
realization of their ideas of reform. Hereafter, as before, I shall
be faithful to my cause." ^ Such action on Chase's part was the
logical outcome of his state of mind since 1845, as shown in his
fondness for the term " Democracy ; " in his refusal to recognize
the Western Reserve Whigs as true Free Soilers, coupled with
his unhesitating acceptance of the Barnburners as his yoke-
fellows; in his efforts in 1849 to bring about local fusion; and
in his letter in 185 i to Donaldson, of the Democratic National
Committee, in which he said that he " greatly desired the union
and harmony of the Democracy." ^ All these indications pointed
one way; but he had never during the years 1849-50 separated
from the Free Soil organization ; and he had played an active
part in organizing and attending the great convention on the
Western Reserve at Ravenna. Now, in 1851, when the Demo-
cratic party everywhere except in Ohio stood on the Compro-
mise, his adherence to the local Free Soil body seemed a matter
of necessity.
Chase's letter was therefore an entire surprise to his former
Free Soil associates, and tried to the uttermost the patience of
the Western Reserve, as well as that of the Free Soil party at
^ National Era, Sept. 11, 1851.
2 Aug. 2, 1851 : R. B. Warden, Life 0/ Chase, 334.
240 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
large. Lewis wrote in disgust to Arthur Tappan : " Men lose
their confidence in our political movement because so many-
flaming Liberty men and Free Soilers are worshipping false
gods and seeking to draw us away. ... I am a Democrat, but
do not recognize the party recognizing Cass, Dickinson, and
Douglas as democratic, nor can I knowingly do aught that
can help such a party into power." ^
At first the True Democrat, struggling hard to keep its
temper, remarked that it would not condemn him: " Mr. Chase
has bared his bosom to whoever will strike. We give no
blow";^ but as public discussion of the matter increased, and
letters came from old-time Liberty men describing their " inex-
pressible surprise," it became more and more open in its con-
demnation, as did the Western Reserve Chronicle, the Ashtabula
Sentinel, the Paincsville Telegraph, and in fact nearly every
Free Democratic paper, except the Washington National Era.
" Mr. Chase," said the Trne Democrat, " is now opposing in
Ohio Sam Lewis and supporting Reuben Wood. There is no
logic which can reconcile in our minds this inconsistency or its
moral clash. ... It is all ajar." ^ It spoke of him as the " late
Mr. Chase, our lamented friend," and finally said : " We believe
it would have been incomparably better for the party, if it had
never raised a finger to put Mr. Chase into the' National
Senate." "* From Cincinnati, Chase's home, came letters, say-
ing: "This short corner that he has turned has filled us with
shame and mortification. Henceforth we must rank him with
mere partisan politicians," ^ And finally the Hamilton County
Free Soil Convention, revived for the first time since 1848,
resolved " that as the Hon. S. P. Chase, Senator in Congress
from this State, has formally withdrawn from our party, while
we regret this course and hope that it may not be injurious to
the cause of freedom, we feel it to be our duty to declare to the
public that we do not hold ourselves responsible for his acts or
recognize him as our representative."^ On the other side, Dr.
* W. G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samuel Lewis, 388.
2 Trtte Democrat, Sept. 11, 1851. ^ Ibid., Sept. 27, 1851.
* Ibid., Nov. 25, 1851. 6 ii^i^i^ Sept. 8, 1851.
^ National Era, Sept. 18, 1851.
CHASE JOINS DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 24 1
Bailey, in the National Era, deprecated all this criticism, saying
very justly: "The conduct of Mr. Chase is clearly in accord-
ance with his principles, and taking into consideration his cir-
cumstances, we are not prepared to say that he has not acted
wisely. His profound sympathy with the Democrac}^, the high
estimation in which he is held by a large portion of it, make his
case exceptional. The time in our judgment has not yet come
for dispensing with an independent Free Soil organization in
Ohio."i
The campaign of 1851 was a short one, and resulted in the
following vote in October: Democratic — Wood, 145,606;
Whig — Vinton, 119,538; Free Democratic — Lewis, 16,911.^
The great Democratic plurality was due probably to the popu-
larity of the new constitution and of their candidate, Judge
Wood. The Free Soil vote had increased a little over that of
the year before, but was still less than half of the vote of 1848.
Still more discouraging was the fact that neither in the popular
vote nor in the legislature did the party hold the balance of
power: and the days of bargaining were evidently over. "It is
quite safe to affirm," said the Triic Democrat, " that the vote for
Mr. Lewis would have been larger by some thousands had
Senator Chase stood by his party. Many who had placed
great confidence in him as a leader were confounded by his
sudden abandonment of us. Many Whigs supposed the Free
Soil strength was about to be transferred to Locofocoism, and
therefore abstained. Thousands of such did not vote at all.
Upon downright earnest Free Soilers, however, we willingly
grant that Senator Chase's secession produced no practical
effect, immeasurably as it surprised them. Not one of these, so
far as we know, followed in the retrogressive footsteps of that
gentleman." ^ In this year, most of Chase's special followers
of 1849 joined the Democrats; Dr. Townshend attended the
Democratic State Convention and served on the Committee
on Resolutions ; "* and Stanley Mathews was the Democratic
nominee forjudge; but upon the mass of original Liberty men
1 Natio7ial Era, Sept. 11, 1851. See also Oct. 2, 30, 1S51.
2 Vote in Whig Almanac, 1852.
8 True Detnocrat, Nov. 25, 185 1. ^ Ibid., Aug. 8, 1851.
16
242 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
Mr. Chase's course had Httle influence. Dr. Bailey, in the
National Em, said that no disappointment ought to be felt over
the vote: "Those we can rely upon at all times are mainly
after all the old-fashioned Liberty men and the natural acces-
sions to their numbers springing from the adoption of their
principles ; " and to support this view he pointed out the steady
increase in the anti-slavery vote for Governor since 1842.^
In the fall of 1851 there was held at Cleveland a national
convention, first proposed by Indiana and seconded by the
Western Reserve. There had been a growing feeling that the
time had come for a national organization of the " Friends of
Freedom," a sentiment which had already found expression in
Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan in proposals for the revival of the
Liberty party. For example, M. C. Williams, of Hamilton
County, Ohio, had written to the National Era : " The object
of this short communication is to suggest the propriety of hold-
ing a convention in Cleveland or Buffalo some time in May
next, to reorganize the old Liberty party. All anti-slavery men
could unite in carrying out the principles of that party. The
cause has lost much by being merged with the Free Soil move-
ment. Many are disgusted with the bargain and sale going on
in some legislatures at this time."^
This convention accordingly proved to be made up to a great
extent of old Liberty men. Dr. F. J. Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania,
presided, and of the four vice-presidents three were Liberty men.
Delegates were present from some of the New England States,
and from New York, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Among the
number were Lewis, Tappan, and Cassius M. Clay ; from Ohio
came Giddings, Spaulding, Lewis, Brisbane, Hoffman, Bradburn,
and crowds of others; from Indiana, Julian and Harding; from
Illinois, Eastman ; from Wisconsin, Booth ; and from Iowa,
Catell and Clarke. After speeches by Clay, Lewis, Stansbery
of Vermont, Julian, and Giddings, the convention adopted
somewhat radical resolutions, demanding, besides the essentials
1 1842, King, 5,405; 1844. King, 8,411; 1846, Lewis, 10,797; 1850,
Smith, 13,747; 1851, Lewis, 16,911. See National Era, Nov. 20, 1851.
2 A^ational Era, Feb. 20, 1851. See also letters from Michigan, Ibid.,
Aug. 7, 1 85 1.
CLEVELAND CONVENTION, 1851. 243
of the Buffalo platform, the election of all officers by the people ;
they roundly denounced the Fugitive Slave Law, and declared
that " law is without rightful authority unless based on Justice."
Some resolutions asserting that slavery was made unconstitu-
tional " by the preamble of the Constitution," were referred to
the next national convention ; and a committee from eighteen
States and the District of Columbia was appointed to fix the
time and the place for the National Nominating Convention.^
An interesting incident of the meeting was a slight passage-at-
arms between Lewis and Chase. The former in his address
" discussed with marked plainness the wisdom and the grounds
of Senator Chase's recent change of position. He proved the
one to be not very far-seeing and the other wellnigh baseless."
Loud calls for " Chase ! Chase ! " brought the Senator to his
feet with one of his characteristic speeches. " Though he dif-
fered — temporarily he trusted — from those with whom he had
so long acted ... he begged none would for any light reason
believe him capable of faltering in his support of a cause to
which the best years of his life had been devoted." ^
The year 185 1 ended with slight encouragement for anti-
slavery men. The " finality " cry was lulling all but the most
independent into quiet, and seemed in most of the States to
have completed the ruin of the Free Soil part}'. The third-
party press, the condition of which was a sure index of the con-
dition of the Free Soil cause, had dwindled to a mere fraction
of its numbers of three years before. In Ohio, out of about
forty Free Soil sheets in 1848, only seven remained.^ In
Indiana, the Centreville True Democrat was the only paper
remaining out of eight, and that was on the verge of suspen-
sion. In Michigan the last Free Soil paper, the Peninsular
Freeman, died in this year. In Illinois, of some eight or ten in
1848, the Western Citi::cn alone remained; but Wisconsin kept
1 On the Cleveland Convention, see Ibid., Sept. 11, Oct. 2-9, 1851 ; G. W.
Julian, Political Recollections, 119; Magazitie of Western History, IX., 273,
2 National Era, Oct. 2, 1851.
* The Cleveland True Democrat, Painesville Telegraph, Western Reserve
Chronicle, AsJitabula Sentinel, Chardon Free Democrat, Mount Vernon
Times, and Ohio Star.
244 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY.
three of its original eight, the Milwaukee Free Democrat, Ken-
osha TelegrapJi, and Racine Advocate. In Iowa the solitary
True Democrat, always on the point of collapse, was maintained
by the devotion of its editor, S. L. Howe, and by that of the
little band of third-party men in the State.
The only encouraging signs were, that at the ebb tide of their
cause anti-slavery men had drawn together for mutual support;
that State and national organization had begun once more; and
that, with the return to first principles, the old Liberty party
was again emerging into view. The fact that the revival of
1 85 1 was felt by the participants to be something different from
the movement begun at Bufi"alo is shown by the abandonment
of the term " Free Soil " as a party name. From the action of
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, it seemed for a time as if the
word "Anti-slavery" would take its place; but, through the
influence of the Eastern States and of Ohio, the official title of
the third party from 1851 to 1854 was the "Free Democracy,"
a name suggested at Buff'alo in 1848, but, curiously enough, not
in general use in the Northwest until the Democratic elements
of the party had in large measure left it. The term " Free
Soil " was for some purposes more attractive ; but the single
idea which it expressed was not broad enough to become the
foundation of a party. Moreover, it had been intimately con-
nected with the Wilmot Proviso, now a dead issue ; and it had
been used as a mere political adjective, without party significa-
tion, by Whigs, Democrats, and people of all shades of opinion.
To these objections the name " Free Democracy " was not
liable.
CHAPTER XVI.
THE FREE DEMOCRACY IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1852.
1851-1852.
In 1852 the independent anti-slavery sentiment of the country
by one strong effort pulled itself together and stood again on
its feet in every State. The initiative came, not as in 1848 from
New York, for there the Free Soil party since 1849 had been
non-existent ; nor from New England, although there the third
party had maintained itself for the most part intact through the
troubled years 1849-51 ; but it came from the Northwest.
The Cleveland Convention of 185 1 had appointed a commit-
tee to call a National Nominating Convention, and had sounded
a trumpet call for the campaign of 1852. Its last resolution
had been, " that we recommend to our friends in the several
States to organize as soon as possible " ; and accordingly in the
autumn of 1851 and the winter of 1852 work began. No de-
tailed account of this preparation is necessary; it is enough to
say that in each State conventions were called, campaign com-
mittees appointed, and in some cases nominations made for
State offices. The southern counties of Ohio, destitute of anti-
slavery organizations since 1849-50, were invaded by Lewis,
James Birney, Brisbane, and others. Everything had a Liberty
air ; old-time methods were used, especially that of employing
paid lecturers ; and of the nominees for electors, State officers,
and delegates to the National Convention, all but one were
former Libefty men.
A like zeal stirred Indiana : conventions of " Friends of Free-
dom " were held ; and a State " Political Anti-Slavery Conven-
tion " met and made nominations ; it adopted the old Liberty
246 CAMPAIGN OF ISbX
and abolitionist language, although led la gely by Julian, A. L.
Robinson, and other ex-Whigs ; and it ch Dse a majority of its
Presidential electors from Liberty men.^ Michigan had to begin
its organization anew, and it did so in the spirit of 1841, A
" State Delegated Convention of Friends of Freedom " met, and
formed a new State Anti-Slavery Society, after resolving " that
the present crisis demands a reorganization of the friends of
Liberty in this state, for the purpose of co-operating with those
of other states in separate political action." ^ In Illinois we
find the same old Liberty phraseology cropping out, when a
State Anti-Slavery Society, led largely by old-time Liberty men,
resolved " that we organize a party of Freedom to rescue the
Constitution from the abuse of slaveholders and their allies." ^
Everywhere the methods, aims, and language of ten years be-
fore reappeared, until it seemed as if the formal adoption of the
name was all that was needed to bring the old Liberty party
into existence again.
In the spring of 1852 the Whig and Democratic national
conventions were held at Baltimore. Their action — from which
few but the most optimistic among anti-slavery men expected
anything — showed conclusively that in this year the Free
Democratic or Liberty party, or whatever it chose to call
itself, must stand alone ; for both of these conventions, with
entire unanimity, resolved that the Compromise of 1850 had
finally settled the slavery question, and that agitation must now
cease.
The Central Committee, appointed in 1851 by the Cleveland
Convention, now issued, through Samuel Lewis, a call for a
national convention of the Free Democracy at Pittsburg on
August II, requesting friends of the Buffalo platform to meet
and choose delegates ; each State to be entitled to three times
the number of its Congressional delegation. The real lack
of any connection between this movement and the Free Soil
outbreak of 1848 was clearly seen by Lewis; and since the
intention was to form a practically new party, he felt that much
depended on the wording of the call. " We may mend or mar
^ Indiana Trne Democrat^ May 27, 1852.
2 National Era, July, 1-8, 1852. » Ibid., Feb. 19, 1852.
OLD LIBERTY METHODS REVIVED. 247
this great cause," he wrote to Arthur Tappan on May 28 ; and
again, " I think I have seen even from the active members of
the Cleveland Convention a disposition to go for Scott. I see
that our position is extremely critical and am trying not to in-
crease the repulsive influence." ^ As finally adopted, the lan-
guage of this call, in using the term " Free Democracy " instead
of " Anti-slavery," gave offence to some people like Lewis, Tap-
pan, and Lemoyne ; ^ but throughout the country it was the sig-
nal for vigorous action. There was an outburst of local meetings
to elect delegates; the Western Reserve counties, surpassing all
other regions in their enthusiasm, resolved to be represented
each by one hundred delegates.^
On August II, met the last national gathering of the Free
Democratic party. This convention was a large assemblage,
and, in spite of the recent destruction of the Free Soil vote in
nearly all of the States, it was enthusiastic* After the call had
been read and explained by Lewis to the satisfaction of Tappan,
and a temporary organization had been effected, with Spaulding
of Ohio as chairman and Booth of Wisconsin as secretary, the
Western Reserve delegation, several hundred strong, amid tre-
mendous cheering came marching in under a banner inscribed,
" No compromise with slaveholders or doughfaces."^ After one
day spent in securing organization, and part of a second day
in deciding how to vote, a platform containing twenty resolu-
tions was reported by Giddings. It was based upon the Buffalo
platform, but there were additional clauses condemning the
Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Law, demanding the recog-
nition of Hayti, and favoring international arbitration ; it in-
cluded also declarations of the unconstitutionality of the South
Carolina seamen laws, and of the duty of the United States
government to protest against European monarchical interven-
tion, together with other matters that showed the hand of Gid-
^ W. G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samuel Lewis, 395, 397.
2 National Era, July 8, 1852.
^ True Democrat, July 28, Aug. 4, 1852.
* National Era, Aug. 19-26, 1S52; G. W. Julian, Political Recollections,
^ H. M. Addison, in Magazine of Western History, IX., 273.
248 CAMPAIGN OF 1852.
dings.i A minority report offered by Gerrit Smith received
little support, and Giddings's resolutions were adopted by a
vote of 197 to 14.
The Presidential nomination was a foregone conclusion; for
John P. Hale was the unanimous choice of the people repre-
sented by the convention. True, he had written a letter
deprecating the use of his name ; but this circumstance the
convention refused to consider, and he was nominated on the
first ballot, by 192 votes to 15 scattering for Chase, Smith, and
others. At this result the enthusiasm of the assembly found
vent in nine cheers. The choice of a Vice-President necessitated
two ballots. There had been a strong movement in favor of
nominating Sam Lewis ; but to the surprise of every one the first
ballot gave him only 83 votes to G. W. Julian's 104, and 23
scattering. Lewis then withdrew his name ; and on the second
trial, Julian was chosen, to his own astonishment. Lewis was
much hurt by this rebuff, not because he coveted honors, but
because he thought that Chase, Spaulding, and others had
worked secretly to defeat him on the ground that he was too
radical.^ Indeed, Julian's name had scarcely been mentioned
up to the time of the ballot.
At this convention nearly all the real thorough-going political
anti-slavery men of the country came together ; with the excep-
tion of Chase and the Barnburners, hardly any one who had
been prominent as a Liberty man or as a Free Soiler was
absent. Delegates attended from all the free States, and from
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia ; but, as usual,
the Northwestern men took the lead. Lewis and Giddings
were the men most prominent in the convention. Also im-
portant were Spaulding, Brisbane, and Vaughn, of Ohio ; Hard-
ing, of Indiana; Lovejoy, of Illinois; Paine and Booth, of
Wisconsin, and Howe, of Iowa. The only Eastern men who
were equally conspicuous were the Massachusetts contingent,
headed by Henry Wilson, the president of the convention,
and Charles Francis Adams. Throughout the convention,
^ The platform was drafted by Chase : R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 338.
" G. W. Julian, Political Recollections, 124; W. G. W. 'Ltvi'is, Biography
of Samuel Lewis, 401.
HARMONY IN THE CONVENTION. 249
crowds were present, and great mass meetings on the even-
ings of both days made the air ring with applause. Never
had a small third party, with apparently nothing to hope
for in the coming election, shown a higher spirit or a steadier
determination.
Some unfriendly papers, notably the New York Tribune, as-
serted that this convention had been " worked " in the Demo-
cratic interest ; and that Giddings and Vaughn, in their spite
against the Whigs, had prevented the nomination of Chase,
who would have drawn votes from Pierce — had forced Hale's
nomination in spite of his refusal by letter, and had taken care
not to notify him of his choice lest he should decline.^ It is
true that some of the leaders of the party at Washington, in-
cluding Bailey and Hale, would have liked to support Chase ;
but the latter from the outset would not hear of any such
scheme.^ Moreover, the assertion that it took any especial
effort to defeat his nomination is manifestly absurd, when the
facts of Chase's position in 1852 are borne in mind. He had
abandoned the Free Democratic party, and had not attended
its meetings since the summer of 1851; even in this year,
when the Baltimore platform of the Old Line Democrats proved
too pro-slavery for him, he insisted that he was still Democratic.
** I cannot support the nominees of the Baltimore convention,"
he wrote ; " but with an independent Democracy — with a demo-
cratic Democracy I am prepared to stand" ;^ and again, " If
we could have an Independent Democratic rally, thoroughly
Democratic in name and fact, without wild extravagances and
without any shrinking from a bold avowal of sound principles,
I should support it cheerfully." * So long as Chase maintained
this attitude, there was no necessity to steer the convention
away from him ; for by no thinkable means could his nomination
have been forced upon it. Giddings himself, far from having
worked for Hale to the disparagement of Chase or of anybody
else, thought Hale an unsuitable candidate because of the
1 True Democrat, Aug. 28, Sept. i, 1852.
2 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, June 28, 1852 : Chase MSS.
8 National Era, July 15, 1852.
4 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, June 28, 1852 : Chase MSS.
250 CAMPAIGN OF 1852.
letter of declination, but he yielded to the irresistible popular
demand.^
The statement has also been made that Chase had desired
the convention to ratify the nomination of Scott, and had sent
his follower Tovvnshend with instructions to work for that end.
True, a number of ex-Whig Free Soilers, led in Ohio by D. R.
Tilden, were anxious to unite the Free Democrats with the
Whigs against Pierce; but, although they made a stir in the
spring of 1852, they stood no real chance of carrying their
point. In spite of Lewis's fears, mentioned above, the likeli-
hood that the Free Democracy would indorse Scott is not
worth consideration. Not only did Scott stand on the Compro-
mise Whig platform, but Chase's Democratic prepossessions
make it impossible that he could have supported a Whig ;
and his private letters of the time show that his interest in
the Pittsburg Convention centred solely in its Democratic
character. Both these stories seem to be simply the idle tales
of disappointed Whigs.
Indeed, Julian's words are justified : " An assemblage of purer
men never convened for any political purpose."^ There was in
the convention no plotting, wire-pulling, bargaining, or under-
hand dealing of any kind ; nothing but the most earnest desire
for harmony and for the choice of the best men for leaders. If
the redundant excitement of the Buffalo Convention was lacking,
so were also its trading and bargaining. In all essentials, the
Free Democratic meeting of 1852 bears a far closer resemblance
to the Liberty convention which nominated Hale and King in
1847 than to the Free Soil convention of 1848.
After the news of the nomination and the platform had been
spread abroad, organization in the Northwestern States pro-
gressed rapidly. To describe the movement in detail would be
merely to give a list of conventions and resolutions. It is
enough to say that in the months of August and September
the old Liberty days of 1843 came again. In every Northwest-
ern State, Liberty men, ex-Whigs, anti-slavery Democrats, and
all not under the infxuence of the " finality " narcotic, ratified
^ Tn^e Dt-mocraf, Aug. 28, Sept. i, 1852.
2 G. W. Julian, Political Recollections, 122.
WESTERN RESERVE DISTRUSTS CHASE. 25 1
with real enthusiasm the nominations of Hale and Julian, and
worked as they had not done since 1848.
In Ohio, the number of Free Democratic meetings on the
Reserve and in the State at large again becomes too great to enu-
merate. The list of speakers on the stump contained nearly every-
body of importance, and included an amount of talent and zeal
that would seem able to convert any State to anti-slavery princi-
ples. Giddings, Edward Wade, Root, Brinckerhofif, Lewis, Spaul-
ding, Brisbane, Bissell, and O. P. Brown were all at work. On the
Reserve, to symboHze the healing of all differences, Townshend
was renominated for Congress by a Free Democratic meeting;
and then, with Morse and Hamlin, took the stump side by side
with Riddle and Vaughn. Finally, in September, Chase him-
self, finding Hale Democratic enough to satisfy his scruples,
took the stump, thus partially appeasing the Western Reserve,
although his act did not by any means wipe out all old scores.
Throughout the summer the True Democrat had continued to
cast slurs upon him. When asked, in July, what Senator Chase
would do in the coming campaign, it remarked: "That's a
tough question to answer at all times, but especially now. . . .
He is a Democrat, and he does not mean to forget it or allow
anybody else to forget it. He will allow no conflict between his
party position as a Democrat and his conduct as a public man." ^
Even after Chase had returned to the Free Democratic ranks,
the True Democrat said : " It is not to be denied that our people
regard the late past and present position of Mr. Chase with the
most decided disapprobation. ... It is a position the very purest
of Earth's beings could not occupy and escape suspicion." ^
No man ever lived more certain of his own rectitude than
was Chase ; but the open abuse of the Western Reserve papers
stung him to the quick, and he was even more bitterly galled
by the steady undercurrent of suspicion which attached to all
his words and deeds. On December 9, 1850, he wrote to
Hamlin: "The malice with which all of us who thought that
true policy as well as clear duty required co-operation with the
Old Line Democracy in 1849 have been pursued is extreme. . . .
This is outrageous. The disseminators of these calumnies must
1 True Democrat, July 14, 1852. ^ Ibid., Aug. 4, 1852.
252 CAMPAIGN OF 18B2.
be met and put down," ^ Never were they met or put down
until Chase was in his grave. The real difficulty was, that Chase
so lacked sympathy and imagination that he was entirely unable
either to understand that others doubted him or to avoid doubt-
ing others ; he could not conceive of any Whig as really standing
for anti-slavery ; and it seems never to have entered his head that
his Democratic course, which seemed to him perfectly consis-
tent, should to others appear questionable. At any rate, he
never hesitated on that account. In short, he fell into the same
mistake as Birney's in 1844: he did not scrupulously avoid the
appearance of evil. Chase was undoubtedly sincere and up-
right in purpose, but almost every position which he took from
1849 to 1852 had an unpleasant aspect and required elaborate
explanation. There was especial reason for caution, inasmuch
as Chase and his especial friends were lifted into office, while
Lewis, Brinckerhoff, Root, and Giddings were devoting heart
and soul to the thankless task of third-party work. Every Free
Soiler connected with the "deal " of 1849 got his reward : Chase
was Senator; Townshend, Congressman and member of the Con-
stitutional Convention ; Morse was re-elected to the legislature ;
Mathews got a judgeship ; Hamlin was a member of the Board
of Public Works. A man of even ordinary insight should have
realized that such things do not come about by coincidence.
Neither in his public utterances, which were so correct and color-
less that most ex- Whig Free Soilers thought them hypocritical
nor in his private correspondence does Chase for an instant
notice the doubt thus naturally suggested. He thanked God
that he had never bargained his principles for place, " conscious
as I am," he said, " of my fidelity to the cause in every thought,
word, and act, and knowing as I do what temptations to turn aside
I have resisted." ^
The bitter editorials of the Trite Democrat led Giddings, on
August 18, to write a public letter regretting any appearance of
unkind feeling toward Chase. As for Chase's return to the
Democratic party, he said : " I did not believe his confidence
well placed, and so expressed myself freely at the time, but I
1 Chase MSS.
2 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Sept. 20, 1853: Chase MSS.
CHASE'S POSITION EXPLAINED. 253
had full confidence in his integrity of purpose. ... I am aware
that suspicion and jealousy were awakened from reports that he
was to be our nominee for President. That story was put forth
without his consent. He constantly urged that Mr. Hale was
the man of all others to whom circumstances pointed. ... It is
due to our cause that these facts be known." ^ Appeased by
this letter, the True Democrat let the subject drop, saying: " We
neither cherish nor feel any unkindness toward Mr. Chase. We
were only afraid that he would, in 1852, as he did in sustaining
Governor Wood and opposing Sam Lewis in 185 1, turn his
power and position against our organization with fatal effect. . . .
But let all this pass. . . . Only let him be fully and heartily with
us and we will stand by his side as cordially as if we had never
differed in opinion."^
On September 14, a State Free Democratic Mass Convention
met at Cleveland, presided over by Giddings. After Milton
Sutliff had been nominated for Judge of the Supreme Court, to
fill the place on the ticket made vacant by the resignation of
Edward Wade, John P. Hale was introduced, and spoke with
great effect for two hours.^ One of the most interesting inci-
dents of the Ohio campaign was a dinner given to Giddings by
his constituents of the " Old Twentieth " Congressional District,
at Painesville, on September 18. Morse presided; speeches
were made by Hamlin, Chase, Hale, Wade, and Smith, and
letters read from C. M. Clay, Lewis, Julian, Judge Jay, Spaul-
ding, and others. It was a well-earned compliment to the veteran
anti-slavery champion.*
In Indiana, Julian, Harding, Cravens, and Robinson were on
the stump ; but local organization was very imperfect, and anti-
slavery men complained bitterly of their neglect by the party at
large. " We seem to have been slighted by all men," wrote
one; "the friends abroad seem to have given us over to our
own defence, whilst we had the most powerful odds to contend
1 True Democrat, Aug. 25, 1852.
2 Ibid.
8 Ibid., Sept. 22, 1852; National Era, Sept. 30, 1852.
* See Giddings's address to his former constituents, in the National Era,
April 7, 1853.
254 CAMPAIGN OF 1S52.
against of any of the Free States." ^ In the Quaker regions,
however, the old Liberty spirit flamed up and real enthusiasm
appeared. The ratification meeting in Henry County was " a
glorious one, the largest political meeting ever held in the
county; . . • the Free Soil ratification meeting of four years be-
fore in the same place in comparison to this was a cold and
lifeless affair not one fourth as large." ^
In Michigan, where the whole work of organization had to be
begun anew, there was a vigorous campaign. A mass conven-
tion at Ann Arbor, September i, was addressed by Lewis and
Giddings with great effect ; and a second State Convention at
Kalamazoo, September 29, appointed three salaried lecturers,
nominated a full State and electoral ticket, and arranged to
start a Free Democratic newspaper. Though their numbers
were few, Michigan anti-slavery men returned to the task of
party-building with an energy unknown since 1841. " So far
as my observation extends," wrote a correspondent of the
National Era, " I think there has never been a period since the
first foundation of the Liberty party when more zeal and spirit
have been manifested than there is at the present time." '^ In
Illinois the old-time activity of the northern counties reap-
peared after a three years' eclipse, and in Kane, Kendall, Cook,
Lake, and other counties local agitation began. " Hale Clubs"
sprang up, and organization was zealously urged.
The Wisconsin Free Democrats, better off than any of their
neighbors, still had their organization of 1848 ; hence there was
no such renewed uprising as took place in Illinois and Michi-
gan, but rather a strengthening all along the line. A State
Mass Convention at Milwaukee, on September 8, nominated an
electoral ticket, heard an address by Sam Lewis, and ratified
the nominations of Hale and Julian with great enthusiasm.
Even in Iowa the little band of anti-slavery men in the south-
eastern counties gained renewed life, improved their organiza-
tion, nominated an electoral ticket, and assailed the old parties
with fresh vigor. " What are the Free Soilers of Iowa doing?
^ Natiojial Era, Jan. 6, 1853.
2 Indiana Trjie Democrat, Sept. 2, 1852.
8 National Era, Oct. 7, 1852.
ORGANIZATION IN THE NORTHWEST. 255
cried the Tru? Democrat ; "whilst the friends of human freedom
are vigilant in Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, etc., are they
alone standing still in this state? With proper exertion they
ought to poll in November next three or four thousand votes.
. . . Let us be up and doing. Let the electoral tickets for Hale
and Julian be distributed in every neighborhood. Many do not
vote the P^ree Soil ticket because they are not at hand on the
day of election. Let the electors see to this." ^
In this year there was for the first time a beginning of national
management of the campaign. The Free Soil movement had
been so strong in the Northwest that the third-party leaders deter-
mined to throw their weight into that quarter; and accordingly
Lewis, Giddings, Hale, and Julian stumped Ohio and Michigan.
They paid especial attention to Wisconsin : that state had made
an especially good showing in 1848, and anti-slavery sentiments
were widespread ; hence they felt encouraged to hope that they
might get its electoral vote.^ In spite of all the efforts of Free
Democrats, however, this year's campaign was intensely dull. It
takes two to make a fight; and the Free Democrats could pro-
voke the active opposition of neither of the old parties. The
Democrats, reverting to their old practice of 1844, ceased to
notice them ; and the Whigs either followed the same course, or,
driven to express themselves, accused the third party of merely
running as stalking-horses for Pierce. Between the two old
parties the slavery question was avoided by common consent;
and the same men who for years had been claiming the Wilmot
Proviso as straight Democratic or Whig doctrine, now found
food for debate in the tariff, or very often in less respectable
topics. " The coarsest abuse of the candidates of the opposing
party," wrote a correspondent of the National Era, " litde tales
of what General Pierce once did and what General Scott once
said, appeals to sectarian prejudice, ^ — any claptrap forms the
staple of party appeals. The discussion of the great question,
the only vital one, is carefully avoided." ^
So recent had been the revival of the Free Democratic party
1 Iowa True Democrat, Oct. 27, 1852.
2 Cleveland True Democrat, Aug. 25, 1852.
3 National Era, Oct. 21, 1852.
256 CAMPAIGN OF 1852.
that in the summer elections it did not make a large figure. In
the Ohio October election the vote for judge stood as follows :
Democratic — Caldwell, 146,795 ; Whig — Haynes, 128,560; Free
Democratic — Sutlifif, 22,167. I^i Indiana no returns for the state
vote are accessible ; it was probably greater than that in 1849, but
how much greater cannot be accurately stated. The complaints
of lack of organization were bitter. " We have already since
the state election received more than a dozen letters," said the
True Democrat, " stating that no tickets were had in the respec-
tive townships of the writers for State officers." ^ In Julian's
old district the vote for Congress stood : Democratic — Groce,
6,153; Whig — Parker, 7,181; Free Democratic — Hubbard,
1,451.
In Congressional nominations the party did not feel strong
enough for much independent action, although it was decidedly
more active than in 1848 or 1850. In Ohio, nominations were
made in sixteen districts, as against seven in 1850, and six in
1848 ; but the Liberty party had frequently surpassed this mark,
nominating in eighteen districts as far back as 1843. In Michi-
gan, inveterate habit proved too strong for the Free Democrats,
and in the Second District they indorsed Williams, the Whig
nominee. This action was not, however, the complete self-
surrender of 1850; for Williams had been a Free Soiler in 1848,
and was still so strong an anti-slavery man that he pronounced
openly in favor of the Pittsburg platform.^ In Indiana a single
third-party nomination was made, and in Illinois there were
four Free Democratic candidates in the northern districts, as
compared with one in 1850 and with six Liberty candidates in
1846. In Wisconsin a complete ticket appeared in all three dis-
tricts, but the interest centred as usual in the First District,
where Durkee had been elected in 1850 by coalition with Whigs,
and where, it was hoped, that party would now again help him ;
but however much some of the Whigs would have liked to
support Durkee, the managers dared not take such action in a
national campaign. Consequently, a Whig candidate was
nominated ; whereat the Free Democrats, in their irritation,
^ Indiana True Democrat, Oct. 28, 1852.
2 Cleveland True Democrat, Sept. 29, 1852.
VOTE OF THE FREE DEMOCRACY. 2 $7
turned the Whigs' cry back upon them by asserting that
Durand, the Whig, was run only in order to defeat Durkee
and let in Wells, the Democrat.^
In November Pierce received a great majority of the elec-
tors, and he carried every Northwestern State.^ Everywhere
the most striking fact was the complete overthrow of the Whig
party. The falsity of its position with regard to the Com-
promise, together with its complete failure to meet the pressing
question of the hour, made its efforts useless ; and the country
had discarded it for the triumphant Democracy.
What was the lesson of the election for the new Free Demo-
cratic party? It had found itself unable in this single campaign
to make up for the losses caused by the return of the Barn-
burners and the " Conscience " Whigs in 1849-50; but it had
shown vitality. As Dr. Bailey said: "It was not until the year
preceding the late election that the political antislavery men or
the Free Democrats began the work of a separate national
organization. The fact that in so short a time they were able
to disentangle themselves and after a short canvass cast up-
wards of 150,000 votes for Freedom is evidence of power." ^
The most important fact brought out by the election of 1852 is
that the centre of gravity of political anti-slavery action had
swung into the West. The canvass of 1852 showed little rela-
tive change in New England, where the three parties continued
with the same rigidity which had characterized them since 1844.
In the Middle States the Barnburners of 1848 were now the
strongest supporters of Franklin Pierce, and the rejuvenated
Free Democracy polled little more than the old Liberty vote.
In the Northwest, however, where immigration had been active,
* Racine Advocate, Sept. 29-Oct. 20, 1852.
2 In the Northwest the vote stood as follows: —
Pierce.
Scott.
Hale.
Ohio . . .
. 169,220
152,526
31,682
Indiana . . .
• 95-340
80,900
6,929
Michigan . .
. 41,842
33.853
7,237
Illinois . . .
• 80,597
64,934
9,966
Wisconsin . .
. 31,658
22,240
8,814
Iowa . . . .
. 17,762
15,855
1,606
National Era, Dec. 9, 1852.
17
258 CAMPAIGN OF 1852.
where since 1848 the fluctuation in anti-slavery votes had been
extreme, the greatest revival took place; the new party cast
only 15,030 votes less than the Free Soilers of 1848, and it also
cast a larger third-party vote than even New England.^
Who furnished these Free Democratic votes? In New Eng-
land the Liberty men, and most of the same Whigs and Demo-
crats who had revolted in 1848; in New York and Pennsylvania,
few besides old-time Liberty men. In the Northwest, it seems
certain that the Free Soil party had by 1850 lost nearly all of
its original Whig and Democratic converts of 1848; but unlike
the party in New York it mounted again, in 1852, nearly to
the voting strength which it had reached in 1848. Apparently
it regained few or none of its former Democratic members ; for
there is no assertion that any Barnburners returned to the third-
party ranks in 1852, and the great increase of the Democratic
vote in every Northwestern State raises a strong presumption-
against any such supposition. The Whig vote also increased
largely, but in a smaller ratio than the Democratic; and it
seems reasonable to suppose that some Whigs may have voted
the Hale ticket. This conclusion is strengthened by the com-
parison between the votes for State and Presidential tickets in
Illinois and Michigan. The main increase since 1850, however,
must have come in part from some young men voting for the
first time, but chiefly from the stay-at-homes, who were very
numerous during the years of 1849-51. This class of persons,
usually not participating in politics, — clergymen, professional
men, and hard workers who scarcely knew to what party they
belonged, — were interested to turn out in a Presidential contest;
and they swelled the vote of the Free Democrats.
In the Congressional elections, Giddings and Edward Wade
were returned from Ohio ; but Townshend in his gerrymandered
district was defeated ; and in Wisconsin Durkee lost his seat.
The Western Reserve was still the only place in the Northwest
1 The comparison is shown by the following table : —
New England. Middle. Northwest.
1844 25,754 19^071 17,358
1848 77,286 132,592 81,161
1852 57.143 34,203 66,234
GIDDINGS'S CAMPAIGN. 259
where anti-slavery men, unassisted, could hope to elect their
candidates ; and all Ohio was jubilant over the eighth success of
Giddings. "I never knew," said a correspondent, "so much
personal or political opposition concentrated in one Congressional
campaign. The Whig press was weekly gorged with defamation
that had in vileness no depths, in bitterness no bounds. No lie
was too big for utterance. My heart sickens at the recital of
the immoralities that blackened Whig electioneering." ^ " Our
friends abroad," said the True Democrat, " cannot well measure
the extent of the Free Democratic triumph in electing Giddings
and Wade. These two districts, the nineteenth and twentieth,
were formed expressly to defeat the Free Democracy. Against
Giddings the contest was waged with merciless ferocity." Even
B. F. Wade, unmindful of his old partnership with Giddings in
law and in anti-slavery, and of Giddings's refusal to attack him
in 185 I, took the stump against the anti-slavery champion.^
The Presidential vote of the third party showed so great a
growth since 1850 that few were disappointed ; and throughout
the Northwest, except where Wisconsin Free Democrats sor-
rowed over Durkee,^ the general feeling was joyful. They had
released themselves from connection with the old parties ; they
had given their testimony against slavery ; and their ranks seemed
to have all the real living enthusiasm that existed in the country.
Moreover, the idea became prevalent that the Whig party was
dead, and that now was the time to strike for a share of the
heritage. A great cry went up for organization, especially
from regions like Indiana and Iowa. " I would just suggest to
our friends in the East," said a writer from the latter State,
" whether in view of our infancy and weakness in Iowa and the
peculiar state of the public mind among us — which is now very
unsettled, just in the condition to be favorably impressed — it
would not be right and expedient for them to lend us some
assistance." * " All that is needed," said the Cleveland True
Democrat, " is for the Free Democracy to be firm and active, to
1 True Democrat, Oct. 20, 1852.
2 Ibid., Sept. 22, 1 85 1.
8 Milwaukee Sentinel, Nov. 4-17, 1852.
* National Era, Jan. 20, 1853.
26o CAMPAIGN OF 1852.
organize, and through that organization to assault the pubHc
mind." ^ " All that is needed," came the cry from Michigan,
" is a fair circulation of documents." ^ Everywhere the deter-
mination to keep on working was manifest. Said the Indiana
True Democrat : " The Free Democrats of Indiana have no in-
tention of grounding their arms " ; ^ and the Racine Advocate
fairly expressed the general feeling when it said : " We want it
perfectly understood that we cannot be conquered ; that agita-
tion of our principles cannot be prevented ; and that we mean
to grow more and more earnest with every assumption of the
slave power." *
1 Jan. 5, 1853. 2 National Era, Jan. 13, 1853.
8 Quoted ibid., Nov. 25, 1852. ^ Nov. 10, 1852.
/ CHAPTER XVII.
EXPANSION OF THE FREE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
1853.
So great was the impetus given to the anti-slavery cause by
the election of 1852 that, without any slackening of pace, its
activity was carried over into 1853, and in this last year of
its life the Free Democratic party made the best record in its
history. Circumstances were propitious: the national Whig
party was overthrown, and its members were dismayed and
bewildered ; the Democratic party, inflated beyond its real
strength, was beginning to be torn by feuds. Already signs
of the coming chaos in politics had begun to appear in the
sudden importance assumed all over the country by the agi-
tation for prohibition, or, as it was called from its origin, "the
Maine Law." In such circumstances, men of all parties, in the
autumn of 1852 and in the beginning of 1853, began to look
with a certain admiration at the clear-cut, aggressive principles
of the Free Democracy; at an enthusiasm different from the
quarrels and bitterness in the old parties; and at a confidence
and hope which had risen with renewed life from the defeats
of the years 1849 to 1851.
/ From all sides reports of encouraging signs among mem-
bers of the old parties poured in from correspondents to the
National Era and to other Free Democratic papers. " Since
the Presidential election, it is not an uncommon occurrence to
hear Whigs and Democrats say that they have cast their last
vote for slavery; there is a general demand for information."^
" The Free Democrats were never in higher spirits than at the
^ From Bridgeport, Ohio. National Era, Jan. 13, 1853.
262 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION.
present time. The Whig party have all been taken aback ; . . .
they now begin to manifest a willingness to pause and inquire
what are the principles of Free Democracy." ^ " I have heard
many Whigs and Democrats say, ' I would have voted with all
my heart for Hale if there were any hope of his election.'"''^
" Since the Presidential election is over there seems to be quite
an interest felt by Whigs and Democrats to obtain information
in regard to our principles, as it is pretty generally conceded
on all sides that the next contest will be between the Free Dem-
ocrats and the Old Line Democrats."^ " A prominent Democrat
who has served several terms in the State Senate stated to me
that he believed the Free Democratic party would eventually
become the ruling party and that whichever party should be
defeated at the coming election would mostly fall in with us."*
The Whig Lafayette Courier said : " We have heard it esti-
mated that in the event of the defeat of General Scott the Whig
party will be disbanded, and of the fragments will be formed a
grand National anti-slavery party, which, by including the Lib-
erty party, the Free Soil party, the abolitionists, and that portion
of the Democrats who sustain the nominees but not the finality
resolutions of the platform, may be able to control the National
elections of the future. That such a party will be organized we
have good reason to believe."^ The Democratic Valparaiso
Practical Observer remarked in similar vein : " We heard num-
bers say that if their votes would elect J. P. Hale he should
have them. The Free Democracy are really the most thor-
oughly Democratic party in existence. If they are not the
organized party that is to regenerate our National policy, purg-
ing it of slavery, aristocracy, and corruption, they are at least
the forerunner of that party, as John the Baptist was of the
Christian Church."^ From Batavia, Illinois, came the words:
" As the noble, honest Hale said at Aurora in this county there
1 From Unionville, Union County. Ibid., Jan. 6, 1853.
2 From Erie County. Ibid., Dec. 9, 1852.
2 From Preble County. Ibid.., Dec. 23, 1852.
•* From Jacksonville, Indiana. Ibid., Oct. 28, 1852.
^ Quoted in Ifidiatia Tfite De7nocrat, Oct. 14, 1852.
^ Quoted in National Era, Nov. 25, 1852, March 31, 1853.
DISSATISFIED MEMBERS OF OLD PARTIES. 263
would be plenty of Free Soilers after election, so it has turned
out. Many Wjiigs are now turning where they can carry out
their principles. Some Democrats — and perhaps as many of
the other party — have voted their last Old Line ticket." ^
With such signs to cheer them, the Free Democrats of the
Northwest were encouraged to strain every nerve. In four of
the States, where there were only minor elections in 1853., the
activity of the party was directed to organization; but in Ohio
and Wisconsin, which elected State tickets this year, events of
the highest significance took place ; they will be considered in
full after .a brief review of the year in the other States.
In the autumn of 1852, Indiana rang with a cry for organiza-
tion. Indignant Free Democrats in back counties wrote pro-
tests to the National Era and the Indiana True Democrat " There
has never to my knowledge been an anti-slavery lecture delivere.d
in the county," said a correspondent from Fort Wayne ; " Free
Soil speakers seem to be afraid of us." ^ " We shall lose thousands
of votes in this campaign simply for the want of organization,"
said the True Democrat ; and it proposed a permanent society
of some sort, " call it what you please — anti-slavery or anything
else — with local auxiliaries."^ A State Convention at Indiana-
polis, on October 21, 1852, presided over by Nathaniel Field,
one of Indiana's earliest abolitionists, appointed a Committee
on Permanent Organization and called a convention for January
13, 1853, to form a State League.'* This second convention met
accordingly, and under the presidency of S. C. Stevens reiter-
ated the Pittsburg platform of 1852, and adopted the consti-
tution of a State Free Democratic Association, which was "to
continue in existence for four years from January 13, 1853," and
the object of which should be " to disseminate the principles of
the Free Democracy."^ Provisions were made for local asso-
ciations, and by the end of the year such bodies were formed in
at least seven counties. To the value of this work the spring
elections in March, 1853, bore testimony ; for, according to the
Indiana Free Democrat, the vote of the third party showed an
1 National Era, Jan. 27, 1853. ^ Ibid., Dec. 23, 1852.
8 Indiana True Democrat, Oct. 14, 1852. * Ibid., Nov. 4, 1852.
* National Era, Feb. 10, 1853.
264 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION.
increase of some 1,500 over that thrown in November, "the
spontaneous tribute of 8,000 persons to our principles and our
cause." ^
To keep up interest, another well attended State Convention
was held on May 25, at which G. W. Julian and S. C. Stevens
spoke and S. P. Chase delivered the address of the day. This,
said the Free Democrat^ " was by far the best State Convention
they have ever had in Indiana." ^ In the summer, Lewis, of
Ohio, amid his arduous duties in his own State, found time to
lend aid ; and by the end of the year local organization was in a
better condition than at any time since the days of the Liberty
party. Julian was the life of the cause. From January to De-
cember he was hard at work lecturing and organizing, and was
cheered everywhere by the most encouraging signs. The jour-
nal of the tireless campaigner is full of interest. " Labor till the
campaign of 1856 closes seems to be the general demand," he
wrote, January 5. "The anti-slavery cause is more decidedly
onward than ever before. . . . The Democracy is awfully swol-
len, whilst all of Whiggery capable of salvation is preparing to
come into our embrace. There is a good time coming." He
repeatedly said : " I have never seen the Free Democrats in this
state so much encouraged." ^
In Michigan there was much the same state of affairs. A
State Convention on January 12, at Jackson, devoted its atten-
tion to organization and to the establishment of a newspaper at
Detroit. Moreover, it adopted a series of racy resolutions, to the
effect that " in the present swollen condition of the Democratic
party and the shrivelled condition of the Whig party we see
evidences of disease"; and that "the first and most important
measure of the Free Democrats of Michigan is an organization
in every town in the state." * Thereupon county conventions
began to meet and to push the matter of local organization:
1 Quoted idi'd., March 24, 1853. The Indiana Free Democrat was the
same paper as the Indiana Tr^ie De»tocraL Name changed January, 1853.
2 Quoted ibid.,]Mnt 16, 1853. See G. W. Julian, Speeches on Political
Quest io7ts, 83-101.
8 MS. diary of G. W. Julian.
* National Era, Feb. 10, 1853.
ORGANIZATION CONTINUES ACTIVE. 265
as in Indiana, the result appeared in the town elections, in
which, in many places, the Free Democratic vote gained pro-
digiously. No general campaign was attempted, however, nor
did the Free Democrats throw their energies into politics so
much as into organization. While the State struggled over the
question of a " Maine Law," the third party worked actively in
its own field.
In Illinois the Free Democrats began, even before the result
of the Presidential campaign was known, to prepare for the
work of 1856; and here, as in Indiana, bitter complaints of
lack of organization spurred them on. " I wish I could rap
the knuckles of our leading Free Soilers," wrote a correspond-
ent of the National Era from Cumberland County; "would
you believe it that we in this part of the state never obtained
the Hale and Julian ticket nor do we know yet whether
there was one formed in this state or not. Such neglect is
insufferable ! " ^
The Illinois State Free Democratic Convention met at Ottawa
on May 18, and took steps for an efficient organization. A plan
was adopted for invading " Egypt" with a series of conventions,
and arrangements were made for a permanent campaign head-
quarters, with salaried agents. The convention devoted much
attention to the recently enacted Negro Exclusion Law, con-
demning it as "a foul blot on the statute book, a reproach to
our people, an attempt to nullify the Ordinance of 1787, and a
destruction of the equality of citizenship as guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States." Any one who attempted
to enforce the act was to be considered as " a traitor to
humanity."^ As in Michigan, the principal care of the third-
party men was the hard task of maintaining their paper, the
Western Citizen.
Later in the year the " Association " system of Indiana was
introduced and adopted largely in the northern counties. In
the fall elections there was little attempt to nominate inde-
pendent tickets, the leaders preferring to wait until their
organization was completed. In Will County the effect of the
1 National Era, Dec. 23, 1852.
2 Chicago Congregational Herald, June 4, 1853.
266 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION.
changed state of national politics was visible in a Free Demo-
cratic and Whig combination, which elected two of its can-
didates. In Kane County the Whig convention adjourned
without nominating, in order to leave the field open in favor
of the Free Democrats; whereupon a bolt of "Silver Gray"
Whigs set up a straight party ticket.^ These straws showed
the direction of the wind as much as did the brisk breezes in
Ohio and Wisconsin, for Whig and Free Democratic coalitions
were an entire innovation in Illinois.
Iowa, the only State in the Union in 1852 to increase its
third-party vote over that of 1848, kept pace with Illinois in
the "off year" of 1853. On the very day of the Presidential
election, the lozva True Democrat had urged : " We do hope the
friends of freedom in Iowa will go right to work to organize for
a future effective action. In this we have always failed ; let us
fail no longer." ^ With steady courage the little band of aboli-
tionists kept at work. On February 22, 1853, a State Free
Democratic Convention met, and, like that of Indiana, formed
the constitution of a State Association. Dr. Shedd, S. L. Howe,
J. W. Catell, and other veterans were present, committees were
appointed, an effort was made to secure organization in every
county and a State ticket was nominated. Then officers for
the State Association were chosen, and a set of courageous
resolutions embodying the Pittsburg platform and the Maine
Law was adopted.^ Following this action, local associations
were formed in several counties.
The comparatively quiet organization in the States just
described, important as it was as an index of Free Democratic
purpose and feeling in 1853, sinks into insignificance when
compared with the extremely interesting elections in Ohio and
Wisconsin, the only States in which the Free Soil party had
maintained an unbroken existence since 1848.
After the election of 1852 all Ohio was vociferous for organi-
zation. " If we had only a few enterprising speakers to take
the field," said a writer from Putnam County, " we might have
more than trebled our present vote. There has not been a
1 Chicago Journal, Oct. 17-28, 1853. 2 Nqv. 3, 1852.
« Ibid.
OHIO CONVENTION NOMINATES LEWIS. 267
regular Free Soil speech delivered in the County to my knowl-
edge, except one." ^ " Let temporary Free Democratic organi-
zations be continued for the next four years," urged the
Western Reserve Chronicle; "let occasional meetings be held,
have speeches, hold discussions." ^ In accordance with this
suggestion, local Free Democrats at Ravenna, Akron, and else-
where on the Reserve began to form associations, " to continue
in force until the close of the Presidential campaign of 1856." ^
The State Central Committee, on November 17, issued a call for
a State Convention in January, and urged organization. " We
stand on the eve of important events," it said, " and must be
prepared to meet them. . . . The old parties are undeniably in
a difficult position, their old issues are obsolete. Free men of
Ohio, it is in you and for you to help work out the great re-
sult. . . . Let the truth be known, circulate documents, hold
meetings, agitate." *
The convention of January 12, 1853, proved important.
Brinckerhoff presided, and nearly all of the leading Free Demo-
crats were present, except those who were in Congress. At the
beginning arose a serious difference of opinion as to the plat-
form, R. P. Spaulding, a somewhat recent Democratic con-
vert, reported from the Committee on Resolutions that the
Pittsburg platform should be modified by introducing clauses
in favor of strict construction, free trade, and direct taxation.
When Root and some other ex-Whigs raised objection, Spauld-
ing, a hot-headed man, lost his temper and indulged in
personalities, until cries of " Question " cut off debate and
the platform as reported was adopted. The remainder of the
session went on in a different spirit; when it was moved to
nominate Sam Lewis again, the enthusiasm of the conven-
tion broke out in uncontrollable cheers and cries. The veteran
rose, and with deep feeling tried to withdraw, urging his age,
his labors, and frequent previous campaigns, but in vain: the
Convention refused to hear him. " We '11 make you Governor
yet ! " shouted Edward Wade ; and Lewis again gave way, with
^ N'ational Era, Dec. 2, 1852.
2 Quoted ibid., Nov. 11, 1852.
8 True Democrat, Nov. 17, 1852. * Ibid.
268 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION.
tears in his eyes, deeply touched by the affection and enthu-
siasm of the meeting.^ " God bless you, Father Lewis," said
Judge Lee, as the tears flowed down his cheeks; when he
grasped the hand of his old standard-bearer in both his own;
" God bless you, I believe we shall not fight this evil much
longer; let us fight the harder." ^
The rest was all harmony. Resolutions w^ere passed indors-
ing Giddings and Townshend ; then Lewis made an eloquent
plea in behalf of Chase, which Spaulding, Brown, and Brincker-
hoff seconded, and Chase also was included in the approving
resolution. Hamlin, Parrish, and Wade also spoke, urging ob-
livion for past differences and confidence for the future ; and after
adopting a resolution in favor of prohibition, and establishing
a central Free Democratic organ at Columbus, the convention
adjourned. The close, as described by the True Democrat, was
a reminder of the early days of the Liberty party. " It had
been a hard day's work, but at the end one spirit animated all.
Every rude feeling was hushed, all unkindness forgotten. Har-
mony reigned. As speaker after speaker dwelt upon the
necessity of organization, as Samuel Lewis near midnight in
his loftiest eloquence bade free men live to work and do their
whole duty to God and man, the Convention in a body and
amid the deepest enthusiasm adjourned, resolving to act out the
heroic sentiments of this heroic man."^
The initiative of this convention was the signal for a steady
and vigorous campaign. The free trade resolution caused a
little grumbling, but even the True Democrat said that it was not
worth the time spent on it, and the harmony of the party re-
mained unimpaired. Campaign work began in April on a scale
hitherto unapproached. Lewis, as always, threw heart and soul
into the work, and repeated his brilliant canvass of the State in
1846. In May, Giddings joined him on the stump, and later
Chase and Edward Smith ; and these four visited every county
in Southern Ohio. By June the campaign on the part of the
Free Democrats had reached a height surpassing that of the
^ True Democrat., Jan. 19, 1853; National Era, Jan. 27, 1853.
2 W. G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samiiel Lewis, ^06.
^ True Democrat, Jan. 19, 1853.
FREE DEMOCRATIC ENTHUSIASM. 269
year before. Conventions were organizing, local speakers agi-
tating, a campaign song-book published in Cleveland was being
distributed, and the Central Committee, to supplement the
spontaneous local meetings, arranged for Lewis a grand tour of
the state, which was to begin July 20 in Clermont County, to
take in succession all the counties in the south, east, north, and
centre, and to close on October 4, just before the election.^
Meanwhile the other parties, with a lassitude in great contrast
to the intense activity of the Free Democrats, had held their
conventions and made their nominations. The Democrats on
January 30 nominated Medill, and for the fourth time repudi-
ated the national platform by re-adopting the anti-slavery reso-
lution of 1848, 1850, and 1 85 1. Had Chase and Townshend
desired again to seek Democratic associations, the Ohio party
was ready to receive them ; but Chase had apparently had
enough of changing partners, and he stayed with the Free
Democrats. The Whigs, on February 22, by a vote of 179 to
43, nominated N. Barrere, one of the Fillmore school, over L.
D. Campbell, a Free Soiler of 1848; and they showed their
futility as a party by passing perfunctory resolutions in favor of
protection and against the Democratic State government, avoid-
ing any reference to slavery.
In spite of the fact that the Democrats had an excellent
platform from an anti-slavery point of view, the Free Soilers
paid them very little attention; coalition with the Old Line
Democracy, no matter what their platform might be, was no
longer considered a possibility. The case of the Whigs, how-
ever, was different. So great had been the discouragement
of the latter party after the election, and so frequent were
Whig expressions of approval of Free Soil principles, that the
interest of this election of 1853 all centred in the effort by the
Free Democrats to attract Whig votes. " Calculate as you
may, Whigs," said the True Democrat, " count up your figures,
shout out your party cry, it will all be in vain ; for your think-
ing voters, every anti-slavery Whig, will mock at you and spurn
an organization which has so brutally defied the claims of jus-
1 Tn/e Democrat, June 22, 1853; National Era, Aug. 11-18, 1853; W.
G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samuel Lewis, 415.
2/0 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION.
tice." 1 " The very fact that the Whig press is disputing the
point whether the Whig organization be dead or ahve proves
that it is dead. . . . The question arises whether at this junc-
ture it is possible to bring together the true men of all parties
, . , to make a party which shall be, — in the nation and State,
for freedom. That question we answer affirmatively. We
know full well the partisan Democrat will deny, and the partisan
Whig scout, our assertion. But among the people we hear in a
hundred ways the hope expressed that a new organization will
spring up, the belief boldly uttered that there should and must
be one. It needs only time, and in the coming election the suc-
cess of that bold, good man Sam Lewis, as Governor of Ohio." ^
Said the Ashtabula Sentinel: " We are informed that many
leading men, and probably nine-tenths of the voters of the
Whig party, are desirous of disbanding and casting their votes
and influence for Justice and Liberty. Circumstances induce
us to believe that the candidates of the Whig party, at least a
portion of them, are anxious to withdraw." ^ These claims, of
course, met with derision at the hands of the regular Whig
party organs. Said the Sandusky Coinmercial Register: "The
True Democrat betrays the weakness of its cause by the anxious
eagerness with which it would seize recruits by the collar and
drag them nolens volens into the meagre ranks of the Free
Democracy"; ^ and the Cleveland Herald scoui&d the idea that
the great Whig party " would yield to a faction of some 30,000
and do its bidding." ^ The State Journal felt solemn horror at
the proposal of an alliance with the Free Democrats on the
basis of anti-slavery opinions, for " these are sentiments that
the Whig party never did and never will proclaim." ^
Some Whig papers, however, as well as some individual
Whigs, used different language. The Cleveland Forest City
queried : " Can antislavery Whigs longer affiliate with dough-
face material? ... Is it not better to dissolve partnership with
1 True Detnocrat, June i, 1853. ^ Ibid.
3 Quoted in National Era, June 16, 1853.
* Quoted in True Democrat, June 29, 1853.
^ Quoted ibid., June 8, 1853.
* Quoted ibid., June 29, 1853.
ACCESSIONS FROM THE WHIGS. 2/1
these men rather than continue a connection the fruits of which
are treachery, pro-slavery, and defeat ? " ^ The Citicmnati Gazette
admitted that the Whig party had " abandoned its principles so
far that it differed little from the Democratic, and had no real
principle in the State election " ; ^ and the Medina Whig spoke
out boldly: " What shall the Whig party do? We love the old
Whig name, but a mere name is nothing. . . . There is no rea-
son why the liberal Whigs of Ohio and the Free Democrats
should not unite." ^ The Neiv York Tribune, always a power
with the Northwestern anti-slavery Whigs, threw its great influ-
ence in favor of one of Greeley's favorite ideas, — a union of
Free Democrats and Whigs on the Maine Law. By the end of
July it became evident that this advice would be followed.
From Portage County came a "tremendous call" signed by four
hundred names of men of all parties, demanding a " People's "
convention, to unite the issues of temperance and anti-slavery.
This was the signal for similar calls in Cuyahoga, Columbiana,
and Ashtabula counties, and in the senatorial district of
Huron, Erie, Sandusky, and Ottawa. Chase was doubtful; but
the majority of Free Democrats found in this movement
nothing but matter for congratulation, and joined in it heart and
soul. Giddings, in a letter to Baldwin, of Cleveland, said that
if it was an honest movement, no mere question of names
should hold back the Free Democrats, and added : " If either the
Whigs or Democrats would embrace the truth and maintain the
inalienable rights of all men to liberty I would at once say. Let
the Free Democracy disband. . . . If the movement fails it will
be solely because of bad management or bad faith on the part
of the leaders, not the people."* Further to mark his favor,
Giddings advised the Free Democrats of Ashtabula to propose
a " People's " movement, although as an organization they had
absolutely nothing to gain, since they were in a great majority
over both the other parties combined.
The Portage County fusion took place with perfect harmony,
through a full mixed ticket, with a Free Democrat at the head ;
1 Quoted in True Democrat, June i, 1853.
2 National Era, June 23, 1853. ^ Quoted ibid.
* Ibid., Sept. I, 1853.
2/2 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION.
and the same success was attained in Ashtabula, as well as in
the Huron and Erie senatorial district, where a Free Soil con-
vention ratified the previous temperance nomination. In two
places, however, friction resulted from the suspicions entertained
by Free Democrats with regard to Whig desire for union. In
Columbiana County, after a Free Soil ticket had been nomi-
nated, a " People's" convention met and selected a Maine Law
ticket, which included only one of the Free Democrats;
nothing was said about slavery in the platform. There-
upon the Free Democratic candidates, by advice of the local
papers, the New Lisbon Aurora, and the Garrisonian Anti-
Slavery Bngle, refused to withdraw, and though Giddings and
Chase both urged them to abandon this position, the local com-
mittee was obdurate.^ In Cleveland, a " People's " convention,
after considerable friction, nominated for Cuyahoga County a
joint temperance and anti-slavery ticket, which the True Demo-
crat was willing to support; but R. P. Spaulding and some
other indignant ex-Democrats induced the Central Committee
to call a regular county convention. The result was a meeting
with a rather irregular organization, including at least one
contested delegation. In a stormy session A. G. Riddle,
Edward Wade, and J. C. Vaughn, editor of the True Deuiocrat,
against the strenuous opposition of Spaulding, succeeded in lay-
ing on the table resolutions to run a separate ticket. Spaulding
then, as usual, lost his temper completely, refused to let Giddings
address the meeting because he was not a delegate, and threat-
ened so loudly to make a party nomination, whether this partic-
ular convention agreed or not, that Giddings, Riddle, Wade,
Vaughn and the others left in disgust, and let the excited ex-
Democrats fulfil their purpose.^ These events were noticed in
the Democratic Plain Dealer as follows : " The fusionists taken
in and done for — the Whigs sick of the bargain — Vaughn in
a towering passion — a free fight all round — the kettle has all
boiled over — the fat is in the fire — the ingenious net thrown
out to catch the Free Soilers is full of gudgeons." ^
1 National Era, Sept. i, 15, 29, 1853; True Democrat, Sept. 21, 1853.
2 True Democrat, Sept. 12, 1853.
8 Quoted ibid., Sept. 28, 1853.
COALITION ON MAINE LA W ISSUE. 273
In spite of these local difficulties, the tendency of sentiment
in the State at large continued steadily in favor of fusion. The
Columbian, the central organ of the party, said : " We should
deem it our duty to accept any aid which could honorably be
obtained in the election of men of the right stamp to the legis-
lature, and should not hesitate ... to join in any open and fair
co-operation with those disposed to join it, or to sustain, for
offices not legislative, capable men of other parties." ^ Lewis
was the only candidate for Governor of avowed temperance
principles ; but Allen, the Whig candidate for Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor, was known to be in favor of the Maine Law. With
a desire to further good feeling, Buckingham, the Free Demo-
cratic nominee for Lieutenant-Governor, resigned ; and his
party, after ascertaining that Allen fully indorsed the Pittsburg
platform in regard to slavery, gladly supported the latter.^ The
Holmes County Whig, by no means a radical paper, asserted that
Barrere, the Whig candidate for Governor, had sent to his Central
Committee a letter of resignation in favor of Lewis, but that it
had been suppressed.^ Whether or no this assertion were true,
the idea became current that the Whigs were to support Lewis.
In these circumstances, the Free Democrats, with memories
of 1849, took a prudent middle ground. The Colnmbian, the
official mouthpiece, said: "That there are many persons who
have heretofore acted with the Whig party, hoping against
hope that that party would redeem itself from the domination of
slavery, we are well aware. . . . These we would invite to go
along with us. Shall our organization be changed or our prin-
ciples modified? We are not sticklers for forms or party names;
yet we would not abandon them unnecessarily to resort to new
ones. ... Let not the liberal antislavery Whig be alarmed
because we call it Democratic. . . . Every true Whig is a dem-
ocrat. Our principles and our party are making rapid strides
toward victory ; let us not be in haste to outrun as a party the
tide of our principles."^
^ Quoted True Detnocrat, Sept. 13, 1853.
2 Ibid., Oct. 4, 1853; Ohio Columbian, Sept. 15, 1853.
3 Western Reserve Chronicle, Oct. 6, 1853.
* Ohio Columbian, July 14, 1853.
274 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION.
Meanwhile, in the midst of complete political stagnation
among the old parties, the Free Democratic campaign con-
tinued with ever-increasing enthusiasm. County conventions
all over the State pressed organization farther than ever before,
holding a greater number of meetings than in any other year,
except perhaps at the height of the Free Soil revolt of 1848.
Lewis gave the country an exhibition of stump-speaking such
as is seldom seen : he spoke nearly every secular day for over
four months in fifty counties, traversing not only the Western
Reserve, but regions such as Scioto, Lawrence, and Gallia in
the south, and Stark, Holmes, Tuscarawas, and Coshocton in
the centre, places where the Free Democracy was hardly known.
In the midst of these tremendous efforts he also found time to
make an excursion into Indiana, and to preside over the Fourth
Annual Christian Anti-Slavery Convention at Cincinnati in May,
at which William Lloyd Garrison strongly urged his views.
Wherever Lewis went, his eloquence made a profound impres-
sion. Of his visit to Darke County, an ultra-Hunker region, an
enthusiastic hearer wrote: "When Mr. Lewis was portraying
the working of the fugitive slave act you could see the tear of
sympathy fall down the cheeks of some of the old veterans of
the Whig and Democratic parties." In Warren County he
"completely electrified his audience and frequently moved them
to tears " ; and — still more noteworthy — in Montgomery
County, at a place where there had never been an anti-slavery
speaker, his eloquence led numbers of the Old Line to subscribe
for the Columbian}
By September, Chase, Giddings, Smith, Hamlin, Root, Bris-
bane, Julian of Indiana, and others were in the field.^ Wade,
Spelman, Riddle, and Vaughn, for example, went to every town
in Cuyahoga County. " The movement goes bravely on," said
the Western Reserve Chronicle ; " in no year except in a Presi-
1 0/tw Cohimbian^ April 14, 1853.
2 It is interesting to note that during the canvass Chase found time to
write a letter to Edgerton, — a Democratic member of Congress from Ohio,
who had spoken of Chase as no Democrat, — reiterating his familiar argu-
ments as to the Democratic character of the third party. See National Era,
Dec. 22, 1853.
LEWIS'S SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN. 275
dential campaign has there been anything Hke it." ^ When
finally election day came, the vote revealed a new order of
things.^ The Democrats had carried the State by a large major-
ity, but the total vote polled was 70,000 less than that of the year
before. The local Whig party had fallen to 85,000, the smallest
vote since the party was organized. Not even the national
Whig party could show greater demoralization. The Free
Democrats, on the contrary, had raised their vote on minor
offices to almost the exact Van Buren vote of 1848, and, still
better, Lewis had succeeded in polling over 50,000. In five
Western Reserve counties and in Clinton County the Free
Democrats were ahead of both Whigs and Democrats. The
Whigs were first in thirteen counties only. In sixteen other
counties the Free Democrats were ahead of the Whigs ; they
had thirteen members of the legislature to the Whigs' twenty;
and the difference between Barrere and Lewis was so slight
that the Free Democrats felt themselves within striking dis-
tance of the beaten party.
All were jubilant. Said the True Democrat, in comment on
the election : " The Old Line Democracy had no foe to meet
outside of the Free Soil sections. They walked over the track
elsewhere carrying even undisputed Whig districts. But the tug
of conflict was felt wherever a Free Soil basis existed, and there
even when the odds were against us the pro-slavery Democrats
were laid low." ^ "This is a glorious result indeed," said the
Columbian, "and one which will tell upon the future growth of
our party in other states as well as Ohio. ... It is generally
believed by all parties that the old triangular war is at an end in
Ohio. . . . The anti-slavery men of Ohio have accomplished the
great work over which we all so much rejoice by pursuing
^ Oct. 6, 1853.
2 It stood as follows: —
Democratic. Whig. Free Democratic.
Medill 147,663 Barrere 85,820 Lewis 50,346
Myers 148,981 Allen 127,272
Bartley 149,582 Backus 96,689 Hitchcock 35,373
See Whii^ Almanac, 1854
8 Oct. 14, 1853.
276 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION.
a. practical policy. They have run after no abstractions or
phantasms. Definite objects and a probable mode of accom-
plishing them have been kept constantly before the people." ^
" Thousands of Liberal Whigs," said the National Era, " separ-
ated from their party in 1848 and have since acted with the
Independent Democrats. Thousands have this year followed
their example; thousands more are now ready to join the new
party. What a prospect opens to the friends of Liberty in
Ohio ! " 2 The Whig press, chastened by its severe defeat,
showed a milder attitude than ever toward the Free Democrats ;
even the Cleveland Hei'ald, " Silver Gray " at all times, while
cautioning people not to think that the fusion in Cuyahoga and
in other counties was permanent, went so far as to say: "We
admit that there are and ever have been reasons which should
induce all considerate anti-slavery men to act together." ^ Still
more significant, the Whig Forest City proceeded after the cam-
paign to unite with the True Democrat. The abuse of such
" postmaster " papers as the Ohio Patriot and the Geauga
Republie^ counted for little in the face of the general feeling in
favor of a new movement. " This is the spirit now abroad in
Ohio," said the True Democrat; "and they who overlook it
know not the stuff whereof it is made nor the solidity of its
purpose ; for those who war against that spirit shall be as dry
stubble wherewith the People shall kindle their fires of inde-
pendence and with their blaze consume them forever."^
Exhausted from his labors, but jubilant, Samuel Lewis wrote a
parting word to the " Friends of Freedom " in Ohio, urging them
not to abate their exertions, but rather to increase them. " My
last year of hard service is probably performed," he said ; " my
health has been providentially preserved this year, but here
such labors must end. ... I am not before you a candidate for
any office, probably never shall be again ; so you must allow me
to press this matter upon you. Yes, you must now lay out your
1 Quoted in Racine Advocate, Nov. 8, 1853.
* Dec. I, 1853. 8 Oct. II, 1853.
* Daily Forest City Democrat (successor to the Ti-iie Democrat and the
Forest City). Nov. i, 1853.
6 Ibid.
FREE DEMOCRATIC SATISFACTION. 277
work for success ; the country and public sentiment expect such
a result and everything is ripe for it. Great moral and political
reforms do not grow spontaneously; hard work and much hard
work must be performed, but you no longer need labor without
expecting success. . . . And, thank God," ended the veteran
joyously, "that he enables you to aid in such a glorious work."^
In December there came from the State Free Democratic
Committee a prophetic address. It furnished a complete plan
for organization, with forms of petitions, projects for local asso-
ciations, and provisions for four paid lecturers to be constantly
in the field throughout 1854. "The Independent Democracy,"
it said, " has a great work before them for the next two years.
. . . With efficient organization we may possibly secure the
State ticket next fall. We certainly can elect four to five
[Representatives] and perhaps a majority of the members of
Congress. We can in 1855 elect our Governor and Legisla-
ture, which will not only effect the State reforms which we
desire, but also give us a Senator. ... Be courageous. The
enemy is strong, but God, the people, and truth are stronger;
the day of small things is past."^
^ National Era, Dec. i, 1853.
2 Ibid., Jan. 26, 1854.
^CHAPTER XVIII.
WHIGS AND FREE DEMOCRATS IN WISCONSIN.
1853-
While Ohio was carrying on a triumphant campaign, Wis-
consin had been undergoing a different but an equally signifi-
cant experience. The election of 1852 had inspired the Free
Democrats of that State with the same enthusiasm as it had
aroused elsewhere in the Northwest, and also with a serious
determination, the general purpose of which is well expressed
by the following extract : " It seems to me that the next four
years will be decisive as to the existence of the Free Democratic
party as such. Unless we can step into the rank of one of the
first parties as to numbers we can hardly in my opinion main-
tain our organization. . . . We must receive large accessions
from the liberal Democrats, and must absorb the liberal Whigs
unless that party adopts our principles. Are we not a little
severe toward them when we call them without any exception
a defeated faction? The term faction, too, is hardly in good
taste. ... A more perfect and thorough State organization is
what we now need, with an increase of Free Soil papers, espe-
cially German. A great and systematic and prolonged effort
must be put forth." ^
Such sentiments as the foregoing clearly animated the State
Free Democratic Convention which met on January 21, 1853.
In a very full session, presided over by General J. H. Paine,
and comprising most of the leading anti-slavery men of the
State, a platform was adopted and a full organization urged.
As the foregoing letter indicated, the main interest of Wiscon-
1 From a letter to the National Era., dated Racine, Dec. i, 1852 : Ibid..^
Jan. 6, 1853.
PROPOSALS FOR WHIG COALITION. 279
sin Free Democrats lay in their relation to the Whigs; but
with great good sense their convention forbore to suggest the
question of coalition, trusting to time to settle the matter.
During the winter, Whig papers, while insisting on the life and
vigor of their party, began to discuss the possibility of a
" People's " ticket in the coming contest for the Governorship.
Much was said as to the identity of principle between anti-
slavery Whigs and Free Democrats, and no pains were spared
by Whigs to cultivate a friendly feeling between the two bodies,
— a novel sentiment in Wisconsin, for up to this time soft words
between Whigs and abolitionists were the exception, and abuse
or indifference the rule. Some of the Free Democrats received
the unaccustomed courtesy rather ungraciously; and Booth, in
the Milwaukee Free Democrat, took care to inform the Whigs
that there were just two methods by which they could effect a
union with the Free Democracy, — either by adopting the Pitts-
burg platform or by dissolving the Whig party.^ Neither of
these conditions was likely to be agreeable to a Whig. The
natural candidate in case of fusion was the popular Governor
Farwell, elected in 185 1 by Whig and Free Soil votes. During
the discussion, the Free Democrat made the mistake of claiming
him as a third-party man, an utterance which irritated the Whigs
to no purpose, and brought out the following protest from the
more practical Kenosha Telegraph: "It is folly, or something
worse, to insist on calling Governor Farwell a Free Democrat.
He is not so distinctively any more than thousands of other
Whigs in the State; but he is a very good Governor, and for
that reason should be supported."''^
In the face of a great Democratic clamor, the two parties
appointed their conventions on successive days of June, three
months earlier than usual ; and the general understanding seems
to have been that Governor Farwell was to be renominated by
both.^ This step would probably have been taken with entire
unanimity, but for the unfortunate fact that Farwell absolutely
^ Wisconsin State Journal, May 21, 1853.
2 Quoted in Milivaukee Sentinel, April 25, 1853.
3 Wisconsin State Journal, April 29, May 30, 1853; Racine Advocate^
April 20, May 18, 1853.
280 WHIGS AND FREE DEMOCRATS IN WISCONSIN.
refused to run. Having in its programme no provision for this
emergency, the Whig convention lost its head and adjourned
without nominating. The Free Soil convention the next day-
finding all plans for union destroyed, proceeded to nominate a
full ticket of its own, headed by E. D. Holton. Although no
resolution in favor of prohibition was adopted, the candidates
were all avowed temperance men, a useful fact in view of the
Maine Law agitation then overrunning the country.^
Since the Whigs had failed to nominate, and Greeley in the
New York Tribune distinctly advised the Whigs of Wisconsin
to coalesce with the Free Democrats on the Maine Law issue,
many of the latter hoped that they would have the field to
themselves. " They [the Whigs] may rally this fall," wrote one
enthusiastic correspondent of the National Era, " but it is doubt-
ful. Farwell told some of our folks that the Whigs ought not to
have called a convention or even talked of nominating."^ Al-
though many Whigs would without doubt have been willing to
support Holton, such a stretch of self-abnegation was more
than could be expected of the majority of Wisconsin poli-
ticians of that party; consequently, to the disappointment of the
Free Soilers, a second Whig convention in September nomi-
nated a party ticket headed by H. S. Baird. A month before
the election, coalition seemed as far off as it had been in the
previous year; but at the State Fair at Watertown another
effort was made, chiefly by certain anti-slavery Whigs, who
called a " People's " convention.^ This meeting nominated a
ticket selected from the candidates already in the field, with
Farwell at the head ; but again Farwell's modesty wrecked the
scheme, for he positively refused to run, and Baird would not
withdraw. The " People," however, were not to be balked ;
and on October 21, scarcely two weeks before the election, the
Whig managers agreed to place Holton's name at the head of
their ticket. All the Whig and Free Soil candidates not on the
ticket then withdrew, and thus after much tribulation the fusion
was completed.
1 National Era, June 23, 1853; Wisconsin State Journal, June 9, 1853.
* National Era, July 7, 1853.
8 Watertown Chronicle, Oct. 12, 1853.
CAMPAIGN OF THE ''PEOPLE'S'' TICKET. 28 1
With so short a time for a canvass, and weighted down by
the incubus of Baird's persistence in running, it is not surprising
that the " People's " ticket was decisively beaten.^ The Demo-
cratic vote was remarkably full, considering the fact that it was
an " off" year; but the " People's" vote and that for Baird fell
nearly 6,000 short of the combined Free Democratic and Whig
votes of 1852. One reason was that the Free Democrats made
the Maine Law the principal issue in the campaign. Indeed,
one of them, who was on the " People's " ticket, has since said
that at the time he forgot all about his own candidacy in his
work for prohibition.^ This agitation so alarmed the Germans
in the eastern counties that they cast a heavy vote for the Demo-
cratic ticket.
Notwithstanding the difficulty of bringing about this coalition
owing to Farwell's inconvenient lack of ambition, there was
little real opposition on either side: only one Whig paper ob-
jected, and that not on grounds of principle. From the first,
everybody felt the desirability of coalition, and the only diffi-
culties arose as to the method of obtaining it. In these negotia-
tions and nominations we find a curiously close parallel to the
Free Soil and Whig fusion in Michigan in 1849, and the result
is apparently similar. In Wisconsin, however, the motives un-
derlying the coalition were essentially different. The Whigs in
both cases wanted primarily to overthrow the Democratic rule
in the State ; but in Michigan they had the prestige of members
of a victorious national party, whereas the Wisconsin Whigs
were in 1853 in the depths of prostration after an overwhelm-
ing State and national defeat. In Michigan there was no
demand for a new anti-slavery party in 1849, whereas in Wis-
consin this sentiment appears constantly in 1853. " The Whig
party of this state," said the State Journal in May, " as a gen-
eral thing are just as much opposed to slavery and are doing
and will do just as much toward ridding the country of this
1 The vote stood : —
Democratic Independent. Scattering.
Barstow 30,405 Holton 21,886 Baird 3,304
Lewis 33,176 Pinckney 23,378 Dougherty 270
2 Communicated to the writer by S. D. Hastings in 1895.
282 WHIGS AND FREE DEMOCRATS IN WISCONSIN.
evil as the Free Soil party." ^ The Whigs in their State Con-
vention repudiated the national platform by resolving against
the extension of slavery and by denying the authority of any
convention to decree the finality of any lavv.^ Even the Janes-
ville Gazette, the only strong Whig opponent of fusion, ad-
mitted : " To a great extent the principles of the Free Soil and
Whig parties are identical." ^
In the autumn the Whig papers spoke still more plainly.
The State Journal, in speaking of the Whig party, said: "There
are higher motives than mere political aggrandizement. . . .
We have no blind allegiance to that party as a party." * The
Mihvaukee Sentinel went still farther: " It is certainly true, that
the Whigs and the Free Soilers . . . think alike ... and it
is highly desirable that they should act together. . . . Parties
have indeed lost much of their prescriptive authority in this
state." ^ After the election the Free Democratic Kenosha Tele-
graph remarked : " The mission of the Free Democracy as an
independent party is nearly fulfilled." It described how the
slave power was aiming to control the country, and concluded:
" When the people come to see this fact clearly a third party
has no mission. This is the condition to which people are now
rapidly turning." ^ The language of the State Journal, in com-
menting on the foregoing paragraphs, indicates strikingly the
difference between Michigan Whigs of 1849 and Wisconsin
Whigs of 1853. " Such," it said, " is the language of the Tele-
graph, one of the ablest of the organs of the Free Soil party in
the State. It must be admitted that there are numerous indica-
tions in the present condition of parties pointing to such a state
of things in the future. The ostensible issues have become mat-
ters of fancy. . . . That this state of things cannot last long is
tolerably certain. A great majority of the people are opposed
to the extension of slavery ; the humbug of ' saving the Union'
is beginning to be appreciated in all quarters. If slavery
1 JVisconsin State Journal, May 30, 1853.
2 Milwaukee Sentinel, Sept. 19, 1S53.
3 Oct. 15, 1853. * Wisconsin State Journal, Oct. 20, 1853.
6 Sept. 28, 1853.
" Quoted in Wisconsin State Jou7'nal, Nov. 29, 1853.
WHIGS READY FOR A CHANGE. 283
can be restricted within its present limits it must inevitably
decline." ^
The year 1853, then, saw the Free Democrats of the North-
west at the height of their activity. In every State their or-
ganization was improving, and in three States, — Ohio, Indiana,
and Wisconsin, — their vote had largely increased. Throughout
the Northwest, Whigs were beginning to regard the Free Demo-
cratic party with more interest and toleration, and even when
not outright in favor of coalition they seemed inclined to empha-
size their anti-slavery position and to repudiate the national
Whig platform. In the other States it would be easy to find
many sentiments similar to those quoted in Ohio and Wisconsin.
The Indiana State Journal, though not in the slightest degree
sympathizing with the Free Soil organization, said in comment-
ing on the State Convention : " We claim to be as heartily op-
posed to slavery as any man who may participate in the
proceedings of the meeting on Thursday." ^ Later the Jour-
nal, being charged with " abolitionism," defined its position,
calling " Union saving " a hobby. It considered the position
of the South with regard to slavery in the Territories as " one
which will eventually destroy the Union if it ever is destroyed,"
adding : " As to the future, should any question arise involving
the extension of slavery over territory now free, we shall be
found in the opposition to the utmost of our feeble efforts. If
these views are ' abolitionism ' they can make the most of it." ^
In Illinois another Old Line Whig paper used similar lan-
guage. "We have become heartily tired," said the Chicago
Journal, " of this eternal clamor of a dissolution of the Union.
When the area [of slavery] is sought to be extended over free-
dom's broad and happy domain . . . then its defenders will ever
find in us a willing hand to strike a blow for the down-trodden and
oppressed."^ When the /<?z^r/m/ was charged, like its Indiana-
polis namesake, with being abolitionist, it replied : " Is it abo-
htionism to sympathize with the oppressed? So far then we
» Wisconsin State Journal, Nov. 29, 1H53.
2 Indiana State Journal, May 24, 1853.
8 Ibid., Aug. 21, 1853.
* Chicago Journal, Jan. 4, 1853.
284 WHIGS AND FREE DEMOCRATS IN WISCONSIN.
plead guilty to the charge of being abolitionist. We do not by
word or thought seek to interfere with slavery in the states, . . ,
but when its blighting influence is spread in the heretofore glori-
ous state of our adoption we cannot be silenced." ^ This last
phrase refers to a law enacted in this year forbidding negroes to
come into the State under penalty of imprisonment, fine, or, in
default of payment, of sale at auction for a term of years.^ This
law, which practically enacted slavery, met with condemnation
by Whig and Democratic papers alike in the northern counties.
i:\\t Journal called it " a dishonor to our State, a deep wrong to
our nation, a foul stain upon the character and intelligence of
our people," 3 — language with which the Western Citizen, the
Journals anti-slavery neighbor, could find no fault.
The signs of dissolution, not rapid or willing, but still inevi-
table, had appeared in the Whig ranks. What profit the cause
of anti-slavery should derive from this crisis depended upon the
events of 1854; and in full realization of their opportunity the
Free Democrats were, at the opening of that year, prepared in
every Northwestern State for a prodigious effort. That effort
was never expended, or rather it received a direction never an-
ticipated in the wildest dreams of third-party men; for in 1854
came the Kansas-Nebraska excitement, and with it anti-slavery
action in the United States entered upon a new, a more serious,
and an eventually triumphant career.
1 March 11, 1853.
^ See Appendix D, p. 332.
8 Chicago Journal, Feb. 22, 1853.
I/:hapter XIX.
THE FREE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ATTAINS NIRVANA IN
THE ANTI-NEBRASKA MOVEMENT.
1854.
One may be permitted to surmise what would have been the
fate of the Free Democratic party in the Northwest had the
situation in regard to slavery been allowed to remain as it was
at the end of the campaigns of 1853. The Whig party was
slipping away from its platform of 1852, and disintegration
was so inevitable in the immediate future that many Free
Democrats hoped that their own party might step into its place.
The great gains just made in Ohio and Wisconsin seemed to
point in that direction, and, as we have seen, encouraged the
Ohio Central Committee to make bold prophecies; but so rose-
colored a view has no justification when we consider the position
of the third party outside of Ohio and Wisconsin. In no one of
the other Northwestern States did it, in 1853, seriously threaten
the Whigs ; in fact, so far as numbers went, it was scarcely more
important than the Liberty party had been.
The Whigs were, to be sure, ready for anti-slavery action, and
their party name was beginning to lose its magic; but it is
hardly conceivable that in the Northwest they would have
entered en masse into the Free Democratic ranks, as the National
Era hoped. In spite of the close approximation in principle
between Northwestern Whigs and Free Democrats, union must
come not through direct absorption, but rather through the
medium of some new organization. The truth is, that after
1850 the Free Democracy was somewhat too familiar and com-
monplace to be attractive to anti-slavery Whigs or Democrats,
however anxious for a change they might be. Its doctrines,
286 ANTI-NEBRASKA MOVEMENT,
though true, were trite; its leaders had said their say; and the
odor of bargaining and coaHtion still hanging over from 1849
discredited it widely. The Free Soil party had " shot its bolt,"
and in the nature of things was less interesting than would be a
fresh organization with the same principles, but under a new
name.
That this was the case none knew better than the leading
Free Democrats. In 1853 a wide correspondence, started by
Mr. William Medill, of the Cleveland Forest City, between lead-
ing Whig politicians and editors and Free Democrats, brought
out the fact that the latter were ready and eager to sink their
organization in a new one, if only the substitute would take
a right attitude on slavery extension; the Whigs, on their
side, though more cautious, evidently were gravitating in the
same direction.^ What was now needed was a centre of irri-
tation around which a new party could be crystallized ; and in
default of the Nebraska Bill something else would have served.
The whole narrative up to this point proves that, whatever might
come up in Congress, the course of party history in 1854 could
not have been very different from what it actually turned out.
From the existing chaos of parties a new anti-slavery party
sooner or later must have taken form. Already in 1852-53 the
Maine Law agitation had been sweeping the country; and when
in 1854 the signal for dissolution came in the form of the Kan-
sas-Nebraska Bill, all party lines seemed to vanish in a wilder-
ness of faction. In the elections of 1853-54, tickets were
actually put into the field by the Democrats (" Hard " and
" Soft "), Temperance Democrats, Maine Law men, Whigs,
Know-Nothings, Free Democrats, Anti-Nebraska men, and Re-
publicans.
In 1854 in the Eastern States the Know-Nothing movement
carried nearly all before it. In New York and Pennsylvania the
Whigs, profiting by Democratic faction and by the absence of
any strong third party, maintained their organization ; but in
the Northwest the event toward which, for long weary years,
abolitionists, Liberty men, and Free Democrats had been work-
ing, took place in the creation of a new Northern anti-slavery
1 See letter in Chicago Tribune, April 25, 1895.
A NEW PARTY INEVITABLE. 287
party. One obvious reason for such radical action by North-
western Whigs was that their party had been for years losing
ground, and by 1854 was in so hopeless a minority that the
party name retained few attractions ; but another reason was to
be found in the greater looseness of party ties in the Northwest.
The Northwestern Whigs and anti-slavery Democrats, not a
whit more earnest in their convictions than their brethren in
the Central and Eastern States, showed greater magnanimity
and much less partisanship throughout the year; they worked
side by side with each other, and with hated " abolitionists " at
a time when Eastern Whigs and Democrats were clinging to
their old organizations, or were rushing into the secrecy and
the futility of the Knovv-Nothing movement.
Of the general aspects of the Anti-Nebraska movement, from
the first mutterings of alarm in January to the wild outburst
in June and the triumphant campaign in the summer, this
is not the place to speak; but we cannot dismiss the third-party
movement without tracing among the confusion of the popular
uprising the course of the Free Democratic party in the several
States.
The only national Free Democratic action in this year was the
issuing of the "Address of the Independent Democrats in Con-
gress," written by Chase, and signed by him, and by Edward
Wade and Giddings of Ohio, Sumner and DeWitt of Massachu-
setts, and Gerrit Smith of New York. This last public utter-
ance of the party was a powerful one, a clarion cry producing
a great effect in all quarters and marking the real beginning of
the Republican movement.
In Ohio, when public meetings began to protest against the
Nebraska Bill, the Free Democrats from the outset co-operated
with other protestors. Without claiming anything for party
advantage, without even referring to the past, Root, Vaughn,
Spaulding, Brinckerhoff, and the rest with rare tact fell in with
the current of popular feeling, striving only to aid without
seeming to try to lead. From the beginning, Whigs of all
stripes were, on their part, inclined to co-operate. On the West-
ern Reserve, party lines vanished. The fusion of the Cleveland
True Democrat and Forest City was followed by the union of
288 ANTI-NEBRASKA MOVEMENT.
the Elyria Courier and Independent Democrat, and by that of
the Ravenna Star and Whig} Still more significant was the
attitude of the Columbus State Journal, the central organ of
the " Silver Gray" Whigs. This paper feared at first that the
question " would be complicated by the over-zealous action of
the extreme anti-slavery partisans in the free States " ; but,
when the address of the independent Democrats appeared,
approved it as " fair and reasonably moderate." '^ The Cleve-
land Herald, equally conservative, could not even in this hour
forgive Chase. " We are no political friends of Mr. Chase," it
said ; " he obtained his seat in a manner entirely subversive of
political integrity; we hope never again to fall upon such
political times as disgraced Ohio under the reign of the bal-
ance of power." When, however. Chase's speech on the bill
was reported, it could not deny that " looking merely at this
one question we know that the Senator speaks the voice of
Ohio." 3
During the winter and spring, even before the old party lead-
ers were quite ready to talk about a new organization, local
bodies began to fuse together. In many places the Central
Committees of all three parties united to call anti-Nebraska
conventions. A committee of three men was appointed by a
mass meeting at Columbus to issue a call and collect signatures
for a State anti-Nebraska Convention, the Free Soil represen-
tative being Dr. J. H. Coulter, formerly on the Free Democratic
State Committee. By the middle of the spring grudging ap-
proval gave place to the loud demands for a new party. The
Columbus State Journal, Cleveland Herald, Cinciimati Gazette,
dozens of other Whig papers, and many Democratic journals,
joined in calling for a non-partisan union of " all who hate or
dislike slavery, against its encroachments." The name " Repub-
lican " had already been suggested by the private correspond-
ence of Greeley, A. E. Bovay, of Ripon, Wisconsin, and others,
besides Whig and Free Democratic editors. By June it began
to be heard in public. " Let us unite on a common principle,"
^ Daily Forest City Democrat, Jan. 27, April i, 1854.
2 Ohio State Journal, Jan. 14, 26, 1854.
8 Cleveland Herald, March 7, 1854.
ANTI-NEBRASKA COALITION IN OHIO. 289
said the State Journal ; "we shall soon find a common name in
the pure Republicanism of our object."^
As the day for the assembling of the State Convention drew
near, the Free Democrats were afraid that the meeting might
be led to take a timid attitude through fear of losing Demo-
cratic support. "We are grieved," said the Cleveland Leader
(formerly True Democrat^, "to see the effort making in some
quarters to whittle down the anti-slavery platform of Ohio to
the single issue of the repeal of the Nebraska Bill," It stated
that the aim of Northern efforts should be to denationalize
slavery, and added: "In this state there are 35,000 Free Soil-
ers and 25,000 German radicals who will surrender their organ-
ization to no party whose principles contemplate less than the
foregoing." 2 The convention, however, though not so radical
in its utterances as many desired, satisfied the Free Demo-
crats by adopting resolutions pledging its members to resist the
spread of slavery, and demanding the repeal of the Kansas-
Nebraska Act. " True," the Leader said, " the resolutions were
not up to the spirit of the Convention, but the members of the
Convention know, as the people of Ohio know, that the set of
the current is right. . . . We have learned to labor and to
wait." " The OJiio State JoJirnal clinched matters as follows :
"Wliatever errors in policy our Free Soil friends may have
committed (and we believe they are many), it is clear that on
the issue now tendered by the South they are right; and being
right, shall Whigs and Democrats refuse their association?
We certainly cannot. . . . Men must stand aside, prejudices
should be forgotten."^
But from the group of Ohio anti-slavery leaders who now,
with the stern joy of men who see the promised land, were
fighting in the thick of the anti-Nebraska struggle, one elo-
quent voice was missing. On July 29 died Sam Lewis, the
man most beloved by Ohio abolitionists, not even excepting
Giddings. He was prematurely worn out by his superhuman
exertions in 1852-53. Throughout his career he had com-
1 Ohio State Journal, June 5, 1854.
2 Cleveland Leader, July 6, 1854.
8 Ibid., July 17, 1854. * July 17, 1854.
19
290 ANTI-NEBRASKA MOVEMENT.
bined the rare qualities of a good-tempered radical, a practical
philanthropist, an unselfish politician, and a popular leader of
an unpopular cause.^
With the State Convention of July the separate existence of
the Free Democratic party in Ohio ceased, except in a few
localities. By a curious coincidence, Geauga County, which
in 1839 had run a separate anti-slavery ticket, nominated a
Free Democratic ticket in 1854. The first to enter the field,
the Geauga third-party men were the last to leave it.
In Indiana, in 1854, the Free Democrats, in sharp contrast
to their Ohio brethren, played comparatively little part in the
Republican movement. Their State Convention on May 29
showed a conciliatory spirit, and, with the advice of all its
leading men, resolved, after condemning the Kansas-Nebraska
Bill, "That we have no idolatrous attachment for mere party
names, but seek the triumph of principles, and we recommend
in the present crisis a co-operation of all persons who are op-
posed to said measure with a view to its repeal. Therefore
we recommend the calling of a State Convention for the pur-
pose of combining all elements of opposition to said measure."^
To signalize its non-partisan feeling, the convention also re-
solved to nominate no candidates ; but, although Indiana Whigs
and many Democrats were genuinely anxious for a new party,
the popular prejudice against "abolitionism" was so great that
they dared not show much consideration for the Free Demo-
cratic leaders. The most they would concede was that S. S.
Harding might speak at anti-Nebraska meetings. At the Indi-
ana State anti-Nebraska Convention, held on the same day as
that of Ohio, resolutions were offered favoring slavery restric-
tion and the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Unlike the
Ohio Free Democrats, Julian did not acquiesce, and brought
in a minority report demanding the denationalization of slavery.
Although the temper of the convention was probably such
that his resolutions might have been adopted, the leaders here,
as in Ohio, preferred a more cautious course, in the hope of
1 W. G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samuel Lewis, Cincinnati, 1857.
2 National Era, June 15, 1854; Ohio Columbian, Aug. 9, 1854.
UNION IN INDIANA. 291
drawing the Democratic vote ; and the majority report was
declared adopted.^
Notwithstanding this timid beginning, the Anti-Nebraska
triumph in the following campaign was almost as glorious as in
Ohio: and the Free Democrats played their part in advocating
the success of the anti-Nebraska ticket ; nevertheless, as a writer
in the National Era said, the movement in Indiana was far from
radical. " The leaders," he wrote, " are not anti-slavery men,
but some of them even pro-slavery Democrats, who merely re-
gret that equilibrium has been disturbed. They recoil from the
charge of abolitionism and do their best to keep Free Soil men
in the background. . . . The danger is that the anti-Nebraska
movement will fritter out, leaving the anti-slavery cause just
where it was in 1852." ^ The despondency of the Indiana Free
Democrats was not justified by events; for, although Indiana
proved a backward State, and although the Republican party
formed in this year was never, except in the first election, the
strong, courageous organization of Ohio, it continued to oppose
slavery extension. More radical doctrine could scarcely have
been expected of a State with so large a Southern element in
its population.
The Michigan Free Democracy had an interesting experience
in 1854. The Whigs of that State, after thirteen years of defeat,
had become thoroughly ready for a change. In the early
months of 1854, as soon as the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was intro-
duced into Congress, leading Whigs participated in the non-
partisan meetings held to protest. The spring found them
heartily in favor of a new party; and when Congress finally
passed the hill, the Detroit Tribune said in its indignation: " The
man of whatever party who refuses to sacrifice every personal
and party consideration ... in order to aid in concentrating
public sentiment against this great outrage . . , will deserve to
be damned to everlasting infamy " ; ^ and Jacob M. Howard,
hitherto strictest Whig of the strict, said in a speech : " There
must be union among men who are opposed to this surrender of
^ Indiana State Journal, July 18, 24, 1854.
2 National Era, Oct. 5, 1854.
8 Quoted in Racine Advocate, June 5, 1854.
292 ANTI-NEBRASKA MOVEMENT.
every principle. That union must be lasting. There is no use
standing on punctilios any longer." ^
The Free Democrats held their State Convention on February
22, at a time when it was still by no means certain that the Kan-
sas-Nebraska Bill would pass. Obviously, whatever might be the
result, an opportunity offered itself for the Free Democracy by
a judicious campaign to profit largely from the anti-slavery ex-
citement. With this object in view, the three hundred and
nineteen delegates present made provision for vigorous local
organization, passed resolutions favoring " prohibition " and con-
demning the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and nominated a State ticket
headed by K. S. Bingham and containing four other Free
Soilers, one Democrat, and three Whigs.^ The purpose of this
step was evidently to draw voters from the other two parties ; but
the action, although commended at the convention by H. H.
Emmons, a Whig leader, grated on the majority of his party
fellows. The ticket was approved by several party news-
papers on each side^; but the Battle Creek Journal said:
" However much we may sympathize with the principles put
forth by the Free Soilers we cannot but condemn this haste —
this disposition to forestall other parties. How can they expect
Whigs and Democrats will dissolve their political connections
to aid in electing Free Soil partisans?"* There was much
force in this complaint ; but the Free Democrats continued with
great vigor to perfect their organization. Eaton, Clinton, St.
Joseph, Kalamazoo, Oakland, and Kent counties formed local
associations, and local tickets were run in scores of places. In
the town elections Whigs and Free Democrats prospered ; but
from every side came in reports of Free Democratic success.
" In Burr Oak," said one correspondent, " where eleven years
ago there were only three poor despised abolitionists, every
township officer but one was elected." ^ In a few places in
1 Detroit Democrat, June 8, 1854. * Ibid., Feb. 23, 1854.
8 The Grand River Eagle said that it was willing to support Bingham ;
and the Branch County Journal, Jonesville Teleg7-aph, and Monroe Commer-
cial — the two last-named, Democratic papers — commended the ticket.
* Quoted Detroit Democrat, March 4, 1854.
6 Ibid., May 13, 1854.
REPUBLICAN PARTY IN MICHIGAN. 293
which non-partisan anti-Nebraska tickets were run, the same or
even greater success was attained.^
By May the desire for an entirely new party was growino- so
obvious that the Free Democratic leaders found themselves in
an awkward position, and I. P. Christiancy at once set to work
to get their candidates to withdraw; but they showed a natural
reluctance. They seemed at last to have the chance of building
up their party out of the ruins of the Whigs and Democrats, and
for them to resign both personal advantage and prospective
party gain called for much real self-surrender.^ While the
outcome hung in the balance, on May 25 the Independent Demo-
cratic Central Committee issued a call for a State Mass Conven-
tion at Kalamazoo to oppose the slave power, with the idea,
apparently, of using the anti-Nebraska excitement for their own
advantage. This was a false move ; for the Whigs, who wanted
to have a hand in any party-building, took offence. The De-
troit Democrat worked hard for harmony, saying: "We feel
confident that an honorable and satisfactory union can be effected
in our State," ^ and at length the Kalamazoo Convention, though
composed principally of Free Soilers, showed a conciliatory
spirit. " While asserting the true principles of anti-slavery action,
it generously pledged the party to surrender its name and its
candidates, provided the people without distinction of party
would take the right ground and organize for efficient opera-
tions."^ A committee was appointed, with Christiancy at the
head, to withdraw the candidates in case such a step proved ad-
visable. This action met at once with Whig approval, especially
among the country editors, who were anxious for a union, and
who now said, in the words of the Cass County Tribune: " This
is magnanimous and right." ^
On June 23 a call for a State Convention appeared, signed by
men of all parties; and on July 6, at Jackson, the " People"
met and organized a new party, the " Republican." Strange
^ Grand River Eag/e, Dec. 13, 1890.
2 Letter of I. P. Christiancy, in F. A. Flower, History of the Republican
Party., \y2.
8 June 14, 1^54. 4 A^ational Era, July 6, 1854.
^ Quoted in Detroit Democrat, July i, 1854.
294 ANTI-NEBRASKA MOVEMENT.
sights were seen in this Convention, men who had been promi-
nent in circulating the Birney forgery serving on committees
side by side with original Liberty abolitionists. The Com-
mittee on Resolutions reported through Jacob M. Howard
a ringing series embodying, in great contrast to the meagre
platforms of Indiana and Ohio, all the anti-slavery doctrine that
the most ardent Free Democrat could desire ; then came the
most dramatic episode of the day, when I. P. Christiancy,
stepping forward, announced the withdrawal of the Free Demo-
cratic ticket and the dissolution of the Free Democratic party.
Loud and prolonged applause followed. The Free Democratic
party of Michigan thus gracefully and definitely withdrew from
the field and turned into the service of the Republican move-
ment that activity which had been so effective in 1852-53.
The Illinois Free Democrats shared to some extent the fate
of their Indiana brethren. In spite of the popular revolt against
Douglas and his bill, the local Whig party with amazing con-
servatism refused to abandon its name and organization. There
was, however, a general union of anti-Nebraska sentiment, and
in the two northern districts the Republican party was success-
fully formed. As in 1848, the principal interest lay in the revolt
of the Chicago Democrats, which in its violence led to an actual
mobbing of the author of the obnoxious Nebraska Bill when,
in September, he visited the city. A tendency toward anti-
Nebraska fusion began to appear in the increasing numbers
of non-partisan meetings. Said the Chicago Tribune in May:
"The signs of the times seem to us to indicate an affiliation of
those better and more progressive elements without regard to
party as it now exists." ^ When the Nebraska Bill was passed,
the Chicago Coiirant (Democratic) declared: "The political
landmarks can no longer be Whig or Democrat, Free Soil or
Abolitionist, but must be merged into the two great parties.
South and North ;"^ and on August 2 a non-partisan conven-
tion for Lake County, the focus of anti-slavery sentiment,
adopted the " Republican " platform and name, and went to
work. In the Second Congressional District a fusion conven-
^ Quoted in Racine Advocate, May 22, 1854.
2 Quoted ibid., June 5, 1854.
PARTIAL COALITION IN ILLINOIS. 295
tion met, and after uncompromising speeches in favor of a new
party, — one of them by ex-Governor Bebb of Ohio, — adopted
the Repubhcan platform of Wisconsin, and with great enthu-
siasm nominated E. B. Washburne.^ In the Chicago district a
" People's " convention nominated a Republican candidate, but
the Whigs refused to coalesce and ran a separate ticket.
While in these movements the Free Democrats were ready
cheerfully to merge their identity, the initiative for a State anti-
Nebraska organization came from certain of their number who
issued a call for a convention at Springfield on October 5,
Abraham Lincoln, an old Whig, was just then beginning his
anti-slavery career, and efforts were made to engage him in the
movement; but his friends dissuaded him from appearing at
the convention.''^ The meeting was disapproved by the leading
Whig papers, and therefore turned out a Free Democratic affair,
led by Codding and Lovejoy. To show its conciliatory spirit, it
nominated for State treasurer E. McClure, " a Henry Clay
Whig," as the Chicago Journal called him.^ The Whig Central
Committee ratified this nomination ; but as McClure had de-
clined the Republican nomination, difficulties resulted, which,
after some correspondence, were straightened out by the co-
operation of the Republican and Whig committees in the selec-
tion of Miller. In this campaign, therefore, the Illinois Free
Democrats lost their identity as a party. The anti-Nebraska
sentiment of the State, in spite of Whig reluctance, was soon to
solidify into a Republican party of the Indiana type.
In Wisconsin, as in Ohio, the tale of Free Democratic action
in 1854 is soon told. The "People's" movement of 1853 has
already been described ; it resulted in the temporary coalition
of Whigs and Free Democrats; but for all practical purposes
the two parties ceased their separate existence in October, 1853.
Thereafter the old party machinery was lifeless. Here and there
in the state, local organizations ran separate tickets in the spring
elections of 1854, but even in such cases fusion was common.
On the question of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, Wisconsin seemed
1 National Era, Sept. 14, 1854; Milwaukee Sentinel, Sept. 4, 1854.
^ J. T. Morse, Ah-ahain Lincoln, I., 95.
* Chicago Journal., Oct. 7-10, 1854.
296 ANTI-NEBRASKA MOVEMENT.
to move as one man. Early in February began frequent non-
partisan meetings, in which the foremost Free Democrats and
Whigs participated. Probably the earliest of these meetings
in the whole country expressly to propose a new party was
that called at Ripon, Winnebago County ; it has become famous
as the starting-point of the Republican party.^
When the Nebraska Bill passed, in May, 1854, the organs of
both parties with {<tv,' exceptions, together with a good many
individual Democrats, heartily joined in the call for a State
Mass Convention. Whig papers, in marked contrast to their
Illinois neighbors, spoke kindly of the Free Democrats. " We
wish to leave off platforms," said the Grant County Herald, " and
turn to men. Anybody can ride on a platform. Measures not
men elected Pierce, nominated Scott, and both on identical
platforms. Does any sane man believe that J. P. Hale had not
merit enough of his own to shine? He was the only statesman
of the lot. We oppose unions or compacts between parties
merely for the sake of gaining a majority over a third party." ^
Said the Madison /tpw/m/; "The Whig and Free Soil parties
stand this day, though in the minority, in a position infinitely
more proud than the dishonored pro-slavery Democratic party." ^
The Free Democrats, on their part, abandoned their organiza-
tion without a moment's hesitation, and in the convention at
Madison, on July 13, all anti-slavery elements, with enthusiasm
and harmony unsurpassed elsewhere, adopted the Republican
platform and name. So thoroughly had the fusion of 1853 paved
the way for a new party that in 1854 there was hardly the slight-
est friction in passing from the old to the new dispensation.
In Iowa, as in Michigan, the gallant little band of anti-slavery
heroes made a self-denying ordinance, when they saw that the
time had come to unite the opponents of the Nebraska Bill.
The Whigs of that State had been consistently opposed to the
extension of slavery ; and, although the party had a full share of
" Silver Grays," the more anti-slavery wing was in control in
1854. The Free Democrats early put into the field Simeon
1 See A- E. Bovay's description, in F. A. Flower, History of the Repub-
lican Party, 50 seq.
2 Quoted in Miliuaukee Sentitiel, May 27, 1854. ^ Quoted ibid.
FUSION IN WISCONSIN AND IOWA. 297
Waters as their candidate for Governor. The Whig State Con-
vention, which met February 22, nominated J. W. Grimes for
Governor and adopted a plank condemning the Nebraska BilL
Since it was known, from the election of 1852, that the Free
Democrats very nearly held the balance of power, the Whig
leaders, especially Grimes, were anxious to bring about a con-
centration of anti-Nebraska sentiment ; ^ and by March it had be-
come evident that the Northern States were about to unite against
the principle of non-intervention. Hence the Free Democratic
leaders, at Whig suggestion, called a State Convention at Craw-
fordsville to decide on the proper course to pursue under the
circumstances. On March 28, after long deliberation, it was re-
solved that the best way to rebuke the Nebraska swindle was to
vote for Grimes. " The standing of Mr. Grimes," said the Iowa
True Democrat, " was known by many of the oldest and most
faithful members of the convention . . . they were ready to vouch
for his soundness. We therefore in conjunction with every in-
dependent in the State go in, heart and hand, to make J. W.
Grimes Governor of Iowa." ^ This indorsement of Grimes had
the effect of driving from his support most of the Hunker
Whigs ; ^ but after the coalition had gained a hard-earned tri-
umph in the August election, it was unencumbered by incon-
gruous elements. The Free Democrats by their action lost
nothing and gained everything; and Iowa, hitherto the most
pro-slavery of the free States, sprang at a bound ahead of In-
diana and Illinois, to stand beside Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Ohio in the anti-slavery column.
With the exception of Illinois, every Northwestern State had
gone over to the new organization, and tne end for which the
Liberty and Free Soil parties had been laboring for fourteen
years had at last been attained, — the formation of a powerful
and well-organized party absolutely opposed to the influence of
slavery.
1 W. Salter, Life of J. W. Grimes, 115.
2 Quoted in Chicago fournal, June 13, 1854.
3 W. Salter, Life off. W. Grimes, 54.
, CHAPTER XX.
THE RESULT OF TWENTY YEARS' EFFORT.
1834-1854.
The anti-slavery societies of 1834, the Liberty party of 184 1,
the Free Soil party of 1848, and its other form the Free De-
mocracy of 1 85 1, all set before themselves the same end, —
to bring the North to realize its relation to slavery and to exer-
cise its constitutional rights to repress and discourage the insti-
tution in every possible way. In 1854 their hopes began to be
realized by the birth in the Northwest of a new national party,
which accomplished the tremendous task of destroying slavery.
The question which tests the real worth of all these anti-slavery
organizations is simply this: How much did they contribute to
this final result? To those who consider that the history of the
United States is prepared in Congress and settled by national
elections, and who consequently disregard all unsuccessful third
parties as unworthy of study, this question is of little moment.
But no history is more one-sided than mere parliamentary or
legislative annals. Especially is it a mistake to disregard local
political history in th'e United States ; for, as a matter of fact,
half the political battles of the period before the Civil War were
fought out in State legislatures and State elections, and Con-
gress did little more than ratify the results.
As an outgrowth of conscientious scruples, warm sympathies,
keen political foresight, and habits of thought inherited from a
New England ancestry, the anti-slavery movement as a moral
force in the Northwest deserves a fuller treatment than can be
given in a work which deals with it as a poHtical engine. In
EFFECTS ON PUBLIC OPINION. 299
two ways, one direcc and one indirect, the third-party move-
ment was effective. The direct method v/as agitation, persistent
dwelhng on the sinfulness of slavery, on the duty of the North
to rid the national government of all contact with it, and on the
absolute necessity of resisting all its encroachments. To the
unceasing activity of the abolitionists, of the Liberty men, and
later of the Free Democrats, must in no small degree be as-
cribed the change in public sentiment which took place between
1830 and 1854. When all due credit has been given to Con-
gressional struggles, to industrial and physiographical reasons
for conflict between the sections, it remains true that, without
vigorous, untiring, often town-to-town and house-to-house work,
the publishing of newspapers, the distribution of documents,
and the incessant reiteration of the incompatibility between
slavery and freedom. Northwestern sentiment could not have
been prepared to alter with such a mighty force and unanimity
as it showed in the year 1854.
Indirectly, the anti-slavery agitators affected public opinion
through politics. They demanded anti-slavery political action,
and from the first threatened not to vote for such candidates
as did not satisfy them. They soon showed that they were
" a vote " which might be attracted or repelled ; and hence
members of the old parties, otherwise indifferent, began with
increasing frequency to seek by protestations of some sort to
enlist their support. In the years after 1843 this practice be-
came a potent means of anti-slavery education. Every Whig
or Democratic candidate in a region where abolitionists were
numerous felt obliged to define his position on slavery. Whig
papers that vituperated the Liberty men usually based their
arguments on the claim that they were themselves equally
anti-slavery with the "Birney party," and at the same time
were far more efficient in their action. These two ways in
which anti-slavery agitation affected the public in the North-
west, without discussing other factors, are sufficiently impor-
tant to account, in large measure, for the prevailing sentiment
of 1854.
As between the various successive forms assumed by the
agitation, the greatest credit is of course due to the earliest.
300 TWENTY YEARS' EFFORT.
It was the non-partisan, purely moral action of the anti-slavery
societies that laid the foundations for anti-slavery action not
only in the third party, but within the old parties as well ; it
was this action that produced Seward, B. F. Wade, and Greeley,
as well as Chase, Lewis, Lovejoy, and Birney, and that pro-
vided a medium in which they could act.
With the advent of the Liberty party anti-slavery action as-
sumed a narrower form. Without abandoning their original
object of converting the North, the Liberty leaders from
this time onward phrased their purpose differently: they now
aimed, as did the Free Soilers, to build up a Northern party.
In this direct purpose no one will assert that any third-party
organization approached success. It is true that there was no
year in which, unassisted, it elected more than three Con-
gressmen in the Northwest, or more than twenty or thirty
members of the legislatures in all six States together. In
fact, the Liberty party in the Northwest never carried any
electoral district, larger than a township, by a plurality of its
own votes. In this matter, however, we must discriminate
between the methods of the two organizations. The Liberty
party stuck to the creed of entirely separate action, indiffer-
ent alike to Whig and Democrat, and relying upon the spread
of its principles among the people for an increase of its vote;
the Free Soil party, on the other hand, was perfectly willing
to help elect men of other parties if they professed its ideas,
or to gain the help of other parties in electing its own can-
didates. The result was that although, unaided, the Free
Soil party was practically little stronger in the Northwest
than its predecessor, it was able, by means of coalitions of
various kinds, to place in office a very considerable number
of anti-slavery men. Beside helping to elect legislative or local
officers in several States, the Free Soilers sent to one or the
other House of Congress Chase, Edward Wade, Giddings,
Root, Townshend, Newton, and Campbell, from Ohio;
Julian from Indiana; Sprague, Conger, and Penniman, from
Michigan; Durkee and Doty from Wisconsin; and several
others, whose success was probably due to Free Democratic
votes. Immediately after the Free Soil revolt of 1848, while
ESTIMATE OF POLITICAL RESULTS. 301
the Wilmot Proviso was for the time common poHtical prop-
erty in the Northwest, several Senators and Representatives
were chosen by the old parties, very largely on account of
their anti-slavery professions, — notably Whitcomb of Indi-
ana, and Doty and Walker of Wisconsin ; the nomination
and election of such men were indirectly due to anti-slavery
organization.
The presence of some of these men in Congress proved of
very great benefit to the anti-slavery cause ; but, as has been
pointed out above, the very system of coalition which elected
them quickly disintegrated the Free Soil party, and thus nul-
lified the purpose expressed in the Buffalo platform, — to found
a permanent Northern party. The coalitions, moreover, almost
invariably caused suspicion, and exposed the Free Democrats to
the charges of "office-seeking" and "greed for spoils," faults
which, to the virtuous sensibilities of the party not included in
the coalition, were extremely painful, and to the scrupulous of
all parties were distasteful. In contrast with the Liberty party,
which from 1840 to 1846 showed a steady increase in its vote,
the Free Soil party, after its beginning in 1848, went from bad
to worse, and in 185 1 had entirely lost State organization in
the Northwest, except in Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin. As a
means for building up a party, indiscriminate coalition was
proved to be even worse than absolute refusal to vote for or
with the regular parties. It should be borne in mind, how-
ever, that the period from 1848 to 1850 was one of crisis: the
Congressional struggle over slavery in the Territories was at
its height, and did not end until the summer of 1850 brought
the Compromise. In such times it seemed more important to
have anti-slavery men in office, especially in Congress, than to
devote time to separate party-building.
An obvious dif^culty encountered by the Liberty and Free
Soil parties was that their policy was national and had no neces-
sary reference to State issues. Belief in the necessity of aboli-
tion in the District of Columbia, or in the advisability of the
Wilmot Proviso, or in the unconstitutionality of the Fugitive
Slave Law, was appropriate in a Congressional or a Presidential
candidate, but was not especially pertinent in an aspirant for the
302 TWENTY YEARS' EFFORT.
legislature, and seemed wholly unnecessary in district judges,
sheriffs, and minor municipal officers. Political organization in
the Northwest at that period was not so thorough as entirely to
subordinate State elections to national issues; and the anti-slavery
parties suffered from this cause. Nevertheless, the disturbing
effect of State and local issues must not be exaggerated; for
politics, after 1845, were so permeated by the slavery question
that the Free Soilers had plenty of reason to keep up their
agitation in years when there was no national election.
After 1850, the Free Democratic party renewed its youth,
and in 1853 showed that it had reached the true policy for a
third party, — namely, the middle course between absolute
separation and unreserved coalition. Hence, in 1854, when the
signs of the times showed that the longed-for day had come, its
members were willing to abandon their organization and to join
the new party.
In the boldness of its political manoeuvres, its great alterna-
tions of fortune, and its strong revival at the end of its career,
the Free Soil party of the Northwestern States was far more
remarkable than its sister party in the East. Nevertheless,
between the individual Northwestern States, alike as they are
in these general characteristics, great and not entirely explicable
differences exist. Ohio offers the greatest interest; not from
the size of its anti-slavery vote, for Liberty men and Free Demo-
crats alike were throughout in a hopeless minority; nor from
occasional successes, which were significant only in the sena-
torial elections of 1849 and 185 i ; nor from its campaigns, for
in none of them except that of 1853 do we find any very marked
effect on public sentiment outside the party; but from the per-
sonal character of the leaders. From the time of Theodore
Weld's great tour, to the foundation of the Republican party,
we find in the anti-slavery ranks a greater number of able men
than ever worked before in such a cause: Weld, Birney, Bailey,
Morris, Lewis, Chase, King, Root, Wade, Giddings, Spaulding,
Brinckerhoff, and the rest, were a group without a parallel in any
other Northwestern State, or in any State, except, perhaps,
Massachusetts. It was the pre-eminent ability «and devotion of
these men which gave the third party of Ohio its vigor, its per-
DIFFERENT GROUPS OF LEADERS. 303
sistence, and its oratorical influence ; and which kept it alive at
the lowest ebb of party fortunes.
In Indiana, on the contrary, both the Liberty and Free Demo-
cratic parties show fewer points of interest. The State was so
largely under the domination of Southern ideas that anti-slavery
work of any kind was a hard, up-hill struggle ; and Indiana pro-
duced no men, except Julian and Harding, of the real calibre of
leaders. Judge Stevens, Vaile, Robinson, Cravens, and Hull
were earnest, devoted men; but they were not of the same
quality as the Ohio group. Had Bailey, Birney, Lewis, Wade,
Chase, and the rest, looked to Indianapolis instead of to Colum-
bus in the years after 1840, the anti-slavery cause of Indiana
might have had a different story.
In Michigan, the third-party movement was an alternation of
crescendo and diminuendo. The Liberty party of that State,
which from 1840 to 1844 was stronger in proportion to its rivals
than in any other Northwestern State, soon fell ofif to a low
point; the Free Soil party after a similarly strong beginning,
fell even more rapidly and to a lower level. The reason was
that, in spite of the amount of strong anti-slavery sentiment in
the State, there was no one man with enough of the qualities
of a leader to hold the party together. Birney was a Michigan
man only by adoption ; and his activity ceased after his acci-
dent in 1845. Besides him no Liberty or Free Soil man of
Michigan attained a national reputation in those days, or even
any very wide notice in anti-slavery circles. Holmes, Stewart,
Clarke, Bingham, Blair, and Christiancy were strong, able men;
but no one of them had enough of the spirit or the force of
Giddings or Lewis to keep a third party alive in the face of
defeat.
In Illinois the brilliant promise of the Liberty party in the
northern district resulted in little but discouragement, after the
Free Soil outburst had died away and the anti-Cass Democrats
had returned to their old party. Lovejoy and Codding were
strong, radical speakers, active and devoted; but, like Julian,
they were unable single-handed to create a party.
In Iowa the leaders were men of character and devotion, and,
as the persistence of the party through decline and discourage-
304 TWENTY YEARS' EFFORT.
ment shows, they had some of the qualities of leadership ; but
they were in general philanthropists rather than statesmen, and
the State came very late into line on the slavery question.
That Wisconsin failed to surpass Ohio or any of the other
Western States in anti-slavery success can be laid only to a de-
ficiency in leadership. Durkee, Holton, Booth, and Hastings
were all up to the level of the Liberty and Free Soil leaders in
most other States ; but there was no one man of the first rank.
Durkee in his Congressional district had an opportunity to be a
second Giddings ; yet with all his popularity he lacked entirely
the qualities that made Giddings for twenty years the idol of the
Western Reserve ; and he failed to retain his seat. With oppor-
tunities of extraordinary promise in 1849, the Wisconsin Free
Soil leaders allowed themselves to be thoroughly outwitted by
the Democrats; whereas a far-sighted party leader would have
seen and avoided the danger.
Yet, after all due credit is given to leadership, it should be
said that another factor played a great part in giving excep-
tional anti-slavery success in some States. Nothing is so stimu-
lating to a party as to have some district in which it is generally
victorious, to which in any circumstances it may reasonably look
for support. When such a region exists, the party is always
sure of an official mouthpiece and of the consideration that
attaches to a constituency. It was this circumstance that made
it so much easier to maintain anti-slavery spirit in Ohio and
Wisconsin than in the other States. The Western Reserve,
especially the eastern half of it, was overwhelmingly for Free
Soil. In the darkest hour the party could be sure of electing
Giddings and several Representatives in the legislature. Around
the Western Reserve anti-slavery sentiment centred; on it the
Liberty and Free Democratic men of all parts of the State re-
lied for support. In Wisconsin, Racine, Kenosha, and Wal-
worth counties were always sure to give a plurality for Free
Soil ; the- party might fade elsewhere, but these counties were
firm. Hence, in 1850, in the lowest ebb of Free Soil action,
Durkee was returned to Congress.
Illinois came very near having such a centre, as is shown by
the vote for President in the Fourth Congressional District in
LOCAL ANTI-SLAVERY CENTRES. 305
1848.^ Had Wentworth, the local Democratic leader, a man
of strong Free Soil sympathies, thrown his influence on the
side of the third party, the northern counties of Illinois would
probably have become as ardent a third-party centre as those
of southeastern Wisconsin and the Ohio Western Reserve.
When Wentworth turned aside, the Presidential Free Soil vote
of 1848 faded away, and his influence kept the district true
to the national Democratic party.
In Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan, there was no such region.
In these States the only Congressional or legislative success
possible was that gained by coalition ; for the Free Democratic
vote in Indiana and Iowa was too small for separate action, and
in Michigan too evenly distributed over the State- Hence the
coalitions, and hence the inability of Julian and Christiancy to
maintain themselves or to keep up their party.
Upon both Liberty and Free Soil parties criticisms may be
passed, criticisms which apply less to the regenerated Free
Democracy of 1852-54. In the first place, both parties were liable
to charges of too great partisanship. Single-mindedness was,
of course, an integral part of the creed of the Liberty party;
but it was thoroughly impolitic for a movement which was based
on an attempt to draw votes from the old organizations. Over-
devotion to one's own organization leads inevitably to the dis-
paragement of others ; and both Liberty men and Free Soilers
had a habit of wholesale denunciation that overshot the mark.
It was necessary to be firm in asserting that Whig and Demo-
crat parties as such were untrustworthy in regard to slavery;
but it did not follow that every man of anti-slavery professions
who voted the Whig or the Democratic ticket was a liar or a
hypocrite, or that every man who voted the third ticket was sin-
^ It was as follows : —
Cass. Taylor. Van Buren.
9,820 9,189 9,632
Or, if we take the later first and second districts, comprising the sixteen
northern counties, it was as follows : — •
Cass. Taylor. Van Buren.
First District . . . . 4,466 5,829 4,100
Second District . . . 4435 4,373 4>8o5
306 TWENTY YEARS' EFFORT.
cere and trustworthy. Such language seemed narrow, bigoted,
and sometimes self-righteous and hypocritical. It is preposter-
ous, of course, to expect reformers subjected to floods of billings-
gate to keep a cool philosophic temper, and to exhibit the
astuteness of practical politicians ; but some individuals in the
Liberty and Free Soil parties in each of the States did almost
as much to delay the triumph of their cause by their uniform
harshness and extravagance of language as they did by their
courage and devotion to prepare for the overthrow of slavery.
Besides this intense partisanship, the anti-slavery men of the
Northwest sometimes exhibited what seems extreme short-
sightedness. Their hope, in 1849, '^^^^t the "United Demo-
cracy" would prove the longed-for anti-slavery party; their
feeling that the natural allies of the Free Soilers lay in the party
of Cass, Buchanan, Polk, Foote, and Davis, is extremely sur-
prising. It has been pointed out, however, that in this matter
the influence of the New York Barnburners was strong, and that
the warm support received by Taylor in the South, coupled with
Cass's success in the Northwest, had obscured the real positions
held by Whig and Democratic parties previously to 1848.
A third fault was the undue influence of names and of theo-
retical considerations upon anti-slavery men. The fact that
abolition was a step toward democracy; that the equal political
rights for which the opponents of the Black Laws had struggled
were characteristic of democracy ; that liberality, philanthropy,
and reform were democratic; these considerations led the Free
Soilers of 1848, even those who were Liberty men or Whigs, to
find some necessary affinity between themselves, a " demo-
cratic " party, and another party which called itself" Democratic,"
even though the main strength of that other " Democracy" was
and always had been in the hands of slave-holders. So little
can radical reformers look beneath the surface !
The results accomplished by the Liberty and Free Demo-
cratic parties were mainly educational. They stirred up the
Western conscience, kept the subject of slavery constantly be-
fore the public, powerfully aff"ected the policy and public ex-
pressions of the old parties, and by their spokesmen in Congress
played an influential part in national politics. More important
ANTI-SLAVERY FAULTS AND MERITS. 307
than all, they familiarized the minds of all Northwestern people
with political anti-slavery arguments, furnished them with the
proper constitutional and political vocabulary, and thus be-
queathed to the Republicans, in 1854, a strong practical pro-
gramme. Without this heritage of principles, experience, and
determination, the Republican party would have been a failure,
if not an impossibility. Thus, in spite of mistakes in method
and defeats in elections, the anti-slavery political organizations
played an indispensable part in preparing the way for the Re-
publican movement. Best of all, they trained in every State a
number of able, devoted men, who in the Republican party
found an opportunity to exercise the talents developed and the
experience gained in the arduous school of the Liberty and
Free Soil parties.
Behind the practical results of a long political struggle, in
the foundation of a new national party, we must not forget that
there was a tremendous moral force. For a young voter or a
young aspirant for political honors to cast in his lot with the
third party was at almost any time and in almost every State
an act of heroic self-abnegation. As we read of committees and
nominations, and tickets and campaigns, we forget that nearly
all of these meetings and urgent appeals were the laughing-stock
of both the regular organizations ; that the Liberty leaders and
nearly all of the Free Soil leaders were cut off from any hope of
election to any office in the gift of the people. Mistakes and
miscalculations and intemperance of language were effaced by
the magnificent purpose to arouse the nation to a consciousness
of its own guilt and danger from slavery. To be sure, the names
of the leaders who lived beyond 1854 are the names of the chief-
tains of the Republican party, of the towers of strength in the
Civil War, — Chase, Giddings, Hale, Bingham, Julian — they had
their reward of responsibility and fame. But what was there for
Birney and Lewis, and thousands of obscure men, but the simple
consciousness of doing their duty as they saw it, and the approval
of a little band of fellow-workers ? The highest service of Liberty,
Free Soil, and Free Democratic organization, was to accustom
men to a steady adherence to a great principle, in the face of
opposition, contempt, and abuse, — to do right for right's sake.
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX A.
Bibliography.
In the present scattered condition of the materials for western history
the writer cannot hope that he has succeeded in discovering ah sources
for the period under consideration. This, then, must be looked upon as
a preUminary attempt at forming a bibliography, and as such is doubtless
open to correction in many respects. The author can desire nothing
more heartily than the pointing out of any omissions.
The materials from which this paper has been prepared were found
in the following places : Harvard University Library ; Boston Public
Library ; Congregational Library, Boston ; American Antiquarian Society,
Worcester; Ohio State Library, Columbus; Western Reserve Historical
Society, Cleveland ; the Clevelatid Leader ofifice ; Lidiana State Library,
Indianapolis ; Indianapolis Public Library ; Detroit PubUc Library ; Ann
ArbocPioneer Society ; the Chicago Journal o^ce \ and the Wisconsin
Historical Society, Madison. Information has also been gathered from
collections of newspapers and other material in possession of the follow-
ing gentlemen: George W.Julian and G. S.Nicholson, Indianapolis;
R. ]\I. Zug and G. W. Clark, Detroit ; S. D. Hastings, Madison, Wis-
consin ; W. P. Howe, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa ; Edward L. Pierce, Milton,
Massachusetts ; Albert Bushnell Hart and W. H. Siebert, Cambridge,
Massachusetts ; and the late Theodore D. Weld, Hyde Park, Massa-
chusetts.
GENERAL HISTORIES.
Dyer, Oliver Great Senators of the United States. New
York, 1889.
Flower, Frank A. . . . History of the Republican Party. Spring-
field, Illinois, 1884.
310 APPENDIX A.
Hinsdale, Burke A. . . The Old Northwest. New York, 1888.
Langeland, Knud . . . Nordmaendene i Amerika. Chicago, 1889.
Pike, James S First Blows of the Civil War. New York,
1879.
Willey, Austin .... The History of the Anti-Slavery Cause in
State and Nation. Portland, Maine, 1886.
Wilson, Henry .... History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave
Power in America. 3 vols. Boston,
1872-77.
Of the foregoing. Pike's and Flower's works contain a few documents
of minor importance ; Dyer's, Willey's, and to some extent Wilson's, have
the value of personal reminiscences.
LOCAL HISTORIES.
OHIO.
Addison, H. M An Episode of Politics. Magazine of
Western History^ IX. 273 (Jan. 1889).
Fairchild, James H. . . Oberlin : the College and the Colony.
Oberlin, 1883.
Ford, Henry A. and K. B. History of Cincinnati. [Cleveland] 1881.
Howe, Henry Historical Collections of Ohio. 3 vols.
Columbus, 1889-91.
HuTCHiNS, John .... The Underground Railroad. Magazine of
Western History, V. 672 (March, 1887).
Lee, Alfred E History of the City of Columbus, Capital of
Ohio. 2 vols. New York and Chicago,
1892.
Riddle, Albert G. . . . History of Geauga and Lake Counties.
Philadelphia, 1878.
, . . Recollections of the Forty-Seventh General
Assembly of Ohio, 1847-48. Magazine of
Western History, VI. 341 (Aug. 1897).
. . . Rise of the Anti-Slavery Sentiment on the
Western Reserve. Magazine of Western
History, Yl. 145 (June 1887).
. . . The Election of S. P. Chase to the Senate,
February, 1849. Republic, IV. I79-
Ryan, Daniel J A History of Ohio. Columbus, 1888.
Townshend, Norton S. . The Forty-Seventh General Assembly of
Ohio. Magazine of Western History, VI.
623 (Oct. 1887).
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 3 1 1
Williams, H. L. and Bro., publishers. History of Trumbull and Mahon-
ing Counties. 2 vols. Cleveland, 1882.
. . , History of Washington County. Cleveland,
1 881'.
. . . . History of Lorain County. Philadelphia,
1879.
Williams, William W. . History of Ashtabula County. Philadelphia,
1878.
INDIANA.
Chapman, C. C. and Co., publishers. History of St. Joseph County. Chi-
cago, i88o.
Pleas, Elwood .... Henry County : Past and Present. New
Castle, 1 87 1.
Young, Andrew W. • . History of Wayne County. Cincinnati, 1872.
MICHIGAN.
Clarke, Harvey K. . . Under the Oaks. Detroit Tribune, July 6,
1879-
Farmer, Silas .... The History of Detroit and Michigan. De-
troit, 1884.
Rust, E. G Calhoun County Business Directory for
1869-70, with a History of the County.
Battle Creek, 1869.
ILLINOIS.
Andreas, Alfred T. . . History of Chicago. 3 vols. Chicago,
1884-86.
Chapman, C. C, and Co. . History of Knox County. Chicago, 1878.
Erwin, Milo The History of Williamson County. Marion,
1876.
Kett, H. F., and Co., publishers. The Past and Present of La Salle
County. Chicago, 1877.
. . . History of Winnebago County. Chicago,
1877.
Le Baron, W., and Co., publishers. The Past and Present of Kane
County. Chicago, 1878.
. . . The Past and Present of Lake County.
Chicago, 1877.
Moses, John Illinois. Historical and Statistical. 2 vols.
Chicago, 1889-92.
312 APPENDIX A.
WISCONSIN.
Baker, Florence E. . . A Brief History of the Elective Franchise in
Wisconsin. Madison, 1894.
Buck, J. S Pioneer History of Milwaukee. 4 vols. Mil-
waukee, 1876-86.
Strong, Moses M. . . . History of the Territory of Wisconsin, from
1836 to 1848. Madison, 1885.
Western Historical Company. History of Rock County. Chicago, 1879
. . . History of Waukesha County. Chicago,
1880.
IOWA.
History of Henry County, Cliicago, 1879.
Of the foregoing works, the reminiscences published by Messrs. Riddle,
Townshend, and others in the Magazme of JVesfern History are of espe-
cial value, as are also the articles on anti-slavery matters by H. K. Clarke
and J. H. Fairchild. From the county histories little is to be gathered,
least of all from those compiled under the direction of the Western His-
torical Publishing Company of Chicago. Occasionally a chapter written
by some anonymous contributor on local political history contains interest-
ing political information ; but in the main the only things to be found are
the dates, names, and vicissitudes of local anti-slavery newspapers.
BIOGRAPHIES.
Bartlett, David W. . . Modern Agitators. New York, 1855.
[Birney, William]. . . . James G. Birney and his Times. New York,
1890.
[Bradburn, Mrs. F. N.] . A Memorial of George Bradburn. Boston,
1883.
Chicago Tribune Account of the Anti-Slavery Reunion at
Chicago, June 10-12, 1874.
Fergus Historical Series. Reminiscences of Early Chicago and Illinois.
Chicago, 1876 seq.
Frothingham, OctaviusB. Gerrit Smith: a biography. New York, 1879.
[Garrison, W. P. and F. J.] William Lloyd Garrison. 1805-1879. 4 vols.
New York, 1885-89.
Julian, Geo. W The Life of Joshua R. Giddings. Chicago,
1892.
BIBUOGRA PH V. 3 1 3
Julian, Geo. W Political Recollections. 1840 to 1872. Chi-
cago, 18S4.
.... Speeches on Political Questions. New York,
1872.
[Lewis, William G. W.] . Biography of Samuel Lewis. Cincinnati, 1857.
[Morris, Benjamin F.] . The Life of Thomas Morris. Cincinnati, 1856.
Parrish, W. D The Life, Travels and Opinions of Benjamin
Lundy. Philadelphia, 1847.
Pierce, Edward L. . . . Sketch of Dr. G. Bailey, Boston Traveler,
June 27, 1859.
• . . . Sketch of J. R. Giddings, Boston Transcript,
April 8, 1892.
Reemelin, Charles. . . Life. Written by himself. Cincinnati, 1892.
Reid, Harvey Biographical Sketch of Enoch Long, Chi-
cago Historical Society's Collection. Vol.
IL Chicago, 1884.
Riddle, Albert G. . . . The Life of Benjamin F. Wade. Cleveland,
1886.
Salter, William. . . . The Life of James W. Grimes. New York,
1876.
SCHUCKERS, James W. , . The Life and Public Services of Salmon P.
Chase. New York, 1874.
Stanton Henry B. . . . Random Recollections. New York, 1886.
[Tappan, Lewis] . . . The Life of Arthur Tappan. New York, 1870.
Townshend, Norton S. . Salmon P. Chase. Ohio Archaological and
Historical Qtiarterly. September, 1887.
Warden, R. B An Account of the Private Life and Public
Services of Salmon Portland Chase. Cin-
cinnati, 1874.
Woollen, W. W. ... Biographical and Historical Sketches of Early
Indiana. Indianapolis, 1883.
Wright, Elizur. . . . Myron Holley, and what he did for Liberty
and True Religion. Boston, 1882,
Among these biographies there are many so eulogistic in tendency,
owing to filial affection or to other reasons, that comparatively little
space is left for the political questions of the time ; others are so meagre
as to contain little but the bare facts. There are several, however, writ-
ten either during the anti-slavery struggle, or later by those who had
themselves participated in it, which are of the highest importance, espe-
cially the writings of G. W. Julian, William Birney's Life of his father,
A. G. Riddle's Life of B. F. Wade, and the Lives of Thomas Morris and
Samuel Lewis. The two bulky biographies of Salmon P. Chase are of
314 APPENDIX A.
little value except for the documents which they contain. In cases in
which the personal opinions of the subject of the biography have colored
the narrative we can fortunately balance opposing tendencies by compar-
ing the Lives of other men. Thus the Life of VV. L. Garrison forms a
counterpoise to the biographies of J. G. Birney, Myron Holley, and Ger-
rit Smith.
PAMPHLETS.
Address of the Southern and Western Liberty Convention. [By S. P.
Chase. Philadelphia, 1845.]
Address to the Voters of . . . the Second Congressional District of Ohio.
[Elkton, 1843.]
American Anti-Slavery Society, Reports. New York, 1834-50.
American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Reports. New York, 1841-54.
Correspondence between the Hon. F. H. Elmore and James G. Birney.
(The Anti-Slavery Examiner, No. 8.) New York, 1838.
Dyer, Oliver. Phonographic Report of the Proceedings of the National
Free Soil Convention at Buffalo, N. Y. Buffalo, 1848.
Gardiner, O. C. The Great Issue. New York, 1848.
Legion of Liberty, New York. 1847.
Liberty Almanac. Syracuse and New York, 1842-51.
Liberty Bell. Boston, 1846.
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, Reports. Boston, 1834-50.
Politics in Ohio. [A letter to Hon. A. P. Edgerton by S. P. Chase.] Cin-
cinnati, 1853.
Proceedings of the Great Convention of the Friends of Freedom in the East-
ern and Middle States, held in Boston, Oct. 1-3, 1845. Lowell, 1845.
Resolutions of the Wisconsin Legislature on the subject of Slavery ; wi^h
the speech of Samuel D. Hastings. New York, 1849.
Whig Almanac. New York, 1838-55.
Out of the floods of anti-slavery pamphlets poured forth in the years
between 1831 and 1855, very few concern themselves with political his-
tory. The most important are the Whig Ahnanac, invaluable for the
results of elections, the Liberty Almanac, S. P. Chase's letter to A. P.
Edgerton, and O. C. Gardiner's Great Issue, a campaign pamphlet of
1848 which relates the previous history of the Free Soil movement.
NEWSPAPERS.
The writer knows of no important collection of Western newspapers
which he has failed to examine, except that of the Chicago Historical
Society. This, owing to the fact that the new building of the Society was
BIBLIOGRA PHY. 3 1 5
unfinished, proved to be entirely inaccessible. The following list con-
tains those journals used in the preparation of this essay, Abolitionist,
Liberty, or Free Soil papers being marked with a star.
OHIO.
Cincinnati Gazette. Cincinnati, 1844-47.
Cleveland Herald. Cleveland, 1853-54.
* Liberty Herald. Warren, 1843-46.
*Ohio American. Cleveland, 1844-47-
*Ohio Columbian. Columbus, 1853-54-
*Ohio Standard. Columbus, 1848-49.
Ohio State Journal. Columbus, 1844-54-
* Palladium of Liberty. Columbus, 1S44-45.
*Philanthropist, etc. Cincinnati, 1836-49.
*Tyue Democrat. Cleveland, 1847-54.
* Western Reserve Chronicle. Warren, 1848-54.
INDIANA.
* Free Labor Advocate. New Garden, 1842, 1846.
*Free Territory Sentinel. Centreville, 1 848-49.
Itidiana State Jourttal. Indianapolis, 1842-54.
*Indiana True Democrat. Centreville, 1850-52.
Indianapolis Sentinel. Indianapolis, 1844-53.
MICHIGAN.
* Daily Democrat. Detroit, 1854.
Detroit Advertiser. Detroit, 1842-54.
Detroit Free Press. Detroit, 1843-49.
Michigan Argus. Ann Arbor, 1843-49.
* Signal of Liberty. Ann Arbor, 1844.
*True Democrat. Ann Arbor, 1847-48.
ILLINOIS.
Chicago Journal. Chicago, 1844-54.
* Western Citizen. Chicago, 1844.
WISCONSIN.
*Atnerican Freeman. Waukesha, 1845-48.
Janesville Gazette. Janesville, 1853.
*Kenosha Telegraph. Kenosha, 1849-51.
Madison Express. Madison, 1845-48.
3l6 APPENDIX A.
Milwaukee Co7irier. Milwaukee, 1842-44.
Milwaukee Sentinel. Milwaukee, 1843-54.
* Racine Advocate. Racine, 1851-54.
True Democrat. Oshkosh, 1849.
Watertown Chronicle. Watertown, 1853.
Wisconsin. Milwaukee, 1848-53.
Wisconsin Argus. Madison, 1849.
Wisconsin Democrat. Madison, 1842-44.
Wisconsin State Journal. Madison, 1849-54.
IOWA.
*Iowa Free Democrat. Mt. Pleasant, 1849-50.
*Iowa True Democrat. Mt. Pleasant, 1850-52.
MISCELLANEOUS.
*Emancipator. New York and Boston, 1834-48.
* Liberator. Boston, 1 831-41.
* National A)iti-Slavery Standard. New York, 1845.
* National Era. Wasliington, 1847-54.
New York Tribune. New York, 1844-54.
*Tocsin of Liberty, later Albany Patriot. Albany, 1843-44.
Volumes of miscellaneous Western papers, 1831-54.
The newspapers form the principal source of information for party
history. The anti-slavery organs, of course, furnish us with the most
direct information, but the Whig or Democratic journals are a necessary
check to them. If any one paper can be singled out as the most im-
portant, it is undoubtedly the National Era, from whose wide informa-
tion, excellent breadth of view, and remarkable fairness of judgment one
may gain a good understanding of the whole field of western politics.
MANUSCRIPT MATERIAL.
The author has unfortunately been able to find little in the shape of old
letters, diaries, or similar material. The anti-slavery agitators and poli-
ticians of the Northwest, in spite of their firm conviction — if we may
judge from their oft-repeated assertions — that they were making history,
seem to have neglected to preserve any records of their actions. A dili-
gent search in the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa has
revealed nothing of this character. Very important manuscripts, how-
ever, remain in the papers of Salmon P. Chase, almost entirely inedited,
BIBLIOGRA PHY. 3 1 /
in the letters of Charles Sumner, and in the papers of George W. Julian.
From the hand of Chase we have diaries extending from 1830 to 1854, a
series of letters to Sumner, another to E. S. Hamlin, and a miscellaneous
letter-book. Among the Sumner papers are to be found a set of letters
from Joshua R. Giddings and many miscellaneous letters from Western
men. Among the papers of George W. Juhan are diaries, an autobio-
graphical memoir and letter-books. Interesting and often important
material has also been found in the scrap-books of Salmon P. Chase,
George W. Julian, Samuel D. Hastings, George \V. Clark, Albert G.
Turner, and others.
PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS.
Though relying mainly on contemporary documents, the author has
not failed to get what light he could from the memories of living men who
were actors in the events of fifty years ago. Correspondence has been
held with a number of gentlemen, particularly Messrs. William Birney,
Sherman M. Booth, A. E. Bovay, John N. Bryant, George W. Clark,
William B. Fyffe, Samuel D. Hastings, George Hoadly, Daniel Huff,
Isaac H. Juhan, Albert G. Riddle, and Norton S. Townshend. More-
over, several hundred letters, now in possession of Wilbur H. Siebert, of
Cambridge, Massachusetts, from persons formerly connected with the
Underground Railroad, have been placed at the author's disposal. He
has also had access to notes of conversations held by William B. Shaw
with A. E. Bovay and by Albert B. Hart with Edward S. Hamlin ; and he
has conversed personally with Messrs. George W. Julian, Samuel D. Hast-
ings, James D. Ligget, James F. Joy, J. F. Conover, George W. Clark,
Francis Raymond, Seymour Finney, ex-Senator James Harlan, and very
many others.
APPENDIX B.
Liberty and Free Soil Press in the Northwest.
1836-1854.
In the Bibliography (Appendix A) are mentioned the newspapers
actually consulted for the preparation of this work. The following is a
list of the permanent and more important Northwestern Liberty and
Free Soil papers, including all about which the writer could get definite
information. The tables show, in respective order, the years during
which the paper was issued, the place of publication, the name of the
paper, and the name of the editor, if known.
The years given are only those during which the paper in question
was published as a Liberty or Free Soil organ. Some journals, accord-
ingly, appear in the list for a short time only, although they may have
existed much longer as Democratic or Whig organs ; and all papers
are considered as ceasing in 1854 when the Free Democratic Party
disappeared.
1836-38.
Cincinnati
1838-46.
1847-48.
1848-49.
1843-46.
Warren .
1845-46.
Cadiz .
1845-48.
Cleveland
1848-54.
Cleveland
1848-54. Ashtabula
1848-54. Painesville
1848-54. Warren ,
1848-54. Mt. Vernon
OHIO.
Philanthropist J. G. Birney.
(Continued as Herald . Dr. G. Bailey.
National Press . . . Stanley Mathews.
Globe-) J. W. Taylor.
Liberty Herald . . . • L. L. Rice.
Liberty Advocate . . . . R. B. Dennis.
Ohio Ainerican.
True Democrat . . . . E. S. Hamlin,
J. A. Briggs,
G. Bradburn,
J. C. Vaughn.
Sentinel J. A. Giddings,
W. C. Howells.
Telegraph H. C. Gray.
Western Reserve Chronicle. E. O. Howard.
Ohio Times B. Chapman.
LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PRESS.
319
1848-54.
Ravenna .
1848-49.
Columbus
I84S-50.
Elyria . .
1848-50.
Toledo
1848-49.
Sandusky
1849-54.
Chardon .
1850.
Medina .
1851-53.
Cleveland
1852-54.
Elyria . .
1852-54.
Wellington
1853-54-
Columbus
1853-54-
Youngstown
1853.
Wilmington
1853.
Greenfield
1853-
West Unity
Ohio Star L. W. Hall.
Ohio Standard . . . . E. S. Hamlin,
(Revived in 1850-51, and
edited by I. Garrard.)
Courier J. Cotton.
Republican C. R. Miller.
Daily Mirror.
Free Democrat J- F. Asper.
Free Dejnocrat.
Conunercial H. M. Addison.
Lidepeiident Democrat . . P. Bliss.
Jour)ial G. Brewster.
Cohtmbian L. L. Rice.
Mahoning Free Democrat . M. CuUotson.
Herald of Freedom ... J. W. Chaffin.
True Republican .... J. H. Rothrock.
Williams Democrat . . . W. A. Hunter.
In addition to the above, there were a number of ephemeral and cam-
paign papers about which little more than the tide is known. Such were
the Cleveland Agitator, 1840 ; Columbus Palladium of Liberty, 1844 ;
Akron Free Soil Platform, 1848, and Free Democrat, 1S49; Cleveland
Ohio State Tribune, 1848; Bryan Spirit of the Age, 184S; Massillon
Wilmot Proviso and Freeman's Herald, 1848. There were also several
which, though not party papers, were strongly Free Soil in tendency,
such as the New Lisbon Aurora, the Salem Ifomcstcad Journal, and two
German papers, — the Cincinnati Treue Demokrat, 1848, and Der Unab-
hdngige, 1853. The greatest number in existence at any one time was
probably during the campaign of 1848, immediately after which, it is
stated, there were six dailies and twenty weeklies. Probably from first
to last between forty and fifty anti-slavery papers were published in the
State.
1841.
Newport . .
1842-48.
New Garden
1844-47-
Indianapolis .
1848-49.
Centreville .
1850-52.
1848.
Lafayette
1848.
South Bend .
1848.
Independence
1853-54-
Indianapolis .
INDIANA.
Protectio?tist A. Buff urn.
Free Labor Advocate . . B.Stanton.
Indiana Freeman . . . . H. W. De Puy.
Free Territory Sentinel . . R. Vaile.
(Name changed to True Democrat.)
Tippecanoe fotirnal . . . J. B. Seamans.
Free Democrat E. W. H. Lewis.
Free Soil Banner . . . . L. Wallace.
Indiana Free Democrat . . R. Vaile.
320
APPENDIX B.
There were also several papers of which only the names are known :
The Liberty Herald oi Union County ; the Jonesboro Barnburner, 1848 ;
the Madison Free Soil De7tiocrat, 1848 ; the New London Pioneer, 1848 ;
and the Marion Herald of Freedom, 1S47. The largest number at any
one time was seven, in 1848.
1839-40.
1S42-48.
Jackson .
Ann Arbor
1848-49. Battle Creek
1848-49. Ann Arbor .
1849-51. Detroit . .
1852-54. Detroit . .
MICHIGAN.
Michigan Free/nan . . . S. B. Treadwell.
Signal of Liberty .... T.Foster,
G. Beckly.
Liberty Press Erastus Hussey.
True Democrat . . . . O. Arnold.
Peninstilar Freeman . . . R. McBratney,
J. D. Ligget.
Free Democrat S. A. Baker,
J. F. Conover.
Other anti-slavery papers of less persistence were the Detroit Ti7Jies^
1842 ; the American Citizen^ 1845 '> th^ Adrian Free Soil Advocate, the
Hillsdale Banner, and the Jackson Gazette, all in 1848.
ILLINOIS.
1837-
Alton . .
1838-39-
Lowell
1840-42.
Lowell .
1842-54.
Chicago .
1845-
1852.
1848.
Chicago .
1848.
Waukegan
1848-50.
Rockford
1849.
Waukegan
1850-54.
Sparta
1853-54-
Galesburg
Observer
Genius of Universal Eman-
cipation.
Genius of Liberty ....
Western Citizen ....
(With a daily edition, the
Daily News j and an-
other, the Daily Times.)
Tribune
Lake County Chronicle . .
Free Press
Free Democrat
Freetnan (later, Journal) .
Western Freeman . . .
E. P. Lovejoy.
B. Lundy.
Z. Eastman.
Z. Eastman.
T. Stewart.
A. B. Tobey.
H. W. De Puy.
N. W. Fuller.
I. S. Coulter.
W. J. Lane.
Other names are those of the Alton Monitor, Geneva Western Mer-
cury, Princeton Bureau Advocate, Quincy Tribune, and Peru Telegraph,
all in 1848. There was one German paper, the Chicago Staats Zeitung,
184S, and one Norwegian, Frihets Banneret, 1852. There were prob-
LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PRESS.
321
ably many other ephemeral Free Soil sheets in 184S ; but their activity
was so brief that they sank at once into oblivion, along with the pledges
of the Illinois " Barnburners."
1844. Racine .
1844-48. Waukesha
1848-54. Milwaukee
1848-54. Racine
1848-54. Kenosha .
1848. Janesville
1848-49. Norway .
1850.
1848-49. Elkhorn .
^^49> I Oshkosh .
1853. >
1853. Janesville
WISCONSIN.
Wisconsin Aegis . . . . N. W. Fuller,
L. W. Hall.
A/nerican Freeman . . . C. C. Sholes,
C. C. Olin,
I. Codding.
Free Democrat S. M. Booth.
(Continuation of the preceding.)
Advocate J. C. Bunner,
C. Clement.
Telegraph C. Clement,
C. L. Sholes.
Rock County Democrat . . G. W. Crabb.
Nordlyset (Norwegian) . . E. Heg.
(This was removed to Racine
and the name changed to
Demokratcn ; edited by . K. Langeland.
Western Star G. Gale.
Trne Democrat .... J. C. Densmore.
Free Press J. Baker.
In addition to these, there were two German campaign papers, one in
Kenosha in 1852, the other, the Volksfreund, edited by J. Bielfeld, in
Milwaukee in 1848 ; and two or three other campaign papers : the
Janesville Battering Rain, 1848 ; and the Sheboygan Falls Free Press,
1853-
1848-49. Ft. Madison
1849-50. Mt. Pleasant
1850-54. Mt. Pleasant
1853. Davenport .
IOWA.
Iowa Freeman ....
Iowa Free Democrat .
Iowa Triie Democrat
Der Demokrat (German)
A. St. Clair.
D. M. Kelsey.
S. L. Howe.
T. Gulich.
It is probable that there were other Free Soil papers in 1848, but the
names of none are known.
In the years from 1840 to 1848 there were about twenty Liberty
papers, of which only six lived long enough to enter the Free Soil ranks.
21
322 APPENDIX B.
With the Free Soil revolt in 1848 sprang up sixty or more anti-slavery
papers ; but in two years the number had fallen to fifteen or sixteen, of
which six were on the Western Reserve. On the eve of the Kansas-
Nebraska outbreak, after the Free Democratic revival of 1852-3, there
were thirty-one, of which sixteen were in Ohio, one in Indiana, one in
Michigan, four in Illinois, seven in Wisconsin, and two in Iowa.
The most noteworthy of the foregoing papers may be mentioned in
particular. The Philanthropist, founded by J. G. Birney in 1836, and
after his departure from Cincinnati in 1838 edited by Dr. Gamaliel
Bailey until 1846, was during this period one of the leading anti-slavery
papers of the country. Bailey's business ability enabled him to start a
daily edition under the name of Cincinnati Herald, and his success as
well as his political sagacity led to his selection, in 1847, as the one man
in the country fitted to edit the Washington N'ational Era. After his
departure, the Philanthropist was edited by Stanley Mathews and J. W.
Taylor, and its name was changed successively to National Press, Globe,
and Herald again, until, with the decay of the Free Soil party in Cincin-
nati, it ceased to exist in 1849. On the Western Reserve the leading
paper was the Cleveland daily Triie Democrat, founded in 1846 as a
radical anti-slavery Whig paper, and after 1848 the strongest Free Soil
organ in northern Ohio. Edited by Hamlin, Briggs, Bradburn, Vaughn,
and others, it generally had a Whig bias quite as marked as the Demo-
cratic prepossessions of the Cincinnati Herald ; and it was at times
excessively pugnacious, especially under Vaughn's management. The
Ashtabula Sentinel also deserves mention. It was edited for some years
by a son of Giddings, and afterwards by W. C. Hov/ells, and was in some
measure a representative and organ of Giddings. Its utterances were
always in the line of harmony and common sense, and served in trying
times like those of 1849, when the True Democrat and Cincinnati
Herald were at swords' points, to calm anger and to steady excited
heads.
In Indiana the Free Territory Sentinel, later the True Democrat of
Centreville, and still later the Free Democrat oi Indianapolis, was edited by
Rawson Vaile. Although in the most backward of all the Northwestern
States except Iowa, and constandy involved in bitter controversy with
its neighbors, it managed, through the support of Wayne and Henry
Counties, to survive when the Michigan Peninsular Freeman, ruined by
Whig and Free Soil fusion, fell by the wayside.
Another paper which deserves special mention on account of the de-
votion of its editor was the Iowa Freeman, later the True Democrat of
LEADING THIRD-PARTY PAPERS. 323
Mt. Pleasant, published for years out of the pocket of its editor, S. L.
Howe, an anti-slavery prophet crying in the wilderness of a pro-slavery
State.
The leading paper west of Ohio was undoubtedly the Western Citizen,
published at Chicago by Zebina Eastman from 1842 to 1S54. It was
for many years the central organ of Illinois, northern Indiana, Wisconsin,
and Iowa, until the Free Soil revolt standing practically alone. Pub-
lished under great difficulties, often at a loss to its editor, it was a power-
ful agency in keeping up the Liberty and Free Soil parties in the
Northwest. Had Eastman, besides being a tireless philanthropist, pos-
sessed as many of the qualities of a statesman as did Birney or Bailey,
he might have made for himself a position of unique importance in the
northeastern counties of Illinois. One of the most interesting Free Soil
papers in the country was the Sparta Freeman^ \dXtx Journal, published
in Randolph County, in the very midst of pro-slavery " Egypt." This
county and the neighboring one of Madison had been largely settled by
Scotch immigrants from Virginia, who had come north to avoid contact
with slavery, and who still in 1850, although separated by scores of miles
from any sympathizers, kept up a strong anti-slavery feeling.
In Wisconsin the leading paper was the American Freeman, published
first at Prairie ville (now Waukesha), and later removed to Milwaukee.
At the time of the Free Soil revolt it took the name of Free Detnocrat,
and had a prosperous career free from the hardships of its counterparts
in Illinois and Iowa. Edited for the greater part of its course by S. M.
Booth, it was one of the most radical of the Western third-party papers,
and pugnacious to a degeee unequalled by any other paper, except at
times by the Cleveland True Democrat. Besides this, the Ke?iosha
Telegraph and Racine Advocate, papers of the stamp of the Painesville
Telegraph or the Elyria Independent Democrat, lasted through the Free
Soil period and kept Free Soil feeling active in the southeastern counties.
If one may generalize on the political anti-slavery press of the North-
west, it was in point of ability superior to the regular party papers.
Something more than ordinary strength and courage was required to
undertake the task of running a third-party paper, especially in Indiana,
Iowa, and Michigan. No higher devotion to a purely moral idea can be
imagined than that of S. L. Howe of the Iowa True Democrat, who
never drew a profit from his paper, nor dreamed of so doing, during
seven weary years of third-party action. The very nature of the cause
kept Liberty and Free Soil papers free from some features that disfigure
" regular " papers. In spite of the denunciations of Whigs, no valid
324 APPENDIX B.
suspicion of venality could attach to them, and, owing to the absence
of party discipline, they were never under the necessity of swallowing
statements or of changing front on political questions. The nearest ap-
proach to such a step was the action of some papers like the Wisconsin
Freemaji and the Indiana Free Territory Sentinel in 1 848.
The anti-slavery country weeklies, as compared with their neighbors,
often showed a refreshing independence of spirit ; but their absorption
in one idea led very often to an honest bigotry almost as irritating as the
partisan character of the old party press. There was a strong tendency
for Liberty and Free Soil papers, struggling with continuous disappoint-
ment, to become mere vehicles of condemnation. After 1847 the
National Era, under Dr. Bailey's able editorship, had great influence
in humanizing local papers, leading them, by the introduction of local
notes and literary matter, to avoid too great devotion to one topic. By
1854 the Free Democratic press had a distinctly saner, more elevated,
tone than heretofore ; and in the events that led to the formation of a
new party, it took, with few exceptions, an extremely well-judged and
temperate attitude. It avoided irritating controversy with the Whigs,
was willing to drop all past party names and let bygones be bygones, and
stood ready to rejoice in the triumph of Anti-Nebraska, whatever became
of the Free Soil party.
APPENDIX C.
Distribution of the Third-Party Vote (with Maps).
TABLE OF TOTAL VOTES.
1840-1853.
The following table shows the fluctuations of the third-party vote in
the Northwestern States : — ^
Ohio. Indiana. Michigan. Illiuois. Wisconsin. Iowa.
1840 ... 903 318 157
1841 . . . (2,800) 599* 1,214 527
1842 . . . 5,405 (900) (1,665) 909
1843 . . . 6,552* 1,684 2,775 1,954* 152
1844 State . 8,411 ? 1,408* 450*
Federal 8,050 2,106 3,632 3,57°
1845 . . <. (8,691) 1,755* (3,363) 790 (60)
1846 . . . 10,799 2,278 2,885 5.147 (215)
1847 . . . (4,379) ? 973
1848 State . - — - 4,748 1,134
Federal 35,354 8,100 10,389 15,774 10,418 1,126
1849 . . . 12,8x1* 3,018 23,540 3,761 564
1850 . . . 13,802 2,228 1,073* 574
1851 . . . 16,914 2,904
1852 State . 22,167 ? 6,273 8,809
Federal 31,682 6,929 7,237 9,966 8,814 1,604
1853 . . . 50,346 8,000 21,886
This table of total votes does not, however, tell the whole story ; for
within each State the anti-slavery vote was distributed among strong and
weak localities, and in the Ohio River States there was a distinctly sec-
tional arrangement. The following maps indicate the proportional distri-
bution of the third-party vote in the three elections of 1844, 1848, and
1852, representing respectively the Liberty party, the Free Soil revolt, and
the rejuvenated Free Democracy.
1 The starred figures indicate incomplete returns ; those in parentheses show
contemporary estimates. There are numerous varying figures found in news-
papers, but those above appear to be the most authentic.
326
APPENDIX C.
'% 5% io%20%3o%
MAP OF THE FREE SOIL VOTE OF 1 844.
[Note.] In this and the following maps the shading indicates the proportion
of the third-party vote to the total vote in each county, according to the scheme
of gradation shown above.]
In 1844 those regions that were destined to be centres of anti-slavery
action for twenty years, and later to become strongholds of the Republican
])arty, had become marked. In nearly every case the political complex-
ion of a county may be accounted for by two circumstances, — by the
ancestry of its settlers and by the presence or the absence of agitation.
In Ohio, as the map indicates, the Western Reserve forms a well-marked
district where the New England Puritan blood of the inhabitants had
been fired by the words of Weld, King, Wade, Paine, and others. In
the southeastern counties near Virginia were some New England inhab-
itants, some Quakers, and many Southerners who had moved North to
DISTRIBUTION OF LIBERTY VOTE, I844. 327
escape from contact with slavery. This Muskingum region was a net-
work of underground raihvay lines. In the counties around Cincinnati
we find another region originally settled from New England, but by 1844
much overlaid by new elements, largely Southern. This is the section in
which the influence of Birney, Bailey, Morris, and the Philanthropist was
strong.
In Indiana the anti-slavery counties are those in which Quakers lived,
especially Randolph, Wayne, Union, and Henry counties. There were
New Englanders in the State, but they were as yet not waked up. The
map shows well the weak and scattered nature of Indiana anti-slavery
sentiment.
Michigan, very largely settled from New York, shows a feature which
characterizes it throughout its anti-slavery career, in the very general and
even distribution of its third-party vote. This in 1844 was quite strong,
nearly twice as strong proportionately as that of any other Northwestern
State ; but there were no such centres as Ohio, Illinois, and even Indi-
ana possessed.
Illinois shows in its northern counties the effect of large immigration
from New York and New England ; but it also indicates the result of
vigorous agitation. Lovejoy, Cross, and Codding were doing for Illinois
what Birney had done for Michigan ; and in 1844 the northern counties
of the State were the strongest centre of third-party action in the North-
west, and perhaps in the country. Scattered along the western edge of
the State are traces of Liberty votes in places where New England people
and Quakers had settled, and down in the heart of " Egypt " we find
several counties which give evidence of a population composed of
Southern anti-slavery Scotchmen from North Carolina and Virginia.
Wisconsin (for which the vote of 1S45 is taken) is practically an
appendage of Illinois. Its southeastern counties are contiguous with
those worked over by Lovejoy, and are anti-slavery for the same reasons.
The vacant spaces on the map, indicating places where no Liberty votes
were cast, may be explained in similar fashion. Since a frontier is never
consciously philanthropic, anti slavery sentiment is not likely to flourish
there. Hence northern Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa furnished no
abolitionists. For a like reason the northwestern corner of Ohio, which
had been but recently opened to settlement, contained few inhabitants
and no abolitionists, although just across the border were Lenawee and
Hillsdale counties, both full of anti-slavery men. Extending up into
Ohio, in a sort of irregular wedge from the Ohio River, were the Vir-
ginia Military Lands. These, settled from Virginia and the South, pro-
^28
APPENDIX C.
duced no abolitionists and remained hard ground for fugitive slaves to
travel.
The southern halves of Indiana and Illinois, the western half of Wis-
consin, and almost the whole of Iowa were settled from the South, and
as the foregoing paper abundantly shows, were entirely pro-slavery in sen-
timent, except where a few Quakers formed occasional oases.
MAP OF THE FREE SOIL VOTE OF 11
The above map shows the vote of the Free Soilers of 1848, its most
noticeable difference from the map of four years before consisting in the
deepening and strengthening of the proportions. No county in 1844
cast over 30 per cent., and only three, all in Illinois, over 20 per cent.
Now twenty-five counties cast over 30 per cent., and as many more 20
per cent. In Ohio the Whig revolt has made the Western Reserve solid
DISTRIBUTION OF FREE SOIL VOTE, 1848. 329
for the third party and much stronger than the rest of the State, far
stronger than in 1844. The Miami and Muskingum regions have spread
out, and even the Virginia Military Lands are invaded by a scattering
Van Buren vote, while in Williams County, in the extreme northwest, a
third-pnrty vote appears where all was blank four years earlier.
In Indiana the Quaker counties in the east are now much reinforced
by a Whig bolt of New England-born men in the central and northern
counties, so that the State is no longer merely dotted with anti-slavery
counties, but is crossed by a broad band.
Michigan remains much the same. There is no alteration of the dis-
tribution of the third-party vote, and the increase results merely in
increasing the proportion. Two counties cast over 30 per cent , but they
are not contiguous, and there is still no centre.
In Illinois the Democratic revolt in the northern counties swings this
section over into the Free Soil ranks, causing it to outdo the Western
Reserve and to become the strongest anti-slavery district in the country.
Down the western side of the State the Van Buren vote gains, and even
encroaches on " Egypt's " boundaries ; but in the main the latter section
is intact.
Wisconsin follows Illinois; and, since it is encumbered with no
" Egypt," the new State has the honor of being the strongest Free
Soil State in the Northwest. According to the original plans subdividing
the Northwestern Territory, the southern boundary of Wisconsin would
come so far south as to include the two northern tiers of Illinois counties.
Had such been the case in 1848, the State might well have gone for
Van Buren, and would certainly have had two or three Free Soil
congressional districts.
Iowa now appears on the scene with a small Free Soil vote, showing
the influence of a contiguity with Illinois, and separated from the
northern anti-slavery counties of that State and from Wisconsin by a
region occupied by persons who had come up the ?vlississippi, and were
therefore pro-slavery. The counties of Iowa where Free Soil votes are
found contain both of the anti-slavery elements, New England men and
Quakers.
The -vote of the Free Democracy for Hale in 1852 shows us a substra-
tum of the old Liberty party, with a few Free Soil relics left behind by
the retiring tide of 1849-50. In Ohio there is less change than in some
of the other States ; for in the main the Free Soil Whigs of the Western
Reserve have held firm, and we find five counties casting a vote nearly
as heavy as that of 1848. In the Muskingum region the proportion is a
330
APPENDIX C.
MAP OF THE FREE SOIL VOTE OF 1852.
little better than in 1848, but the Miami district has fallen off, and the
traces of anti-slavery sentiment in the Virginia Military Lands due to
Democratic bolters have died out.
In Indiana the Quaker counties stand much as they did before ; but
the New Englanders of the central counties, lacking the stubbornness of
those of the Western Reserve, have fallen away.
Michigan has fallen back to almost precisely the situation of 1844 ; but
Illinois shows an even worse drop. Not one of the thirteen counties
that cast over 30 per cent, for Van Buren does the same for Hale, and the
region which in 1848 surpassed the Western Reser\'e now is inferior to it.
The scattered invaders of " Egypt " have drawn back, and things are not
very much better proportionately than they were eight years before. The
paralysis into which the return of the Chicago " Barnburners " in 1850
DISTRIBUTION OF FREE DEMOCRATIC VOTE. 33 1
had cast the anti-slavery sentiment of the State is well illustrated by the
map.
Wisconsin loses ground since 1848 ; but there are enough " Barn-
burners " of sterner stuff than their Illinois neighbors to keep three
counties with over 30 per cent, for Hale, and to place Wisconsin second
only to the Western Reserve.
In Iowa there is little change, except that Clark County, thinly settled
with Eastern men, gives Hale over 20 per cent.
If the reader wishes to see a further proof of heredity and an addi-
tional indication of the influence of the Liberty and Free Soil parties, let
him turn to Scribner's Statistical Atlas. There, in the Presidential vote
of 1880, he will find the same counties Republican which in 1844 voted
for Bimey and Morris.
APPENDIX D.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS AND DIRECT POPULAR
VOTES UPON NEGRO DISABILITIES.
1845-1851.
During the period under consideration each of the Northwestern
States adopted a new constitution ; and in so doing it inevitably was led
to take action in regard to negro suffrage and negro rights in general.
Although this does not come strictly under the head of anti-slavery party
politics, it offers too many valuable illustrations of local popular sentiment
to be dismissed without some consideration.
IOWA.
Iowa was first in the field with a Constitutional Convention in the year
1845-46, the proceedings of which, unfortunately, the writer has been
unable to find. It is not likely that at that time the question of negro
rights aroused much interest. There was little active anti-slavery senti-
ment in the State ; there were few anti-slavery societies, no organized
Liberty Party, and no anti-slavery newspapers. The only disability laid
on negroes by the constitution was their exclusion from the suffrage and
the militia, and this provision seems to have been adopted without any
submission to popular vote.-^
WISCONSIN.
Wisconsin came next in 1846. Here the limitation of the suffrage to
white men was adopted in the convention without much opposition,
although several anti-slavery petitions for equal rights were received.
The friends of the negro, however, by a vote of 53 to 46, succeeded in
having the question of negro suffrage submitted separately to the people.^
1 See the correct text of the constitution of 1846 in Debates of the Constitutional
Convention of the State of loiva (Davenport, 1S57), II., 1067. Article 12 in B:
P. Poore, Charters and Constitutions, is wholly incorrect.
^ Jotirnal of the Convention to form a Constitution for the State of Wisconsin,
Madison, 1847.
WISCONSIN VOTES ON NEGRO SUFFRAGE. 333
Accordingly in March, 1847, occurred the first referendum relating to
negro rights in the Northwest, resulting in a decisive defeat of equal
suffrage by a vote of 14,615 to 7,664. In the eastern counties the Ger-
mans and Scandinavians voted the Democratic ticket and were anti-
negro ; and in the western counties the population had come up the
Mississippi River and was therefore Southern in character. In the
central region, on the other hand, settled by people from New England
and New York, eight counties gave favorable majorities.-^
This constitution having been rejected by the people, another conven-
tion, meeting in 1847-48, at a time when the Wilmot Proviso excitement
was rising, paid more attention to the negroes. Rufus King, editor of the
Milwaukee Sentinel, introduced a resolution instructing the judiciary com-
mittee to consider the advisability of having an article in the constitution
prohibiting all State or local magistrates from rendering assistance in
catching fugitive slaves. Nothing came of this attempt ; but when it was
moved to amend the article defining suffrage qualifications by striking out
the word " white," a hot debate arose, and the motion was defeated,
45-22. Another amendment, to the effect that the Legislature be
allowed at any time to adopt negro suffrage, was carried, 35-34 ; but on
reconsideration it was struck out by the change of one vote. Charges
of abolitionism were made and denied, and the whole slavery question
was brought into the discussion. Finally an amendment was carried,
37-29, allowing '.he Legislature at any time to submit the question of
negro suffrage to popular vote ; and in this form white suffrage was in-
corporated in the constitution.^ The Legislature did not act on this
matter until 1849, when it ordered another referendum, with the proviso
that " a majority of the votes cast at the election " must favor negro
suffrage in other to make an affirmative vote valid. Singularly enough,
this referendum aroused scarcely any interest. Free Soilers were quarrel-
ling so violendy with Old Line Democrats that no campaign on the sub-
ject was made ; and at the election the vote on this amendment was
absurdly light. It stood as follows : yes, 5,265 ; no, 4,075 ; with no
returns from a dozen counties.^ As the total vote for Governor was
31,727, the majority in favor of negro suffrage was supposed by the
terms of the submission to be insufficient; but in 1861 the Supreme
Court, taking advantage of the ambiguous wording of the terms, held
that the vote had been effective.
1 F. E. Baker, 77/*? Elective Franchise in Wiscoftsiti, 8.
2 Joicrnal of the Convention tofortn a Constitution for the State of Wisconsin, with
a Sketch of the Debates, Madison, 1848.
8 Returns in the office of the Secretary of State, Madison, Wisconsin.
334 APPENDIX D,
ILLINOIS.
Illinois was the next State to adopt a new constitution, in May, 1848.
In the convention the strong anti-slavery men of the northern counties
met the pro-slavery delegates from " Egypt," and sharp contests ensued,
ending in nearly every case in the total defeat of the friends of equal
rights. Early in the session many petitions were handed in from both
sections, one class demanding stringent anti-negro provisions of all
descriptions, the other calling for equal suffrage and equal rights. The
petitions were followed by resolutions to the same purport, most of which
were defeated. A resolution that the Legislature have no power to pass
laws oppressive to men of color was laid on the table, 92-46 ; and a
motion to strike out the word " white " from the constitution was defeated,
137-8. On the other hand, a proviso that the Legislature should never
extend the right of suffrage to colored persons was laid on the table,
60-91 ; and an article prohibiting intermarriage and declaring that no
colored person should ever under any pretext hold any office was
defeated, 65-64.
But though these extreme anti-negro propositions were rejected, others
of great severity were adopted. White suffrage was taken as a matter of
course, and no attempt was made to have the question submitted to the
people. In response to numerous petitions a section was adopted by a
vote of 87 to 56, directing the Legislature to pass laws prohibiting the
immigration of colored persons ; and this matter was submitted sepa-
rately to popular vote.^ Illinois, then, was the second State to have a
referendum on the subject of negro rights, not, as in Wisconsin, on the
matter of suffrage, but on the proposal to prohibit immigration by consti-
tutional law. The result was an overwhelming defeat for negro rights by
a vote of 49,063 to 20,884; but although in so great a minority, the
anti-slavery men carried fourteen counties in the northern part of the
State.2
The Illinois Legislature did not act on the section thus adopted until
1853, when it passed a law unequalled for the anti-negro sentiment
displayed. It punished by fine and imprisonment any person bringing a
slave into the State, and fined every negro, bond or free, who entered the
State fifty dollars for the first offence, one hundred dollars for the second,
and so on. In default of payment either by himself or by his master,
'^Journal of the Convention assembled at Springfield, June 7, 1847, Springfield,
1847.
* Chicago Jour 7ial, May 30, 1848.
NEGRO EXCLUSION IN THE NORTHWEST. 335
the negro was to be sold for his fines and costs, at public auction, to the
person bidding the shortest term of service. The prosecutor or informer
was to have one half of the money, the remainder was to be used for the
deserving poor. This bill was vigorously opposed by members from the
northern counties, but it passed the House without difficulty. A vote
to strike out the enacting clause was lost, 58-7 ; and on the final passage
the vote was 48 to 23. The only success won by the friends of the negro
was the securing of jury trial, by a vote of 39 to 26. In the Senate the
majority in favor of the bill was smaller ; the vote on the final passage
being 13-9. Mr. Judd, Senator from Cook and Lake Counties, repre-
sented anti-slavery opinion very well when he moved to amend the title
to read, " An Act to establish Slavery in this State." ^
MICHIGAN.
Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio held constitutional conventions in 1850.
In the Michigan body, in spite of the fact that there were three Free
Soil members, anti-slavery sentiment seems not to have been very strong.
When the article on suffrage was reported to the convention, with negroes
excluded, a motion was made to strike out the word " white." Some
debate resulted, led by Mr. Leach in favor of the negro ; but, when the
motion was put to vote, it was lost, and no one called for the yeas and
nays. Later the motion to submit negro suffrage to the people was
carried, 59-21, and in November the third Northwestern referendum
took place." It resulted, as had the other two, in a decisive defeat of
equal suifrage by a vote of 30,026 to 12,846, almost exactly the same
proportions as that in Illinois. Complete returns are not at hand ; but
the friends of equal suffrage seem not to have carried a single county,
being distributed quite evenly over the State, as the Liberty men and
Free Soilers had been."^
INDIANA.
In the Indiana convention of 1850-51, the opponents of negroes
showed greater determination than had been displayed in any of the
preceding conventions ; for, although there was but one third-party
Free Democrat in the body, there was a compact minority of anti-slavery
Whigs who, under the lead of Schuyler Colfax, fought the pro-slavery
1 Journal of the House of Represcntalives (Springfield, 1853), 271, 364, 443-44 j
Journal of the Senate, 475-76.
'■^ Report of the Debates aful Proceedings in the Convention, etc., Lansing, 1S50.
2 Detroit Advertiser, November, 1850.
336 APPENDIX D.
men inch by inch. The question first to be settled was that of suffrage.
When it was moved to instruct the Committee on the Franchise to pro-
vide that the people might by a direct vote extend the right of suffrage,
an amendment to add the words " except to negroes, mulattoes, and
Indians " was carried by a vote of 105 to 36. A motion "that negroes
vote at all elections " was rejected, 122 to i, receiving only the support
of the one Free Soiler. Finally, when Colfax endeavored to get the
subject of negro suffrage submitted separately to the people, he was de-
feated, 62 to 60.
Having carried this point, the Southern-born members of the conven-
tion pushed forward the subject of negro exclusion. Not willing to
wait as their Illinois neighbors had done for legislative action, they deter-
mined to incorporate the rules of exclusion and penalties for their in-
fringement in the Constitution itself. Accordingly, a stringent article
was forced through in spite of Whig resistance. An attempt to strike out
the clause at its introduction was defeated, 76 to 39 ; a motion to allow
the General Assembly to enact negro exclusion whenever public interest
demanded it, was rejected, 81 to 35 ; and after long debate and the
steady rejection of all amendments, the subject was referred to a select
committee. The committee's report to the convention passed the third
reading, 94 to 36 ; amendments were rejected by the same vote ; and
the article was adopted in substance as follows : —
1. No negro or mulatto was to come into or settle in the State after
the adoption of this constitution.
2. All contracts with such negro or mulatto were to be void, and any
person encouraging such to remain was to be fined not over $500.
3. Fines were to be applied to colonization purposes.
4. The General Assembly was to pass laws to carry out these pro-
visions.^
This article was submitted separately to the people \ and Indiana in
the autumn of 185 1 signalized itself by decreeing negro exclusion by an
enormous majority, greater in fact than that which the constitution itself
received, the vote standing 108,513 to 20,951. The friends of the negro
carried only two counties, Randolph and La Grange.^
OHIO.
In Ohio, the State where anti-slavery men might have been expected
to make a good fight, there was surprisingly little struggle in the conven-
^ Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the Convention, etc., Indianapolis, 1850.
* Indiana Statesman, Sept. 3, 1851.
NEGRO RIGHTS IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS. 337
tion of 1850-51. Seven Free Soilers were members, if we include Dr.
Norton Townshend, for the time being a Democrat. Among them were
J. W. Taylor, editor of the Cijicinnati Globe, J. R. Swan, a Van Buren
elector, and L. Swift, a Free Soil Senator in 1849. Some slight debate
arose early in the session over the introduction of anti-slavery petitions ;
but the main, and in fact the only effort of the Free Soilers to do any-
thing in favor of equal rights was made when the article on the franchise
was reported, with the restriction contained in the use of the word
" white." A motion, supported by Townshend and others, to strike out
this word was lost, 12 to 66. A motion to allow the Legislature to
extend the right of suffrage was lost, 11 to 68 ; and with this action the
matter dropped. Negro suffrage was not submitted separately to the
people ; and thus Ohio, like Iowa, remained without any referendum or
plebiscite on questions relating to negroes.^
SUMMARY.
In these constitutions we find clear evidence of the state of popular
opinion. Even the most anti-slavery of the Northwestern States, Wis-
consin, acquiesced in negro exclusion from the suffrage, the apparent
majority in favor in 1849 being only one-sixth of the total vote cast for
Governor at the same election. Of the three Ohio River States we find
Ohio most free from anti-negro feeling, as is shown by the fact that it
did not include Black laws in its new constitution. In the distribution
of votes the same facts are brought out as are shown in the Liberty and
Free Soil elections ; and in the total votes friendly to the negro — in
the case of Indiana only much larger than the Free Soil maximum
figures — we see how very little expectation the third party could have
had of increasing its vote on anti- slavery grounds alone.'^ Philanthropy
could not hope, unaided, to build up a party.
1 Report of the Debates ami Proceeding's of the Conveiitmi, etc., Columbus, 1851.
2 This conclusion is rendered more obvious by the following table, in which both
votes are shown : —
P>ee Soil Vote, 1848. Vote for Negro Privileges.
Indiana . . . 8,100 20,956 . . . 1851
Michigan . . . 10,389 12,046 . . . 1850
Illinois . . . 15,774 20,884 . • . 1848
( 7,664 . . . 1847
Wisconsm . . 10,418 j ^ ,,g^ ^ ^ ^ ^g^^
INDEX.
"Abolitionism," distinguished from
" Anti-Slavery," 4.
Adams, C. F., nominated for Vice Presi-
dent at Buffalo, 142.
Adams, J. Q., in struggle over anti-slavery
petitions, 20 ; censured by Ohio legis-
lature, 67.
American and Foreign Anti-Slavery So-
ciety, formed 1840, 39 ; warns anti-
slavery men against joining Free Soil
movement, 132.
American Anti-Slavery Society, share of
western men in its formation, 11 ; posi-
tion regarding political action, 34; re-
jects a third party, 36 ; disruption, 39.
Annexation of Texas. See Texas.
Anti-Abolition mobs, 16,17; legislation,
20-23.
Anti-Nebraska movement, not treated in
detail, 2S7.
Anti-Slavery societies, first ones in the
Northwest, 10; their spread, 13; aims,
13; in Ohio, 14; in Indiana, 14; in
Michigan, 14 ; in Illinois, 14 ; in Wis-
consin, 48 ; in Iowa, 48 ; their political
purposes, 19.
Arnold, I. N., leader of Chicago Barn-
burners, 123, 125; at Buffalo Conven-
tion, 142.
Bailey, Dr. Gamaliel, edits Philajtthro-
pist, 63, 322 ; favors W. H. Harrison
for President 1840, 38 ; joins Liberty
party, 41 ; at Southern and Western
Convention, 88 ; edits N'ational Era,
90; his influence, 63, 90, 324 ; supports
Chase for U. S. Senator 1849, 167, 169;
defends Chase from critics in 1851, 241 ;
his ability, 316.
Barnburners of New York, revolt from
Cass, 124; nominate Van Buren, 125;
at Buffalo Convention, 139; bargain
with Liberty leaders, 140; their prom-
inence and attitude repel Whigs, 147 ;
influence of their example upon the
Northwest, 178.
Bebb, W., Governor of Ohio, gains anti-
slavery vote 1846, 91-93; joins Re-
publican party, 295.
Beckley, G., editor of Signal of Liberty,
90, 320; urges widening of Liberty
platform, 90, 100.
Bingham, K. S., anti-slavery Democrat of
Michigan, thrown over by his party,
206; nominated for Governor of Michi-
gan by Free Democrats 1854, 292 ; by
Republicans, 294.
Birney, James, son of J. G. Birney, in Ohio
Liberty party, 130.
Birney, J. G., publishes Philanthropist, 17 ;
mobbed, 17 ; converts Morris, 24 ; con-
verts Chase, 60'; urges non-partisan
voting, 27 ; secures Giddings's election,
31, and note ; nominated for President
1840, 37. 38; in 1841, 52, 53; in 1843,
70 ; candidate for Governor of Michi-
gan 1843, 58; in 1845, S7 ; leader in
Michigan, 62, 74; nominated for the
Michigan Legislature by Democrats,
76'; accused by Whigs of a bargain
with Democrats, 76-82; see also under
Garland forgery^';- repudiates Whig
calumnies, 76, 78 ; his opinion of the
election of 1844, 84; urges broadening
the Liberty party platform, 87, 89, 90 ;
presides over Southern and Western
convention 1845, 88 ; retires from poli-
tics, 94 ; estimate of his work, 94.
340
INDEX.
Birney, W., son of J. G Birney, with
Ohio Liberty party, 60, 73.
Black Laws in the Northwest, 7 ; attacked
by Abolitionists, 20 ff., 67 ; see also
under Constitutional Conventions and
under the separate States.
Booth, S. M., leader of Liberty party in
Wisconsin, 63 ; at Buffalo Convention,
142; supports Free Soil ticket, 146;
brings about Whig and Free Soil coali-
tion in 1S51, 234; at Free Democratic
National Convention 1852, 248 ; edits
American Freeman and Free Democrat,
3^3-
Briggs, J. A., anti-slavery Whig of Ohio
at Buffalo Convention, 142 ; opposes
Chase for Senator in Ohio 1849, 165,
166; edits True Democrat, 31S.
Brinckerhoff, J., Anti-Slavery Democrat,
107 ; at Buffalo Convention, 142 , active
in Ohio campaign 1848, 143; in 1852,
251 ; presides over Ohio Free Demo-
cratic Convention 1S53, •^^7*
Brisbane, W. H., leader in Ohio Liberty
party, 60.
" Broader Platform " for Liberty party
suggested, 90, 100; not favored in the
Northwest, loi, 102 ; leads to formation
of Liberty League, loi.
Brown, W. J., Wilmot Proviso Democrat
in 1848-49, adopts the compromise in
1851, 231 ; opposes Julian, 233.
Buffalo Free Soil Convention, 138-143;
elements present, 138; difficulties, 138;
organization, 139; bargains, 139; plat-
form, 140 ; nominations, 141 ; effect on
the country, 143.
Buffum, A., agitates in Indiana, 14; op-
poses a third party, 44; edits Protec-
tionist, 64, 319.
Butler, B. F., New York Barnburner
influential at Buffalo Convention, 139,
141.
Calhoun, J. C. his opinions on slavery
opposed by Thos. Morris, 24.
Campbell, L. D., bolts Taylor's nomina-
tion in 1848, 129; a Whig in 1853, 269.
Cass, Lewis, his influence in Michigan,
107 ; distrusted by Northwestern Anti-
Slavery Democrats, 121-123 ; relation to
internal improvements, 123 ; nominated
for President, 124; struggles with anti-
slavery opposition in his own party in
Michigan, 198 ff. ; controls State ma-
chine, 200, 201 ; fails to secure election
of Compromise Democrats in 1850, 207.
Chase, S. P., a Whig in 1840, 40; corf-
verted by Birney, joins Liberty party,
60 ; writes resolution for National Lib-
erty Convention 1843, 7° > writes ad-
dress in behalf of Birney 1844, 7^ ! his
opinion of Thomas Morris, 86 ; writes
address of Southern and Western Con-
vention, 88 ; begins to consider anti-
slavery equivalent to Democratic, 88,
99, 100; wishes Liberty party to join
Wilmot Proviso movement, in ; urges
delay in nominating, 119; joins Free
Territory meetings, 129, 133; at Buf-
falo Convention makes a "deal" with
Barnburners, 139; writes the Free Soil
platform, 140 ; withholds McLean's
name as candidate, 141 ; his influence
very great, 142 ; he ascribes the low
Free Soil vote in Ohio to Corwin's in-
fluence, 155; elected to United States
Senate, 164-175; urges Free Soilers to
aid Democrats in Hamilton County
case 1849, 1^5' accused of ambition by
the Whigs, 166, 167; defended by his
friends, 168; contest with Giddings for
Senatorship, 169, 170; asks Giddings to
withdraw, 170 ; elected by Democratic
votes, 171; his apparent self-seeking,
174; urges Free Soilers to fuse with
Democrats, 180, 185, 236; opposes
union of Free Soilers with Whigs to
elect B. F. Wade, 236 ; joins the Demo-
cratic party, 239 ; criticised by Free
Democrats, 240-243 ; refuses to vote for
Pierce, 249; not a candidate for Free
Democratic nomination in 1852, 249;
weakness of his position, 251, 252; still
considers himself a Democrat in 1853,
274 ; writes the address of the Inde-
pendent Democrats 1854, 287.
Chicago a centre of anti-slavery activity,
95' 323. 327-
Christian anti-slavery conventions in the
Northwest, 229.
Christiancy, I. P., at Buffalo Convention,
142 ; elected to Michigan Senate by all
three parties, 203 ; persuades Michigan
Free Soilers to join Republican move-
ment 1854, 293.
BIRNEY—FREE LABOR.
341
Churches, anti-slavery controversy in, 16.
Clark, Rev. G. W., at Northwestern
Liberty convention, 90; in Wisconsin,
98.
Clarke, H. K., Free Soil leader in Michi-
gan, 144,311-
Clay, Henry, debate vrith Thomas Morris,
25; attacked by Abolitionists m 1844,
71,72-
Cleveland True Democrat, leading Free
Soil journal on Western Reserve, 322.
Codding, I., anti-slavery leader in Illinois,
63, 74, 196; in Wisconsin, 98; at Buf-
falo Convention, 142 ; tries to form
Republican party in Illinois, 295.
Collins, F., Liberty leader in Illinois, 57,
Collins, J. H., Free Soil leader in Illinois,
196, 230.
Colonizationist, activity in Northwest,
7; attacked by Abolitionists, 10.
Constitution of the United States, as-
serted to be an anti-slavery document,
89, 98 ; not a popular view in the North-
west, 99.
Corwin, T., works against Free Soilers in
Ohio, 153, 155.
Cravens, J. H., anti-slavery Whig in Indi-
ana, no. III, 116; supported by Lib-
erty men, 112; at Buffalo Convention,
142 ; candidate for Governor, 188.
Crocker, Hans, Wisconsin Free Soil
Democrat, 142.
Cross, J., describes effect of "Log
Cabin " campaign on Abolitionists, 52 ;
agitates in Illinois, 95.
Deming, E., Liberty leader in Indiana,
57, 61.
Democracy, its identity with anti-slavery
asserted, 88, 99, 100.
Democratic abuse of Liberty party, 1 19 ;
of Free Soil party, 148.
Democratic party favors Texas annexa-
tion, 70 ; considered the natural ally of
the Free Soil party, 222, 306.
Democratic sentiment in favor of the
Wilmot Proviso, 109, 121 ; against it,
122; objections to Cass, 122, 123.
De Puv, H. W., editor of Indiana Free-
man, 116, 319; of Rockford Free Press,
320.
Detroit Advertiser implicated in Garland
forgery, 83 ; works to bring about
Whig and Free Soil fusion, 15S, 201,
202.
Dresser, A., assaulted by slaveholders in
Kentucky, 16.
Durkee, C. anti-slavery leader in Wis-
consin, 63, 98 ; favors union of Liberty
party with Free Soilers, 136 ; elected
to Congress by Free Soilers, 15S; re-
elected by Whig votes, 214, 215; aids in
forming Whig and Free Soil alliance
in 1851, 235; defeated for Congress in
1892, 259; estimate of his leadership,
304-
Dyer, C. V., Liberty leader in Illinois,
63, 135-
Eastman, Z., anti-slavery leader m Illi-
nois, 62, 230 ; edits Western Citizen, 64,
Eells, Dr. R., anti-slavery leader in Illi-
nois, 63, 95.
"Egypt," in Illinois, settlement, 3; sym-
pathizes with slaveholders, 58, 327 ;
slight traces of anti-slavery sentiment
in it, 97, 265, 327.
Ells, G. W., anti-slavery Democrat in
Ohio, 60.
Ellsworth, H. L., Free Soiler in Indiana,
177; at Northwest Ordinance con-
vention, 177, 1S9.
Emancipation, early societies in favor of
it in the Northwest, 6, 10.
Emancipator, organ of the American and
Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 39, 83.
Farwell, L. J., anti-slavery Whig in
Wisconsin, elected Governor by Whig
and Free Soil fusion, 234-235; refuses
to run for re-election in 1853, 279-280.
Faults of Liberty and Free Soil leaders,
306.
Fitch, J. S., Liberty leader in Michigan,
52.
Ford, S., Whig candidate, elected Gover-
nor of Ohio by Free Soil votes, 152.
Foster, .S. S., at Liberty-party National
Convention 1843, 70; on Western Re-
serve, 102, 113.
Free Labor Advocate, organ of Indiana
Liberty party, 56, 64, 117.
342
INDEX.
Free Soil party, formed at Buffalo, 140-
142; its organization, 143, 144; cam-
paign and vote 1S4S, 153, 154 ; in State
elections, 157; holds balance of power
in each State, 159; possibly damaged
by Van Buren's candidacy, 160 ; de-
clares itself permanent in 1849, '^i ;
adopts policy of coalition, 162 ; causes
for this policy, 220 ; its principles
claimed by other parties, 149, 157, 220;
reasons for Democratic coalition, 222 ;
for Whig coalition, 223; good and evil
results of coalition, 224, 225; not killed
by the compromise of 1850, 224-226;
revived at Cleveland Convention 1851,
242 ; ceases to call itself Free Soil and
uses the name Free Democratic, 244 ;
reorganization, 245; national conven-
tion at Pittsburg, 246-249 ; leading men,
24S ; nominates J. P. Hale, 24S, 249;
character of convention, 250 ; in cam-
paign of 1892, 256, 257 ; vote, 257 ; not
discouraged, 257, 258; not likely to
have supplanted Whigs, 285; dissolves
in 1S54, 287 ; its effect on old parties,
299 ; its gains and losses from coalition,
300-301 ; its platform unsuitable for
State politics, 302.
Fugitive Slave Law, opposed in the
Northwest, 227, 228.
Garland, forgery in the campaign of
1844, 78 ff.
Garrison, W. L., starts abolition move-
ment, 9 ; adopts non-resistance, 33.
Garrisonians, undue prominence assigned,
5; controversy with political Abolition-
ists, 34-39; condemned by Michigan
Liberty party, 55; by Illinois Liberty
Men, 103 ; confused with Liberty party,
103 ; their activity and devotion in the
Northwest, 102.
Geauga County, Ohio, first independent
anti-slavery nomination in the North-
west 32, 35 ; last Free Soil ticket in
Ohio, 290.
Giddings, J. R., converted to anti-slavery
by T. D. Weld. 23; his action in Con-
gress, 23 ; said to have been elected by
Birney's influence, 34; does not join
Liberty party, 40, 112; censured by
Congress, 112; correspondence with
Chase, 112 ; attacks Birney in 1844, 78,
113; opposed by Liberty Men of his
district, 92, 112, 115; threatens to bolt
Taylor's nomination, 108 ; his popular-
ity on the Western Reserve, 114, 151;
joins Free Soil movement, 129; prom-
inent at Buffalo Convention, 142 ; his
opinion on Free Soil vote in Ohio, 147,
155; candidate for senator, 169-172;
urges Free Soilers to combine on Chase,
169; his modesty, 170; defeated by
Whig enemies, 170; deprecates Free
Soil attacks on Chase, Townshend, and
Morse, 176, 177 ; objects to Chase's
policy in insisting on Hamilton County
case in 1849, iSi ; candidate for Senate
in 1851, 236; at Free Democratic Na-
tional Convention, 247, 248 ; defends
Chase from Free Soil attacks, 252 ; re-
ceives a complimentary dinner 1852,
253 ; elected to Congress in 1852, 258,
259; favors Whig and Free Soil union,
1853, 271.
Goodell, W., an " Abolitionist " yet not a
Garrisonian, 5 ; leader of Liberty party,
53 ; considers slavery unconstitutional,
98 ; joins Liberty League, loi.
Greeley, H., angry with Liberty party in
1844-45, ^i ! letter to Southern and
Western Convention, 88 ; attacks Free
Soilers in 1S48, 153 ; urges Free Demo-
cratic and Whig coalition on the Maine
Law, 271, 280.
Green, B., early Abolitionist in Ohio, 9, 10 ;
at formation of American Anti-Slavery
Society, 11.
Grimes, J. W., anti-Nebraska Whig,
elected Governor of Iowa with Free
Democratic help, 297.
Guthrie, A. A., Ohio Liberty leader at
Buffalo Convention, 142.
Hale, J. P., influence of his example in
the Northwest, 115; nominated for
President by the Liberty party 1847,
120; personal popularity in 1848, 138;
chances for nomination at Buffalo Con-
vention, 142; withdraws from Liberty
nomination, 143 ; nominated for Presi-
dent by Free Democratic Convention
1852, 248 ; stumps the Northwest,
255-
FREE SOIL — INDIANA.
343
Hallock, H., Michigan Liberty man, 62,
97-
Hamilton County election case in Ohio
Legislature, 163-167, 182; disrupts
Ohio Free Soil Party, 179.
Hamlin, E. S., anti-slavery Whig at
Northwestern Liberty Convention,
89 ; edits Cleveland Tnte Democrat,
108; receives Liberty votes, 11 1; at
Buffalo Convention, 142; aids Chase
and the Democrats in the Ohio Legis-
lature 1S49, 165-171; elected to Board
of Public Works by Democrats, 252.
Harding, S. S., Liberty leader in Indiana,
57, 61 ; leads Liberty men to support
Cravens, a Whig, 112; at Ohio Free
Territory Convention, 130; joins Free
Soil movement, 134; at Buffalo Con-
vention, 142; loath to support Van
Buren, 140 ; at Free Democratic Na-
tional Convention 1S52, 148 ; joins anti-
Nebraska movement, 290; estimate of
his work, 303.
Hastings, S. D., Liberty leader in Wiscon-
sin, 63 ; in Wisconsin Legislature, 209.
Hoadly, G., opposes radical resolutions at
Ohio P'ree Soil Convention 1850, 1S4.
Holley, M., advocates a third ])arty in
iS39> 33~35 ! proposes to nominate for
President at Cleveland 1839, 36; nomi-
nates Birney, 37.
Holmes, S. 1\^., Liberty leader in Michi-
gan, 62 ; advocates Free Soil and Whig
fusion in 1848, 15S.
Holton, E. D., Liberty leader in Wiscon-
sin, 87; at Buffalo Convention, 142;
supported for Governor by Whigs and
Free Democrats in 1853, 280, 281.
Howard, J. M., leader of Michigan Whigs
in attacking Eirney, 76, 8r ; not in-
volved in the Garland forgery, 83;
prevents Whig and I'>ee Soil fusion in
1849, 200; advocates a new partv 1854,
291 ; his share in forming Republican
party, 294.
Howe, S. L., anti-slavery leader in Iowa,
218 ; publishes Trice Democrat, 266,
322, 323 ; at Free Democratic National
Convention 1892, 248.
Hoyne, T., Chicago Free Soil Democrat,
123, 125.
Hull, M. R., Lilierty leader in Indiana,
attacks Whigs, 62.
Hutchins, J., Liberty leader on Western
Reserve, 61 ; joint debate with Gid-
dings, 113.
Illinois, anti-slavery societies in, 14 ;
State Anti-slavery Society on voting,
33, 39; refuses to join third party, 42.
Illinois Constitutional Convention, on
negro privileges, 334.
Illinois Democrats Southern in sympa-
thies, 122 ; Free Soil sentiment among.
122, 123.
Illinois tree Soil party formed, 131;
organized, 144 ; campaign and vote in
1848, 156; its great opportunities 1849,
193; difficulties, 194, 195; coalesces with
Democrats 1S50, 196; abandoned by
old Liberty Men, 196; collapses, 197;
revives in 1851, 230, radical character,
230, 246; in campaign of 1852, 254;
organization in 1853, 265 ; condemns
negro exclusion act, 265 ; cases of
local Whig and Free Democratic
fusion, 266; joins anti-Nebraska move-
ment, 295 ; attempts to form Republi-
can party, 295.
Illinois Legislature on anti-slavery, 20;
pro-Southern resolutions, 68; passes
negro exclusion act 1S53, 334, 335.
Illinois Liberty party, formed 1840, 42;
significance of vote, 47 ; organized, 52 ;
election of 1841, 55; campaign of 1S42,
57 : of 1843, 58 ; leaders, 62 ; organiza-
tion, 74; relapse in 1845, ^7 ; success-
ful campaign of 1846,95; conventions
in 1847, 97 ; partly accepts new anti-
slavery theories, 99, loi ; campaign in
1848, 135 ; its strength in Northeast
counties, 58, 62, 63, 74, 95, 327, 328.
Illinois popular vote on negro exclusion,
334-
Illinois Republican party formed in two
districts, 294.
Illinois third-party leaders, 303, press,
320; vote, 327-31.
Illinois Whigs favor Free Soil in 1849,
194; in 1850, 196; tired of the com-
promise in 1853, 2S3, 284 ; refuse to join
Repuljlican movement, 294.
Indiana anti-Nebraska campaign 1S54,
290, 291.
Indiana anti-slavery sentiment, its weak-
ness, 44, 56, 303, 327-330.
344
INDEX.
Indiana anti-slavery societies, 14 ; State
Anti-slavery Society favors political in-
dependence, 30; rejects a third party
1S40, 43. ^ _
Indiana Constitutional Convention on
negro rights, 191-193, 335; its action
approved by Ohio Democrats, 237.
Indiana Democrats for Free Soil in
1849, 187-1S9; abandon it, 230; support
Julian, 190, 233.
Indiana Free Soil party, organized, 130,
144; vote in 184S, 156; resolves to
continue 1849, 190; coalitions, 191 ; de-
cay in 1S50, 192, 193; revived in 1851,
227; conventions, 229-30, 246; cam-
paign of 1852, 253, 254 ; activity in 1853,
263, 264 ; joins the anti- Nebraska move-
ment, 290; small part played, 291.
Indiana Legislature on anti-slavery, 20.
Indiana Liberty party, formed, 51 ; State
conventions, 52 ; votes and campaigns
1841-43, 55, 56, 57; leaders, 61; or-
ganization 1844, 73 ; campaign of 1845,
86; of 1S46, 93; indifferent to new
anti-slavery doctrines, 99; tendency to
fuse with old parties, 111-112; joins
Whigs in Congressional campaign 1S47,
116; joins Free Soil movement, 134.
Indiana popular vote on negro exclusion,
336.
Indiana third party press, 319; vote, 327-
331-
Indiana Whigs, appeal for I-iberty votes,
71, T},, 74, 116; circulate Garland's
forgery, 78 ; attack Free Soil party,
149, 150, 157; assert Free Soil princi-
ples in 1849, 187-189; continue to do
so in 1850, 232 ; oppose Julian, 233.
Iowa anti-Nebraska movement, 297.
Iowa anti-slavery sentiment, its feeble-
ness, 75 ; agitation, 87 ; organization,
96, 97. 137-
Iowa Constitutional Convention on
negro disabilities, 332.
Iowa Democrats pro-slavery, 216; local
coalitions with Free Soilers, 216; their
contemptuous attitude toward Free
Soilers, 232.
Iowa Free Soil party, formed, 131 ; organ-
ized, 145; vote in 1848, 157; desires
Whig coalition, 217 ; failure of coalition,
217 ; campaign of 1850, 218, 219; char-
acter of the party, 219; organization in
1853, 266; joins anti-Nebraska move-
ment, 297 ; its weakness, 304 ; courage
of leaders, 304.
Iowa Liberty party, formed, 137; joins
Free Soil movement, 137.
Iowa third party press, 321 ; vote, 329-
331-
Iowa Whigs, their anti-slavery tendency,
216; coalesce with Free Soilers, 217;
reject Free Soil fusion in 1850, 218;
ask Free Democratic aid in 1854, 297.
Jackson County, Michigan, nominates
anti-slavery third party candidates in
1839, 32-
Julian, G. W., at Buffalo Convention, 142;
elected to Congress in 1S49, 190, 191 ;
defeated in 1851 by Democratic dis-
affection, 233, 234 ; nominated for Vice
President in 1852, 248 ; active in organ-
izing 1853, -69; joins anti-Nebraska
movement with hesitation, 290; only
real leader in Indiana, 303.
Kelly, Abby, at Liberty National Con-
vention 1S43, 70; labors on Western
Reserve, 102, 113.
King, Leicester, opposes Black Laws in
Ohio Legislature, 21 ; his influence on
anti-slavery sentiment, 23; a Whig in
1840,40; nominated for Governor by
Liberty party, 56 ; a leader of the party,
61 ; presides over Liberty National
Convention 1843,70; has joint debate
with J. R. Giddings 1844, 113; nomi-
nated for Vice President by Liberty
party, 120 ; withdraws from nomination
1848, 143.
Lane Seminary, formation of anti-slav-
ery society in, 11 ; society suppressed
and students secede, 12; influence of
the incident, 12 ; action of the former
students, 12, 16.
Leavitt, Joshua, leader of New York
anti-slavery men, 53 ; at Liberty Na-
tional Convention 1842, 119; joins
Chase in bargain with Barnburners at
Buffalo Convention, 139; presents Hale
as candidate, 141 ; moves to make Van
Buren's nomination unanimous, 142;
accused of treachery by Abolitionists,
147.
INDIANA — McLean.
345
Lemoyne, F. J., declines Abolitionist
nomination, 37 ; presides at Cleveland
Anti-Slavery Convention 1851, 242;
objects to name Free Democracy, 247.
Le-ivis, Samuel, a Whig in 1840,40; joins
Liberty party, 60 ; at Liberty National
Convention 1843, 70 ; at Southern and
Western Convention, 88; campaign for
Governor of Ohio, 91, 92; presides
at Liberty National Convention of
1843, 119; at Buffalo Convention, 142;
declines Free Soil nomination for
Governor 1850, 183 ; nominated for
Governor 1851, 238; criticises Chase,
240, 243 ; issues call for National Free
Democratic Convention, 246 ; his hesi-
tation over the name of the party, 247 ;
defeated for Vice-Presidential nomina-
tion by the Conservative element, 248 ;
speaks in Indiana, 264; nominated for
Governor of Ohio 1S53, 267 ; his vigor-
ous campaign, 26S, 274 ; remarkable
success, 274; his valedictory, 276, 277;
death and character, 289, 290.
Liberator, influence in the Northwest, 9.
Liberty League founded, loi.
Liberty party, founded at Albany 1840,
38 ; first National Convention in 1841,
53 ; strength lies at first iu the East, 53 ;
nominates Birney and Morris and plans
organization, 53 ; its policy, 54 ; fails to
draw the anti-slavery vote, 59; its
leaders in the Northwest, 60-63 ; press,
63 ; programme and methods, 64-66 ; its
diificulties, 65, 66, 68; second National
Convention 1S43, 69; increased impor-
tance of Northwestern men, 70; holds
the balance of power, 71 ; attacked by
Whigs, 71 ; desertions in 1844, 75 ;
damaged by Garland forgery, 79 ; prob-
ably secures Clay's defeat, 79, 80 ; re-
action against it as a result, 80-85 >
defence of its action, 83, 84 ; discour-
agement after 1844, 89; efforts to alter
its character, 90 ; status in 1846, 97 and
note; decay in 1847,98; new factions,
98, 99; relations to Garrisonians, ic2,
103; popular indifference to it, 103;
factions in 1S47, 104; isolation, 104;
controversy over date of National
Convention, 117 ; Third National
Convention 1847, 118-120; struggle
over platform, 119; nominates Hale,
120; hesitates to join Free Soil move-
ment, 132; its members at Buffalo do
not act together, 141 ; dissatisfaction
with Van Buren's nomination, 145.
Lincoln, A., refuses to join Republican
movement, 1854, 295.
Littlejohn, F. J., anti-slavery Democrat
of Michigan, refuses to support Cass in
1848, 122; joins Free Soil party, 144;
nominated for Governor of Michigan
by Free Soilers, 200; accepts Whig
nomination, 202.
Lovejoy, E. P., anti-slavery editor, mur-
dered in Illinois, 17.
Lovejoy, Owen, leader of Illinois Aboli-
tionists, 62 ; at Liberty National Con-
vention, 1S43, 70; his work in Illinois,
74 ; at Southern and Western Conven-
tion, 1845, ^S ' successful campaign for
Congress in Illinois, 95, 96 ; at Liberty
National Convention, 1847, 120; can-
didate for Congress in 1848, 135; at
Buffalo Convention, 142 ; refuses to
coalesce with Democrats in i8;o, 196;
at Free Democratic National Conven-
tion, 1852, 248 ; tries to form Republi-
can party, 1854, 295.
Log Cabin and Hard Cider campaign, 38;
drowns out interest in abolitionism, 40,
44' 45-
Lundy, B., publishes Genius of Universal
Efnaucipation in Illinois, 6.
Ly Brand, J., Abolitionist leader in Wis-
consin, 63.
Mahan, Rev. A., early Western Aboli-
tionist, 9; President of Oberlin College,
12.
Mahan, J. B., delivered to Kentucky by
Gov. Vance of Ohio for aiding fugitive
slaves, 30.
Maine Law favored by Free Democrats
of Indiana in 1852, 229 ; an issue in
Ohio, 1853, 271, 273; in Wisconsin,
2S0, 281.
Mathews, S., edits Cincinnati Zi't-rrt'/a', 129,
318, 327 ; joins Whigs in planning Free
Soil revolt, 129 ; elected Clerk of Ohio
House of Representatives by Demo-
crats, 166; Chase's confidant, 167 ; joins
Democratic party, 291.
McLean, J., favored for President by anti-
slavery Whigs, 127, 141 ; name withheld
346
INDEX.
by Chase at Buffalo Convention, 141 ;
refuses Whig and Free Soil nomination
for senator in Ohio, 171.
McGee, T., President of Michigan Anti-
Slavery Society, condemns a third party
in 1S39, 32 ; joins Liberty party, 1840,
43- 52-
Michigan anti-slavery societies, 14; State
Anti-Slavery Society, 49.
Michigan Constitutional Convention on
negro privileges, 335.
Michigan Democrats twit library party
with inconsistency, 58 ; foment Whig
and Liberty controversy, 74, 86; sup-
port Cass for Presidency, 122; favor
Free Soil in 1848, 19S, 199 ; re-elect Cass
to Senate in spite of a bolt, 199 ; aban-
don Free Soil principles at Cass's dic-
tation, 201, 231 ; support the compro-
mise and are defeated in 1S50, 206,
207.
Michigan Free Soil party, movement
begins in Democratic party, 122;
formed, 131; organized, 144; vote in
1848, 156; coalesces with Whigs in
election of 1848, 15S; desires Demo-
cratic fusion, 199; rejects Whig coali-
tion, 200 ; later accepts it, 203 ; failure
of the coalition, 203; causes, 204;
decay of party in 1S50, 206, 207 ; agita-
tion renewed, 246 ; campaign of 1S52,
254; continued cases of Whig fusion,
256 ; active organization in 1853, 264 ;
tries to utilize anti-Nebraska movement
for its own advantage, 292, 293 ; decides
to join Republican movement, 293; dis-
solves, 294.
Michigan Legislature condemns abolition,
20; opposes annexation of Texas 183S,
106; favors Wilmot Proviso, no; in-
structs senators to vote for the \\'ilmot
Proviso, 198; rescinds the instructions,
205.
Michigan Liberty party, begun, 43 ; organ-
izes and nominates, 52 ; its strength
superior to that of party in other States,
52 ; campaign of 1841, 55 ; of 1842, 57 ;
campaign and vote 1843, 5^ > leaders,
61; organization in 1844, 74; contro-
versy with Whigs, 74 ; efforts to dis-
cover source of Garland forgery, 82, 83;
campaign of 1845, 86; debates broad-
ening Liberty platform, 90, 91, loi ;
decay in 1846, 95; objects to Chase's
Democratic leanings, 100; favors a late
nommation in 1847, "8 ; rejects Liberty
League, 134; joins Free Soil move-
ment, 135; dissolves, 146.
Michigan popular vote on negro suffrage,
pas-
Michigan Republican party formed, 291-
294.
Michigan third party press, 320 ; vote,
325-31 ; no strong centre, 327.
Michigan Whigs attack Liberty party, 67;
circulate the news of Birney's Demo-
cratic nomination, 76, 77 ; refuse to
assist Liberty Men to discover the
origin of the Garland forgery, 83 ; ig-
nore the Liberty party thereafter, 86;
attack Free Soilers 1848, 149 ; applaud
Whig and Free Soil fusion 184S, 158;
desire coalition in 1849, 198-201 ; unite
with Free Soilers, 202 ; arouse great
opposition in the party, 202-204 > defeat
Democrats with Free Soil aid in 1850,
2o5, 207 ; slow to adopt the compro-
mise, 232; eager for a new party, 1854,
291 ; object to Free Democratic atti-
tude, 292 ; join in Republican move-
ment, 293, 294.
Mobs against Abolitionists, their causes
and effect, 16, 17.
Moral and Religious agitation, its impor-
tance, 4, 298, 299, 300; its limitations,
18; revival in 1850-51, 229 ff.
Morris, T., presents anti-slavery petitions
in Congress, 20; his career as first
Abolitionist senator, 24-26 ; converted
by Birney, 24 ; debates with Calhoun,
24 ; with Clay, 25 ; rejected by the
Democrats, 25 ; slight public impression
made by him, 25 ; popular with Ohio
anti-slavery men, 30 ; expelled from
Ohio Democratic party, 41 ; joins
Liberty party, 42 ; nominated for Vice
President in 1S41, 53 ; withdraws from
nomination, 69; renominated at Liberty
Convention 1843, 7°; ^\^s, 85; his
character, 86.
Morse, J. F., acts with Townshend in
Ohio Legislature of 1849 [see Town-
shend], 163-173; Free Soil leader in
Legislature of 1851, 235 ; presides over
convention for Western Reserve, 238.
McGEE—OHIO.
347
Natioxal ^j?^;, established, 90 ; influence
in the Northwest, 316, 324.
Negroes, restrictions on them in State
constitutions, 332-337.
Negroes not allowed to participate in
Michigan Liberty Convention 1843, 5^-
Nelson, D., early Illinois Abolitionist, 17 ;
helps to form Liberty party, 42.
New England settlers furnish most of
the third-party vote, 326-331.
New York Tribune, its connection with
the Garland forgery, 77, 82; its attack
on Birney, 81 ; influence in the North-
west, 153 ; criticises Free Democratic
National Convention 1S52, 249.
Non-resistance not popular in the North-
west, 33.
Northern feeling, its first beginnings, 49,
105, 106.
Northwest, its political peculiarities, i ;
a deciding factor in the anti-slavery
struggle, 2 ; political results of its
settlement, 2, 326-331 ; indifferent to
slavery in 1830, 6-8 ; favors Mexican
War, 107 ; favors internal improve-
ments, 123; tired of anti-slavery poli-
tics in 1851, 226; ready for a change
in 1853, 262, 2S3, 284 ; forms the Repub-
lican party before the Eastern States,
286 ; reasons for this, 2S7.
Northwest ordinance, its influence, 2, 3 ;
convention to celebrate it 1849, i77-
Northwestern Liberty Convention, Chi-
cago 1S46, 89, 100.
Oberlin College, receives Lane Semin-
ary students 1834, 12; its influence in
the Northwest, 12.
Ohio anti-Nebraska campaign, 28S, 289.
Ohio anti-slavery societies, jo, 14; State
Anti-slavery Society formed, 14; its
views on political action, 28 ; rejects
a third party, 40.
Ohio Constitutional Convention elected,
182 ; on negro rights, 336, 337.
Ohio Democrats repudiate Thomas
Morris, 25, 41 ; condemn abolitionism,
44; defend I51ack Laws in 1846, 92;
demand the Wilmot Proviso 1846-47,
109; in 1848, 121; in the Legislature
of 1848-9, 163 ; coalesce with Town-
shend and Morse to repeal Black Laws
and elect Chase to the Senate, 165-171 ;
clamor for Free Soil reunion, 179; fuse
with Free Soilers, iSo, 182 ; adopt
Free Soil plank in 1850, 185 ; in 1851,
237; in 1853, 269; success in State
elections, 1S5, 241, 256, 275.
Ohio Free Soil party, its elements, anti-
slavery Democrats, 121 ; Free Soil
Whigs, 126, 127; Western Reserve,
1 28; P'ree Soil meetings, 129, 130; Ohio
People's Convention, 129; issues call
for Buffalo Convention, 129, 130; party
organized, 143, 144; in State election
1848, 152, 153; campaign of 1848, 153;
vote diminished by Van Buren's unpop-
ularity, 155; in Legislature of 1849, see
Chase, Townshend; failure of State
Convention 1849, 169; party coalesces
with Democrats 1849, 178-181 ; torn
in two by Hamilton County case, 179;
decline in vote and its cause, 181 ;
fusions in 1850, 182-184 ; State Con-
vention calls for Federal abolition of
slavery, 183; collapse of vote, 186;
party loses Whig and Democratic
members, 186 ; its identity henceforth
with Liberty party, 1S7 ; in the Legis-
lature of 1851 coalesces with Whigs
to elect B. F. Wade to Senate, 235, 236;
reorganization in 1851, 238 ; condemns
Chase, 240, 241 ; small vote, 241 ; cam-
paign of 1852, 251 ; success in electing
Giddings and E. Wade, 259; activity
in 1853, 266; quarrel in State Conven-
tion over Free Trade, 267 ; harmony
restored, 268 ; tries to draw Whig vote,
269; fuses with Whigs on Maine law
issue in People's tickets, 271, 272 ; cases
of failure to fuse, 272 ; cautious attitude
of party, 273; enthusiastic campaign,
274, 275; increased vote, 275; hopes
for the future, 276, 277 ; joins in anti-
Nebraska movement, 2S7 ; urges a
strong platform, 2S9.
Ohio Legislature on Black Laws, 21, 77,
91; repeals them, 168; on abolition,
22; passes Fugitive Slave Law, 22;
censures J. Q. Adams, 67 ; opposes
annexation of Texas, 106; favors the
Wilmot Proviso, no; elects Chase
to Senate, 169-171 ; elects B. F. Wade
to Senate, 236.
Ohio Liberty party, first independent
nomination, 40 ; State Convention, 40,
348
INDEX.
41 ; significance of vote in 1840, 47 ;
organization at State Convention 1841^
50; election of 1841, 54; convention
and campaign of 1842, 56 ; active cam-
paign in 1S43, 57 ! leaders, 60, 61 ; tlieir
strength, 61 ; State Convention cen-
sures Clay, 72 ; organization in 1S44,
73; State election, 76; damaged in
National election by Garland forgery
1844, 79; in local election 1845, 85;
campaign of 1846, 92 ; controversy
with Whigs, 93; decline in 1847,97;
position with regard to new anti-slavery
theories, 99 ; suspected by the radicals,
100; relations with Giddings, 112-115;
its hatred of Giddings, 113; joins Free
Soil movement, 133; last convention
1S48, 133.
Ohio third party press, 318 ; vote, 326-
331.
Ohio Whigs, criticise Thos. Morris, 25 ;
lose anti-slavery votes in 183S, 30 ; in
1839, 32 ; attack Liberty party, 45 !
circulate Garland forgery, 78 ; changed
attitude toward slavery in 1846, 90; op-
pose annexation of Texas, 106, favor
Wilmot Proviso, 107, 108, 126; bolt in
1848, 128; make great efforts to carry
the State, 153 ; in the Legislature of
1849, see Giddings, Chase, Townshend;
attack Townshend, Morse, and Chase,
166, 172 ; refuse to support Giddings,
170; party continues Free Soil in 1850,
184; gains in election, 186; refuses to
adopt the Compromise in 1851, 232,
237 ; elect B. F. Wade to Senate with
Free Soil aid, 236 ; attempt to defeat
Giddings 1852, 258, 259; dulness in
1853, 269; tendency to join Free Soilers,
270-273, 276 ; join anti-Nebraska move-
ment, 288, 2S9.
Original anti-slavery men in the North-
west, 8, 9.
Osborn, C, advocates immediate aboli-
tion in Indiana, 6, 9, 51.
Paine, J. H., early third party leader on
Western Reserve, 42, 60 ; active in or-
ganization, 73, 97 ; at Buffalo Conven-
tion, 142; a Free Soil leader in Wis-
consin, 234.
Parker, S. W., Whig opponent of G. W.
Julian in Indiana, defeated 1849, 190,
191; successful 1851, 233, 234; and
1852, 256.
Petitions in Congress, 20, 24 ; in North-
western State Legislatures, 20.
Pillsbury, P., agitates on the Western
Reserve, 102.
Popular votes in the Northwest on negro
disabilities, 334-336.
Porter, A. L., anti- slavery leader in
Michigan, 43, 62.
Press, third party press in the North-
west, 322-324.
Prophetic remarks of Whigs and Demo-
crats in 1S52, 262.
Quakers, early anti - slavery feeling
among, 8, 15; publish anti-slavery
papers, 64 ; influence in Indiana, 57,
140, 254; in Iowa, 325 ; furnish part
of third party vote 326-331.
Questioning of candidates, begun in Ohio,
28; apparent success, 30; failure, 31 ;
falls into disrepute, 32 ; in Michigan,
32 ; finally abandoned, 50.
Rankin, Rev. J., original anti-slavery
agitator in Ohio, 9 ; opposes Fugitive
Slave Law, 227.
Rariden, J., anti-slavery Whig in Indiana,
opposes a third party, 43, 73.
Riddle, A. G., Free Soiler in Ohio Legis-
lature 1849, 163 ff ; brings about com-
promise between Whig and Democratic
separate organizations, 164; supports
Giddings, but is willing to vote for
Chase, 172 ; his opinion of Chase's
action, 173; defeated for Speaker in
Ohio Legislature, 182 ; favors Whig
and Free Soil fusion in 1S53, 272.
Root, J. F., in Free Soil campaign 1848,
143 ; runsfor Congress in 1S50 in hopes
of defeating N. S. Townshend, 184;
at State Free Democratic Convention
1851, 238 ; olDJects to a Free Trade plank
in F>ee Democratic platform, 267.
St. Clair, A., anti-slavery agitator in
Illinois, 95 ; publishes Iowa Frec7nan,
137.321-
Sawyer, N., Free Soil Democrat in Ohio,
129; at Buffalo Convention, 142.
Seamans, J. B., Free Soiler in Indiana,
130.
OHIO— VAN BUR EN.
349
Smith, Rev. E., at Southern and Western
Convention, 88 ; at Buffalo Convention,
142, 143 ; nominated for Governor of
Ohio 1850, 183.
Smith, Gerrit, an "Abolitionist" un-
til 1861, 5 ; nominated for President
by the Liberty League, loi ; tries to
get Liberty party to adopt the Liberty
League platform, 119-121 ; tries again
at Free Democratic C'onvention in
1852, 248.
Southern and Western Liberty Conven-
tion, S8-90.
Southern elements in the Northwest, 3, 8,
107, 320-331.
Spauldnig, R. P., Anti-Slavery Democrat
elected judge by Democrats and Free
Soilers in 1849, ^7~ I at Northwest
Ordinance Convention, 177; at Free
Democratic National Convention 1852,
248 ; controversy with Root and others
over Free Trade in party platform,
267 ; refuses to coalesce with Whigs
in 1853, 272.
Spooner, L., considers slavery unconsti-
tutional, 98 ; his doctrines rejected by
the Liberty National Convention, 119.
Stanton, H. B., a Lane Seminary seceder,
12; urges a third party, 34; influential
in bringing about Liberty and Barn-
burner bargain at Buffalo Convention,
139, 141 ; criticised by Liberty Men, 147.
Stevens, S. C, Liberty leader in Lidiana,
61; candidate for Governor 1846,86;
joins Free Soil movement, 134; at Buf-
falo Convention, 142; aids in anti-slav-
ery revival of 1851, 229.
Stewart, C. H., Liberty leader in Michi-
gan, 62.
Storrs, C. B., anti-slavery president of
Western Reserve College, 9, 10.
Sutliff, M., Ohio Abolitionist at formation
of American Anti-Slavery Society, 1 1 ;
Free Soil candidate for State judge
1852, 253.
Tappan, B., supplants Thomas Morris as
Ohio Senator, 25 ; votes for the admis-
sion of Texas, 106 ; presides over
Northwest Ordinance Convention 1849,
177.
Tappan, L., secures Liberty nomination of
J. P. Hale 1847, 120.
Texas annexation opposed by North-
west 1836-3S, 105, 106.
Theoretical considerations, their excessive
influence upon anti-slavery men, 98-101,
1 78, 222, 306.
Third party disavowed by Abolitionists
1835-3S, 28, 29; first cases of inde-
pendent nominations, 32 ; still disa-
vowed, 22)^ 34 ; growth of a favorable
feeling, 34, 38; rejected by American
Anti-Slavery Society, 36 ; see Liberty
party.
Third party press in the Northwest, 318-
324; leading papers, 322; good and
bad points, 323, 324.
Third party vote in the Northwest, 325-
331 ; its size, 325 ; distribution, 326-
331-
Thome, J. A., Lane Seminary seceder, 12.
Tichenor, V., anti-slavery leader in
Wisconsin. 63.
Tilden, D. R., Free Soil Whig in Ohio,
167 ; declines nomination for Governor,
183 ; urges Free Democrats to endorse
Scott for President in 1852, 250.
Tod, D., Democratic candidate for Gov-
ernor of Ohio 1846, 91, 92.
Torrey, C. T., advocates a third party
1839. 33. 34-
Townshend, N. S., Liberty Man in Ohio,
61 ; elected to Ohio Legislature 1848 as
a Free Soiler, 163; refuses to act with
Whig Free Soilers, 164; joins Chase,
Morse, and Hamlin, in a deal with the
Democrats, 164, 165 ; open rupture
with other Free Soilers, 166; abused
by Whigs, 167, 173 ; unites with Demo-
crats to elect Chase to Senate, 171 ;
defence of his action, 173, 174; his mis-
take, 174 ; defeated by Free Soilers for
re-election, 179; elected to constitu-
tional convention by Democrats, 182 ;
his action there, 337 ; elected to Con-
gress by Democrats 1850, 184, 185 ;
joins Democratic party, 241.
Treadwell, S. B. editor of Michigan Free-
man, 62 ; favors third party 1839, 43 ;
at Buffalo Convention, 142.
Turner, Nat, effect of his insurrection on
Southern view of abolitionism, 16.
Van Buren, John, at Northwest Ordi-
nance Convention, 177.
350
INDEX.
Van Buren, Martin, opposed by Ohio
Abolitionists 1836,28,38; liis chances
for nomination at Buffalo Convention,
139; nominated by Liberty votes, 141 ;
his nomination repels Liberty men, 145;
and Whigs, 146, 147, 155, 160; abused
by Democrats, 14S.
Vaughn, J. C, anti-Taylor Whig in 1848,
129; at Ohio Free Territory Conven-
tion, 179; at Buffalo Convention, 142;
at Western Reserve Convention 1849,
177 ; works for Whig and Free Demo-
cratic fusion 1853, 272 ; editor of
Cleveland Trtie Democrat, 318, 322.
Vote of the Liberty and Free Soil parties,
325 ff., also 46, 55-59, 74, 76, 79, So.
85-87. 93-98. 154-157. 181, 186, 191,
197, 203, 207, 213, 215, 217, 219, 234,
235, 241, 242, 296, 25S, 259, 275, 281.
Wade, B. F., anti-slavery action in Ohio
Legislature 183S-39, 21, 23 ; defeated
for re-election as a result, 32 ; does not
join Liberty party, 40 ; advocates elec-
tion of Eebb in 1846 on anti-slavery
grounds, 93 ; works for Taylor in 184S,
153 ; elected senator by Whig and Free
Democratic votes 1851, 236, 237 ; his
sincerity doubted by Giddings, 237 ;
attacks Giddings in 1852, 259.
Wade, Edward, a Whig in 1S40, joins
Liberty party, 61 ; attacks Clay for
being a duelist, 72; runs against Gid-
dings for Congress, 112; Free Soil
candidate for judge in Ohio Legislature
1849, defeated by Townshend and
Morse, 172 ; elected to Congress 1852,
258, 259; favors Whig and Free Soil
coalition in 1S53, 272.
Walker, I. P., elected Senator from Wis-
consin 1849, 208 ; censured by Legis-
lature for disobeying anti-slavery in-
structions, 209.
Weld, T. D., anti-slavery leader at Lane
Seminary, 11; agitates successfully in
Ohio, 12, 13; mol:)bed in 1839, 16; con-
verts Giddings, 25.
Wentworth, John, advocates non-exten-
sion of slavery, 1847, no; refuses to
support Cass, 124; nominated for Con-
gress without a platform, 125; decides
not to join Free Soil movement, 151;
his opportunity, 304, 305.
Western Citizen, leading anti-slavery paper
west of Ohio, 323 ; see Eastman, Z.
Western Reserve, becomes anti-slavery,
13 ; centre of abolitionism in Ohio,
304. 326, 328, 330 ; indignant at Fugi-
tive Slave Law 1839, 31 ; begins third
party, 42 ; begins Liberty Organization,
50; opposes Black Laws 1840-46, 90,
91; opposes Taylor 1847, 108, 127:
bolts, 12S; supports Giddings, 151;
objects to Van Buren's candidacy, 155 ;
attacks Chase, Townshend, and Morse
for uniting with Democrats in 1849,
166, 173, 176; "Harmony" Conven-
tion 1S49, ^77 '■> condemns the Fugitive
Slave Law, 1851 227; leads in move-
ment to revive the Free Democratic
party 1851, 238; attacks Chase for
joining the Democrats, 240, 251 ; leads
in "People's" movement 1853, 271,
272; leads in anti-Nebraska fusion
1854, 2S7, 2S8.
Whig party furnishes most of the Aboli-
tionists, 39, 50 ; attacks the Liberty
party, 45 and note; demands anti-
slavery votes 1842-44, 57 ; its dislike of
the Liberty party, 67 ; opposes Texas
annexation 1844, 70 ; demands Aboli-
tionist support, 71, 75, 76; angered at
Liberty attacks on Clay, 72, jt,; hatred
of Liberty party after 1S44, So, 83 ; re-
fuses to admit Clay's fault. So; abuses
Birney, 81, 82 ; admits the falsity of
Garland forgery after the election, 82 ;
favors the Wilmot Proviso, 107, 127;
failure of Whig bolt in 1848, 147, 160 ;
attacks the Free Soil party, 149, 150;
furnishes most of Free Soil vote in
Ohio, 179; cases of W^hig and Free
Soil coalition, 223 ; slow to adopt
compromise in the Northwest, 232, 233 ;
refuses to discuss slavery in 1S52, 255 ;
favors Free Soilers after 1852, 261,262 ;
ready for anti-slavery action in 1853,
2S3, 2S4 ; forms Republican party in the
Northv.'est, 287.
Willey, Austin, at Northwest Ordinance
Convention 1849, i77-
Wisconsin anti-slavery societies, 59.
Wisconsin constitutional conventions on
negro privileges, 332, 333.
Wisconsin Democrats attack Liberty
party, 16; object to Cass in 1848, 123;
