HARVARD 
 HISTORICAL STUDIES 
 
 PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
 HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT FROM THE INCOME OF 
 
 f|ettr? Warren Corte? 
 
 VOLUME VI. 
 
c> 
 
 O 
 
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 
 
 r 'Y 
 
Copyright, 1897, 
 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 
 struggle 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, 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 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 living 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, 
 Michigan; 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 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 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, November, 1897. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 THE NORTHWEST IN THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 1830-1861 . i 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 ANTI-SLAVERY BEGINNINGS IN THE NORTHWEST. 1830-1838 . . 6 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 ABOLITION IN WESTERN POLITICS. 1836-1839 19 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY. 1836-1840 27 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 ORGANIZATION OF THE LIBERTY PARTY. 1840-1843 48 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 THE LIBERTY MEN HOLD THE BALANCE OF POWER. 1843-1845 . 69 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY MEN. 1845-1847 .... 85 
 
x CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PAGE 
 THE LIBERTY PARTY IN THE WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY. 
 
 1846-1848 705 
 
 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. 1849-1850 220 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 THE FREE DEMOCRACY STANDS AGAINST FINALITY. 1850-1851 . 226 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 THE FREE DEMOCRACY IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1852. 1851-1852 245 
 
CONTENTS. xj 
 
 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 DEMOCRATIC PARTY ATTAINS NIRVANA IN THE ANTI- 
 NEBRASKA MOVEMENT. 1854 285 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 THE RESULT OF TWENTY YEARS' EFFORT. 1834-1854 . . . 298 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 A. BIBLIOGRAPHY 309 
 
 B. LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PRESS nsr THE NORTHWEST . . . 318 
 
 C. DISTRIBUTION OF THE THIRD- PARTY VOTE (WITH MAPS) . . 325 
 
 D. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS AND DIRECT POPULAR VOTES 
 
 UPON NEGRO DISABILITIES. 1845-1851 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, Abolition- 
 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 1814 than to the Repub- 
 lican Convention of 1860; 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 1860 would have said without 
 hesitation that the an^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 ORDINANCE 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 Dixon'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 1800 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." 2 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, Civilization 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-SLAVERY." 5 
 
 but it remained the appellative of two groups, the Garriso- 
 nians, and the followers of Gerrit Smith and William Goodell. 
 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 1814 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 Philanthropist ; and in 1824 the Ohio legis- 
 lature had adopted resolutions favoring gradual emancipation ; l 
 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, 
 1 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. 1 
 
 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; 2 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. 3 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 
 
 1 For the emancipation movement before 1830, see Henry Wilson, Slave 
 Power, I. chs. ii, xiii, xiv, and William Birney,/. G. Birney and his Times, 
 74-86, 169, 382-412. 
 
 2 On the efforts to introduce slavery into the Northwest, see B. A. 
 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, 351-67. 
 
 8 Ohio 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, 1819; Jan. 3, 17, 1825; Jan. 17, 1829; Feb. I, 1831. Iowa 
 law of Jan. 21, 1839. 
 
8 ANTI-SLA VER Y 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. 1 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. 3 
 
 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 Abolitionism, in the International 
 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 1831- 
 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 
 1831 the free blacks of Cincinnati, Columbus, and other places 
 
I O A NTI-SLA VER Y BEGINNINGS. 
 
 in Ohio had been protesting against the project ; l 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. 2 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. 3 
 
 1 Liberator, July 30, Sept. 10, 1831 ; Jan. 28, 1832. 
 
 2 General William Birney, in his life of his father (p. 164 seq?), 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, we 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 Sutliff 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 
 far 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 th< 
 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. 1 
 
 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 indifference 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 
 
 1 For the Lane Seminary affair and its connection with Oberlin, see J. 
 H. Fairchild, Oberlin Colony and College, 50-77 ; L. Tappan, Life of Arthur 
 Tappan, 229-242 ; Asa Mahan, Autobiography. There is also an account in 
 Henry Wilson, Slave Power. I., ch. xix. 
 
THE LANE SEMINARY AFFAIR. 13 
 
 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 1835-36, 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 free States, not by the interfer- 
 ence of Congress with State Rights ; but ... by ceaseless pro- 
 clamation of the truth upon the whole 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." 1 
 
 In Ohio the number of societies increased from a dozen or 
 more in 1834, to over three hundred in 1838, and to a consider- 
 1 Liberator, May 9, 1835. 
 
1 4 ANTI-SLA VER Y 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- 
 getic but single-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. Illinois's first society was that of Putnam 
 County, formed in 1835. By 1838 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. 1 
 
 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. 15 
 
 promptly invoked by zealous clergymen. In 1834 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 
 several of the Christian denominations, in a split on anti-slavery 
 lines. 1 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 
 
 1 Von Hoist has a lucid discussion of the status of the churches on slavery 
 in his Constitutional History, II. 226 seq. 
 
1 6 ANTI-SLA VER Y 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 ; 1 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 
 1 Philanthropist, April 21, 1837. 
 
PERSECUTION AND PROGRESS. I? 
 
 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 Philanthropist, 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-abolition 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 
 
 1 On anti-slavery mobs, see Henry Wilson, Slave Power, I. ch. xx, xxi, 
 xxvii ; LifeofW. L. Garrison, by his children ; Liberator, and Emancipator, 
 1 836-39* passim; H. B. Stanton, Random Recollections, 32-5. Compare, 
 however, W. Birney,/. G. Birney and his Times, 250 seq. 
 
1 8 ANTI-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." l 
 
 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, 1 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 LEGISLA TION. 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." 1 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." 2 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. 3 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, an d 
 another in 1837. I n l8 36 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 was 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, 
 
 1 Liberator, May 19, 1837. a 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." 1 
 
 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 Emancipator^ Feb. 7, 1839. 
 
EARLY ANTI-SLAVERY LEGISLATORS. 23 
 
 fled ; in case the agent could not swear to the fugitive's iden- 
 tity, 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. 1 
 
 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 N 
 the State Senate. His action during his term of office, 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 Quincy 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, 1839. 
 
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 Philanthropist ; 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. 2$ 
 
 mischief; and the Whigs, eager to fasten the odium of " aboli- 
 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." 1 
 
 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 1860; 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. 1 
 
 1 See B. F. Morris, Life of Thomas Morris. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY. 
 1836-1840. 
 
 ONE of the first attempts to define the political duties of 
 abolitionists was made by Birney 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. 1 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." 2 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. Birney and his Times, 
 232. 
 
 2 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. In 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 " ; l 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 relinquish 
 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. T\\&jPhilantkro^ist 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 
 1 Emancipator, Sept. 21, 1837. 
 
NON-PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTION. 2$ 
 
 begun to run toward politics and away from Biblical discussion 
 and moral work. Lloydsville, 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 had proved hardly as successful as had Been hoped, was 
 now resumed with the utmost vigor in most of the Western 
 Reserve and in many ther counties scattered over the State. 
 When Vance and Shannon, the Whig and Democratic candi- 
 dates for governor, were bth 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." 1 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 Philanthropist 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 majorities. 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. 31 
 
 some timely letters of J. G. Birney to the local Whig managers 
 on the Reserve. 1 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 efficacy 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 : " We can see no other course for abolitionists to 
 pursue." 2 
 
 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- 
 
 1 W. Birney, J. 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 1 1, 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." l 
 
 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. 2 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 Emancipator, Oct. 24, 1839. In Geauga County, where the first third- 
 party ticket was run, the vote stood: Democratic, i,439> Whig, 1,630; Anti- 
 slavery, 432 ; and some 300 abstained from voting. 
 
DISSATISFACTION OF POLITICAL ABOLITIONISTS. 33 
 
 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 either 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 W. 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 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." 2 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"; 3 and again, on I^cember n: " We 
 
 1 Emancipator, July 25, 1839. 2 Liberator, Nov. 15, 1839. 
 
 8 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." l 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." 2 
 
 In July an attempt to clear the air was made at a national 
 
 y convention at Albany, called to discuss particularly " the ques- 
 tions which relat^to the proper exercise of the suffrage by 
 citizens of the fr^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. 1 Against the first resolution the Philan- 
 thropist, 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." 2 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." 3 Some of these conventions 
 formally rejected the Albany resolution. The Michigan abo- 
 litionists, as represented by the Michigan Freeman, 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 " ; 4 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." 6 
 
 But whether abolitionists demanded abolitionism in a candidate 
 or were satisfied with pledges, the dilemma where there were 
 
 1 Emancipator, Aug. 8, 1839. 2 Philanthropist, Sept. 3, 1839. 
 
 8 Ibid., Oct. 8, 1839. 4 Ibid., Nov. 26, 1839. 
 
 6 Emancipator, Jan. 2, 1840. 
 
36 BEGINNINGS 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 political 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 independent 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. 1 
 
 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." 2 The PJdlanthro- 
 
 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 exclusive 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-Slavery 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." 1 
 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." 2 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." 3 
 
 Nevertheless, the Philanthropist, the Michigan Freeman, 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- 
 
 1 Philanthropist, Dec. 10, 1839. a Liberator^ Feb. 7, 1840. 
 
 8 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." 1 
 
 For the time being the third-party men seemed to have been 
 rebuffed 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 Philanthropist?' 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, 3 and on Janu- 
 ary 15 wrote to J. R. Giddings that he thought a " tolerably fair 
 case might be made out for the General." 4 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 Philanthropist 
 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." 5 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." 6 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. 8 Ibid., Feb. 4, 1840. 
 4 G. W. Julian, Life ofj. R. Giddings, 88. 
 
 6 Emancipator, April 2, 1840. 6 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. 1 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. 2 
 
 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 
 
 , f 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, 
 1 Emancipator, June 18, 1840. 2 Ibid., June n, 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 
 Philanthropist in favor of Birney 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, was 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." 1 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 Stata 
 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." 2 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- 
 
 1 B. F. Morris, Life of Thomas Morris, 230. 
 
 2 Ibid., 191 ; Philanthropist, Jan. 28, Aug. n, 1840. 
 
42 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY. 
 
 Slavery Nominating Convention, and in an impassioned speech 
 renounced Van Buren and his policy, 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. 1 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 
 1 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 party; but in the spring of 1840 the current began to set 
 that way, and S. B. Treadwell, of the Michigan Freeman, 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 County, invited 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. 1 
 
 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." 2 The Indian- 
 
 1 Emancipator, 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 Abolitionist 
 candidate." 1 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 ? " 2 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. 3 
 
 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 Philanthropist, " 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." 4 From Illinois came a similar tale: "Many who in 
 
 1 Quoted, Philanthropist, Sept. 29, 1840. 
 
 2 Quoted, ibid., Aug. 18, 1840. 
 
 8 The Philanthropist (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. 
 
 4 Ibid., Dec. 9, 1840. 
 
46 BEGINNINGS OF THE THIRD PARTY. 
 
 times more perilous, when Lovejoy fell, remained unshaken by 
 the threats and howlings 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." 1 
 
 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. 2 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 7O,OOO. 3 If we 
 
 1 Emancipator, June 10, 1841. 
 
 2 The Northern vote by States was as follows : 
 
 
 Democratic. 
 
 Whig. 
 
 Abolitionist. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Maine .... 
 
 46,201 
 
 46,612 
 
 194 
 
 .002 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 32,761 
 
 26,158 
 
 III 
 
 .OOI 
 
 Vermont . . . 
 
 18,018 
 
 32,440 
 
 319 
 
 .006 
 
 Massachusetts . 
 
 51,944 
 
 72,874 
 
 1,415 
 
 .Oil 
 
 Rhode Island . 
 
 3,301 
 
 5,278 
 
 (42) 
 
 .004 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 25,296 
 
 31,601 
 
 174 
 
 003 
 
 New York . . 
 
 212,527 
 
 225,817 
 
 2,7 9 8 
 
 ,006 
 
 Pennsylvania . 
 
 143,672 
 
 144,021 
 
 343 
 
 .001 
 
 Ohio .... 
 
 124,982 
 
 148,157 
 
 93 
 
 .003 
 
 Michigan . . 
 
 21,131 
 
 22,933 
 
 328 
 
 .007 
 
 Illinois 
 
 47,496 
 
 45,558 
 
 157 
 
 .001 
 
 
 727,329 
 
 801,449 
 
 6,784 
 
 
 Elizur Wright, Life of Myron Holley, 235. 
 
THE VOTE IN THE NORTHWEST. 47 
 
 consider that, in 1837, 607 societies out of a total of 1,006 
 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 1840 not one in ten of the thousands of abolition- 
 ists who had resolved to act without regard to party ties, and 
 with 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. 1 
 
 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- 
 joy's murder still lingered to make the region near Alton more 
 radical than the northern part of the State/ 1 
 
 1 For the Ohio vote, collected from scattered returns, see Emancipator, 
 Nov., 1 840-] an., 1841. 
 
 3 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 abolition 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, 
 
THIRD-PARTY ACTIVITY AFTER ELECTIONS. 51 
 
 will be presented by one or both of the existing political 
 parties." l In this convention, which definitely established the 
 Liberty party in Ohio, Thomas Morris and Dr. Bailey were 
 again the leading spirits. Purdy, of the Xenia 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, 1841, 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." 3 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 
 
 1 Philanthropist, Jan. 27, Feb. 3, 1841. 
 
 2 Correspondence of writer with G. W. Julian, 1895. See also Philan- 
 thropist, Dec. 23, 1840. 
 
 3 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 10-11, a Lib- 
 erty convention organized, with Thomas McGee as president. 
 Ohio arid 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. 1 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 
 right 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 
 
 1 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 NATIONAL CONVENTION. 53 
 
 independent nominations is rising rapidly in the estimation of the 
 more efficient abolitionists." * 
 
 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. 2 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. 3 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, 1841. 
 
 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. 
 
 8 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 Emanci- 
 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 NOMINATIONS IN 1841. 55 
 
 drawbacks, the Ohio Liberty men succeeded in casting over 
 2,000 votes. 1 
 
 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. 2 
 
 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, I,2I4. 3 
 
 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 
 
 1 For the Liberty campaign in Ohio, see Philanthropist, May 26- 
 Oct. 27, 1841 ; for the vote, see Emancipator, Nov.-Dec., 1841, and Ameri- 
 can Liberty Almanac, 1844. We 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. 
 
 2 Emancipator, Sept. 9, 1841. 
 
 8 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. 1 
 
 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. 2 
 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. 3 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." 4 
 Of the vote, no exact returns are known, but it was claimed to 
 be between 800 and cpo. 5 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 Emancipator, Aug. 5, 1841. For the vote, see Ibid., Dec. 10, 1841. 
 
 2 For this campaign, see Philanthropist, passim. 
 8 Vote in Whig Almanac, 1843. 
 
 4 Free Labor Advocate, Sept. 24, 1842. 
 
 6 Emancipator, Sept. i, 1842; Liberty Almanac, 1844. 
 
LIBERTY CAMPAIGNS IN 18J&-8. 57 
 
 least 1,665 votes. 1 Illinois took a decided step in advance. A 
 State convention in May nominated C. VV. 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, 909.2 
 
 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. 3 
 
 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. 4 Wayne County, with a large 
 Quaker population, was the centre of activity, its convention 
 
 .' * Emancipator, Sept. I, Nov. 17, 1842; Detroit Advertiser, Dec. 15, 
 1842; Liberty Almanac, 1844. Probably there were more votes. 
 
 2 Vote in Whig Almanac, 1843. See Philanthropist, April 20, 1842; 
 Emancipator, Aii'g. 25, 1842. 
 
 8 Official returns in Whig Almanac, 1844. See Philanthropist, quoted 
 in Emancipator, Dec. 14, 1843. 
 
 4 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. 1 
 
 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 felt ill-con- 
 cealed mortification. 2 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. 3 
 
 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- 
 
 1 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. 
 
SLIGHTNESS 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, I52. 1 
 
 Thus by the end of the fourth year of the Liberty party's / 
 existence its vote had increased practically ten times since I 
 1840; 2 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. 
 
 1840 ... 903 328 157 
 
 1841 . . . 2,800 (?) 599 1,214 527 
 
 1842. . .5,405 900 (?) 1,665 9<>9 
 
 1843 . . . 6,552 1,684 2,775 1,954 152 
 
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. 1 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, 2 59. 
 
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. 1 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 worker in 
 the anti-slavery ranks. 2 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. 680. 
 
 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. 1 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 1 843.2 I n 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, a Quaker 
 paper of New Garden, Wayne County, was the organ of 
 Indiana abolitionists. 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 
 1841. It ran until 1843, when the editor moved to Chicago, 
 3 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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. 
 
 5 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 ! ! " l 
 
 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-efface- 
 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. 
 
 i 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 wa^s 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." l 
 
 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. 2 In 1843 the House of the Illinois 
 legislature, composed mainly of natives of the slave-holding 
 
 1 Nov. n, 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. 1 
 
 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. 
 
 1843-1845. 
 
 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 1841 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 
 
?0 BALANCE OF POWER. 
 
 the Western delegates showed 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 cherished 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. 1 
 
 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- 
 crats and slave-holders favored annexation and Whigs opposed 
 it. 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, 1843; 
 Albany 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." 1 
 
 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 1844 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." 1 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 whose 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." 2 
 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." 3 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." l 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 the 
 abolitionists themselves declared were up and down abolition 
 speeches in everything but voting for Henry Clay." 2 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 Herald, Feb. 22, 1844. 
 
 2 Indianapolis Sentinel, Aug. 15, 1844. 
 
74 BALANCE OF POWER. 
 
 reappeared, and spoke twice urging Liberty men to support 
 Clay. 1 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." 2 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. Platt in Detroit excited wide-spread interest. 3 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 Illinois we find much the same state of things. 4 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. 5 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. 
 
 i Emancipator, July 3, 1844. 2 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 1844- 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. 1 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." 2 
 
 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 themselves." 3 
 
 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; 4 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 
 
 1 Emancipator, Nov. 20, 1844. 
 
 2 Racine, Wisconsin JEgis, March 2, 1844. 
 
 8 Quoted Detroit Free Press, Sept. 12, 1844. 
 4 Cincinnati Gazette, Oct. i, 1844. 
 
76 BALANCE OF POWER. 
 
 had done in August. The official return was as follows : Demo- 
 cratic Tod, 146,461; Whig Hartley, 147,738; Liberty 
 King, 8,41 1. 1 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." 2 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 ! 3 
 
 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 folly. 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 Liberty vote was probably over 9,000. 
 
 2 Emancipator, Oct. 21, 1844. 
 
 8 New York Tribune, Oct. 10, 19, 26, Nov. 2, 1844. 
 
THE WHIGS ATTACK BIRNEY. 77 
 
 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. 1 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." 2 
 
 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." 3 
 
 1 New York Tribune, Oct. 10, 19, 1844; Emancipator, Oct. 15, 1844. 
 
 2 Emancipator, March 16, 1843. 
 
 8 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 ! " l 
 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. 2 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. 3 It was circulated all 
 over the Western Reserve, endorsed by the Ohio Whig Central 
 Committee, 4 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, 8 1 ; Philanthropist, Oct. 23, 1844. 
 
 2 Washington National Intelligencer, Nov. 2, 1844. 
 
 8 W. Birney, /. G. Birney and his Times, 355 ; Indianapolis Sentinel, 
 Nov. 21, 1844. 
 
 4 Liberty Herald, Nov. 6, 1844. 
 
 6 Herald and 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, 1 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; 2 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. 3 Even in far-off Illinois, the 
 Western Citizen reported that fifty voters in one county were 
 kept from the polls. 4 
 
 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 
 
 1 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. 
 
 4 Emancipator, Dec. 7, 1844. 
 
80 BALANCE OF POWER. 
 
 ascribe in no small degree to the effect of the Garland forgery 
 on the Western Reserve. 1 
 
 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. Percent. 
 
 Ohio . . . 149,11 7 I55>057 8 *5 - 02 7 
 
 Indiana . . 70,181 67,567 2,106 .015 
 
 Michigan . . 27,703 24,037 3,632 .064 
 
 Illinois . . 57,920 45>5 2 8 3>57o .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." l " We believe 
 that thousands of political abolitionists," said the Chicago 
 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." 2 
 "Where's the Liberty party ?" asked the Ohio 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 offices at Washington receiving their pay." 3 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 [Polk] 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." 4 
 
 It was upon Birney himself that the hatred of the ultra- 
 Whigs was especially poured forth. 5 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. 
 
 8 Quoted in Milwaukee Sentinel, Dec. 7, 1844. 
 
 4 Nov. 28, 1844. 
 
 6 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 n, 1844; Emancipator, Aug. 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." l 
 
 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 Ohio 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." 2 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." 3 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. 
 
 4 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. 1 The Liberty Committee, 
 working with what clews they could get, managed to trace the 
 forged "Extra" to the Michigan Pontiac Gazette press-room, 
 and implicated as its printers one of the editors of the Detroit 
 Advertiser, and one jjtft 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 Emancipator, 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. 2 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 
 
 1 Detroit Free Press, Dec. 15, 1844. 
 
 2 Final statement in Emancipator, March 4, 1846; quoted in Cleveland 
 American, March 18, 1846 ; New York Tribune, April 6, 1846. W. Birney 
 (/. G. Birney and his 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 differently." l 
 
 1 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." 1 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. 2 
 
 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 
 
 1 Herald and Philanthropist, Aug. 6, 1845. 
 
 2 Scattering returns in Liberty Herald, 1845, an d 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." 1 
 
 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, m counties where Birney 
 had received 1,975 votes. 2 
 
 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 
 
 1 B. F. Morris, Life of Thomas Morris, Introd., xi. 
 
 2 Official returns in Whig Almanac, 1846. 
 
LOCAL ELECTIONS IN 1845. 87 
 
 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. 1 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. 2 
 
 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, 11,893 ; Whig Collins, 10,788; 
 Liberty Holton, 790; showing an increase of about 300 over 
 the Liberty vote of the preceding year. 3 
 
 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 tne step was premature. 4 
 
 1 Emancipator, Oct. 29, 1845. 
 
 2 Partial returns in Whig Almanac, 1846; others in Emancipator, Jan. 
 27, 1847. 
 
 8 Moses M. Strong, History of Wisconsin Territory, 481 ; Emancipator, 
 Oct. 22, 1845; Milwaukee Sentinel, Oct. 8, 1845. 
 4 Cleveland 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 1 1 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," 1 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. 2 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 
 
 1 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." l 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 waaj^tfen adopted by acclamation. 2 
 
 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- 
 
 * W. Birney, /. G. Birney and 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 na d 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. 1 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. 2 
 
 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. 
 
 1 Cleveland American, July 15, 1846; New York Tribune, July n, 1846; 
 Emancipator, July 15, 1846. For an account written by one of the other 
 side, see Signal of Liberty, July 4, 1846. 
 
 2 Emancipator, 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." l 
 Early in February Lewis began an extraordinary campaign 
 of stump-speaking. From February 18 until September 28, 
 with the exception of a few 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. 2 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 
 
 1 Herald and Philanthropist, Jan. 7, 1845. 
 
 2 Ibid., Feb. 25, 1846; New York Tribune, July 6, 1846. 
 
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? " 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 
 4 Cleveland American, Oct. 22, 1846. 
 
OHIO ELECTION OF 1846. 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. 1 The vote in October stood: 
 Democratic Tod, 116,489; Whig Bebb, 118,857; Liberty 
 Lewis, io,799- 2 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." 3 
 
 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 Philanthropist ; 4 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." 5 In August, 1846, the vote stood : Democratic Whit- 
 comb, 64,104; Whig Marshall, 60,697; Liberty Stevens, 
 2,2 78. 6 This result showed an increase of only 172 over the 
 vote in 1844. The cause had evidently come to a standstill. 
 
 1 Cleveland American, Nov. 4, 1846. 
 
 2 Complete returns, Ibid., Nov. 11, 1846; also in Whig Almanac, 1847. 
 8 Cleveland American, Oct. 22, 1846. 
 
 4 Herald and Philanthropist, Nov. 12, 1845. 
 
 6 Quoted in Emancipator, Oct. 28, 1846. 
 
 6 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 na d 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." l 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." 1 The vote did indeed 
 startle the friends of the cause ; 2 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 iioonly. 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; 3 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. 4 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. 6 So great was the enthusiasm in the Chicago 
 
 1 Emancipator, Oct. 14, 1846. 
 
 2 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 2,885 
 
 See Whig Almanac, 1848. 
 
 8 Signal of Liberty, May 11, 18, 1846. 
 
 4 Emancipator, Feb. H, March 11, 1846; Herald and Philanthropist, 
 May 20, 1846. 
 
 6 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 
 Wentworth." 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." 1 
 
 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. In the 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. 2 
 
 In Iowa, there is no record of any Liberty vote in 1846; 
 bqt 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 2 Returns in Whig Almanac, 1847; district returns in Cincinnati Her aid, 
 Sept. 1 6, 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 I844. 1 
 
 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 i84i. 2 
 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. 3 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 9,244 New York . . . 12,027 
 
 New Hampshire . . 10,403 Pennsylvania . . 2,028 
 
 Vermont 6,671 Ohio . . . . . 10,797 
 
 Massachusetts . . . 10,134 Indiana .... 2,278 
 
 Rhode Island ... 155 Michigan . . . 2,885 
 
 Connecticut . . . 2,248 Illinois .... 5,147 
 
 2 According to some papers the vote was as follows : Democratic, 
 105,385; Whig* 103,822; Liberty, 4,379. See National Era, Nov. II, 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, 973.2 
 
 In 1847, then, the Liberty party in the Northwest and in 
 the country at large seemed to be slackening 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." 3 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. 4 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 ; 
 
 1 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 Philanthropist, Nov. 12, 1845. 
 
 4 Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutional^ 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 ; 1 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 2 inclined toward Spooner's 
 views ; but the Philanthropist, now under the name of 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. 4 
 
 In Indiana, a convention at South Bend, in 1845, had resolved 
 that slavery was unconstitutional, 5 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, had resolved that the Constitution was an 
 anti-slavery document; 6 but in 1847, when the subject was 
 brought up at the convention for southern Illinois, the tradi- 
 tional interpretation prevailed. 7 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 ; 8 but after that time its interest ceased 
 to rest upon theoretical questions, until in 1847, w ^ tn tne 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- 
 
 1 Herald and Philanthropist, March 5, Sept. 17, 1845. 
 
 2 March 31, 1847. 3 National Press and Herald, Sept. I, 1847. 
 4 National Era, Sept. 23, 1847. 
 
 6 Emancipator, May 14, 1845. 
 
 6 Ibid., April 2, 1845. 7 National Era, Oct. 28, 1847. 
 
 8 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." l 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." 2 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." 3 
 
 LA 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 
 
 1 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. IOI 
 
 party to broaden the platform. 1 In Ohio this project attracted 
 almost as little notice as did the dogma of the unconstitutionality 
 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. 2 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. 3 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"; 4 and in 
 1847, while it asserted the paramount importance of the slavery 
 question, it reiterated its purpose to oppose evil of all kinds. 5 
 
 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- 
 
 1 Emancipator, March 18, 1846. 
 
 2 Herald and Philanthropist, Jan. 7, 1846. 
 
 8 National Era, March 18, 1847; American Freeman, March 17, 1847. 
 
 4 Emancipator, July 30, 1845. 
 
 6 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 said : " 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." 1 Even Wisconsin Liberty men regretted the 
 action. The Milwaukee American Freeman 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." 2 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." 3 
 
 During part of this period another circumstance undoubtedly 
 tended to a certain extent to district 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 
 
 1 June 2, 1847. 
 
 2 American Freeman, July 14, 21, 1847. 
 Ibid., July 28, 1847. 
 
LIBERTY MEN AND GARRISONIANS. 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, 1847: "We regret, as evil in its tendencies, the 
 dogma of the so-called Garrisonian or non-resistance abolition- 
 ists." 1 At about the same time, tke/Xyisconsin^Territorial Con- 
 vention passed a^ resolution 1^ ^the effect that voting was a 
 Christian duty. 2 Irf'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. 3 
 
 By 1847 the Liberty party was showing signs of fatigue and 
 discontent. Itihad done good work,, it had stood to its guns, 
 firing the-rri' apparently into vacancy for seven years, and yet 
 popular sentiment failed to^upport 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." 4 
 
 As the election of 1848 drew near, all the diverse elements in 
 the Liberty party began to demand a nomination and a platform 
 which would be a ratification of their own peculiar position. 
 
 1 National Era, March 18, 1847. 
 
 2 American Freeman, Feb. 10, 1847. 
 
 8 \6th Annual Report of the Mass. Anti-Slav. Soc., 1848. 
 4 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. 
 
 1846-1848. 
 
 IN 1848 the Liberty men were confronted with a new set o 
 conditions, which gave them unexpected allies. 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 I836. 1 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." 2 In 1838 a committee of the Michigan House 
 of Representatives reported, on January 19, a joint resolution 
 
 1 Anti-Slavery Examiner, No. 8: Correspondence between F. H. Elmore 
 andj. G. Birney, 1838, p. 14, note. 
 a Philanthropist, Oct. 24, 1837. 
 
106 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY. 
 
 declaring that the annexation of Texas would " create discon- 
 tent which might endanger the stability 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 ; l a similar report in the Senate seems to have produced 
 no result. 2 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. 3 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 a}l proper exertions " for the annexation of Texas " at 
 the earliest practical period." 4 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. 5 
 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 Committee of the Senate on State Affairs in relation to the 
 Annexation of Texas, etc., 1838. 
 
 8 Philanthropist, Jan. 30, 1838 ; Laws of Ohio (1837-38), 407. 
 
 4 Laws of Michigan (1844-45), 154. 
 
 5 Laws of Ohio (1844-45), 437 J New York Tribune, Jan. 22, 1845. 
 
WHIGS OPPOSE NEW TERRITORY. IO/ 
 
 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 1 
 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- j 
 western conservatism found itself at once ranged on the other J 
 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." 1 "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." 2 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. 
 
108 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." l 
 
 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 American 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." 2 
 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." a 
 
 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." 4 The Cleveland True 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." 5 Still more significant was an incident 
 at a meeting in Ashtabula County : Giddings, hitherto an inde- 
 
 1 July i, 1846. 2 American Freeman, Sept. I, 1847. 
 
 8 Dec. 5, 1846. 
 
 4 National Era, Sept. 16, 1847; Cleveland True Democrat, Jan. 4, 1848. 
 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." 1 
 
 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." 2 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." 3 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 Ohio Press; " public opinion has long 
 since decided it. Such is the almost unanimous opinion of 
 the people of every Northern state." 4 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." 6 Democratic 
 conventions for Paulding, Richland, Jefferson, Columbiana, and 
 several other counties passed resolutions against the extension 
 
 1 Cleveland American, May 26, 1847 ; National Era, June 10, 1847. 
 
 2 Quoted in New York Tribune, June 29, 1846. 
 
 8 National Era, June 29, 1848. 4 Quoted ibid., Sept. 16, 1847. 
 
 6 Quoted ibid., Dec. 9, 1847. Similar sentiments were uttered by the 
 Springfield Democrat, Cincinnati Morning Signal, Ohio Patriot, and 
 Wayne County Democrat. Ibid., Sept. 16, 1847. 
 
1 10 WILMOT PROVISO CONTROVERSY. 
 
 of slavery. 1 In Michigan some Democratic papers spoke out 
 boldly. Said the Ann Arbor True 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." 2 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 Wentvvorth : " 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?" 3 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." 4 
 
 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." 5 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." 6 J. H. Cravens, a Whig, introduced similar resolutions 
 into the Indiana legislature ; but they failed to pass. 7 
 
 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. 3 Quoted ibid., Sept. 16, 1847. 
 4 Quoted ibid., June 10, 1847. 5 Laws of Ohio (1846-47), 214. 
 6 Laws of Michigan (1846-47), 194. 
 
 T National Era, Feb. 4, 1847. 
 
CHANGED POSITION OF LIBERTY LEADERS. 1 1 1 
 
 gan and Wisconsin interest was very slight. In Indiana only, 
 where there was an election of Congressmen in the summer of 
 1847, did the Wilmot Proviso enter largely into the result. The 
 effect on the Northwest will be shown later. 
 
 It was evident, then, by the summer of 1847, that 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." l 
 
 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 i843; 2 and in Wayne County, Indi- 
 ana, there was one case of Democratic and Liberty fusion in 
 1844 ; 3 Indiana furnished another case in 1845. J- H. Cravens, 
 
 1 May 12, 1847: R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 312. 
 
 2 Philanthropist, Nov. 8, 1843. 
 8 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. 1 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. 2 
 
 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. Plis relations 
 to the Liberty party up to 1844 have been already referred to 
 n-A^is 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. 3 He did not think, however, that 
 yV* 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. 
 
 . 
 v t 
 

 GIDDINGS AND THE LIBERTY PARTY. 113 
 
 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 ! " ! 
 
 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. 2 In 1844 
 the breach widened ; for the Liberty men found in Giddings j *>V 
 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 W r higs 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. 3 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 
 Pblk, 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." 4 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 Ibid., Oct. 12, 1843. 
 
 8 G. W. Julian, Life ofj. R. Giddings, 167. 
 4 Ohio American, April 24, 1845. 
 
 8 
 
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. 1 
 
 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." 2 
 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." 3 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. 
 8 Ibid., Jan. 20, 1847. 
 
OBSTACLES TO ANTI-SLAVERY FUSION. 
 
 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." 1 
 
 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;" 2 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 ; 3 
 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." l 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" ; 2 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. 3 
 
 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 /tad 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 
 
 1 National Era, July 8, 1847. 2 Ibid., July 29, 1847. 
 
 8 Ibid., July i, 29, 1847. 4 Ibid., Jan. 6, 1848. 
 
THE INDIANA ELECTION OF 1847. II? 
 
 298, the loss resulting in each case from the candidate's record 
 against the Wilmot Proviso. 1 
 
 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 Herald strenuously 
 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?" 2 
 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." 3 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." 4 The 
 Cleveland American agreed with these sentiments, as did also 
 the Liberty Advocate, the Indiana Free Labor Advocate^ and the 
 
 1 National Era, Aug. 19, 1847. 
 
 2 National Press and Herald, April 21, 1847. 
 
 8 Ibid., June 2, 1847. 4 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." 2 
 The Michigan State Liberty Convention in June, by a three- 
 fourths majority, passed a resolution in favor of postponement. 3 
 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?" 4 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." 5 
 
 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 
 
 1 National Era, June 24, July 8, 1847. 
 
 2 Quoted ibid., May 20, 1847. 8 Ibid., July 8, 1847. 
 4 American Freeman, June 2, 1847. 5 Ibid., July 28, 1847. 
 
THE LAST NATIONAL LIBERTY CONVENTION. 119 
 
 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 l 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 slavery, 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. 
 
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. 1 
 
 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." 2 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." 3 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. 
 
 1 Proceedings of the Convention, in National Era, Nov. n, 1847. 
 
 2 Nov. 10, 1847. 3 American Freeman, Feb. 2, 1848. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 COMBINATION OF THIRD-PARTY MEN ON THE FREE 
 SOIL ISSUE. 
 
 1848. 
 
 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 public 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; 1 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 True 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." 1 
 
 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 
 Pontiac Jacksonian. " Michigan is fully committed to the Wil- 
 mot Proviso. Our last legislature, almost wholly Democratic, 
 passed a resolution in favor." 2 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. 3 
 
 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 
 
 1 Chicago Journal, May I, 1848. 
 
 2 Quoted in Detroit Advertiser^ Jan. 19, 1848. 
 Ibid., Feb. 9, 1848. 
 
DEMOCRATIC DISLIKE OF CASS. 12$ 
 
 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 Folk'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 Soitthport 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 ; 2 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 Milwaukee 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." 1 
 
 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." 2 The Southport 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." 3 
 Shortly after this a call appeared for a meeting of the " Demo- 
 crats of Racine and vicinity opposed to the election of Lewis 
 Cass " ; 4 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 
 
 1 National Era, April 6, 1848. 
 
 2 Quoted in Milwaukee Sentinel, June I, 1848. 
 
 8 Quoted ibid., June 5, 1848. 4 Ibid., June 15, 1848. 
 
REVOLT OF THE BARNBURNERS. 12$ 
 
 place Cass's name at the head of its columns. 1 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 
 AVilmot Proviso." 2 
 
 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. W. 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." 3 
 
 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 Soutkport Telegraph 
 
 1 Chicago Journal, June 3, 1848. 
 
 2 National Era, June 22, 1848. 
 
 8 The Great Issue, New York, 1848, 107, seq., describes the Utica 
 Convention. 
 
126 THIRD-PARTY 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." 1 
 
 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." 2 A call very soon appeared, signed by 
 several hundred of the most influential Democrats, for a meet- 
 ing 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." 3 
 
 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. 4 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. 1 27 
 
 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." l The Milwaukee Sentinel claimed : " 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 " ; 2 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." 3 
 
 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 1 787."* The True Democrat 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? " 6 
 
 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." 6 Evidently times 
 
 1 Chicago Journal, Apfril 3, 1848. 2 April 28, 1848. 
 
 8 May 2, 1848. 4 True Democrat, Jan. 4, 1848. 
 
 6 Ibid., Jan. 10, 1848. 8 Ibid., April n, 1848. 
 
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." 1 
 
 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." >2 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 jpolted without 
 hesitation. 3 Outside of Ohio, open bolting was not common; 
 although the Lafayette Journal of 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." 4 
 
 1 Cincinnati Gazette, May 1, 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. 
 
 4 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 ; l 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." 2 This call was written 
 by Chase, whose position in this matter will be explained 
 below. 
 
 After Taylor was nominated at Philadelphia, a meeting of f , 
 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 
 Ohio Free Territory Convention to issue it. 3 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 ; National Press and Herald, Oct. 6, 1847. 
 
 2 National Era, May 25, 1848; R. B. Warden, Life oj Chase, 316. 
 8 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. 1 
 
 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 en masse from the old party organizations." 2 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. 3 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, 1848; True Democrat, June 27, 1848; 
 J. W. Schuckers, Life of 'Chase, 84. 
 
 2 July 20, 1848. 
 
 8 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." 1 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. 2 
 
 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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 Ibid., Aug. 10, 1848, 
 
 8 Chicago Journal, July 17-31, 1848. 
 
 4 American Freeman, Aug. 9, 1848; Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug. I, 1848. 
 
 5 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 I^Jale 
 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." 1 
 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 Buffum, 
 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. 
 
 1 National Era, July 6, 1848. 
 
VACILLATIONS OF LIBERTY MEN. 133 
 
 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, 2 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." 3 This convention adopted resolutions 
 approving the Buffalo Convention, but declaring that the party 
 would support no man who would not adopt Liberty principles. 
 
 1 Cincinnati Herald, July 19, 1848. 
 
 2 R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 316. 
 8 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. 1 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." 2 
 
 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. 3 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. 4 These suggestions came 
 to nothing; but, as will be seen, there was something in them 
 
 1 National Era, July 6, 1848. 
 
 2 True Democrat, May 31, 1848. 
 8 National Era, Feb. 24, 1848. 
 
 4 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. 1 
 
 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 Journal, Aug. 4, 1848. The Liberty vote in this Congres- 
 sional election was as follows : 
 
 Democratic. Whig. Liberty. 
 
 Fourth District . . 11,857 8,312 3,130 
 
 Sixth District . . . 9,302 10,325 666 
 
 Seventh District . . 7,201 7>95 166 
 
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 Wilmot Proviso, it was unani- 
 mously rejected. 1 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, 
 
 IJ34- 
 
 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 ! " 2 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." 3 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 American Freeman, April 26, 1848. 
 
 2 Ibid., June 7, 1848. 8 Ibid., July 26, 1848. 
 
LIBERTY PARTY IN STATE ELECTIONS. 137 
 
 In Iowa the State Liberty party was organized in December, 
 1847, an d in 1848, at Fort Madison, A. St. Clair began the pub- 
 lication 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. 1 Before the organization 
 could do much, however, it was swallowed up by the Free 
 Soil revolt. 2 
 
 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. 
 
 1 Iowa Free Democrat, Jan. 15, 1850. 
 
 2 National Era, April 12, 1849. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 CAMPAIGN OF THE FREE SOIL PARTY. 
 1848. , 
 
 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 
 I 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^ould 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, wno 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. 139 
 
 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 H ale'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 
 
140 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN. 
 
 drawn up by Chase, containing planks enough to equip any 
 party. The following is a condensed summary: l 
 
 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 sTavery 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'f 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. 1 
 
 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, Brinckerhoff 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. 143 
 
 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. 1 
 
 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 
 Report, etc., published in pamphlet form in 1848, and Great Senators, 93 
 seq.; also National Era, Aug. 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. 
 
 Corrunittee, 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." l 
 
 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. 2 
 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 two 
 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 
 
 10 
 
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." 1 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." 2 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 Milwatikee 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 
 unconstitutionally 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 Journal, 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." 1 
 
 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." 2 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 in 
 this campaign. Throughout the Northwest, Old Line Demo- 
 crats that is, either men of Southern birth or those on whom 
 
 1 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 Democrats 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 1 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!" 2 "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 effrontery 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." 4 
 
 1 Oct. 24, 1848. 2 Wisconsin Freeman, Aug. 30, 1848. 
 
 8 Quoted ibid., Sept. 20, 1848. 
 4 Chicago Journal, Oct. 27, 1848. 
 
ATTITUDE OF THE OLD PARTIES. 149 
 
 With the Whigs matters took a somewhat different course. 
 At first they were inclined 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." 1 
 " 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." 2 When the Buffalo Convention met, 
 however, and the action of Massachusetts and Ohio Whigs, 
 together with the spectacle of a son of John Quincy 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 
 onwarcl 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." 3 % " 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." 4 
 
 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. 4 Aug. 4, 1848. 
 
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." J 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?" 2 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." 3 
 
 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." 4 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. 18, 1848. 
 
 8 Detroit Advertiser, Oct. 10, i! 
 4 Chicago Journal, June 3, 1848. 
 
LOCAL FREE SOIL LEADERS. IS I 
 
 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 J 
 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." l Upon his head fell the curses 
 of all those Whigs who clung to the old party. When, in 
 January, 1848, he refused tp vote for Robert C. Winthrop for 
 Speaker, and justified his course in a public letter, the Chicago 
 Journal said : " It will take more than one such letter to con- 
 vince the Whigs of his district and the country that he acted a 
 1 A. C. McLaughlin, Lewis Cass, 253. 
 
152 FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN. 
 
 manly or patriotic part ; " 1 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." 2 From this time 
 the dislike of regular Whigs for Giddings increased daily, until, 
 when he renounced the Whig party, the Indiana State Jour- 
 nal called his action " the most cheering news we have heard 
 lately," 3 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." 4 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. 5 
 
 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; 6 
 
 1 Jan. 15, 1848. 2 Quoted in True Democrat, Jan. 8, 1848. 
 
 8 July 12, 1848. 4 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. 
 6 True Democrat, Oct. 9, 1848. 
 
OHIO STATE ELECTION. 153 
 
 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. 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 Btiren. 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 Tribunes." 
 
 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 True Democrat, December, 1848. 2 Oct. 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 newspapers in the Northwest that 
 supported Van Buren. 1 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. 2 Distasteful as was his attitude on slavery 
 and on internal improvements to many people, particularly to 
 
 1 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 .... 
 
 154,775 
 
 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. 155 
 
 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 True 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." l 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 efforts 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, '/ 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 5I73I 
 
 1848 . . . 12,876 I4,5H 15370 43. 2 57 
 
 -7,584 -13,506 +12,616 -8,474 
 
FREE SOIL CAMPAIGN. 
 
 territory with hardly any pecuniary resources and a very imper- 
 fect organization and little or no mutual concert or co-operation 
 among our committees or speakers, all our efforts did not avail 
 much." 1 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. 
 
 In 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. 2 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 5H7 
 
 1848 56,300 53,047 15,774 
 
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. 1 
 
 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 affect 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. 
 
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 coalition. 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." 1 
 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 
 [i. e., Wilmot Proviso] candidates who have done most in the 
 cause during the campaign be united upon and supported." 2 
 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, 1848. 
 
 2 Ibid., Nov. i, 1848. 
 
FREE SOIL COALITIONS IN MICHIGAN. 159 
 
 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. 1 
 
 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/sj 
 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 True Democrat ', Sept. 21, Oct. 12, 1848. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 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." l The Western 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 SOILERS DETERMINE TO PERSEVERE. l6l 
 
 ficiency would not have been more than made up by adherents 
 from the Whig ranks." l 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." 2 " Rapid as has been 
 our progress," cried the Ravenna Star, " from this hour we date 
 the commencement of a more rapid progress. Fight on ! " 2 The 
 Sandusky Daily 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." 3 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 office." 4 " 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." 4 
 
 1 Quoted in the Milwaukee Wisconsin, Nov. 17, 1848. 
 3 Quoted in National Era, Nov. 23, 1848. 
 8 Quoted ibid.> Nov. 30, 1848. J Quoted ibid. 
 
 ii 
 
162 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. 
 
 ._Xhe-pplicy 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 J 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. 163 
 
 sentatives, thirty Whigs, and eight Free Soilers ; besides some 
 contested seats. 1 A serious difficulty, 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. When 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.; Ohio Standard, Dec. 7, i848-Feb. 28, 1849. 
 
1 64 OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST. 
 
 vote on his own case. To this proposition the Democrats 
 agreed ; but the Whigs were unwilling by any such arrange- 
 ment to admit even temporarily the Democratic Representatives 
 from Hamilton 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." 1 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 
 
 1 N. S. Townshend, in Magazine of Western History, VI., 626. 
 
TWO SEPARATE FREE SOIL INTRIGUES. 165 
 
 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. 1 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. 2 
 
 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. 3 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." 4 
 
 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 
 
 1 R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 329. See entries in Chase's diary, Jan. 
 I and 2, 1849. 
 
 2 True Democrat, April 4, 1849. 
 
 8 R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 330 ; Chase's diary, Jan. 2, 1849. 
 4 True Democrat, Jan. 6, 1848. 
 
1 66 OHIO SENATORIAL CONTEST. 
 
 Soil and Whig candidate, by a vote of 36 to 34. Stanley 
 Mathews, like Townshend 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." x 
 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." 2 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. 3 
 
 1 True Democrat, Jan. 10, 1849. 
 
 2 Ibid., Jan. 19, 1849; Ohio Standard, Jan. 23, 1849. 
 8 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." 1 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 Townshend 
 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." l " It is true," said the Ohio Standard, 
 edited by E. S. Hatnlin, " 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." 2 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, 
 24-1 1 ; 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. 3 
 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 Cincinnati Globe, Jan. 24, 1849. 2 Feb. 2, 1849. 
 
 2 A. G. Riddle, in Republic, IV., 183 (1875). 
 
REPEAL OF THE BLACK LAWS. 169 
 
 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. 1 
 
 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- 
 tional 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 arid 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." 2 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." 3 
 
 By January, 1849, 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." 4 
 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 
 
 1 Cincinnati Globe, Feb. 7, 1849. * Ibid. 
 
 8 Jan. 24, 1849. 
 
 4 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Jan. 20, 1849. Chase MSS. 
 
1 70 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 being 
 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." 1 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," 3 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 
 
 1 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Jan. 28, 1849. 
 
 2 G. W. Julian, Life ofj. R. Giddings, 267. 
 * 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." l 
 
 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. 2 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, 
 Evving 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 for judges, 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. 3 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, 1849. 
 
 8 The four ballots ran as follows : 
 
 I. II. III. IV. 
 
 Chase 14 S 2 55 55 
 
 Ewing 41 41 39 39 
 
 Giddings 9 8 9 n 
 
 Vaughn 2 I 
 
 Allen 27 i 
 
 Scattering 4 
 
 Blank n 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 Citizen, although it admitted that 
 Chase's " conservatism " had caused " many of his friends 
 to suspect his unwavering constancy to the anti-slavery move- 
 ment." 1 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." 2 " 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." 3 The Ashtabula 
 Sentinel called 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 Tovvnshend 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. 4 
 
 1 Feb. 27, 1849. 2 Feb. 24, 1849. 8 FeD - 28, 1849. 
 
 4 " Of all wretches known in the records of infamy none can compare 
 
WRATH OF WESTERN RESERVE. 1/3 
 
 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. Hamlin 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." l 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." 2 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 
 effect 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." 3 
 
 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 True Democrat, Feb. I, 1849. 
 
 1 Ibid., March i, 1849. 2 Feb. 28, 1849. 
 
 8 A. G. Riddle, in Republic, IV., 183 (1875). 
 
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. 1 
 
 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 Cincinnati 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. 1 75 
 
 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." l 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." 1 " 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." 2 
 
 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- 
 
 1 G. W. Julian, Life off. R. Giddings, 267. 
 
 2 Giddings to Sumner, Oct. 19, 1849: Sumner MSS. 
 
HARMONY RESTORED IN OHIO. 1 77 
 
 gones. 1 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 
 Hamilton 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 Human Freedom." 2 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 allayed, and 
 mutual confidence was restored." 3 
 
 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 
 
 1 Cincinnati Globe, March 28, 1849. 
 
 2 National Era, May 17, 1849. 8 Quoted ibid. 
 
 12 
 
178 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES. 
 
 Morse had caused ex-Whig Free Sellers 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. 1 
 
 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. 179 
 
 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 ! " 2 Similar expres- 
 sions, hardly less violent, may be found in the Mahoning Index, 
 Norwalk Experiment, 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 
 1 See Cincinnati Globe, Jan. 3, 1849. 2 Nov. 17, 1848. 
 
180 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES. 
 
 the Whigs made an effort to gain Free Soil votes by nominating 
 McClure, 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." 1 
 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. 2 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." 3 The National 
 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." 4 The Globe went farther: "G^side 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. 
 
 8 Chase to L. W. Hall and to A. Dimmock, Aug. 6, 1849 : R - B - Warden, 
 Life of Chase, 332. 
 
 4 National Era, Sept. 20, 1849. 
 
FREE SOIL LOSSES IN 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, hostility to special 
 privileges, progress, et 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. "y 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," 2 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. 3 
 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. // was 
 that subject alone that diminished our vote? 4 The stormy year 
 
 1 Cincinnati Globe, May 16, 1849. 
 
 2 April 12, Sept. 20, 1849. 
 
 8 The Free Soil vote in eleven counties in 1848 was 14,457 1 in 1849, 
 12,811. 
 
 4 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 which 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. 183 
 
 the state of affairs 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." l 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." 2 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 
 
 1 National Era, May 30, 1850. 
 
 2 Western Reserve Chronicle, Aug. 28, 1850; Author's correspondence 
 with G. Hoadly, May 10, 1894. 
 
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. 1 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. 2 Here and there became 
 visible a similar tendency to withdraw from Democratic coali- 
 tion, the Fairfield Count}' Convention resolving that " we can- 
 not as consistent Free Soil men longer act with said party." 3 
 Although there were separate Free Soil Congressional tickets 
 in seven districts, the campaign was dull. Except on the 
 Reserve, scarcely any effort 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." 4 The Democrats, on their part, on January 8, 
 
 i True Democrat, Sept. 4, 1850. 2 Ibid., Sept. 28, 1850. 
 
 3 Ibid., Sept. 6, 1850. 4 Feb. 21, 1850. 
 
OLD PARTIES STAND FOR FREE SOIL. 185 
 
 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." 1 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." 2 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? " 3 " 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." 4 
 
 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, I3,8O2. 5 
 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. 4 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 1848, 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. 187 
 
 the effect of the coalitions 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 
 184047. 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 " ; l and local Whig conventions echoed these 
 sentiments. At about the same time the Democratic State 
 Convention resolved that, since "New Mexico and California 
 are in fact and in law free Territories, it is the duty of Congress 
 to prevent the introduction of slavery within their limits." 2 It 
 seemed as if an anti-slavery millennium were at hand. 3 
 
 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." 4 " 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." 5 
 
 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 Free Territory Sentinel, Feb. 17, 1849; Indiana State Journal, Aug. 24, 
 1853. See App. C. 
 
 2 National Era, Jan. 25, 1849. 
 
 8 Ibid., Dec. 21-28, 1848; Indiana State Journal, July 29, 1854. 
 
 4 Quoted in Free Territory Sentinel, Dec. 6, 1848. 
 
 5 Ibid., Nov. 1 8, 1848. 
 
INDIANA PARTIES ALL FOR FREE SOIL. 189 
 
 selected for the State ticket on the Buffalo platform. 1 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. 2 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." 3 
 "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?" 4 
 
 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." 6 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 Sentinel, Jan. 24, 1849; National Era, Feb. 8, 1849. 
 
 2 Ibid., June 13, 1849; National Era, July 12, 1849. 
 8 Quoted in National Era, Aug. 23, 1 849. 
 
 4 Quoted ibid., July 5, 1849. 5 /&# Sept. 20, 1849. 
 
190 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." 1 
 
 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." 2 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 
 
 1 Cincinnati Globe, July 25, 1849. 
 
 2 Free Territory Sentinel, Nov. 29, 1848. 
 
JULIANAS CAMPAIGN, 1849. IQI 
 
 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." l 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. 2 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." 3 
 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,oi8. 4 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 Sentinel, Aug. I, 1849. 
 Ibid. 
 
 4 Official figures in Indianapolis Sentinel, September, 1849. 
 
192 COLLAPSE IN THE RIVER STATES. 
 
 doubt, it was composed of Free Sellers. 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. 1 
 
 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 Trite Democrat / 8 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" ; 4 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. 5 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 
 
 1 National Era, Sept. 20, 1849. 
 
 2 Free Territory Sentinel, Nov. 7, Dec. 5, 1849. 
 
 8 Known until 1850 as the Free Territory Sentinel. 
 4 Indiana True Democrat, May 22, 1 850. 
 6 Ibid., June 12, 1850. 
 
INDIANA FREE SOIL PARTY VANISHES. 193 
 
 those already in nomination by the old parties. 1 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. 
 
 2 Indiana True Democrat, June 19, 1850. 
 
 '3 
 
194 COLLAPSE OF THE RIVER STATES. 
 
 instrument gave the Governor a four years 1 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." x 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. 2 In 
 the election of a Senator the Whigs were powerless, and there 
 i Jan. 13, 1849. 2 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 r-, 
 
 impressive of all to Illinois__e^r.DmQrats. _th&,J^ 
 
 -~ 
 
 Barnburners had _ rejoinejdjthe^jg r>f 
 
 1848 had died away, and the " Union-s^ingr'^^c^^ojF^i^oJiad j?' 17 " 1 *^ 
 
 begun to be strong. Nevertheless, in spite of inaction among fT-V ^ 
 
 Illinois Barnburners during 1849, and of their apathy in II 
 
 1850, local Free Soil conventions continued, as if independent 
 
 action were the course to be followed ; and, as usual, interest /g ^ c 
 
 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," 1 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 
 1 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. 1 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." 2 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. 3 
 
 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." 4 
 Finally the Fourth Congressional District Convention nominated 
 C. Coffing, 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 
 
 1 National Era, Oct. 24, 1850. 
 
 2 Chicago Journal, Oct. 7, 1850. 
 
 3 Ibid., Oct. 17-25, 1850. 
 
 4 Chicago Journal, Oct. 17, 1850; Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug. 22, 1850. 
 
DECAY OF ILLINOIS FREE SOIL PARTY. 197 
 
 of the State, that one can believe what was asserted at the x > 
 time, that most of the Free Soilers voted the Whig ticket. 1 
 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. 
 
 1 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 '> * n anv case, it was about equal 
 to the liberty vote of 1843, which was 1,174. See figures in Whig Almanac^ 
 1851, and in Chicago Journal, 1850. 
 
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 discomfitu.re 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!" 1 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 
 1 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. 1 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 the 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. 2 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?" 1 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. 2 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 ^as equally evident that with- 
 out Cass's personal exertions the Democratic party of Michigan 
 would never have indorsed him. The opposition maintained a 
 A Detroit Advertiser, June 4, 1849. 2 /&</., June 22, 1849. 
 
CASS SUPPRESSES FREE SOIL DEMOCRATS. 2OI 
 
 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 Governor 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. 1 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 Littlejohn. 
 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 said : " 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." 3 
 
 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." l 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 and 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 policy pursued was the wisest and best." 1 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. a 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 undoubtedly 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." 1 
 
 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"; 2 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." 3 The Peninsular 
 Freeman, 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." 4 
 
 The next year carried on the struggle between Cass and his 
 opponents to a further stage, and again the Free Soilers, in 
 
 1 Detroit Advertiser, Nov. 9, 1849. 
 
 2 Detroit Free Press, Nov. 13, 1849. 8 Nov. 13, 1849. 
 
 4 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. 2O$ 
 
 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. 1 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 Lientenant-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." 2 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, 1 8 ; 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, Lewis 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 Uass 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." x 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. 2 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. 
 
 1 Quoted in Detroit Advertiser, Aug. 31, 1850. 
 
 2 Ibid., Oct. 23, 1850. 
 
FREE SOIL DECA Y IN MICHIGAN. 2O/ 
 
 . . . Decency requires the election of Mr. Penniman and the 
 defeat of Mr. Buel." l 
 
 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. 2 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, 26,331 ; 
 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. P. Walker, chosen in the preceding June as a strong Wilmot 
 Proviso man. Had any coalition been attempted between 
 W T higs 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 n, 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." 1 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." 2 
 
 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 calling a State Convention to be held at Madi- 
 son September 5th. 
 
 " Resolved ti\a\. 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." 2 This 
 proposal was a dash of cold water which left the bewildered 
 Free Soilers gasping. The dream of power in which most of 
 
 1 Milwaukee Wisconsin, April 11, 1849. 
 
 2 Ibid., July 5, 1849. 
 
DEMOCRATS OUTWIT FREE S 'OILERS. 21 1 
 
 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." 1 
 
 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. 1 The remaining 
 handful of Free Soilers nominated a ticket largely of Barn- 
 burners, headed by N. Devvey, 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. 2 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 manoeuvring 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." 3 On September 
 1 1 the Whig State Convention nominated a set of regular party 
 
 1 Kenosha Telegraph, Sept. 21, 1849. 
 
 2 Milwaukee Wisconsin, Oct. 20, 1849. 
 
 8 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." 1 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 n. 
 
 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." 3 In the 
 next year (1850) the party made no sign of life except through 
 three newspapers which still remained faithful, and through the 
 
 1 Milwaukee Sentinel, Sept. 17, 1849. 
 
 2 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," l 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 
 1 Kenosha Telegraph, Jan. 18, 1850; National Era, Jan. 31, 1850. 
 
WISCONSIN WHIGS SUPPORT DURKEE. 21$ 
 
 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." 1 
 
 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." 2 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. 3 
 
 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 Ibid., Oct. 28, 1850. 
 
 8 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 Almanac, 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, 1 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." 2 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," 3 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 
 
 1 National Era, July 26, 1849. 2 Iowa Free Democrat, July 31, 1849. 
 8 National Era, Aug. 16, 1849. 
 
UNION OF IOWA WHIGS AND FREE SOILERS. 2 1/ 
 
 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, 1 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 Whig and Reporter 
 held up to scorn the " ribald abuse and vulgar blackguardism " 
 of the Democrats. 2 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. 3 
 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 National 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. 3 Probably 
 both causes operated. In the part of the ticket where there was 
 no coalition 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. W. 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 M us catine 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." 2 The Democrats looked on with 
 jeering indifference, the Iowa State Gazette 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." 3 
 
 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, 4 and by 
 August there were two Congressional tickets in the field. The 
 manner in which these nominations were received led the True 
 
 1 Letter in Indiana True Democrat, March 13, 1850. 
 
 2 Quoted in Iowa Free Democrat, Jan. 15, 1850. 
 8 Quoted Ibid., Jan. 22, 1850. 
 
 4 Iowa True Democrat, May 28, 1850, same paper as the Free Democrat. 
 
DECAY OF IOWA FREE SOIL PARTY. 2 19 
 
 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." 1 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. 2 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. 8 
 
 The Iowa Free Soil party, it is evident, lost the greater part 
 of the Barnburner, or Democratic, elements in 1849, J ust 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. 
 
 1 Iowa True Democrat, June 25, 1850. 
 
 2 The figures are: 
 
 Democratic. Whig. Free Soil. 
 
 For Governor 13,192 11,082 574 
 
 For Congress 13,182 n>7io 479 
 
 See Whig Almanac, 1851. 
 
 8 National Era^ Jan. 23, 1851. 
 
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 political 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 affect the popular mind, 
 in their opinion, was to get some public representative. If such 
 
THE YEARS 18^9-50 A CK1SIS. 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 1850. 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. 1 
 
 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." l " 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." z 
 
 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. * Nov - l6 , 1848. 
 

 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 j 
 the Free Soil party. In the Northwest this was certainly not I ^ 
 the case ; for although, when it did come, it put an end to the J 
 widespread Wilmot Proviso feeling, the Compromise was not 
 
 M 
 
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. 22$ 
 
 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 compelling concessions. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE FREE DEMOCRACY STANDS AGAINST FINALITY. 
 
 1850-1851. 
 
 IN the opening months of 1851 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 proch*G4i~a-serr"tyr"explosion in I ' 
 the Northwest. In Ohio, the Western Reserve rose as one man 
 to condemn the obnoxious bill. Free Soil, Whig, and Demo-v-vl ^^J 
 cratic papers lamented its passage, and public meetings with- 
 out respect to party uttered fiery denunciations coupled with 
 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." 1 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." 2 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." 3 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." 4 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, 
 
 1 True Democrat, Oct. 14, 1850. 
 
 2 National Era, Dec. 5, 1850. 
 
 8 Ibid., Nov. 14, 1850. 4 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." 1 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. 3 
 
 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. 4 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. 5 In Wisconsin similar reso- 
 lutions passed the Senate by a close vote, but were tabled in 
 the House. 6 By the spring of 1851 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- 
 
 / 1 peal formed the immediate aim of their agitation, now that 
 
 1 Indiana True Democrat, Nov. 15, 1850. 
 
 2 National Era, Nov. 14, 1850. 
 
 8 Iowa True Democrat, Feb. 5, 1851. 
 
 4 A. T. Andreas, History of Chicago, I., 608. 
 
 5 National Era, April 3, 1851. 
 
 6 Kenosha Telegraph, Feb. 14, 1851. 
 
ANTI-SLA VER Y REORGANIZA TION. 22Q 
 
 the Wilmot Proviso had been compromised away. 1 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 ; 2 following this 
 model a Northwestern Christian Convention was held at Chicago, 
 in July, 1851, 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. 3 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." 4 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 
 
 1 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, 1851. 
 
 4 Indiana True Democrat, April 10, 1851. 
 
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 True 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 prescriptive." "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." 2 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." 3 
 
 /J 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 had claimed that the Democratic party in its opposition to 
 
 1 National Era, June 26, 1851 ; Indiana True Democrat, June 12, 1851. 
 
 2 Ibid., Feb. 6, 1851, March 20, 1851. 8 Ibid., July 3, 1851. 
 
OLD PARTIES ADOPT COMPROMISE. 231 
 
 slavery "occupied a position of moral strength otherwise un- 
 rivalled," 1 now came under the control of W. 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." 2 In 
 Illinois the Democratic party in the legislature, through the 
 influence of Douglas, passed resolutions indorsing the Com- 
 promise measures and rescinding the Wilmot 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. 3 
 
 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." 4 
 
 The Iowa Democracy had been throughout so pro-slavery 
 
 1 National Era, July 12, 1849. 
 
 2 Indiana True Democrat, March 20, April 3, 1851. 
 
 8 H. K. Clarke, Detroit Post and Tribune, July 6, 1879. 
 
 4 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 1851 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." 1 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'' 3 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." 4 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 of Iowa (1850-51), 172-73. 
 
 2 Quoted in Indiana True Democrat, March 27, 1851. 
 8 Detroit Advertiser, Feb. 3, 1851. 
 
 4 National Era, Aug. 7, 1851. 
 
INDIANA DEMOCRATS DESERT JULIAN. 233 
 
 nevertheless was now as always opposed to the extension of 
 slavery over territory now free." 1 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." 2 
 
 In 1851 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. 3 /<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 Indianapolis 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. 4 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 Milwaukee Sentinel, Sept. 25, 1851. 
 8 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. 1 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 1851 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 ; 2 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 1 6-1 8, and Indiana True Democrat, Mar. i3~Aug. 7, 1851, and especially 
 Aug. 28. 
 
 2 Kenosha Telegraph, Sept. 26, 1851. 
 
FREE DEMOCRATS AID WISCONSIN WHIGS. 235 
 
 convention. 1 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." 2 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. 3 
 
 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. 
 8 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 
 Griswold ; 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." 1 
 
 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." 2 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. 3 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. 
 
 ' 2 Ibid., Jan. 17, 1851. 
 
 8 Trite Democrat, Jan. 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." 1 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." 2 
 
 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. 3 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 ; 4 but as that fact did not appear on the surface, 
 
 1 March 18, 1851. 
 
 2 March 17, 1851 : Sumner MSS. See also G. W. Julian, Life of J. R. 
 Giddings, 287. 
 
 8 National Era, July 10-31, 1851. 
 
 4 True Democrat, Aug. 8, 1851 ; National Era, Aug. 14-21, 1851. 
 
238 FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY. 
 
 the Democrats of Ohio went into the State election of 1851 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 you." Everybody rose 
 and cheered, and amid the thunders of applause, Lewis, much 
 moved, bowed his speechless acquiescence. 1 The convention 
 adjourned with high hopes. 
 
 1 True Democrat, Aug. 23-25, 1851 ; 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, 1851, 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." l 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 1851 to Donaldson, of the Democratic National 
 Committee, in which he said that he " greatly desired the union 
 and harmony of the Democracy." 2 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 
 
 1 National Era, Sept. n, 1851. 
 
 2 Aug. 2, 1851 : R. B. Warden, Life of 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." 1 
 
 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 " ; 2 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 Painesville Telegraph, and in fact nearly every 
 Free Democratic paper, except the Washington National Era. 
 " Mr. Chase," said the True 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." 3 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." 4 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." 5 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." 6 On the other side, Dr. 
 
 1 W. G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samuel Lewis, 388. 
 
 2 True Democrat, Sept. n, 1851. 8 Ibid., Sept. 27, 1851. 
 * Ibid., Nov. 25, 1851. 6 Ibid., Sept. 8, 1851. 
 
 6 National Era, Sept. 18, 1851. 
 

 CHASE JOINS DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 241 
 
 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 Democracy, 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." ! 
 
 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, i6,9ii. 2 
 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 True 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." 3 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 for judge; but upon the mass of original Liberty men 
 
 1 National Era, Sept. n, 1851. See also Oct. 2, 30, 1851. 
 
 2 Vote in Whig Almanac, 1852. 
 
 8 True Democrat, Nov. 25, 1851. 4 Ibid., Aug. 8, 1851. 
 
 16 
 
242 . FREE DEMOCRACY AND FINALITY. 
 
 Mr. Chase's course had little influence. Dr. Bailey, in the 
 National Era, 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 I842. 1 
 
 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." 2 
 
 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 National Era, Feb. 20, 1851. See also letters from Michigan, Ibid., 
 Aug. 7, 1851. 
 
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. 1 
 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." 2 
 
 The year 1851 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. 3 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, die'd in this year. In Illinois, of some eight or ten in 
 1848, the Western Citizen alone remained; but Wisconsin kept 
 
 1 On the Cleveland Convention, see Ibid., Sept. 11, Oct. 2-9, 1851 ; G. W. 
 Julian, Political Recollections, 119; Magazine of Western History, IX., 273. 
 
 2 National Era, Oct. 2, 1851. 
 
 8 The Cleveland True Democrat, Painesville Telegraph, Western Reserve 
 Chronicle, Ashtabula Sentinel, Chardon Free Democrat, Mount Vcrnon 
 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 
 1851 was felt by the participants to be something different from 
 the movement begun at Buffalo 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 Buffalo 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 1851 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 Liberty 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 1852. 
 
 and abolitionist language, although led largely by Julian, A. L. 
 Robinson, and other ex-Whigs ; and it chose a majority of its 
 Presidential electors from Liberty men. 1 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." 2 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." 3 
 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 n, 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 
 
 1 Indiana True 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." l 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 ; 2 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. 3 
 
 On August u, 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. 4 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." 5 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- 
 
 1 W. G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samuel Lewis, 395, 397. 
 
 2 National Era, July 8, 1852. 
 
 8 True Democrat, July 28, Aug. 4, 1852. 
 
 4 National Era, Aug. 19-26, 1852; G. W. Julian, Political Recollections, 
 122. 
 
 6 H. M. Addison, in Magazine of Western History, IX., 273. 
 
248 CAMPAIGN OF 1852. 
 
 dings. 1 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. 2 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, 
 
 1 The platform was drafted by Chase : R. B. Warden, Life of Chase, 338. 
 
 2 G. W. Julian, Political Recollections, 124; W. G. W. Lewis, Biography 
 of Sam uel Lewis, 40 1 . 
 
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. 1 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. 2 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 " ; 3 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." 4 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. 1 
 
 The statement has also been made that Chase had desired 
 the convention to ratify the nomination of Scott, and had sent 
 his follower Townshend 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." 2 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 ^an 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 influence of the " finality " narcotic, ratified 
 
 1 True Democrat, Aug. 28, Sept. i, 1852. 
 
 2 G. W. Julian, Political Recollections, 122. 
 
WESTERN RESERVE DISTRUSTS CHASE. 251 
 
 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, Brinckerhoff, Lewis, Spaul- 
 ding, Brisbane, Bissell, and O. P. Brown were all at work. On the 
 Reserve, to symbolize 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." 1 
 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." 2 
 
 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. 2 Ibid.> Aug. 4, 1852. 
 
252 CAMPAIGN OF 1852. 
 
 be met and put down." l 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." 2 
 
 The bitter editorials of the True Democrat led Giddings, on 
 August 1 8, 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." l 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 1851, 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." 2 
 
 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. 3 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 1 8. 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. 4 
 
 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. 
 Ibid. 
 
 8 Ibid., Sept. 22, 1852; National Era, Sept. 30, 1852. 
 4 See Giddings's address to his former constituents, in the National Era, 
 April 7, 1853. 
 
254 CAMPAIGN OF 1852. 
 
 against of any of the Free States." l 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." 2 
 
 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." 3 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? " 
 
 1 National Era, Jan. 6, 1853. 
 
 2 Indiana True Democrat, Sept. 2, 1852. 
 8 National Era, Oct. 7, 1852. 
 
ORGANIZATION IN THE NORTHWEST. 255 
 
 cried the True 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 Free Soil ticket because they are not at hand on the 
 day of election. Let the electors see to this." l 
 
 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. 2 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, " little 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." 3 
 
 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. 
 8 National Era, Oct. 21, 1852. 
 
 
 
 
 
 TiTCr 
 
 
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 Sutliff, 22,167. ^ n 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." J 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. 2 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, 
 
 1 Indiana True Democrat, Oct. 28, 1852. 
 
 2 Cleveland True Democrat, Sept. 29, 1852. 
 
VOTE OF THE FREE DEMOCRACY. 
 
 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. 1 
 
 In November Pierce received a great majority of the elec- 
 tors, and he carried every Northwestern State. 2 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 150,0x30 votes for Freedom is evidence of power." 3 
 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, 
 
 1 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 33^53 7,237 
 
 Illinois .... 80,597 64,934 9,966 
 
 Wisconsin . . . 31,658 22,240 8,814 
 
 Iowa 17,762 I 5>855 1,606 
 
 8 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 15,000 votes less than the Free Soilers of 1848, and it also 
 cast a larger third-party vote than even New England. 1 
 
 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, 
 j must have come in part from some young men voting for the 
 j first time, but chiefly from the stay-at-homes, who were very 
 numerous during the years of 184951. 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 
 
GIDDING&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." l " Our 
 friends abroad," said the True Democrat, 4< 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 1851, took the stump against the anti-slavery champion. 2 
 
 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, 3 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, 1851. 
 
 8 Milwaukee Sentinel, Nov. 4-17, 1852. 
 4 National Era, Jan. 20, 1853. 
 
260 CAMPAIGN OF 1852. 
 
 organize, and through that organization to assault the public 
 mind." l " All that is needed," came the cry from Michigan, 
 " is a fair circulation of documents." 2 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 " ; 3 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." 4 
 
 1 Jan. 5, 1853. 2 National Era, Jan. 13, 1853. 
 
 8 Quoted ibid.) Nov. 25, 1852. 4 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." 1 
 " The Free Democrats were never in higher spirits than at the 
 1 From Bridgeport, Ohio. National Era, Jan. 13, 1853. 
 
 \ l ^ 
 
 U 
 
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." 1 "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.'" 2 
 " 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." 3 " 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." 4 
 
 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." 6 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." 6 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. 
 
 3 From Preble County. Ibid., Dec. 23, 1852. 
 
 4 From Jacksonville, Indiana. Ibid., Oct. 28, 1852. 
 6 Quoted in Indiana True Democrat, Oct. 14, 1852. 
 
 6 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 Whigs 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." l 
 
 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 delivered 
 in the county," said a correspondent from Fort Wayne ; " Free 
 Soil speakers seem to be afraid of us." 2 " 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." 3 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 
 J 3 T 853, to form a State League. 4 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." 5 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. 2 Ibid., Dec. 23, 1852. 
 
 8 Indiana True Democrat, Oct. 14, 1852. 4 Ibid., Nov. 4, 1852. 
 6 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." l 
 
 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." 2 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." 3 
 
 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." 4 Thereupon county conventions 
 began to meet and to push the matter of local organization : 
 
 1 Quoted ibid., March 24, 1853. The Indiana Free Democrat was the 
 same paper as the Indiana True Democrat. Name changed January, 1853. 
 
 2 Quoted ibid.) June 16, 1853. See G. W. Julian, Speeches on Political 
 Questions, 83-101. 
 
 8 MS. diary of G. W. Julian. 
 4 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 ! " 1 
 
 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." 2 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. 1 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 Iowa 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." 2 W T ith 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. 3 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 Nov. 3, 1852. 
 
 8 Ibid. 
 

 OHIO CONVENTION NOMINATES LEWIS. 267 
 
 regular Free Soil speech delivered in the County to my knowl- 
 edge, except one." l " 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." 2 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." 3 
 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." 4 
 
 The convention of January 12, 1853, proved important. 
 BrinckerhofT 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 
 Pittsbtirg 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 
 
 1 National Era, Dec. 2, 1852. 
 
 2 Quoted ibid., Nov. 11, 1852. 
 
 8 True Democrat, Nov. 17, 1852. 4 Ibid. 
 
268 FREE DEMOCRATIC EXPANSION. 
 
 tears in his eyes, deeply touched by the affection and enthu- 
 siasm of the meeting. 1 " 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." 2 
 
 The rest was all harmony. Resolutions were 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." 3 
 
 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 
 
 1 True Democrat, Jan. 19, 1853; National Era, Jan. 27, 1853. 
 
 2 W. G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samuel Lewis, 406. 
 8 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. 1 
 
 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 1851. 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-islavery 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- 
 
 i True 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." l " The very fact that the Whig press is disputing the 
 point whether the Whig organization be dead or alive 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." 2 
 Said the Ashtabitla 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." 3 These claims, of 
 course, met with derision at the hands of the regular Whig 
 party organs. Said the Sandtisky Commercial 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" ; 4 and the Cleveland Herald scouted the idea that 
 the great Whig party " would yield to a faction of some 30,000 
 and do its bidding." 5 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." 6 
 
 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 Democrat, June i, 1853. 2 Ibid. 
 
 8 Quoted in National Era, June 16, 1853. 
 4 Quoted in True Democrat, June 29, 1853. 
 6 Quoted ibid., June 8, 1853. 
 6 Quoted ibid., June 29, 1853. 
 
ACCESSIONS FROM THE WHIGS. 2? I 
 
 these men rather than continue a connection the fruits of which 
 are treachery, pro-slavery, and defeat?" The Cincinnati 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 " ; 2 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." 3 The New 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." 4 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. 8 Quoted ibid. 
 4 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 Bugle, refused to withdraw, and though Giddings and 
 Chase both urged them to abandon this position, the local com- 
 mittee was obdurate. 1 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 Democrat, 
 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. 2 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." 3 
 
 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 LAW 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." 1 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. 2 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. 3 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 Columbian, 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." 4 
 
 1 Quoted True Democrat, Sept. 13, 1853. 
 
 2 Ibid., Oct. 4, 1853; Ohio Columbian, Sept. 15, 1853. 
 8 Western Reserve Chronicle, Oct. 6, 1853. 
 
 4 Ohio Columbian, July 14, 1853. 
 18 
 
2/4 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. 2 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 Ohio Columbian, 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. 2?$ 
 
 dential campaign has there been anything like it." l When 
 finally election day came, the vote revealed a new order of 
 things. 2 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." 3 " 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 
 
 1 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 Whig Almanac, 1854. 
 Oct. 14, 1853. 
 
2/6 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." 1 
 " 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 Herald, " 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." 3 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 
 Republic?- 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." 6 
 
 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. 
 
 8 Dec. i, 1853. 8 Oct. ii, 1853. 
 
 4 Daily Forest City Democrat (successor to the True Democrat and the 
 Forest City}. Nov. I, 1853. 
 
 5 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." 1 
 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." 2 
 
 1 National Era, Dec. I, 1853. 
 
 2 Ibid., Jan. 26, 1854. 
 
CHAPTER XVlll. 
 
 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." 1 
 
 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. 1 Neither of 
 these conditions was likely to be agreeable to a Whig. The 
 natural candidate in case of fusion was the popular Governor 
 Farvvell, elected in 1851 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." 2 
 
 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. 3 This step would probably have been taken with entire 
 unanimity, but for the unfortunate fact that Farwell absolutely 
 
 1 Wisconsin State Journal, May 21, 1853. 
 
 2 Quoted in Milwaukee Sentinel, April 25, 1853. 
 
 8 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. 1 
 
 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." 2 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. 3 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 Helton'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. 
 
 8 National Era, July 7, 1853. 
 
 8 Watertown Chronicle, Oct. 12, 1853. 
 
CAMPAIGN OF THE "PEOPLE'S" TICKET. 281 
 
 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. 1 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. 2 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 32,176 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." 1 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 law. 2 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." 3 
 
 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." 4 The 
 Milwaukee 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." 5 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." 6 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 Wisconsin State Journal, May 30, 1853. 
 
 2 Milwaukee Sentinel, Sept. 19, 1853. 
 
 3 Oct. 15, 1853. 4 Wisconsin State Journal, Oct. 20, 1853. 
 8 Sept. 28, 1853. 
 
 6 Quoted in Wisconsin State Journal, Nov. 29, 1853. 
 
WHIGS READY FOR A CHANGE. 283 
 
 can be restricted within its present limits it must inevitably 
 decline." l 
 
 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." 2 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." 3 
 
 In Illinois another Old Line W 7 hig 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." 4 When \he Journal was charged, like its Indiana- 
 polis namesake, with being abolitionist, it replied : " Is it abo- 
 litionism to sympathize with the oppressed? So far then we 
 
 1 Wisconsin State Journal, Nov. 29, 1853. 
 
 2 Indiana State Journal, May 24, 1853. 
 8 Ibid., Aug. 21, 1853. 
 
 4 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." l 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. 2 This 
 law, which practically enacted slavery, met with condemnation 
 by Whig and Democratic papers alike in the northern counties. 
 The 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 n, 1853. 
 
 2 See Appendix D, p. 332. 
 
 8 Chicago Journal, Feb. 22, 1853. 
 
CHAPTER 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 coalition 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. 1 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 Know-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. 1 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." a 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, Cincinnati 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," 
 
 1 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." 1 
 
 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." 3 The Ohio State Journal clinched matters as follows : 
 "Whatever 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." 4 
 
 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. 4 July 17, 1854. 
 
 19 
 
2QO 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. 1 
 
 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." 2 
 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. 1 
 
 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." 2 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 bill, 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 " ; 3 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 
 
 1 Indiana State Journal, July 18, 24, 1854. 
 
 a National Era, Oct. 5, 1854. 
 
 8 Quoted in Racine Advocate, June 5, 1854. 
 
2Q2 ANTI-NEBRASKA MOVEMENT. 
 
 every principle. That union must be lasting. There is no use 
 standing on punctilios any longer." 1 
 
 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. 2 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 3 ; 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?" 4 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." 5 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 Coimty Journal, J one sville Telegraph, and Monroe Commer- 
 cial the two last-named, Democratic papers commended the ticket. 
 
 4 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. 1 
 
 By May the desire for an entirely new party was growing 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. 2 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," 3 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." 4 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." 5 
 
 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 
 
 1 Grand River Eagle, Dec. 13, 1890. 
 
 2 Letter of I. P. Christiancy, in F. A. Flower, History of the Republican 
 Party , 172. 
 
 8 June 14, 1854. 4 National Era, July 6, 1854. 
 
 6 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." l When the Nebraska Bill was passed, 
 the Chicago Courant (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;" 2 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- 
 
 1 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 Republican platform of Wisconsin, and with great enthu- 
 siasm nominated E. B. Washburne. 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 
 
 2 J. T. Morse, Abraham 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 
 I \ 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. 1 
 
 When the Nebraska Bill passed, in May, 1854, the organs of 
 both parties with few 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." 2 
 Said the Madison Journal: "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." 3 
 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 Milwaukee Sentinel, May 27, 1854. 8 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 ; 1 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." 2 This indorsement of Grimes had 
 the effect of driving from his support most of the Hunker 
 Whigs ; 3 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 ofj. W. Grimes, 115. 
 
 2 Quoted in Chicago Journal, June 13, 1854. 
 8 W. Salter, Life ofj. W. Grimes, 54. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE RESULT OF TWENTY YEARS' EFFORT. 
 1834-1854. 
 
 THE anti-slavery societies of 1834, the Liberty party of 1841, 
 the Free Soil party of 1848, and its other form the Free De- 
 mocracy of 1851, 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 the 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 political engine. In 
 
EFFECTS ON PUBLIC OPINION. 299 
 
 two ways, one direct and one indirect, the third-party move- 
 ment was effective. The direct method was agitation, persistent 
 dwelling 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-slaver^gitators 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' 1 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. 3OI 
 
 the Wilmot Proviso was for the time common political 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 rJermainent 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 1851 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 difficulty 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 1851; 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 off 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 1 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 Wai- 
 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 
 
 I848. 1 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 trie 
 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 1 852-54. 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- 
 
 1 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 . . . 4,435 4,373 4,805 
 
 20 
 
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, ^ at tne "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- 
 7 cratic parties were mainly educational. They stirred up the 
 Western conscience, kept the subject of slavery constantly be- 
 fore the public, powerfully affected 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 i 
 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- N^ 
 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 all sources 
 for the period under consideration. This, then, must be looked upon as 
 a preliminary 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 Cleveland Leader office ; Indiana State Library, 
 Indianapolis ; Indianapolis Public Library ; Detroit Public Library ; Ann 
 Arbor Pioneer Society; the Chicago Journal office ; 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. M. 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 j 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, VI. 145 (June 1887). 
 . . . The Election of S. P. Chase to the Senate, 
 
 February, 1849. Republic, IV. 179. 
 
 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. 
 
 WILLIAMS, H. L. and BRO., publishers. History of Trumbull and Mahon- 
 
 ing Counties. 2 vols. Cleveland, 1882. 
 
 . . . History of Washington County. Cleveland, 
 
 1881. 
 . . . 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, 1880. 
 
 PLEAS, ELWOOD .... Henry County : Past and Present. New 
 
 Castle, 1871. 
 
 YOUNG, ANDREW W. . . History of Wayne County. Cincinnati, 1872. 
 
 CLARKE, HARVEY K. 
 FARMER, SILAS . . . 
 RUST, E. G 
 
 MICHIGAN. 
 
 Under the Oaks. Detroit Tribune, July 6, 
 
 1879- 
 
 The History of Detroit and Michigan. De- 
 troit, 1884. 
 
 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. Chicago, 1879 
 
 Of the foregoing works, the reminiscences published by Messrs. Riddle, 
 Townshend, and others in the Magazine of Western 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, OCTAVIUS B. 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. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 313 
 
 JULIAN, GEO. W. . 
 
 [LEWIS, WILLIAM G. W.] 
 [MORRIS, BENJAMIN F.] 
 PARRISH, W. D. . . . 
 
 PIERCE, EDWARD L. . . 
 
 REEMELIN, CHARLES. 
 REID, HARVEY. . . 
 
 RIDDLE, ALBERT G. . . 
 S ALTER, WILLIAM. . . 
 SCHUCKERS, JAMES W. . 
 
 STANTON HENRY B. . . 
 [TAPPAN, LEWIS] . . 
 TOWNSHEND, NORTON S. 
 
 WARDEN, R. B. 
 
 WOOLLEN, W. W. . 
 WRIGHT, ELIZUR. 
 
 Political Recollections. 1840 to 1872. Chi- 
 cago, 1884. 
 
 Speeches on Political Questions. New York, 
 1872. 
 
 Biographyof Samuel Lewis. Cincinnati, 1857. 
 
 The Life of Thomas Morris. Cincinnati, 1856. 
 
 The Life, Travels and Opinions of Benjamin 
 Lundy. Philadelphia, 1847. 
 
 Sketch of Dr. G. Bailey, Boston Traveler, 
 June 27, 1859. 
 
 Sketch of J. R. Giddings, Boston Transcript, 
 April 8, 1892. 
 
 Life. Written by himself. Cincinnati, 1892. 
 
 Biographical Sketch of Enoch Long, Chi- 
 cago Historical Society's Collection. Vol. 
 II. Chicago, 1884. 
 
 The Life of Benjamin F. Wade. Cleveland, 
 1886. 
 
 The Life of James W. Grimes. New York, 
 1876. 
 
 The Life and Public Services of Salmon P. 
 Chase. New York, 1874. 
 
 Random Recollections. New York, 1886. 
 
 The Life of Arthur Tappan. New York, 1870. 
 
 Salmon P. Chase. Ohio Archceological and 
 Historical Quarterly. September, 1887. 
 
 An Account of the Private Life and Public 
 Services of Salmon Portland Chase. Cin- 
 cinnati, 1874. 
 
 Biographical and Historical Sketches of Early 
 Indiana. Indianapolis, 1883. 
 
 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 W. 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 f 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 Almanac, 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 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 315 
 
 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. 
 *Ohw American. Cleveland, 1844-47. 
 *Ohio Columbian. Columbus, 1853-54. 
 
 *Ohio Standard. Columbus, 1848-49. 
 Ohio State Journal. Columbus, 1844-54. 
 * Palladium of Liberty. Columbus, 1844-45. 
 
 * Philanthropist, etc. Cincinnati, 1836-49. 
 *True Democrat. Cleveland, 1847-54. 
 
 * Western Reserve Chronicle. Warren, 1848-54. 
 
 INDIANA. 
 
 * Free Labor Advocate. New Garden, 1842, 1846. 
 *Free Territory Sentinel. Centre ville, 1848-49. 
 
 Indiana State Journal. Indianapolis, 1842-54. 
 
 * 'Indiana True Democrat. Centreville, 1850-52. 
 
 Indianapolis Sentinel. Indianapolis, 1844-53. 
 
 MICHIGAN. 
 
 * Daily Democrat. Detroit, i8$4. 
 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. 
 
 * American Freeman. Waukesha, 1845-48. 
 
 Janesville Gazette. Janesville, 1853. 
 *Kenosha Telegraph. Kenosha, 1849-51. 
 
 Madison Express. Madison, 1845-48. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 Milwaukee Coiirier. 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. 
 *Ioiva True Democrat. Mt. Pleasant, 1850-52. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 * Emancipator. New York and Boston, 1834-48. 
 
 * Liberator. Boston, 1831-41. 
 
 * National Anti-Slavery Standard. New York, 1845. 
 * National Era. Washington, 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 7 
 
 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. Julian 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 W. Clark, Albert G. 
 Turner, and others. 
 
 PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS. 
 
 Though relying mainly on contemporary documents, the author has 
 not failecte^et what light he could from the memories of living men who 
 were actoS^ 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. Julian, 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 newsujpers 
 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 coul^jet definite 
 information. The tables show, in respective order, thmpars 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. 
 1838-46. 
 1847-48. 
 1848-49. 
 1 843-46. 
 1845-46. 
 1845-48. 
 1848-54. 
 
 Cincinnati 
 
 Warren . 
 Cadiz . . 
 Cleveland 
 Cleveland 
 
 1 848-54. P ainesville 
 1848-54. Warren . 
 1848-54. Mt. Vernon 
 
 OHIO. 
 
 Philanthropist . . . . 
 (Continued as Herald 
 
 National Press . . 
 
 Globe) 
 
 Liberty Herald . . . 
 Liberty Advocate . . . 
 Ohio American. 
 True Democrat . . . 
 
 1848-54. Ashtabula . Sentinel 
 
 Telegraph 
 
 Western Reserve Chronicle. 
 Ohio Times 
 
 J. G. Birney. 
 Dr. G. Bailey. 
 Stanley Mathews. 
 J. W. Taylor. 
 L. L. Rice. 
 R. B. Dennis. 
 
 E. S. Hamlin, 
 J. A. Briggs, 
 G. Bradburn, 
 J. C. Vaughn. 
 J. A. Giddings, 
 W. C. Howells. 
 H. C. Gray. 
 E. O. Howard. 
 B. Chapman. 
 
LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PRESS. 
 
 319 
 
 1848-54. Ravenna . 
 1848-49. Columbus 
 
 1848-50. 
 
 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 
 
 Ohio Standard . . . . 
 
 (Revived in 1850-51, and 
 
 edited by I. Garrard.) 
 
 Courier 
 
 Republican 
 
 Daily Mirror. 
 
 Free Democrat 
 
 Free Democrat. 
 
 Commercial 
 
 Independent Democrat . . 
 
 Journal 
 
 Columbian 
 
 Mahoning Free Democrat . 
 Herald of Freedom . . . 
 True Republican .... 
 Williams Democrat . 
 
 L. W. Hall. 
 E. S. Hamlin, 
 
 J. Cotton. 
 C. R. Miller. 
 
 J. F. Asper. 
 
 H. M. Addison. 
 P. Bliss. 
 G. Brewster. 
 L. L. Rice. 
 M. Cullotson. 
 J. W. Chaffin. 
 J. H. Rothrock. 
 W. A. Hunter. 
 
 In addition to the above, there were a number of ephemeral and cam- 
 paign papers about which little more than the title is known. Such were 
 the Cleveland Agitator, 1840 ; Columbus Palladium of Liberty, 1844; 
 Akron Free Soil Platform, 1848, and Free Democrat, 1849; Cleveland 
 Ohio State Tribune, 1848; Bryan Spirit of the Age, 1848; 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 Homestead 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. 
 
 INDIANA. 
 
 Protectionist A. Buffum. 
 
 Free Labor Advocate . . B. Stanton. 
 
 Indiana Freeman H. W. De Puy. 
 
 Free Territory Sentinel . . R. Vaile. 
 (Name changed to True Democrat) 
 
 Tippecanoe Journal . . . J. B. Seamans. 
 
 Free Democrat E. W. H. Lewis. 
 
 Free Soil Banner . . . . L. Wallace. 
 
 Indiana Free Democrat . . R. Vaile. 
 
 1841. 
 1842-48. 
 1844-47. 
 1848-49. 
 1850-52. 
 1848. 
 1848. 
 1848. 
 1853-54. 
 
 Newport . . 
 New Garden 
 Indianapolis . 
 Centreville . 
 
 Lafayette . 
 South Bend . 
 Independence 
 Indianapolis . 
 
320 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 There were also several papers of which only the names are known : 
 The Liberty Her aid vi Union County ; the Jonesboro Barnburner, 1848 ; 
 the Madison Free Soil Democrat, 1848 ; the New London Pioneer, 1848 ; 
 and the Marion Herald of Freedom, 1847. The largest number at any 
 one time was seven, in 1848. 
 
 1839-40. 
 1842-48. 
 
 Jackson . 
 Ann Arbor 
 
 MICHIGAN. 
 
 Michigan Freeman 
 Signal of Liberty . 
 
 1848-49. Battle Creek 
 
 1848-49. Ann Arbor . 
 
 1849-51. Detroit . . 
 
 1852-54. Detroit . . 
 
 Liberty Press . . 
 True Democrat 
 Peninsular Freeman 
 
 Free Democrat . 
 
 S. B. Treadwell. 
 T. Foster, 
 G. Beckly. 
 Erastus Hussey. 
 O. Arnold. 
 R. McBratney, 
 J. D. Ligget. 
 S. A. Baker, 
 J. F. Conover. 
 
 Other anti-slavery papers of less persistence were the Detroit Times ^ 
 1842 ; the American Citizen, 1845 ; the Adrian Free Soil Advocate, the 
 Hillsdale Banner, and the Jackson Gazette, all in 1848. 
 
 1837. Alton . 
 1838-39. Lowell 
 
 1840-42. 
 1842-54- 
 
 1845- 
 
 1852. 
 
 1848. 
 
 1848. 
 
 1848-50. 
 
 1849. 
 
 1850-54. 
 
 I853-54- 
 
 Lowell 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago . 
 
 Waukegan 
 
 Rockford 
 
 Waukegan 
 
 Sparta . 
 
 Galesburg 
 
 ILLINOIS. 
 
 Observer 
 
 Genius of Universal Eman- 
 cipation. 
 
 Genius of Liberty .... 
 
 Western Citizen .... 
 (With a daily edition, the 
 Daily News; and an- 
 other, the Daily Times.} 
 
 Tribune 
 
 Lake County Chronicle . . 
 
 Free Press 
 
 Free Democrat 
 
 Freeman (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, 
 1848, and one Norwegian, Frihets Banneret, 1852. There were prob- 
 
LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PRESS. 
 
 321 
 
 ably many other ephemeral Free Soil sheets in 1848 ; 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 . 
 
 I84 9' 1 Oshkosh . 
 1853. > 
 
 Janesville 
 
 WISCONSIN. 
 
 Wisconsin Aegis . 
 
 American Freeman 
 
 . N. 
 L. 
 
 . C. 
 C. 
 I. 
 
 Free Democrat S. 
 
 (Continuation of the preceding.) 
 
 Advocate 
 
 Telegraph 
 
 J. 
 
 C. 
 
 C. 
 
 C. 
 
 G. 
 
 E. 
 
 W. Fuller, 
 W. Hall. 
 C. Sholes, 
 C. Olin, 
 Codding. 
 M. Booth. 
 
 C. Bunner, 
 Clement. 
 Clement, 
 L. Sholes. 
 W. Crabb. 
 Heg. 
 
 Rock County Democrat . 
 Nordlyset (Norwegian) . 
 (This was removed to Racine 
 
 and the name changed to 
 
 Demokraten ; edited by . K. Langeland. 
 Western Star . G. Gale. 
 
 True 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 Ram, 1848 ; and the Sheboygan Falls Free Press, 
 
 1848-49. 
 1849-50. 
 1850-54. 
 1853- 
 
 Ft. Madison 
 Mt. Pleasant 
 Mt. Pleasant 
 Davenport . 
 
 IOWA. 
 
 Iowa Freeman .... 
 Iowa Free Democrat . . 
 Iowa True 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 1 848, 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 National 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 True 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. Howells, 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 Democrats! Indianapolis, was edited by 
 Rawson Vaile. Although in the most backward of all the Northwestern 
 States except Iowa, and constantly 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. 3 2 3 
 
 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 1854. 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, later 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 Democrat, 
 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 Kenosha 
 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 
 Freeman and the Indiana Free Territory Sentinel in 1848. 
 
 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 ra, 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: l 
 
 
 
 Ohio. 
 
 Indiana. 
 
 Michigan. 
 
 Illinois. 
 
 Wisconsin. 
 
 Iowa. 
 
 1840 
 
 . . . 
 
 903 
 
 
 
 3iS 
 
 157 
 
 
 
 
 
 1841 
 
 . 
 
 (2,800) 
 
 599* 
 
 1,214 
 
 527 
 
 
 
 
 
 1842 
 
 . 
 
 5,405 
 
 (900) 
 
 (1,665) 
 
 009 
 
 
 
 
 
 1843 
 
 . . . 
 
 6,552* 
 
 1,684 
 
 2,775 
 
 i,954* 
 
 152 
 
 
 
 1844 
 
 State . 
 
 8,4U 
 
 p 
 
 . 
 
 1,408* 
 
 450* 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 Federal 
 
 > S,050 
 
 2,106 
 
 3,632 
 
 3,570 
 
 
 
 
 
 1845- 
 
 ^=^T 
 
 (8,691) 
 
 1,755* 
 
 (3,363) 
 
 
 
 790 
 
 (60) 
 
 1846 
 
 . . . 
 
 10,799 
 
 2,278 
 
 2,885 
 
 5> T 47 
 
 (215) 
 
 
 
 1847 
 
 x. . . 
 
 (4,379) 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 973 
 
 
 
 1848 
 
 State . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4,748 
 
 i, T 34 
 
 
 
 Federal 35,354 
 
 8,100 
 
 10,389 
 
 15,774 
 
 10,418 
 
 1,126 
 
 ^49 
 
 . . . 
 
 12,811* 
 
 3,018 
 
 23,540 
 
 
 
 3,76i 
 
 564 
 
 1850 
 
 - . . . 
 
 13,802 
 
 
 
 2,228 
 
 1,073* 
 
 
 
 574 
 
 T&Si 
 
 . . 
 
 16,914 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2,904 
 
 
 
 1852 
 
 State . 
 
 22,167 
 
 ? 
 
 6,273 
 
 8,809 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Federal 
 
 51,682 
 
 6,929 
 
 7,237 
 
 9,966 
 
 8,814 
 
 1,604 
 
 {53 
 
 ^ ~~\ 
 
 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% 
 MAP OF THE FREE SOIL VOTE OF 1844. 
 
 [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 
 party, had become marked. In nearly every case the political complex- 
 ion of a county may be accounted for by two circumstances, t{V_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, 1844. 
 
 escape from contact with slavery. This Muskingum region was a net- 
 work of underground railway lines. In the counties around Cincinnati 
 we find another region originally settled from New England, but by 1844 
 much overlaid by new elements, largely. Sou them. 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. J 
 
 Wisconsin (for which the vote of 1845 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- 
 
328 
 
 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 1848. 
 
 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-party 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 Mississippi, 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 Reserve 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. 331 
 
 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 Birney 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. 1 
 
 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. 2 
 
 1 See the correct text of the constitution of 1846 in Debates of the Constitutional 
 Convention of the State of Iowa (Davenport, 1857), II., 1067. Article 12 in B: 
 P. Poore, Charters and Constitutions, is wholly incorrect. 
 
 2 Journal 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. 1 
 
 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 the 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. 2 The Legislature did not act on this 
 matter until 1849, wnen 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 violently 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. 3 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, The Elective Franchise in Wisconsin, 8. 
 
 2 Journal of the Convention to form 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. 1 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, 
 
 1 Journal of the Convention assembled at Springfield, June 7, 1847, Springfield, 
 1847. 
 
 2 Chicago Journal, 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. 2 It resulted, as had the other two, in a decisive defeat of 
 equal suffrage 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. 3 
 
 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 Representatives (Springfield, 1853), 271, 364, 443-44; 
 Journal of the Senate, 47 5-76. 
 
 ' 2 Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Convention, etc., Lansing, 1850. 
 8 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. 1 
 
 This article was submitted separately to the people ; and Indiana in 
 the autumn of 1851 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. 2 
 
 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- 
 
 1 Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the Convention, etc., Indianapolis, 1850. 
 
 2 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 Cincinnati 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, n 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. 1 
 
 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. 2 Philanthropy 
 could not hope, unaided, to build up a party. 
 
 1 Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the Convention, etc., Columbus, 1851. 
 
 2 This conclusion is rendered more obvious by the following table, in which both 
 votes are shown : 
 
 Free Soil Vote, 1848. 
 Indiana . . . 8,100 
 Michigan . . . 10,389 
 Illinois . . . 15,774 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 10,418 
 
 Vote for Negro Privileges. 
 20,956 . . . 1851 
 12,046 . . . 1850 
 20,884 1848 
 ( 7,664 . . . 1847 
 } 5,265 . . . 1849 
 
 22 
 
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, 1 1 ; 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, 287. 
 
 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 Philanthro- 
 pist, 63, 322 ; favors W. H. Harrison 
 for President 1840, 38; joins Liberty 
 party, 41 ; at Southern and Western 
 Convention, 88 ; edits National Era, 
 90 ; his influence, 63, 90, 324 ; supports 
 Chase for U. S. Senator 1849, l6 7> 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, 3 8 5 in 1841, 52, 53; in 1843, 
 70 ; candidate for Governor of Michi- 
 gan 1843, 5 8 5 m l8 45, 87 ; 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 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 1851, 234; at Free Democratic 
 National Convention 1852, 248 ; edits 
 American Freeman and Free Democrat, 
 
 323- 
 
 Briggs, J. A., anti-slavery Whig of Ohio 
 at Buffalo Convention, 142 ; opposes 
 Chase for Senator in Ohio 1849, l ^5> 
 1 66; edits Tr tie Democrat, 318. 
 
 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 1853, 267. 
 
 Brisbane, W. H., leader in Ohio Liberty 
 party, 60. 
 
 " Broader Platform " for Liberty party 
 suggested, 90, 100; not favored in the 
 Northwest, 101, 102 ; leads to formation 
 of Liberty League, 101. 
 
 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; con- 
 verted by Birney, joins Liberty party, 
 60 ; writes resolution for National Lib- 
 erty Convention 1843, 7> writes ad- 
 dress in behalf of Birney 1844, 78 ; 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, J 6s; 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. 
 
BIRNEYFREE LABOR. 
 
 341 
 
 Churches, anti-slavery controversy in, 16. 
 
 Clark, Rev. G. W. f at Northwestern 
 Liberty convention, 90; in Wisconsin, 
 98. 
 
 Clarke, H. K., Free Soil leader in Michi- 
 gan, 144, 311. 
 
 Clay, Henry, debate with Thomas Morris, 
 25; attacked by Abolitionists in 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, 
 
 63- 
 
 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, in, 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, 119; 
 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 Puy, H. W., editor of Indiana Free- 
 man, 116, 31 9 j of Rockford Free Press, 
 320. 
 
 Detroit Advertiser implicated in Garland 
 forgery, 83 ; works to bring about 
 Whig and Free Soil fusion, 158, 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, 158; 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, 
 
 34- 
 Dyer, C. V., Liberty leader in Illinois, 
 
 63, 135- 
 
 EASTMAN, Z., anti-slavery leader in Illi- 
 nois, 62, 230; edits Western Citizen, 64, 
 
 323- 
 
 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, 189. 
 
 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 1848, 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, l61 J 
 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, 
 248; nominates J. P. Hale, 248, 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 1854, 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, 181 ; 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, 101. 
 
 Greeley, H., angry with Liberty party in 
 1844-45, 8 1 ; letter to Southern and 
 Western Convention, 88 ; attacks Free 
 Soilers in 1848, 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, n. 
 
 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 True Democrat, 
 1 08 ; receives Liberty votes, in ; at 
 Buffalo Convention, 142; aids Chase 
 and the Democrats in the Ohio Legis- 
 lature 1849, 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 1852, 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 Free Soil Convention 1850, 184. 
 
 Holley, M., advocates a third party in 
 I ^3933~35 proposes to nominate for 
 President at Cleveland 1839, 36; nomi- 
 nates Birney, 37. 
 
 Holmes, S. M., Liberty leader in Michi- 
 gan, 62 ; advocates Free Soil arid Whig 
 fusion in 1848, 158. 
 
 Holton, E. D., Liberty leader in Wiscon- 
 sin, 87; at Buffalo Convention, 142; 
 supported for Governor by Whigs and 
 Free Democrats in 18^3, 280, 281. 
 
 Howard, J. M., leader of Michigan Whigs 
 in attacking Birney, 76, 81 ; not in- 
 volved in the Garland forgery, 83 ; 
 prevents Whig and Free Soil fusion in 
 1849, 200; advocates a new party 1854, 
 291 ; his share in forming Republican 
 party, 294. 
 
 Howe, S. L., anti-slavery leader in Iowa, 
 218 ; publishes True Democrat, 266, 
 322, 323 ; at Free Democratic National 
 Convention 1892, 248. 
 
 Hoyne, T., Chicago Free Soil Democrat, 
 123, 125. 
 
 Hull, M. R., Liberty 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 Pree Soil party formed, 131 ; 
 organized, 144; campaign and vote in 
 1848, 156; its great opportunities 1849, 
 193; difficulties, 194, 195; coalesces with 
 Democrats 1850, 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 1853, 334, 335. 
 
 Illinois Liberty party, formed 1840, 42; 
 significance of vote, 47 ; organized, 52 ; 
 election of 1841, 55 ; campaign of 1842, 
 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, 101 ; 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, 283, 284 ; refuse to join 
 Republican movement, 294. 
 
 Indiana anti-Nebraska campaign 1854, 
 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 
 1840, 43. 
 
 Indiana Constitutional Convention on 
 negro rights, 191-193, 335; its action 
 approved by Ohio Democrats, 237. 
 
 Indiana Democrats for Free Soil in 
 1849, 187-189; abandon it, 230; support 
 Julian, 190, 233. 
 
 Indiana P>ee Soil party, organized, 130, 
 144; vote in 1848, 156; resolves to 
 continue 1849, I 9i coalitions, 191; de- 
 cay in 1850, 192, 193; revived in 1851, 
 227 ; conventions, 229-30, 246 ; cam- 
 paign of 1852, 253, 254 ; activity in 1853, 
 263, 264 ; joins the and- 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 1846, 93; indifferent to new 
 anti-slavery doctrines, 99; tendency to 
 fuse with old parties, 111-112; joins 
 Whigs in Congressional campaign 1847, 
 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 Liberty votes, 
 7 T > 73. 74 IJ 6; 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- 
 
 lowa 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 1849, I 9 I 9 I > 
 defeated in 1851 by Democratic dis- 
 affection, 233, 234 ; nominated for Vice 
 President in 1852, 248 ; active in organ- 
 izing 1853, 269; joins anti-Nebraska 
 movement with hesitation, 290; only 
 real leader in Indiana, 303. 
 
 KELLY, Abby, at Liberty National Con- 
 vention 1843, 7> 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, 7 has joint debate 
 with J. R. Giddings 1844, IT 3> nomi- 
 nated for Vice President by Liberty 
 party, 1 20 ; withdraws from nomination 
 1848, 143- 
 
 LANE SEMINARY, formation of anti-slav- 
 ery society in, n ; 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. 
 
 Lewis, 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, IT 9> 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 1853, 267 ; his vigor- 
 ous campaign, 268, 274; remarkable 
 success, 274; his valedictory, 276, 277; 
 death and character, 289, 290. 
 
 Liberator, influence in the Northwest, 9. 
 
 Liberty League founded, 101. 
 
 Liberty party, founded at Albany 1840, 
 38 ; first National Convention in 1841, 
 53 ; strength lies at first in 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, 60-62 ; press, 
 63 ; programme and methods, 64-66 ; its 
 difficulties, 65, 66, 68; second National 
 Convention 1843, 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, 9^ ; new factions, 
 98, 99; relations to Garrisonians, 102, 
 103 ; popular indifference to it, 103 ; 
 factions in 1847, IO 4> 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, 1843, 70 ; his work in Illinois, 
 74 ; at Southern and Western Conven- 
 tion, 1845, && 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 1850, 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 
 Emancipation 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, 
 280, 281. 
 
 Mathews, S., edits Cincinnati Herald, 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 M favored for President by anti- 
 slavery Whigs, 127, 141 ; name withheld 
 
34^ 
 
 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 1839, 32 ; joins Liberty party, 1840, 
 
 43> 5 2 - 
 
 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, 198, 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 1850, 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, 158; 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 1850, 206, 207 ; agita- 
 tion renewed, 246 ; campaign of 1852, 
 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 1838, 
 106 ; favors Wilmot Proviso, no; in- 
 structs senators to vote for the Wilmot 
 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, 8 6; debates broad- 
 ening Liberty platform, 90, 91, 101 ; 
 
 decay in 1846, 95; objects to Chase's 
 Democratic leanings, 100 ; favors a late 
 nomination in 1847, "8 ; rejects Liberty 
 League, 134; joins Free Soil move- 
 ment, 135; dissolves, 146. 
 
 Michigan popular vote on negro suffrage, 
 335- 
 
 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 S oilers 1848, 149 ; applaud 
 Whig and Free Soil fusion 1848, 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, 
 206, 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 
 jn 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 1841, 53 ; withdraws from 
 nomination, 69; renominated at Liberty 
 Convention 1843, 7'> dies > 8 5 > nis 
 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. 
 
McGEEOHlO. 
 
 347 
 
 NATIONAL ERA, 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, $& 
 
 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 1852, 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, 283, 284 ; forms the Repub- 
 lican party before the Eastern States, 
 286 ; reasons for this, 287. 
 
 Northwest ordinance, its influence, 2, 3 ; 
 convention to celebrate it 1849, T 77- 
 
 Northwestern Liberty Convention, Chi- 
 cago 1846, 89, 100. 
 
 OBERLIN College, receives Lane Semin- 
 ary students 1834, 12; its influence in 
 the Northwest. 12. 
 
 Ohio anti-Nebraska campaign, 288, 289. 
 
 Ohio anti-slavery societies, 10, 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 Black 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, 180, 182 ; adopt 
 Free Soil plank in 1850, 185 ; in 1851, 
 237 ; in 1853, 269 ; success in State 
 elections, 185, 241, 256, 275. 
 Ohio Free Soil party, its elements, anti- 
 slavery Democrats, 121 ; Free Soil 
 Whigs, 126, 127; Western Reserve, 
 128 ; Free 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, 187 ; 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, 287; urges a 
 strong platform, 289. 
 
 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, 1 10 ; 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 1843, 57 ; leaders, 60, 61 ; their 
 Strength, 61 ; State Convention cen- 
 sures Clay, 72; organization in 1844, 
 73; State election, 76; damaged in 
 National election by Garland forgery 
 1844, 79; in local election 1845, 8 55 
 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 
 1848, 133. 
 Ohio third party press, 318 ; vote, 326- 
 
 331- 
 
 Ohio Whigs, criticise Thos. Morris, 25 ; 
 lose anti-slavery votes in 1838, 30 ; in 
 1839, 32 ; attack Liberty party, 45 J 
 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, 289. 
 
 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, I 9> 
 
 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 1852, 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, l6 3 ft 5 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 1853, 272. 
 
 Root, J. F., in Free Soil campaign 1848, 
 143; runs for Congress in 1850 in hopes 
 of defeating N. S. Townshend, 184; 
 at State Free Democratic Convention 
 1851, 238 ; objects to a Free Trade plank 
 in Free Democratic platform, 267. 
 
 ST. CLAIR, A., anti-slavery agitator in 
 
 Illinois, 95; publishes Iowa Freeman, 
 
 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, 101 ; tries to 
 get Liberty party to adopt the Liberty 
 League platform, 119-121 ; tries again 
 at Free Democratic Convention in 
 1852, 248. 
 
 Southern and Western Liberty Conven- 
 tion, 88-90. 
 
 Southern elements in the Northwest, 3, 8, 
 107, 320-331. 
 
 Spaulding, R. P., Anti-Slavery Democrat 
 elected judge by Democrats and Free 
 Soilers in 1849, T 7 2 5 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 Indiana, 
 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, TI ; 
 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 1836-38, 105, 106. 
 
 Theoretical considerations, their excessive 
 influence upon anti-slavery men, 98-101, 
 178, 222, 306. 
 
 Third party disavowed by Abolitionists 
 1835-38, 28, 29; first cases of inde- 
 pendent nominations, 32 ; still disa- 
 vowed, 33, 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- 
 
 33 1 - 
 
 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; his 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, 148. 
 
 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 I fusion 1853, 272; editor of 
 Cleveland True Democrat, 318, 322. 
 
 Vote of the Liberty and Free Soil parties, 
 325 ff., also 46, 5-59, 74, 76, 79, 80, 
 8 5- 8 7 93~9 8 I /4-i57, 181, 186, 191, 
 197, 203, ^07, /i 3, 215, 217, 219, 234, 
 235,1241, 2^2,2^6, 258, 259, 275, 281. 
 
 WADE~B. F., anti-slavery action in Ohio 
 Legislature 1838-39, 21, 23 ; defeated 
 for re-election as a result, 32 ; does not 
 join Liberty party, 40 ; advocates elec- 
 tion of Bebb in 1846 on anti-slavery 
 grounds, 93 ; works for Taylor in 1848, 
 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 1840, 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 1853, 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, u; agitates successfully in 
 Ohio, 12, 13; mobbed in 1839, 16; con- 
 verts Giddings, 25. 
 
 Wentworth, John, advocates non-exten- 
 sion of slavery, 1847, IIO 5 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, 128; 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 1849, J 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, 287, 288. 
 
 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, 7; demands Aboli- 
 tionist support, 71, 75, 76; angered at 
 Liberty attacks on Clay, 72, 73 ; hatred 
 of Liberty party after 1844, 80, 83 ; re- 
 fuses to admit Clay's fault, 80 ; 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 Whig and Free 
 Soil coalition, 223 ; slow to adopt 
 compromise in the Northwest, 232, 233 ; 
 refuses to discuss slavery in 1852, 255 ; 
 favors Free Soilers after 1852, 261, 262 ; 
 ready for anti-slavery action in 1853, 
 283, 284; forms Republican party in the 
 Northwest, 287. 
 
 Willey, Austin, at Northwest Ordinance 
 Convention 1849, 177. 
 
 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; 
 
VAN BUREN WRIGHT. 
 
 351 
 
 some refuse to support him, 124, 126; 
 claim Free Soil principles in 1849, 148; 
 demand " reunion," 208; fuse with Free 
 Soilers, 209; withdraw from coalition, 
 and entrap the Free Soilers, 210, 211 ; 
 success in election, 213; defeated by 
 Whigs and Free Soilers in 1850, 214, 
 215 ; adopt the compromise, 231 ; defeat 
 Whig and Free Soil fusion 1853, 2 ^- 
 
 Wisconsin Free Soil party, formed, 126, 
 I 3 I i organized, 144, 145 ; vote in 1848, 
 157; chances in 1849, 208; offers to 
 coalesce, 208-210; failure of coalition, 
 210, 2ii ; outwitted by Democrats, 212; 
 discouraged in 1850, 213 ; vote disap- 
 pears in 1850, 215 ; reorganized in 1851, 
 234; coalesces with Whigs, 235; cam- 
 paign of 1852, 254 ; organization and 
 enthusiasm in 1853, 278, 279 ; " Peo- 
 ple's " Convention, 280; fusion with 
 Whigs wrecked by Farwell's refusal, 
 280 ; but hindered only by accident, 
 281 ; case not like Michigan in 1849, 
 281 ; joins Republican movement, 296 ; 
 failed to take advantage of its oppor- 
 tunities, 304. 
 
 Wisconsin Legislature favors Wilmot 
 Proviso, 209; censures Senator Walker 
 for disobeying instructions, 209 ; repeats 
 the Wilmot Proviso instructions, 214; 
 rescinds them 1851, 231. 
 
 Wisconsin Liberty party, begun 1843, 59; 
 organization 1844, 75 ; favorable atti- 
 
 tude toward new anti-slavery theories, 
 101 ; regrets formation of Liberty 
 League, 102; favors an early nomina- 
 tion in 1847, 118; refuses to support 
 Hale, 120, 136; campaign of 1848,135; 
 finally joins Free Soil movement, 136, 
 146. 
 
 Wisconsin popular votes on negro suf- 
 frage, 98, 333. 
 
 Wisconsin third party press, 321 ; vote, 
 
 327-3I- 
 
 Wisconsin Whigs claim to stand for Free 
 Soil 1848, 127, 150; adopt Free Soil 
 principles in 1849, 2I 3> unite with Free 
 Soilers and anti-slavery Democrats to 
 elect Durkee and Doty 1850, 215; re- 
 fuse to adopt the compromise, 233 ; 
 partial coalition with Free Democrats 
 1851, 234, 235 ; refuse to vote for Durkee 
 in 1852, 256, 257 ; desire to coalesce with 
 Free Soilers in 1853, 279 ; the " Peo- 
 ple's " movement, 280 ; ready for a new 
 party in 1853, 281-282 ; join the Repub- 
 lican movement, 296. 
 
 Wright, E., Jr., original Abolitionist in 
 Western Reserve College, 9, 10 ; at 
 formation of American Anti-Slavery 
 Society, n; urges a third party 1839, 
 34 ; his estimate of voting Abolitionists 
 in 1840, 46. 
 
 Wright, J. W., Indiana Free Soil Demo- 
 crat, at Buffalo Convention, 142; can- 
 didate for Lieut. Governor 1849,188,189. 
 
Harvard Historical Studies. 
 
 Published under the Direction of the Department of History and Gov- 
 ernment from the Income of the Henry Warren Torrey Fund. 
 
 THIS SERIES will comprise works of original research 
 selected from the recent writings of teachers and grad- 
 uate students in the Department of History and Government 
 in Harvard University. The series will also include collec- 
 tions of documents, bibliographies, reprints of rare tracts, etc. 
 The monographs will appear at irregular intervals ; but it is 
 hoped that three volumes will be published annually. 
 
 The following -volumes are now ready. 
 
 I. THE SUPPRESSION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE 
 TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1638-1870. 
 By W. E. B. Du Bois, Ph.D., Professor in Wilberforce Univer- 
 sity. 8vo. pp. xi-335. $1.50 net. 
 
 II. THE CONTEST OVER THE RATIFICATION OF THE 
 FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THE STATE OF MAS- 
 SACHUSETTS. By S. B. HARDING, A.M., Assistant Professor 
 of History in Indiana University. 8vo. pp. vi-194. $1.25 net. 
 
 III. A CRITICAL STUDY OF NULLIFICATION IN SOUTH 
 
 CAROLINA. By D. F. HOUSTON, A.M., Adjunct Professor 
 of Political Science in the University of Texas. 8vo. pp. x-i6g. 
 $1.25 net. 
 
 IV. NOMINATIONS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. By FREDERICK W. DALLINGER, A.M., 
 Member of the Massachusetts Senate; formerly Secretary of the 
 Republican City Committee of Cambridge, Massachusetts. 8vo. 
 pp. xiv-29o. $1.50 net. 
 
 V. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BRITISH MUNICIPAL HISTORY, 
 INCLUDING GILDS AND PARLIAMENTARY REP- 
 RESENTATION. By CHARLES GROSS, Ph.D., Assistant Pro- 
 fessor of History in Harvard University. 8vo. pp. xxxiv~46i. 
 $2.50 net. 
 
 VI. THE LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PARTIES IN THE 
 NORTHWEST. By THEODORE C. SMITH, Ph.D. 8vo. pp. 
 xii-35i. $1.7 5 net. 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., PUBLISHERS, 
 
 91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, 
 LONDON AND BOMBAY. 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 TO * 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 1 -month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405 
 
 6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk 
 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AUG181992 
 
 
 
 A 1 IT"/""\ ri i i~i 
 
 
 
 AUTO. DISL 
 
 
 
 AUG i:j lyy 
 
 *? 
 
 
 QIRGUI A-nr 
 
 * } 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 12/80 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
 LD 21A-60m-3,'65 
 (F2336slO)476B 
 
 'General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
*>..