Ohio History Journal

PARTY POLITICS IN OHIO, 1840-1850

 

 

BY EDGAR ALLAN HOLT, B. A., M. A., PH. D.

 

 

(Continued from the January, 1929, Quarterly)

 

CHAPTER V

 

THE ELECTION OF 1848 IN OHIO

The clash of sectional and personal interests in

Ohio did not end with the pronouncements of the State

conventions. The bitter anti-southern wing of the Whig

party, encouraged by the lavish praise bestowed on Cor-

win by the Whig State Convention, thought that he

might, after all, become the leader of the Whigs of the

Nation. On the other hand, Corwin had lost the confi-

dence of the Liberty leaders and could not, therefore,

hope to rally all the anti-slavery forces; nor could he

command the support of many moderate Whigs who

favored an energetic prosecution of the War. McLean

hoped to conciliate all these forces, but his "Jacksonism"

and his doubts as to the rights of Congress to abolish

slavery in the territories, prevented what might other-

wise have been unanimous Whig support. The friends

of Scott continued to press his interests in Ohio hoping

to find in him the only available candidate.

The overwhelming movement to nominate Taylor

continued in the face of open defiance from Ohio, a

defiance which grew with the cession of California and

New Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in

(260)

• 1
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      261

May, 1848.1 Stevenson, editor of the Cincinnati Atlas,

expressed this sentiment well when he assured J. J.

Crittenden, of Kentucky, manager of the Taylor inter-

ests in that State, that "the Wilmot Proviso is 'stronger

in Ohio than Whiggery, democracy and military glory,

all combined. * * * "2 However, he added that Tay-

lor might carry Ohio if he would assume the "no terri-

tory" ground which Corwin regarded as a sine qua non

of his support. Outside of Cincinnati, where there was

considerable Taylor strength,³ the sentiment against

Taylor seemed overwhelming. When it became evident

that it would become difficult to defeat the Taylor move-

ment in the country at large, Whigs of the Ninth, Tenth,

Eleventh, Twelfth, and Twentieth Ohio Congressional

Districts announced that they would not support anyone

who was not pledged to oppose the extension of slavery

or the cession of further territory, or who was not "a

Whig, a whole Whig and  nothing   but a Whig."⁴

Similar action was taken by the Whigs of Trum-

bull, Lorain, Warren, Cuyahoga, Belmont, Lake,

Geauga, Greene, Clinton, and Ashtabula Counties.⁵

Anti-slavery Whigs took possession of a Clay meeting

in Cincinnati and passed resolutions refusing support to

any candidate who did not favor the exclusion of slavery

from all the territories.⁶ By March, almost every county

 

1 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 526-527; Erwin H. Price has treated

"The Election of 1848 in Ohio," in Ohio Archaeological and Historical Pub-

lications, v. XXXVI, 1927, pp. 188-311.

2 Stevenson to Crittenden, September 7, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI.

3 N. G. Pendleton to Crittenden, February 10, 1848, Crittenden MSS.,

v. XI; H. E. Spencer to McLean, February 24, 1848, McLean MSS., v.

XIV; Ohio State Journal, February 4, 1848.

4 Ohio State Journal, March 11, April 9, 11, 29, May 9, 1848.

5 Cleveland True Democrat, January 4, 1848.

6 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 127.

• 2
 

262       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

in Ohio had declared for Corwin or Clay; Richland and

Summit Counties had declared for Scott; and not one

expressed a preference for Taylor. The Lebanon Star

summarized these events "as a pointed rebuke of the in-

sane attempt of sundry Whigs to thrust a slave-holding

military Chieftain on the Whig party."⁷ The Hamilton

Intelligencer, edited by William C. Howells, urged the

Whigs to nominate a civilian, instead of a military chief-

tain, in order to make the Mexican War a real issue;8

and the Dayton Journal hastened to assure the leaders

of the State that a Taylor meeting at that place was

poorly attended and did not represent the Whigs of

Montgomery County.⁹      In the face of a continued de-

mand by Whig leaders of Ohio that Taylor express his

views on Whig principles,¹⁰ the General refused to com-

mit himself, simply repeating that he was not a party

man, that he would run even if Clay were the choice of

the National Convention, and that, although he would

accept the nomination of a Whig national Convention,

he would not be bound by pledges.11 This letter writing

left the Whigs of Ohio utterly at sea. Corwin, ready to

support Taylor on the "no territory" issue, privately ex-

pressed the opinion that the General's qualifications con-

sisted in "sleeping forty years in the woods, and culti-

vating moss on the calves of his legs."¹² Ohio Whigs

were unqualifiedly opposed to Taylor's candidacy.

 

7 Lebanon Star, quoted in Ohio State Journal, March 22, 1848.

8 Hamilton Intelligencer, quoted in Ohio State Journal, March 7, 1848,

9 Dayton Journal, quoted in Ohio State Journal, April 5, 1848.

10 Marietta Intelligencer and Toledo Blade, quoted in Ohio State Jour-

nal, February 7, 1848.

11 Montgomery (Alabama) Journal, quoted in Ohio State Journal, April

1, 1848; Richmond (Virginia) Republican, quoted in Cincinnati Daily En-

quirer, May 1, 1848.

12 Stevenson to Clay, May 22, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

• 3
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850       263

The movement for McLean is more difficult to ana-

lyze. The cession of Mexican territory by the treaty,

which ended the Mexican War, scrapped the rather sim-

ple Whig formula of opposition to the extension of

American territory and made it impossible to evade the

question of slavery in the territories. To many Whigs

of Ohio, McLean's view13 that Congress had no right

to deal with slavery in the territories seemed identical

with Cass's doctrine of popular sovereignty.¹⁴ Never-

theless, McLean was at least partially successful in keep-

ing the confidence of the extreme anti-southern men,

who hoped to use him as a figure around which the

North might rally against the pretensions of the South.¹⁵

The moderate and conservative elements of the Whig

party preferred McLean's position to the extreme prin-

ciples of Corwin. McLean's friends tried to organize

the State. At the Franklin County Whig Convention,

on February 26th, a secret committee was formed, com-

posed of Samuel Galloway, Lorenzo English, Robert

Thompson, J. Kilbourne, William Miner, John Greiner,

C. C. Rose, Demas Adams, A. F. Perry, and John Tees-

dale,16 and the latter toured the State in an effort to

persuade Whig editors to support McLean, although

most of them were already committed to other candi-

dates.17 The failure to secure greater newspaper sup-

port led to the proposal to establish a McLean paper at

 

13 National Intelligencer, December ²², 1847.

14 McLean to Chase, February 5, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.

15 Giddings wrote Chase that "The political atmosphere is overspread.

Great events are rapidly transpiring.--My impression now is that Judge

McLean will be the candidate of the Whig party . . . It is true he does

not go as far as we do but I think his election would be a triumph of true

principles." Giddings to Chase, March 6, 1848, Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.

16 Teesdale to Miner, February 26, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV.

17 Teesdale to Miner, March 31, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

• 4
 

264      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Columbus, but James Wilson, of Steubenville, a staunch

supporter of the Judge, thought that such a paper would

not do as much good as three or four "decidedly Whig"

papers.¹⁸ Liberty leaders, upon whom McLean counted

for support, disapproved of the proposal to make Tees-

dale the editor of a special McLean paper because the

latter was unpopular among Corwin's followers and en-

tirely too "Whiggish" to be an instrument of reform.¹⁹

That the "Xenia Clique" and other followers of Corwin

continued their hostility to McLean was evidenced by

the continued attacks of the Xenia Torch-Light.²⁰ Whig

leaders in other states assured the friends of McLean

that if Ohio would unite on the Judge he would become

the national leader of the party.²¹  McLean's friends

tried to create the impression in Washington that Clay

could not be elected and that the only hope of success

for the party in 1848 was to unite on McLean.²²

The supporters of Corwin, after they perceived that

their favorite could not be nominated, could not agree

as to the best policy to pursue. In a Convention of

Whigs of the Tenth Congressional District (Franklin,

Licking, and Knox), William B. Thrall, editor of the

Ohio State Journal, John A. Lazell, of the State Central

Committee, and James Noble, all friends of Corwin, de-

clared for Scott, although the friends of McLean se-

cured the appointment of Samuel Galloway as one of the

delegates to the Whig National Convention.23 McLean's

18 Wilson to McLean, January 26, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV.

19 Hamlin to Chase, May 14, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.

20 --?-- to McLean, March 8, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

21 Miller to McLean, May 7, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV; Smith to

McLean, March 29, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

22 Moorehead to Clay, May 3, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

23 Miner to McLean, May 20, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

• 5
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    265

enemies sought to give the impression in Washington

that Scott would be more acceptable than the Judge, to

Corwin's supporters.²⁴ The enmity of Corwin toward

McLean may be explained by the fact that the latter's

nomination in 1848 would probably defer or make im-

possible the selection of another candidate from Ohio

for several terms, although Greeley claimed that it was

caused by Corwin's fear that McLean would be hostile

to his ambitions.²⁵ But Corwin soon reversed his tac-

tics. On May 19, an editorial in the Lebanon Star

promised to support McLean as a second choice to Cor-

win. Chase regarded the editorial as authoritative be-

cause Corwin was in Lebanon at the time, and Corwin

verified this impression by sending a marked copy of

the editorial to William Miner, with the words, "This

will be the position of the Whigs here."²⁶ The position

of the anti-southern Whigs and of the Liberty leaders,

with reference to the McLean movement, must be ex-

plained further. A letter of Judge Wilson accounts for

much of the opposition to McLean. Wilson wrote that

"Some will have it that you [McLean] voted for Gen-

eral Jackson and opposed the election of Mr. Adams.

Others that you formed a portion of Jackson's Cabinet

--others again, that you were opposed to Clay."²⁷ Since

McLean had been an independent, some National Re-

publicans feared that he would be hostile to their inter-

ests. Webster's friends wanted to know whether Mc-

Lean had any "unfriendly feelings" toward him,²⁸ and

 

24 Caleb B. Smith to McLean, April 22, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV,

See also J. W. Allen to ? March, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

25 Teesdale to McLean, May 10, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

26 Miner to McLean, May 20, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

27 Wilson to McLean, January 26, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV.

28 Smith to McLean, May 1, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

• 6
 

266       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the protestations of the Cincinnati Daily Gazette, a Mc-

Lean organ, failed to convince the Ohio State Journal

of his Whiggery.²⁹

Although McLean was not anti-southern enough to

be acceptable to Whigs like Tilden and Root of the

Western Reserve,³⁰ the Liberty leaders of Ohio began to

look to him, following the Judge's letter denouncing the

War, as a suitable candidate upon whom all anti-slavery

men could unite, in spite of the fact that the Liberty

party already had a candidate in the field. It will be

remembered that the Ohio Liberty leaders opposed the

nomination of Hale in the hope of being able to take ad-

vantage of schisms in the older parties. This dissolu-

tion of the old parties appeared imminent, and Steven-

son was correct when he wrote Clay that McLean was

trying "to detach Whigs from their party on anti-slav-

ery grounds, and to rope in the Liberty party * * *,

a scheme which contemplates either the withdrawal or

the sacrifice of Hale, and I am sure that Chase and

other leading Abolitionists, here and elsewhere, are in

the plot."³¹ Hamlin, editor of the Cleveland True Demo-

crat, supported McLean so strongly that Teesdale feared

he would endanger his chances among the moderate

Whigs.³² Corwin, fearing the effect of this Liberty and

Whig alliance on the southern Whigs, urged the Lib-

erty leaders to use discretion in their campaign for Mc-

 

29 Ohio State Journal, February 8, 1848.

30 Chase to McLean, May 25, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV. The Liberty

leaders, Chase and Hamlin, tried to rid Tilden of this impression before he

left as a delegate to the Whig National Convention; See also Whittlesey

to McLean, May 11, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

31 Stevenson to Clay, April 8, 1818, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

32 Teesdale to McLean, May 12, 1848, and Hamlin to McLean, May 15,

1848, in McLean MSS., v. XV.

• 7
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    267

Lean;33 and Teesdale, also aware of the fact that the

support of the Liberty party was a "two-edged sword,"

warned against the sharp anti-southern articles which

Chase contributed to the Cincinnati Gazette.³⁴  To the

time of the Whig National Convention, Chase assured

McLean of his support, and Hamlin lent encouragement

from northern Ohio, assuring the Judge that reports

that northern Ohio favored Scott were unfounded.³⁵

Moreover, an additional weight was thrown into the

scales for McLean when Brinkerhoff announced his

support, an example which Chase thought 10,000 Demo-

crats of Ohio would follow.³⁶

Encouraged by the endorsement of the Whig State

Convention, the movement to nominate Corwin gained

force until it became evident that he could secure no sup-

port from other states. Angered at the opposition of

the followers of McLean, the members of the General

Assembly, favorable to Corwin, forced the dismissal of

Teesdale as assistant clerk,³⁷ and launched an ambitious

movement in New York for Clay, in order to neutralize

the movement for Taylor, so that Corwin might finally

be brought forward as a compromise condidate.³⁸ The

Whigs of Ohio gladly would have supported Corwin,

had there been any possibility of securing his nomina-

tion. District and county conventions, all over the State,

instructed their delegates for Ohio's favorite son, with

Clay as a second choice,³⁹ and an Ohio correspondent

 

33 Miner to McLean, May 20, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

34 Teesdale to McLean, May 8, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

35 Chase to McLean, May 20, 1848, and Hamlin to McLean, June 2,

1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

36 Chase to McLean, May 26, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

37 Wilson to McLean, January 26, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV.

38 Mower to McLean, January 29, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV.

39 Ohio State Journal, March 4, 6, 11, May 4, 1848.

• 8
 

268       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of the New York Herald asserted that the demonstra-

tions for McLean and Taylor were merely feints to draw

off the supporters of Clay in order to allow the political

forces of the State to rally behind Corwin.⁴⁰ Although,

on May 18, the Ohio State Journal declared for Corwin

because "a vast majority of the Whigs of Ohio prefer

him to any other man who has been named," his nomi-

nation was impossible and the important question was

to whom his support should be transferred. Teesdale

believed that the delegates from southern Ohio favored

Clay while those from northern Ohio would vote for

Scott.⁴1 It was generally felt in Washington and in

Ohio that Corwin desired McLean's defeat in order to

improve his own chances for 1852,42 in spite of the fact

that on May 19 he publicly announced in the Lebanon

Star that his adherents would support McLean as a

second choice.

Scott's strength, chiefly in northern Ohio,⁴³ was

based on the belief that only a military hero could de-

feat Taylor in the National Convention.     Follett de-

clared that the Whigs of northern Ohio were willing

to accept Scott simply because he was a northern man,⁴⁴

and Tilden and Root labored to create enthusiasm for

Scott.⁴⁵ Scott was endorsed by some district and county

conventions,⁴⁶ thus making possible his support in the

Whig National Convention.

40 New York Herald, quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, April 23,

1848.

41 Teesdale to McLean, March 6, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV.

42 Dowling to McLean, May 1, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

43 Teesdale to McLean, February 28, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV;

Whittlesey to McLean, May 11, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

44 Stevenson to Clay, May 18, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

45 Hamlin to Chase, May 20, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.

46 Ohio State Journal, March 3, April 17, 25, May 9, 29, 1848.

• 9
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      269

Clay's strength in Ohio depended upon the ability of

his friends to create the impression that he could win,

and upon the pledges he might make opposing the ex-

tension of slavery in the territories. Frequent defeats

and the lack of enthusiasm for Clay proved a tremen-

dous handicap.    Chase preferred    McLean, but an-

nounced he would support Clay if he would "take some

positive anti-slavery ground."⁴⁷ Chase represented the

position of an anti-slavery leader with strong Demo-

cratic proclivities. Anti-southern leaders among the

Whigs also could support Clay if he opposed the exten-

sion of slavery in the territories. It was confidently ex-

pected that Clay would take this position--indeed, Stev-

enson and Bellamy Storer, of Cincinnati, said as much

in a public meeting in Cincinnati.⁴⁸ When anti-southern

leaders, both Whig and Liberty, in May, signed a call

for a "People's Convention," in Columbus, Stevenson

urged Clay to make an explicit declaration against the

extension of slavery.⁴⁹ Clay, sensing the gravity of the

situation, but still intent upon the presidency, asked Cor-

win whether or not he should withdraw, and Corwin

replied that any candidate who thought another person

had a better chance of winning the election should with-

draw; that Clay's Lexington resolutions had not quieted

the Abolitionists; and that, although he could obtain

more votes in Ohio than any other candidate from a

slave-holding state, he could not carry it against any

 

47 Chase to McLean, February 12, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV.

48 Stevenson to Clay, April 8, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV. Stevenson

thought that Clay could command southern support by taking the legal

position that the law of a territory remained the same when transferred by

treaty.

49 Stevenson to Clay, May 18, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

• 10
 

270       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Democrat from a free state.⁵⁰ That Clay had really

lost the confidence of the anti-slavery leaders was

shown by Hamlin's statement in the Cleveland True

Democrat to the effect that Clay's "heart is not in the

anti-slavery enterprise--he is a slave-holder living in a

slave state, and freedom has nothing to hope from

him."⁵¹ Giddings, who had campaigned ardently for

Clay in 1844, now demanded a specific pledge from him

to oppose the further extension of slavery.⁵²

Only for a brief period, in the fall of 1847, did sen-

timent in Ohio seem to favor Clay. This was occa-

sioned by the disgust of the regulars with General Tay-

lor's non-committal letters, and possibly if Clay had

taken strong ground against the extension of slave ter-

ritory at that time he might have obtained the support

of Ohio.⁵³ But Clay refused, and hopes for his nomi-

nation passed so rapidly that his friends, embarrassed

by constant rumors that Clay would not run, insisted

that he give them a statement.⁵⁴ Clay, still pathetically

interested in the presidency, sounded out the leaders as

to his chances. McLean told him that he should not run

unless there was the highest probability of success.

"Your fame," he wrote Clay, "is of too much value to

yourself and to your country to compromise it, in any

degree, on a hazardous result."⁵⁵

Desire for the office finally overcame Clay, and, on

April 10, in a public letter, he decided to allow his name

 

50 Corwin to Clay, May 3, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

51 Corwin to Clay, May 3, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

52 Giddings to Chase, March 16, 1848, Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.

53 Stevenson to Crittenden, September 7, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI.

54 Stevenson to Clay, May 18, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

55 McLean to Clay, March 1, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

• 11
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          271

to go before the Whig National Convention.⁵⁶ Clay's

letter announcing his position was really a revelation of

his weakness and of his gullibility,⁵⁷ and it had a bad

effect on his chances in Ohio.⁵⁸ although the Ohio State

Journal remarked that, excepting Ohio's favorite son,

Clay was the most popular man in the State and that

his past utterances had shown that he would resist the

extension of slavery in the territories.⁵⁹ The Cincinnati

Daily Enquirer (D) went to the heart of the whole

matter with the declaration "There is something rich

in the idea advocated by his friends, that the use of his

name is essential to the salvation of the Whig party in

the free states; that he, a southern man, and a slave-

holder, should be, of all others of his class, alone accept-

able to the north!"    The Enquirer maintained that the

really important consideration was Clay's attitude on

slavery in the territories.⁶⁰ The Whigs of Ohio re-

mained cold and Clay's chief adviser in Ohio was forced

to admit in May that it might be wise to withdraw from

the race.⁶1 The attitude of Corwin at this juncture is

difficult to explain. After having assured the friends

of McLean that his followers would support the Judge

as a second choice, he virtually repudiated that statement

and announced that he was urging the Ohio delegates

to vote for Clay first, Webster second, and finally, if a

 

56 Ohio State Journal, April 14, 1848.

57 James E. Harvey wrote that "It betrays a willingness to believe rep-

resentations that have not even plausibility to recommend them, and a mor-

bid passion for the Presidency which nothing but charity can extenuate.

It is evident that he plays his last card and that desperation guides the ven-

ture." Harvey to McLean, April 27, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

58 Teesdale to McLean, April 15, 1848, and Leavitt to McLean, May 3,

1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

59 Ohio State Journal, April 14, 1848.

60 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, April 13, 1848.

61 Stevenson to Clay, May 18, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

• 12
 

272      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

civilian were not available, to go for Scott.⁶² John W.

Allen, editor of the Cleveland Herald, summarizing the

situation in the Western Reserve, maintained that "Cor-

win and McLean can (carry) this region with a rush.

Webster would carry it strongly and so would Scott,

unless his nativism of 1845 were fastened on him. It

would be hard work to do anything for Mr. Clay and

death to do anything for old Zack. The delegates from

this region only desire to know who has the most

strength to determine their action. * * * As to the

free States, I think there will be no quarreling after the

nomination. We desire to win and care less who the

servant we employ may be, than that he be honest and

capable and an orthodox Whig."⁶³ In short, the pre-

convention campaign left the Ohio delegation unpledged

on everything except the defeat of Taylor.

Between January and May, 1848, practically all the

Democratic organs and county conventions in. Ohio fa-

vored Cass for president and William Butler, of Ken-

tucky, for vice president.⁶⁴ But the political situation

was more complex than this apparent unanimity would

indicate. A portion of the old Van Buren-Jacksonian

Democracy was willing to accept the nomination of Cass,

who was understood to be sympathetic with the South.

His enemies labelled him an "arch-dough-face."  Both

Medary and Allen had been disappointed by the Polk

Administration, the former by being refused a cabinet

and a consular appointment,⁶⁵ and the latter by being

defeated in the conduct of relations with England in the

 

62 Stevenson to Clay, May 22, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

63 Allen to --?--, May 12, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

64 Ohio Statesman, April -- to May 25, 1848.

65 Medary to Allen, January 22, 1848, Allen MSS., v. VI.

• 13
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  273

"Oregon boundary dispute," and both were willing to

acquiesce in the nomination of Cass. But Medary, al-

though appointed as a delegate, did not attend the Na-

tional Convention. He told Van Buren that he had no

confidence in any of the new leaders, and particularly

not in Cass's advisers, but he explained that he liked

Cass personally and would vote for him if nominated.

Medary claimed that the Democrats of Ohio acquiesced

in the selection of Cass because of the latter's defence

of the American claims in the Oregon question, and

because it was generally believed that the Administra-

tion was opposed to his candidacy. Medary also ob-

jected to making an issue of the Wilmot Proviso be-

cause "There were higher, better, safer and less ob-

noxious grounds to take."⁶⁶

A small portion of the radical Democracy was unwil-

ling to accept the leadership of Cass, whom they identi-

fied as an ally of the slave power. That they were domi-

nated by a jealousy of southern influence in the govern-

ment, rather than by any moral scruples concerning slav-

ery, was evident from the composition of this faction.

Brinkerhoff, one of the most important, was grievously

disappointed with Polk, who refused to appoint him to

the position of paymaster in the army.⁶⁷ That he had

no particular sympathy with negroes, was shown by his

desire to prevent them from coming into Ohio, and to

force slave-holders to care for them.⁶⁸ Benjamin Tap-

pan, who also opposed the nomination of Cass and later

 

66 Medary to Van Buren, May 5, 1848, Van Buren MSS., v. IV.

67 Polk's Diary, v. I, p. 466.

68 Brinkerhoff to Chase, March 22, 1847, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

Vol. XXXVIII--18

• 14
 

274        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

joined the Free Soil party,⁶⁹ continually assured Polk,

in the hope of getting political preferment,⁷⁰ that his

was the only Democratic paper in Ohio. A third mem-

ber of the Ohio Democracy who belonged to this anti-

southern, rather than an anti-slavery wing, was James

W. Taylor, of the Cincinnati Signal.⁷¹ Although a Demo-

crat, Taylor had thrown his influence to the movement

to nominate General Taylor, but he proposed to go over

to the Barnburners, of New York, a radical reform

group under the leadership of Van Buren, if Taylor

should adopt any other position than that of an umpire

on the question of slavery in the territories or if he

should fail to appoint enough northern men to public

office.⁷²  Thus an element of the Democratic party in

Ohio, dissatisfied with the domination of the National

organization by the South, proposed to join a similarly

dissatisfied  group    from   New    York.    They    hoped to

appeal to the voters on the rather abstract question of

slavery in the territories, but only because the extension

of slavery meant an addition to the political power of the

South.

The Democratic National Convention, which met in

 

69 Ohio State Journal, August 10, 1848. See Tappan-Blair Letters.

70 Polk's Diary, v. I, pp. 38-40.

71 James W. Taylor was born at Penn Yen, Yates County, New York,

in 1818; was admitted to the bar; moved to Ohio in 1841; delegate to the

Constitutional Convention of Ohio 1850-1851; State Librarian of Ohio

1854-1856; appointed by President Grant U. S. Consul to Winnipeg, Can-

ada, where he died April 28, 1893. For biographical sketch see Galbreath,

History of Ohio, vol. 2, p. 62.

72 Taylor ended the letter in which he explained his position to John

Van Buren, a Barnburner leader of New York and son of the ex-President,

with a rather obsequious request for a loan in order to rescue the Signal

from financial ruin. James W. Taylor to John Van Buren, April 18, 1848,

Van Buren MSS. v. LIV.

• 15
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    275

Baltimore⁷³ May 22, 1848, was a stormy one. The De-

mocracy of New York, already divided into the "Hunk-

ers," or regular Democrats, and the "Barnburners," sent

two sets of delegates.⁷⁴ The difficulties raised by this

contest may be appreciated from an analysis in the

Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, which thought that the

Barnburners were "disorganizers," who should be

pledged to accept the nominee of the National Conven-

tion. On the other hand, the same paper declared that

if they were excluded from the Convention, because they

would not accept such a pledge, the delegates from Ala-

bama, South Carolina, and Georgia should be excluded,

also, since they were pledged not to accept any man who

would not promise to oppose the restriction of slavery in

the territories.⁷⁵ The Convention decided to settle the

contest by pledging each faction to abide by the nominee

of the Convention. When the Barnburners declined to

be pledged, the Hunkers were given their seats in the

Convention by action of a committee. A warm debate

followed, in which the Committee report was tabled, and

the Convention voted to hear the claims of each faction.

The Barnburners denied that they were Abolitionists

simply because they had supported a resolution in the

Democratic State Convention of New York to apply the

principles of the Ordinance of 1787 to the new terri-

tories. On the fourth day, the Convention decided to

seat both delegations and give every other state a corre-

sponding increase of representation, but both Hunkers

73 There had been a loud demand among the Democrats of Ohio that

the National Convention should be held in Cincinnati on July 4, but the

proposal fell upon deaf ears in the East. Washington Daily Union, De-

cember 11, 1847, January 24, February 12, 1848.

74 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 544-545.

75 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, May 4, 1848.

• 16
 

276      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and Barnburners declined to accept the compromise and

withdrew from the Convention.⁷⁶

On the fourth ballot, Lewis Cass was nominated for

president. McGrane, in his biography of William Allen,

gives Allen's account of the part he played in the Con-

vention, as related by Allen himself in 1873. According

to this account, the forces of Cass and Van Buren were

deadlocked, and a committee, composed of the friends

of each, visited Allen at Washington and offered him

the nomination for the sake of party harmony. Allen

refused the nomination and asked the committee to go

back to Baltimore and nominate Cass. To accept the

nomination, according to Allen, would have been an act

of treachery because he had been entrusted with the

management of Cass's campaign.⁷⁷ Although this is Al-

len's own version of how an apparent deadlock was

broken, it is difficult to understand how Allen could have

played this role between the forces of Cass and Van

Buren when the latter had not even been placed in nom-

ination. McGrane explains Allen's preference for Cass

over Van Buren by Allen's desire to make the most

strategic political move, because Cass had the support

of the Democratic State Convention of Ohio, and be-

cause Allen did not sympathize with the recent anti-

slavery tendencies of Van Buren.78 It appears that sec-

tionalism dominated the anti-southern group in the Na-

tional Convention to a higher degree than it did those

who accepted the choice of the party. Moreover, as

Medary pointed out, Cass represented, to some degree,

the ardent expansionist sentiment of the Northwest

76 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 544-545.

77 McGrane, op. cit., pp. 128-131.

78 Ibid., pp. 127-128.

• 17
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        277

and a hostility to England which always appealed to the

provincialism of the American.79 William O. Butler, of

Kentucky, was nominated for vice president. The usual

Democratic doctrines were endorsed and the Convention

declared that all efforts of Abolitionists and others to

induce Congress to interfere with slavery were danger-

ous and should not be countenanced.⁸⁰

Cass's nomination was well received in Ohio, al-

though it encountered the opposition of the same ele-

ments that had fought against his endorsement in the

State Convention. Brinkerhoff was on the verge of join-

ing the Free soil movement in Ohio, a movement by

which Chase and the Liberty leaders hoped to obtain the

support of all who were dissatisfied with the actions of

the National Conventions, irrespective of party. Brink-

erhoff wrote to Chase, "I have for some time openly

declared and still do that I will not vote for Cass.

Whether I shall vote at all depends on results. Should

things take such a course as to induce me to believe that

my approval and support of the proceedings of the Con-

vention [People's Convention of anti-slavery elements

at Columbus] to come off on the 20th and 21st, would

be of any use to the Great Cause, I will not be slow in

letting it be known."⁸¹ The Cleveland Daily Plain

Dealer greeted Cass's nomination with black type head-

 

79 Political strategy probably played an even larger share, because, on

May 2, Blair wrote Van Buren that "There is, on the part of Benton and

Allen, a willingness to fight the battle on northern grounds boldly and un-

compromisingly." Francis P. Blair to Van Buren, May 2, 1848, Medary

to Allen, January 22, 1845, Allen MSS., v. VI; Medary to Van Buren, May

5, 1848, Van Buren MSS., v. LIV.

80 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, p. 546.

84 Brinkerhoff to Chase, May 27, 1848, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

82 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, May 26, 1848.

83 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, May 29, 1848.

• 18
 

278      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

lines "The Great West Triumphant," and interpreted

the nomination as a victory of the Northwest over the

South in which the two-thirds rule had been unable

to defeat the will of the people.⁸² This view was even

more clearly expressed in an editorial which declared

that "The fear of falling again into Southern hands,

and plodding through another administration under

Southern rule, has been gloriously relieved. A man has

been nominated whose birth, education, relations and

associations, are all of the Free States."⁸3 The regular

Democrats hoped to keep the dissatisfied elements of the

State in line by interpreting the nomination as a victory

over southern domination.⁸⁴ The Ohio Whigs, on the

other hand, considered Cass's selection as a victory for

the South, the Ohio State Journal declaring that "Any

other northern man might possibly show some inde-

pendence, but with Cass they [the South] felt safe."⁸⁵

Thus both parties viewed the issue as one between the

rights of the North and the domination of the South.

The extension of slave territory was to both parties in

Ohio a symbol of the rule of the "Slave power" in na-

tional affairs.

The Whig National Convention met in Philadelphia,

June 5, 1848. That Taylor was the choice of a ma-

jority of the Convention was clear from the beginning.⁸⁶

The anti-southern wing of the Whigs was anxious to

support McLean, since Chase had pointed out that if a

candidate acceptable to the Liberty men were nomi-

nated, the Whigs would secure the support of the anti-

84 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, May 30, 1848.

85 Ohio State Journal, June 1, 1848.

86 Harlan to Chase, June 2, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

• 19
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        279

slavery forces of the North.⁸⁷ The Whigs of New Eng-

land and Indiana were ready to cast their votes for Mc-

Lean if Ohio would lead the way,⁸⁸ but, although seven

members of the Ohio delegation were ready to support

him, the majority thought that he could not be nomi-

nated, and that, in order to defeat Taylor, it was neces-

sary to support Scott, a northern military man.89 Fully

aware that he had small chance of success, Samuel Gal-

loway, representing the McLean delegates, had pre-

sented the name of the Judge to the Convention and

had promptly withdrawn it.⁹⁰ McLean's friends in-

sisted that his defeat was due to the division of the

Whigs of Ohio,⁹¹ but the Judge was probably defeated

by the wide-spread distrust of his orthodoxy on gen-

eral Whig principles and by the lukewarmness of the

support of the anti-southern groups in Ohio. Ohio gave

one vote to Taylor, McLean and Clay, and twenty votes

to Scott on the first ballot, in spite of the fact that there

was no enthusiasm for the latter in the delegation.⁹²

Ohio continued to support Scott until after the nomi-

nation of Taylor, when ex-Governor Joseph Vance

seconded the motion to make Taylor's selection unani-

mous, and made a plea for unity. Vance acknowledged

that he had opposed the nomination of Taylor largely

because of the fear that his nomination would disor-

 

87 Chase to McLean, May 25, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

88 Thompson to Corwin, May 15, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

89 Whittlesey to McLean, June 12, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

90 Galloway to McLean, July 14, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV; this

occurrence later led to a misunderstanding between Chase and the Ohio

State Journal, the former maintaining that McLean was not bound by the

decision of the Convention, while the latter asserted the contrary and pub-

lished a letter from Galloway to show that his name was presented. Ohio

State Journal, July 31, 1848.

91 Smith to McLean, June 13, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

92 Stevenson to Clay, August 10, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXVI.

• 20
 

280      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ganize the Whig party in Ohio.⁹³ The unwillingness of

the Whigs of Ohio to support Clay bitterly disappointed

Horace Greeley who had labored hard to procure the

nomination of the Kentuckian.⁹⁴ In order to sow the

seeds of discord in the Whig ranks, the Ohio Democrats

sought to prove that Crittenden, apparently an ally

of Clay, was in reality working for Taylor95 and that he

was responsible for Clay's defeat.⁹⁶

The Convention also brought Corwin's duplicity to

light. It appeared that, although he had assured the

workers of Clay during the pre-convention period that

Ohio was for Clay, he really had used Clay's name to

neutralize the Taylor movement. After that had been

accomplished, Corwin organized a movement in favor

of Scott in order to produce a hopeless confusion in the

political situation in Ohio. His friends on the Western

Reserve planned a meeting of the Whigs in Columbus

to ratify the nomination of the Whig National Conven-

tion if it should be any other person than Taylor. Should

Taylor be the nominee, Corwin's friends hoped that

Corwin would be the choice of the proposed Columbus

Convention. As matters turned out, the Whigs, who

were dissatisfied by the action of the Philadelphia Con-

vention, finally went into the Free Soil movement and

Corwin was left stranded, as far as his own ambitions

were concerned.⁹⁷

No platform was adopted by the Whigs in 1848; but

 

93 Ohio Slate Journal, June 14, 1848.

94 Greeley to Clay, June 21, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

95 See letters of Vance and Stevenson to Crittenden in Crittenden MSS.

v. XI.

96 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, July 28, 1848.

97 For this very interesting situation see George M. Botts to Clay,

August 23, 1848, and Stevenson to Clay, August 10, 1848, in Clay MSS.,

v. XXVI.

• 21
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    281

it was understood that the party endorsed the principles

of Taylor's letter to J. S. Allison, to the effect that

he was a Whig but not an ultra-Whig; that the veto

should never be used except in cases of violations of

the Constitution or hasty action by Congress; and that

the will of the people on such issues as the tariff, the

currency, and internal improvements should be carried

out by the President.98

The reaction of the Whigs in Ohio to Taylor's nom-

ination was not unexpected. On June 17, in an address

urging support of the nominee of the Convention, the

Whig State Central Committee stressed Taylor's ad-

herence to Whig principles and quoted from his letters

to prove that because he opposed the use of the veto,

he would not defeat an act of Congress extending the

Wilmot Proviso to the new territories."⁹⁹ The Ohio

State Journal announced that, though it would have pre-

ferred a civilian to a soldier, and a citizen of the North

to a citizen of the South, Taylor was far better than

Cass, who was servile to the slave interests.100 But

Taylor's nomination awakened little enthusiasm among

the "staid, discreet, and ardent Whigs."¹⁰¹ Anti-south-

ern papers all over the State openly repudiated the nom-

ination, the Ashtabula Sentinel, Giddings' organ, as-

serting that "They [the Whigs] will not be likely to

surrender their honor nor their principles for the pur-

pose of sustaining a man whose hands are red with the

blood of innocence and who is in favor of extending the

98 For events of Convention see Ohio State Journal, June 12-13, 1848;

Niles' Register, July 5, 1848.

99 Ohio State Journal, June 17, 1848.

100 Ohio State Journal, June 10, 1848.

101 Ohio State Journal, June 17, 1848.

• 22
 

282      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

cause of slavery upon territory now free and of erecting

new slave markets on soil that is now consecrated to

the rights of man."1⁰² The Elyria Courier denounced

the Whig Central Committee for attempting to "seduce

the Whigs of the State from their principles."103   By

June 21, the following papers refused to support Tay-

lor: the Warren Chronicle, Massillon Telegraph, Ohio

Star, Ashtabula Sentinel, Cleveland True Democrat,

Medina Whig, Painesville Telegraph, Lorain Courier,

and Butler County Whig. The Mt. Vernon Times, Ohio

Repository, Conneaut Reporter, New Lisbon Palladium,

and the Akron Beacon awaited Taylor's statement con-

cerning his attitude on the Wilmot Proviso.¹⁰⁴ On the

Western Reserve, where the defection was greatest, the

Whigs of Trumbull and Geauga Counties, refused to

ratify Taylor's nomination.105 The Cleveland True

Democrat repudiated the nomination in violent terms--

"And this is the cup offered by slaveholders 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 pledges they have

made."¹⁰⁶ Lewis D. Campbell, a Whig member of Con-

gress and a delegate to the National Convention, pub-

licly renounced Taylor at a meeting of Whigs in Ham-

ilton.¹⁰⁷

For a time it appeared that the whole Whig party

of Ohio would repudiate the nomination, but as time

 

102 Ashtabula Sentinel quoted in Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, June

12, 1848.

103 Elyria Courier quoted in Ohio State Journal, July 7, 1848.

104 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, June 21. 1848.

105 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, July 7, 1848.

106 Cleveland True Democrat, June 10, 1848.

107 Ohio State Journal, July 26, 1848.

• 23
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  283

elapsed and it became more evident that the Free Soilers

would endorse Van Buren, the ancient enemy of the

Whigs, for the presidency, the Whigs began to fall in

line behind the party candidate. From the first, a few

papers like the Maumee River Times had hailed the

nomination as the best which could have been made un-

der the circumstances and ended an editorial with the

exclamation, "All hail, then, General Taylor! the Peo-

ple's Candidate, and the People's President."¹⁰⁸ "Rough

and Ready Clubs" were formed in Ohio by the Old

Guard of the Whig party, in an effort to exploit Taylor's

well-known traits,¹⁰⁹ but the people refused to respond

with the enthusiasm they had shown in 1840. The re-

action of William L. Perkins, a prominent Whig of the

Western Reserve and a delegate to the National Con-

vention, was typical. For two days after the nomina-

tion, he indignantly rejected Taylor and wrote a letter

to that effect to the Ashtabula Sentinel. After closer

examination of Taylor's Allison letter, he changed his

mind and urged the regular Whigs of Ohio to support

Taylor because he was the lesser of two evils. Taylor

had been fairly nominated in a Convention, in which

the Whigs of Ohio had participated, and now, by the

Allison letter he had promised to abide by the wishes

of the representatives of the people. Perkins frankly

admitted that Taylor was the only man who could beat

Cass and that he had been selected because the Whigs

were tired of being beaten. The chief Whig organ of

the State welcomed Perkins's letter as the "dictate of

sound patriotism, enlightened policy, and true philan-

108 Maumee River Times, quoted in Ohio State Journal, June 14, 1848.

109 Ohio State Journal, June 15, 16, 1848.

• 24
 

284        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

thropy."110     Nevertheless, as Perkins explained to Ew-

ing, it was difficult for Whigs who had announced their

opposition, to come to the support of Taylor. Perkins

assured Ewing that if Hale received the Free Soil nomi-

nation, the Whigs would lose Ohio but that if Van

Buren were nominated, it might be possible, with strong

support from southern Ohio, to carry the State for Tay-

lor."¹¹¹ Corwin, nonplussed at the miscarriage of his

plans for a defection movement headed by the Whigs of

Ohio under his leadership, admitted to William Greene

that if he "could see any future beyond '52 he would

not vote for Taylor," but, as Chase wrote to Sumner,

"Corwin * * * has bent the knee and received the

yoke and goes for Taylor."¹¹² On July 20, Corwin wrote

from Washington urging the support of Taylor on the

ground that he had been fairly nominated and that the

interests of the North were safe in his hands since he

would not veto acts of Congress.113 Although some of

Corwin's followers emphasized the safety to the North

which would result from Taylor's doctrine of Congres-

sional supremacy,"¹¹⁴ others were defiant. In fact Co-

110 Ohio State Journal, July 6, 1848; Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer,

July 19, 1848.

111 Perkins to Ewing, July 24, 1848, Ewing MSS., v. VII.

112 Corwin to Greene, June 15, 1848, quoted in "Selections from the

William Greene Papers, I," in Quarterly Publications of the Historical and

Philosophical Society of Ohio, 1918, v. XIII, No. 1, p. 28; Chase to Sum-

ner, June 20, 1848, quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, Feb-

ruary 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., v. II, p. 138.

113 Ohio State Journal, August 8, 1848.

114 Ohio State Journal, August 9, 1848; The Ohio State Journal an-

nounced that "We are still, as ever, in favor of applying the principle of

the Ordinance of '87, whenever it may be applicable; and herein, if General

Taylor be not with us, he can not be more full against us than his com-

petitor--and we have the assurance that should that principle be applied

by the representatives of the people, it would not meet with a regal 'I forbid'

of General Taylor, as we have the pledge that it will from his competitor."

Ohio State Journal, June 12, 1848.

• 25
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   285

lumbus Delano actively canvassed the State for Van

Buren until after the State elections in October. He

then publicly declared that he could not support Van

Buren because a vote for him was a vote for Cass, and

that Taylor had given sufficient assurance in the Allison

letters that he would not veto an act of Congress em-

bodying the principles of the Wilmot Proviso, while

Cass had stated that he would veto such an act.¹¹⁵ Peter

Odlin, a delegate to the National Convention, shared

this view.116

Clay's friends could do little except acquiesce in the

nomination, although Peter Van Trump, of Columbus,

was very indignant, asserting that the Ohio delegation

had betrayed Clay chiefly through the machinations of

Vance."¹¹⁷ But Clay's supporters insisted on more satis-

factory evidence of Taylor's attachment to Whig princi-

ples before they would endorse the General. The reac-

tion of Stevenson was perhaps more typical. He ac-

curately summarized the situation in the declaration that

"Though I have a weak stomach for the fight, on two

grounds I must go for Taylor: first, because having

gone into the Convention, honor binds me to the result;

and second, in any aspect, Taylor is preferable to Cass,

and I can see no means so likely to be effective to destroy

Cass as running Taylor, though I confess I do not feel

intensely confident this will be effective * * *."118

Other Whigs, like Greeley, who fought hard for the

nomination of Clay, felt a delicacy in hoisting the stand-

115 Ohio State Journal, October 27, 28, 1848.

116 Ohio Statesman, August 31, 1848.

117 Van Trump to Clay, July 26, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXVI.

118 Stevenson to Clay, June 19, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

• 26
 

286      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ard of Taylor at once but later began to support the

nominee of the Convention.119

With the exception of the Liberty portion of Mc-

Lean's strength, his supporters reluctantly ratified the

Whig nomination. Although Galloway abhorred "the

spirit, manner, and motives by which General Taylor

was brought before the public," he thought Cass was

incomparably worse,1²⁰ while Teesdale, who had just

bought the Summit County Beacon, agreed to support

Taylor if McLean did not accept the nomination, which,

it was expected, the Free Soilers would offer him.¹²¹

McLean dallied with the Free Soilers just long enough

to ascertain that he had no chance of election. He re-

fused to come out openly for either candidate, although

he privately assured an anti-slavery leader that he was

opposed to the extension of slavery and wished that he

might believe "that all who express the same views were

sincere."¹²² Teesdale then announced his support of

Taylor in the Summit County Beacon on the ground

that he had been honestly nominated.123  William Miner,

another supporter of McLean, favored Taylor because

he wanted to see some removals from office.l24

Although a schism in the Whig party had been re-

vealed in December, 1847, when Giddings and three or

four other Whig members of Congress refused to sup-

port Robert C. Winthrop, the caucus nominee of the

Whigs for the Speakership of the House, because he

119 Greeley to Clay, June 21, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.

120 Galloway to McLean, July 14, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

121 Teesdale to McLean, June ?, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.

122 McLean to Morse, October 26, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI.

123 Ohio State Journal, August 5, 1848.

124 Miner to McLean, October 27, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI.

• 27
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      287

was an adherent of the "Slave Power,"¹²⁵ the anti-south-

ern elements of the major parties were unwilling to join

the third party until after their own national conven-

tions. Until Taylor was nominated, Giddings still had

faith in the anti-slavery character of the Whig party

and refused to join Chase in a call for an anti-slavery

meeting in Columbus in case neither of the old parties

nominated an anti-southern candidate because he felt

that such an action would "impugn" his motives.¹²⁶ The

same attitude was taken by Brinkerhoff, who refused to

join the third party movement until after the Democratic

National Convention. His position was accurately

stated in his assurance to Chase that he was "willing to

do and sacrifice anything, if the result be certain and

important," but that he was not willing to take part in

a "movement likely to effect nothing but the destruction

of what little influence" he then had.¹²⁷ In a similar let-

ter Tappan advised Chase not to call a convention of

the people until after the Democratic National Conven-

tion.¹²⁸

The nomination of Cass and Taylor completely

alienated the anti-southern elements of both parties, and,

while the anti-slavery Van Buren Democrats of New

York were forming plans which resulted in the nomi-

nation of the ex-President on June 22 at Utica, New

York, by the New York Barnburners,¹²⁹ a group of

Whigs, dissatisfied by the nomination of Taylor, issued

125 Giddings, Joshua A., History of the Rebellion; Its Authors and

Causes, p. 262.

126 Giddings to Chase, April 7, 1848, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

127 Brinkerhoff to Chase, March 28, 1848, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

128 Tappan to Chase, April 7, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XII, Pa.; Hamlin

advised Chase to the same effect. Hamlin to Chase, March 18, 1848, Chase

MSS., v. VI, Pa.

129 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, p. 548.

• 28
 

288      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

a call for a Free Soil National Convention at Buffalo.¹³⁰

A week before the convention which nominated Taylor,

an appeal had appeared in the Cincinnati Gazette, signed

by three thousand voters, and calling for a Free Terri-

tory Mass Convention at Columbus on June 21. The

call, from the pen of Chase, invited all who opposed the

extension of slavery.¹³¹ Tappan, with his Democratic

sympathy for the Barnburners of New York, thought

that the Columbus Convention should be postponed until

after the meeting of the New York Barnburners, in

the hope of strengthening the Free Soil movement by a

coalition with the Barnburners, in case the latter nomi-

nated the proper person.¹³² Stanley Matthews, a pro-

tege of Chase and a Liberty leader with Democratic

proclivities, also opposed a nomination by the Columbus

People's Convention, and favored the adoption of strong

anti-slavery resolutions, the selection of delegates to the

Free Soil Convention at Buffalo, and an invitation to the

anti-slavery forces in other states to join the move-

ment.133 Hale, the Liberty candidate for president, did

not attend the Columbus Convention for fear of embar-

rassing its operations, but he announced his willingness

to withdraw as a candidate in case there was a chance

to unite all the anti-slavery forces under another

leader.¹³⁴ The defection movement spread so rapidly

that, six days before the assembling of the People's Con-

vention in Columbus, Chase predicted that if a popular

man were named on the Free Soil ticket he would carry

130 Wilson, Henry, The Slave Power, v. II, p. 142.

131 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 129; Ohio State Journal, April 28, 1848.

132 Tappan to Chase, May 29, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XII, Pa.

133 Matthews to Chase, June 12, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XIV.

134 Hale to Chase, June 8, 14, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.

• 29
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     289

Ohio.¹³⁵ Conventions of Liberty men met over the State.

endorsed Hale for president and announced their sup-

port of the People's Convention,¹³⁶ and Chase labored

unceasingly to obtain a large attendance. His efforts

called forth the favorable comment from the Ohio State

Journal that "He is distinguished for his energy and

ambition. As a speaker, he stands at the head of the

Free Territory interests in Ohio, and is looked upon as

the champion of its reason, and the leader of its argu-

ment."137

The People's Convention met at Columbus, June 21,

with more than a thousand delegates present. Signifi-

cant of the willingness of the Liberty leaders to defer

to anti-southern Whigs and Democrats was the fact that

the president, Nicholas Sawyer, of Cincinnati, was a

Democrat, and the chief officers were either Whigs or

Democrats. At the suggestion of John C. Vaughan,

(Whig Free Soiler) the meeting recommended the hold-

ing of a Free Soil National Convention, at Buffalo, in

August. After addresses by Chase, Lewis and Birney

and the reading of a sympathetic letter from Giddings,

the Convention adopted strong anti-slavery resolu-

tions.¹³⁸ Many of the leaders in the Free Soil movement

also were aware of the great popular demand for other

reforms along economic and political lines. Hamlin

wrote to Chase urging that, although the Free Soil

movement should not adopt free trade and direct taxa-

135 Chase to Hale, June 15, 1848, quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon

P. Chase, III, February 18, 1846 to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., v. II, p.

135. (House Documents, v 104.)

136 Matthews, Garretson and others to Liberty Convention of Columbus,

June 17, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XIV.

137 Ohio State Journal, July 25, 1848.

138 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 130.

Vol. XXXVIII--19

• 30
 

290      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tion at once for fear of giving too much of a "shock" to

the established order, it should endorse a tariff for reve-

nue so graduated as to protect all interests, and "hold

out the right hand of fellowship to all nations of the

earth for entering into a liberal system of free trade."

Hamlin also advocated such democratic principles as a

state convention to form a new constitution,"139 the elimi-

nation of small notes from circulation and the infusion

of a specie currency, legal reform, exemption of home-

steads from taxation, the advancement and improve-

ment of free schools, repeal of the Black Laws, and a

limitation of the extent to which the State could go into

debt.¹⁴⁰ Although these principles were not incorporated

in the platform of the Columbus Convention, they were

approved in a perfunctory manner by another state con-

vention of the Free Soil party in December, 1848.141

The new movement spread so rapidly that by July

the National Era declared that it did not have room to

publish even brief notices of Free Soil meetings in Ohio

and that it seemed as if the old party organizations were

disintegrating.142 On the day following the Columbus

Convention, the Barnburners met at Utica with dele-

gates present from Ohio, Illinois, Connecticut, Wiscon-

sin and New York, and nominated Van Buren for presi-

dent. J. W. Taylor, of Cincinnati Signal fame, was

present to lend encouragement from the Democratic

bolters of Ohio.143

Van Buren's letter of acceptance astounded the regu-

139 See Chapter VII.

140 Hamlin to Chase, May 14, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.

141 See Chapter VII.

142 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 130,

143 Ibid., p. 125.

• 31
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     291

lar Democrats of Ohio, the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer

declaring that "Mr. Van Buren has wedded himself to

the one idea and wrecked his great reputation as a com-

prehensive statesman in the whirling vortex of a paltry

faction";144 while the Plain Dealer thought that "Ambi-

tion, either for himself, his son, or his family name; evil

counsels listened to in his retirement, from that whis-

pering gallery where envy holds her court; the poig-

nancy that invariably results from political defeat;

either one or all these causes tell the true interpretation

of this estrangement."¹⁴⁵ Although Edward M. Shep-

ard, Van Buren's biographer, acquits his subject of un-

due desire for revenge, he admits that the use of Polk's

administration of the patronage to defeat the Barnburn-

ers in state politics may have influenced Van Buren's

decision to lead a defection movement in the Democratic

party, in spite of a former pledge that he would never

head such a movement.¹⁴⁶  Although the regular Demo-

crats of Ohio professed sympathy with the principles of

the Barnburners, they asserted that this local quarrel

should not be allowed to extend beyond New York.¹⁴⁷

The attitude of the regular Democrats of Ohio in oppos-

ing Van Buren was dictated by their appreciation of the

growing power of the West and by their belief that the

success of Cass would bring an end to southern dictation

in national affairs. The Plain Dealer (Cleveland) de-

clared that southern influence had been predominant

even in the North. "The prominent politicians of both

144 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, June 29, 1848.

145 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, June 27, 1848.

146 Edward M. Shepard, Martin Van Buren, (American Statesman

Series, ed. by John T. Morse), pp. 340-370.

147 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, June 2, 1848; See also Washington Daily

Union, June 7, 1848; Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, July 12, 1848.

• 32
 

292        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

parties," this Democratic paper asserted, "to even be

trusted by their constituents of the slave states--had

to proscribe anything like anti-slavery sentiments in

their bosoms, as well as utterly to profess, utterly to ab-

hor any political doctrine that had the least kinship to

the unclean thing. That southern influence was in fact

a despotism."148  The regular Democrats thus appealed

to the voters to support a man from the free states who

had a chance of election and who would have their in-

terests in view rather than a slaveholder from a slave

state.¹⁴⁹

The question now arose as to whether the Liberty

men would cooperate with the more powerful Free Soil

movement to the extent of deserting Hale. Many of

them felt that such a union would endanger their aboli-

tion doctrines,¹⁵⁰ but a powerful impetus toward concilia-

tion was given by the National Era and the Cincinnati

Herald. A Liberty Convention, held at Columbus on the

same day as the People's Convention, endorsed the Buf-

falo meeting but resolved not to support any one who

would not favor Liberty principles.¹⁵¹ From June to

August, "Free Territory" and Liberty conventions co-

operated in the union movement to the extent of electing

delegates to the Buffalo meeting.¹⁵² The strategy of the

 

148 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, July 18, 1848.

149 Ohio State Journal, June 29, 1848; Ohio Statesman, June to October,

1848.

150 George Bradburn, of Cleveland, who thought the Liberty Convention

of 1847 "Taylorized" by nominating Hale, declared that McLean was the

"judicial lyncher" of Van Zandt. Bradburn to Chase, June 25, 1848, Chase

MSS., v. XIV.

151 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 132-134.

152 Ohio State Journal, July 8, 1848; The disaffected Whigs of Massa-

chusetts held a convention on June 28, to protest against the nomination of

Taylor. Lewis D. Campbell and Giddings represented Ohio in this meeting

where Charles Sumner and Charles Francis Adams renounced the Whig

• 33
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850              293

anti-southern leaders was to merge the Barnburners

with the Liberty men, and the discontented elements of

the two major parties. The anti-slavery leaders of Ohio

were anxious to have McLean chosen by the Free Soil

party at its Buffalo Convention and to that end negotia-

tions were carried on between him and the Free Soil

leaders.¹⁵³ But the Judge doubted the expediency of al-

lowing his name to be used. To all proposals to use his

name as a vice presidential candidate he returned a de-

cided negative,¹⁵⁴ although it was hinted that he would

be given the nomination for president in 1852.155 On

August 2, McLean informed Chase that in order to pre-

serve his "judicial character from reproach of any kind"

he should not accept the nomination, but two days later

he disclosed that he "might not refuse the nomination"

if there should be a "general upheaving" in his favor.156

Promises from Washington that he would be made the

standard-bearer of the Whig party in 1852, if he main-

tained his position of neutrality,157 probably did more

 

party. It was purposely held after the Columbus Convention in order to

take advantage of any move which the Ohio malcontents might make.

Sumner was anxious that McLean should be made the leader of the new

movement since they had lost faith in Corwin. Sumner denounced the

nomination of Taylor as the consummation of a conspiracy between the

"lords of the lash and the lords of the loom," and appealed to the dis-

contented of both parties to join the new movement declaring that the

issues of the tariff, internal improvements, and banks were "obsolete ideas."

Giddings announced his support of Van Buren with the declaration that he

could carry Ohio by a majority of 20,000. Sumner's Works, v. II, pp.

226-240; Sumner to Chase, June 12, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XIV; Ohio State

Journal, July 6, 1848.

153 Giddings to McLean, July 13, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV; Thomas

Bolton, Edward Wade, E. S. Hamlin and others to McLean, July 12,

1848, McLean MSS., v. XV; Sumner to McLean, July 31, 1848, McLean

MSS., v. XVI.

154 McLean to Denny, July 31, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI.

155 Sumner to Chase, July 7, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XIV.

156 McLean to Chase, August 2, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.

157 Whittlesey to McLean, July 24, 1848 and J. W. Allen to McLean,

June 24, 1848, in McLean MSS., v. XV.

• 34
 

294      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

than anything else to prevent McLean from actively can-

vassing for the Free Soil nomination. Although Chase

would support McLean for president and John Van

Buren for vice president, he thought that the father of

the latter should be made the presidential candidate with

the Judge occupying second place on the ticket, because

of the moral effect of having representatives of the two

major political parties standing together on the slavery

question.¹⁵⁸ As a matter of fact, McLean had no chance

to secure the nomination because the Barnburners, by far

the largest element in the new movement, insisted on the

primacy of Van Buren, and some of the Liberty leaders

were suspicious of McLean's adherence to Liberty prin-

ciples. No "general upheaving" took place and in

August McLean virtually allied himself with Taylor by

publishing a letter to a Whig committee announcing his

refusal of the Free Soil nomination, and asserting that,

without the sanction of law, slavery could not exist in

the territories and that the territorial legislature of a

territory could exercise no power not conferred on it by

act of Congress.¹⁵⁹

The Free Soil National Convention was composed of

anti-southern Whigs, Free Soil Democrats, Liberty Men

and the New York Barnburners, the last two elements

being the largest. It was understood from the begin-

ning that the struggle for the nomination would come

Whigs.   By a compromise, the Barnburners secured

though Giddings had the support of the anti-southern

158 Chase to McLean, August 2, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI; Samuel

J. Tilden assured Chase that the Barnburners of New York were favor-

able to McLean's candidacy for vice president; Tilden to Chase, July 29,

1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.

159 Ohio State Journal, August 21, 1848.

• 35
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    295

Whigs. By a compromise, the Barnsburners secured

the nomination of Van Buren while they accepted the

anti-slavery principles of the Liberty party. The liberal

nature of other features of the platform showed a desire

to appeal to a variety of elements demanding economic

and political reform. This part of the party program

formed no part of Liberty principles, although a few

men like Hamlin and Chase favored them. The Free

Soil party demanded cheap postage, retrenchment in

governmental expenses and the abolition of unnecessary

offices, the election of public officers by popular vote, a

system of internal improvements, a Homestead Law,

early payment of the public debt, and a tariff for reve-

nue. In a comprehensive and catching phrase, the new

party advocated "Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor,

and Free Men." The Convention then selected Charles

Frances Adams, of Massachusetts, as Van Buren's run-

ning mate.¹⁶⁰ Van Buren was denounced by the regular

Democrats of Ohio as a traitor to the party and he was

sharply reminded of a former statement that he would

never lead a defection movement. Moreover, it was

pointed out that the platform was silent about slavery

in the District of Columbia, possibly because Van Buren

had declared in 1836 that he would veto such a bill.¹⁶¹

The Ohio State Journal, in an effort to detach the Lib-

erty party and the anti-southern Whigs from the new

movement declared Van Buren's selection was a victory

for the Barnburners, who merely adopted Free Soil prin-

 

160 For details of the Convention, see T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 138-143;

Chase described the Convention as an enthusiastic gathering of 20,000 dele-

gates and asserted that McLean could have had the nomination. Chase

to McLean, August 12, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XVI.

161 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, August 20, 1848.

• 36
 

296       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ciples for convenience,¹⁶² and concluded that "We cannot

forsake our long-tried and cherished party associations

to mingle with the ringed, streaked, and speckled of the

Jacobs of Buffalo.   *   *  *"163

The Free Soil movement, as a practical party in

Ohio, was composed largely of anti-southern Whigs

with conservative tendencies. But the addition of more

liberal-minded Whigs, like Hamlin, and radical Demo-

crats, like Norton S. Townshend of Lorain County, pro-

vided a leadership for the party which impelled it to ac-

cept more democratic principles. Moreover, the conserv-

ative anti-southern Whigs, finding themselves abused by

the regular Whigs, were inclined to accept the doctrine

of their new allies more readily. That the Free Soil

party of Ohio also attracted the support of the poorer

classes, interested in political and economic reform, was

evidenced by the character of the audiences which lis-

tened to Whig and Free Soil orators.¹⁶⁴ Moreover, many

Free Soil leaders of northern Ohio belonged to the

"Land Reform Association," of Cleveland, a branch of

the National Reform Association, which opposed all spe-

cial privileges and particularly land monopolies.¹⁶⁵

George W. Allen, a candidate of the Free Soil party for

Congress from the Tenth Congressional District, is-

sued an address to the people which was wholly de-

voted to plans for the distribution of government land

among the poor. Allen's address, breathing a spirit of

162 Ohio State Journal, August 12, 1848.

163 Ibid., August 9, 1848.

164 Briggs to Chase, September 15, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.

165 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, May 16, 1848. This branch numbered

such members as B. Mahan of Oberlin, Joel Tiffany of Elyria, Norton S.

Townshend of Elyria, Darius Lyman of Ravenna, Enos P. Brainerd of

Ravenna, J. L. Ranney of Ravenna, and George S. Marshall of Cleveland.

• 37
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   297

social revolt, directed the attention of the new party

to the danger of land monopolies rather than to the

wrongs of negro slavery.¹⁶⁶

This tendency of the Free Soil party toward radi-

calism compelled the Democratic party to become more

liberal in its pretensions, in order to hold the believers

in Jacksonian democracy. Weller, the Democratic can-

didate for governor, approved the policy of the Na-

tional Reform Association for the distribution of land,

but Ford, the Whig, refused to reply to their interro-

gations.¹⁶⁷ A Democratic candidate for the General

Assembly, from Cuyahoga County, found it advisable

to make strong appeals for the labor vote, declaring

his opposition to "exclusive moneyed monopolies," and

claiming membership with the "workers."¹⁶⁸ In order

to counteract the new radicalism, the Whigs became

more conservative and appealed for support as the de-

fenders of the Constitution, the established institutions

and the traditions of society. After all, this was the

logical role for them to assume since the more liberal

portion of the Whig party as well as its anti-southern

wing were now in the ranks of the third party which

supported the "radical" doctrines of the Van Buren

democracy. It should be said, however, that the Free

Soil party, as a party, was careful not to assume too

advanced a position on these matters of reform, in

order not to antagonize those anti-southern Whigs and

Democrats who had joined the new movement.

It was evident from the beginning of the campaign

line against the inducements of the Free Soilers. Prac-

166 Ohio State Journal, July 29, 1848.

167 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 7, 10, 1848.

168 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, September 19, 1848.

• 38
 

298       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tically all political observers agreed that the Whigs

would lose far more votes by the nomination of Taylor,

that the fortunes of Cass and Taylor in Ohio depended

on the ability of the party leaders to hold the voters in

who was a southerner and had not been approved by

the Whig State Convention, than the Democrats would

lose by the nomination of Cass, who was a northern

man and had been approved by the Democratic State

Convention. Open defiance of Taylor marked the at-

titude of many Ohio Whigs even after the nomination.

The support of Cass by the masses of the voters of his

party was secured by the strong stand of Medary, Val-

landigham and Allen, who were able to rally most of

the old Jacksonian Democrats to his support. But there

was little enthusiasm behind their efforts, and some

Democrats joined the Free Soil movement, partly as a

result of natural interests and personal jealousies; partly

because of their opposition to the further extension of

slavery; and partly because of the influence of the

nomination of Van Buren, their former leader.

Among those Democrats who supported the third

party were the ubiquitous James W. Taylor, of the Cin-

cinnati Signal;¹⁶⁹ George M. Swan, of Columbus;170 sev-

eral Democratic leaders of Dayton;171 Jacob Brinker-

hoff, of Richland County, still suspicious of his newly-

found allies;172 Charles Cist, of Cincinnati;173 and ex-

169 James W. Taylor came from New York to Ohio in 1841; edited the

Cincinnati Signal; moved to Sandusky, Ohio and edited the Democratic

Mirror.

170 Ewing to Van Buren; October 17, 1848, Van Buren MSS., v. LVI.

171 Jewett to Chase, October 6, 1848, Van Buren MSS., v. XV.

172 Brinkerhoff to Chase, October 18, 1848, and Hamlin to Chase, August

1, 1848, in Chase MSS., Vols. II, VI, Pa. Hamlin wrote Chase in regard

to Brinkerhoff: "Strange combination! It is only a little while since I

was making poetry on him for speaking one way and voting another. But

he is fully straight now and will practice what he preaches."

• 39
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  299

United States Senator Benjamin Tappan. The latter's

course was determined to a large extent by personal con-

siderations. Replacing Thomas Morris in the United

States Senate, in 1839, because the latter was too zealous

in the defense of abolition petitions, Tappan had de-

clared in the Senate that "Whether slavery shall be abol-

ished in the District of Columbia or not, belongs not to

them to say; much less does it belong to the women of

Ohio to agitate questions of public policy, which their

own State Government has often declared it wrong in

her citizens to meddle with."¹⁷⁴ In 1844, the Whigs con-

trolled the General Assembly and Thomas Corwin had

replaced Tappan in the United States Senate, but not

until the latter had voted in favor of the annexation of

Texas. Three and one-half years after the passage of

the resolutions to annex Texas, during which time he

not only supported the Polk administration¹⁷⁵ but urged

Polk to run again in 1848,176 Tappan, in July, 1848, pub-

lished a letter in the New York Evening Post explain-

ing his vote on Texas annexation and questioning the

good faith of the President in that incident. Tappan

now joined the movement to nominate Van Buren on

the Free Soil ticket. He explained his apparent incon-

sistency by asserting that he and three other senators

had supported the joint resolution for the annexation

of Texas, permitting the President to negotiate with

Mexico, only after they had received assurance from

Polk through Senator Haywood, of North Carolina, that

he would choose the method of negotiation with Mex-

 

173 Flamen Ball to Chase, August 18, 1848, Chase MSS., v. I, Pa.

174 Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 1st Sess., v. VIII, No. II, pp. 161-162.

175 Johnson to Polk, October 6, 1848, Polk MSS., v. LXXVII.

176 Polk's Diary, v. IV, pp. 38-40.

• 40
 

300       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ico. A letter from Francis P. Blair to Tappan, also

published in the Post, corroborated Tappan's state-

ment.¹⁷⁷  Benton seemed to have been under the same

impression.¹⁷⁸ Polk and all his Cabinet denied the ex-

istence of such a promise,¹⁷⁹ and Blair's story loses force

when it is remembered that he and Polk were bitterly

hostile at the time over the control of the Administration

organ.180 After three years of the closest friendship

with the Administration, Tappan proposed to join the

Free Soil party and to strike a blow at the "slave power"

which had "plotted" the annexation of Texas.

The Democratic leaders in Ohio made strenuous

efforts to prevent a defection from their ranks in 1848.

They found the voters absolutely opposed to the ex-

tension of slavery. While local Democratic conventions

adopted resolutions repeating the slavery clause of the

platform drawn up by the last Democratic State Con-

vention, and opposing the further extension of slavery,

they discouraged joining a "bolting movement" based on

this principle alone.¹⁸¹ In order to convince the Demo-

crats that the election of Cass would not mean the fur-

ther extension of slavery, Senator Allen, whose seat in

the Senate was at stake, brought his great influence to

bear in an effort to secure support for the man whom

he and his supporters had formerly opposed.¹⁸² Allen

emphasized that the campaign between Taylor and Cass

 

177 Tappan and Blair letters in Ohio State Journal, August 10, 1848.

178 Benton, Thomas H., Thirty Years' View, v. II, pp. 635-638.

179 Polk's Diary, v. IV, pp. 46-47; Buchanan to Polk, November 9, 1848;

Johnson to Polk, October 6, 1848; Walker to Polk, November 6, 1848;

Bancroft to Polk, October 13, 1848; all in Polk MSS., v. LXXVII.

l80 Polk's Diary, v. I, pp. 87-357.

181 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, September 14, 18, 1848; Ohio States-

man, August 17, 21, 1848.

182 Washington Dailv Union. June 22, 1848; McGrane, William Allen,

p. 130.

• 41
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      301

was a contest of the masses against the classes;183 a

strategic move in view of the fact that the Van Buren

movement drew largely from the poorer classes.¹⁸⁴ The

Plain Dealer considered Cass, who favored popular sov-

ereignty, in comparison with Van Buren, as the "most

unswervingly consistent Anti-slavery man of the two."¹⁸⁵

Rallies of the Democracy of Cuyahoga County were

described as "Democratic Cass and Butler Free Soil

Meetings."¹⁸⁶ Weller labored to prove that, by a cor-

rect interpretation of Cass's Nicholson letter, the people

of the territories were free to make their choice and

that slavery could not be extended into those regions

because of their geography.¹⁸⁷ Cass's residence in the

North helped him among anti-slavery Democrats.¹⁸⁸ The

Plain Dealer declared that "It is by southern adminis-

trations, sectionally speaking, and almost an unbroken

series of them since the foundation of the government,

that has [been] produced this high-wrought, frantic

and dangerous sectionalism.    Should the South now

succeed in adding still another southern executive--

not a statesman, not even a civilian, but a princely slave-

holder--well may we fear northern rebellion and a vio-

lent dissolution of the Union."¹⁸⁹ Ohio Democrats

pointed out that members of their party in the South

were deserting Cass for Taylor because the former was

from an abolitionist state and associated with Aboli-

tionists.¹⁹⁰ At a Democratic rally in Portage County,

183 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, October 4, 5, 1848.

184 See letters of Ohio Free Soil leaders to Chase in Chase MSS.

185 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, October 25, 1848.

186 Ibid., October 3, 1848.

187 Ibid., June 20, 1848.

188 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 148.

189 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, August 21, 1848.

190 Ibid., October 31, 1848.

• 42
 

302      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Reuben Wood, afterwards governor of Ohio, appealed

for the support of the anti-slavery elements by pointing

out that Cass, by association, sympathy and interest was

opposed to slavery.¹⁹¹ Medary was not willing to go as

far as his fellow-editors, in conciliating anti-southern

Democrats. Although admitting that Taylor owned

slaves, the editor of the Statesman declared that the

Democracy of the North and West held the "Union

above all price"; that they would not endanger its safety

by advocating "unjust doctrines"; and that they would

leave the question of slavery to the people of the terri-

tories where it rightfully belonged.¹⁹²

Late in the Congressional session of 1847-1848, the

Clayton Compromise Bill, providing for a government

for Oregon, California, and New Mexico, was passed.

By its provisions Oregon was to receive the usual type

of territorial government with a delegate in Congress;

but New Mexico and California were given no delegates

and the legislative power was vested in a governor, sec-

retary and judges of the Supreme Court. Oregon could

choose between free soil and slavery, while the legisla-

tive powers of California and New Mexico were for-

bidden to enact any laws concerning slavery. The bill

passed the Senate but failed in the House.¹⁹³ The Dem-

ocrats argued, in Ohio, that Cass, judging from his

Nicholson letter, would veto such an enactment of Con-

gress; while Taylor, by the terms of his Allison letters,

was pledged to sign it. Since the geography and soil

conditions of the territories in question would effectively

prevent the spread of slavery unless Congress estab-

 

191 Ohio Statesman, July 7, 1848.

192 Ohio Statesman, July 19, 1848.

193 McMaster, op. cit., v. VIII, pp. 527-532.

• 43
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          303

lished it by law, the position of the Democratic candi-

dates seemed to represent true free soil doctrine.¹⁹⁴

The dissatisfaction among the Ohio Whigs, over the

nomination of Taylor, far exceeded the Democratic dis-

content over the work of their National Convention.

But Van Buren's attraction for the Democrats, of

course, was much greater than his appeal to Whigs, who

had learned in previous campaigns to dislike the Little

Magician. Giddings thought Van Buren would be sup-

ported less readily by the Whigs than any other possible

candidate.¹⁹⁵ Harrison G. Blake, Whig Free Soiler of

Medina County, typical of those anti-southern Whigs

who were more anti-southern than Whig, had favored

the nomination of Hale, but finally supported Van

Buren whom he had opposed ever since he had come

on the "political stage of action," because he thought he

was the only man before the people who was "right" on

the slavery question.¹⁹⁶   The Medina Whig, a Free Soil

paper, declared that "The masses of the people opposed

to the extension and perpetuation of slavery * * *

will learn, with chagrin and mortification" that the Buf-

falo Convention sacrificed principle for availability, by

nominating Van Buren.¹⁹⁷ Chase found, however, that

194 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, August 27, November 4, 1948; Frederick

Grimke, an able Democratic ex-judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio,

regretted that the Compromise Hill did not pass. He asserted that "It

would not only produce more harmony between the two sections of the

country; it would produce more repose at the north; for I have observed

that the class of considerate, and highly intelligent men at the north feel

themselves exceedingly annoyed by the presence of Abolitionists, whose

manners and cultivation are in general so alien to their own." Grimke to

Greene, August 7, 1848, Greene MSS.

195 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 147.

196 Blake to Chase, September 22, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV; Hamlin

to McLean, September 16, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI.

197 Medina Whig quoted in Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, August 18,

1848.

Vol. XXXVIII--20

• 44
 

304        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

the Abolitionists of the Western Reserve were coming

to the support of Van Buren in spite of their political

opposition to him in earlier campaigns, and despite a

lingering doubt as to his attitude on slavery in the Dis-

trict of Columbia.¹⁹⁸ When such men as Joseph M. Root,

Representative in Congress from the Huron District,¹⁹⁹

and Giddings²⁰⁰ entered the campaign in behalf of their

former enemy, the Whig leaders of the Western Reserve

were really alarmed.²⁰¹

The position of the Whigs was further complicated

by the gubernatorial situation. Constant appeals were

made by the party press to the voters not to allow de-

fection on National politics to endanger the success of

the party in the State.²⁰²     Since Ford was the official

leader of the Whigs in Ohio, his attitude on the nomi-

nation of Taylor seemed crucial, but Ford kept dis-

creetly silent, in the hope of retaining the Free Soil vote

as well as that of the regular Whigs.²⁰³ He explained

his dilemma in a letter to Chase. After naively admit-

ting that he wanted to defeat Weller because the latter

was a pro-slavery candidate, Ford explained that an

avowal of his attitude toward Taylor would make de-

feat certain; and that, therefore, it was his duty to the

State and Nation to remain silent.²⁰⁴ The Democrats

198 Chase to Van Buren, August 21, 1848, Van Buren MSS., v. LVI.

199 Ohio Statesman, October 31, 1848.

²⁰⁰ Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, September 27, 1848.

201 J. Durbin Ward to Crittenden, September 2, 1848, Crittenden MSS.,

v. II.

202 Ohio State Journal, June 12, 17, 20, 24, 26, 1848.

203 Stevenson wrote that the Whigs were passing resolutions in their

county conventions to the effect that voting for or against Taylor was not

a test of Whiggery and that "Our candidate for Gov . . . is playing Gen.

Mum as to Taylor, thinking thereby he may whit into the Executive chair

of the State . . . even though Taylor loses the State." Stevenson to Clay,

July 26, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXVI.

204 Ford to Chase, July 29, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.

• 45
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          305

taunted Ford for his attempt to straddle the issue,²⁰⁵

and composed the following parody on the difficulties of

the Whig candidate:

 

To bolt or not to bolt, that is the question;

Whether it is nobler in the mind, to suffer

The stings and arrows of outrageous locos

Or to take arms against the Taylor bloodhounds,

And by opposing, end myself? To bolt--to dodge;

No more,--'and by a dodge to say we choke

Our conscience,-'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wished. To bolt; to dodge.

Aye, there's the rub!206

But Ford continued his silence on Taylor's candidacy

to the end of the campaign. The Democrats charged

that the Whig Central Committee had destroyed a let-

ter defining his position,²⁰⁷ and had ordered him to re-

main silent until after the State election in order to

gain the Abolition vote.²⁰⁸ Ford's policy gained some

votes among the Free Soilers who regarded him as an

opponent of Taylor.²⁰9

With the embarrassment of Ford's non-committal

position hanging over them, the Whigs strove valiantly

to stem the tide of defeat in Ohio. Giddings and his

supporters were in open revolt. Appeals were sent to

Governor William H. Seward, of New York, and to

Horace Greeley, of the New York Tribune, to aid Cor-

win in a whirlwind campaign in behalf of General Tay-

 

205 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, July 7, 1848; Cincinnati Daily En-

quirer, July 6, 1848.

206 Western Empire quoted in Ohio Statesman, August 1, 1848.

207 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 4, 1848; Ohio Statesman, July

25, 1848.

208 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, September 22, 1848.

209 Chase to Briggs, September 27, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.

• 46
 

306        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

lor on the Western Reserve.²¹⁰       On the Reserve, Seward

found things "infinitely" worse than he had expected.²¹¹

The regular Whigs, in a bitter war on the deserter,

Giddings, nominated an independent for Congress after

Giddings had been selected by the Whigs in a district

convention.²¹²    In a long address to the "Free Soil Men

of Ohio," Greeley appealed for support of Taylor as

the best way to realize their principles because a vote

for Van Buren would be a vote for Cass.

Probably the most effective weapon used by the Ohio

Whigs in 1848, was the Allison letter which they inter-

preted to mean that if the opponents of slavery exten-

sion would elect a Whig Congress, the interests of the

North would be safe because Taylor was pledged not

to use the veto. Greeley developed this argument and

it was used with great effect by all Whig campaigners

and particularly by Corwin, who even intimated that

Taylor favored the Wilmot Proviso.²¹³ Ewing advised

Taylor not to write any more letters on the slavery

question, since the Whigs of Ohio were willing to accept

him on the basis of the Allison letter.²¹⁴ But Ewing was

too optimistic. The defection of the Whigs went on so

rapidly that, in September, Taylor wrote another letter

 

210 Stevenson to Clay, September 9, October 2, 1848, Clay MSS., v.

XXVI; Whittlesey appealed to Follett to save the Western Reserve from

the "vandals." Whittlesey to Follett, October 11, 1848, quoted in "Selec-

tions from the Follett Papers, IV," in loc. cit., 1916, v. XI, No. 1, pp.

30-31; Crittenden to Ewing, September 1, 1848, Ewing MSS., v. VII.

211 Seward to Follett, November 9, 1848, quoted in "Selections from the

Follett Papers, IV," in loc. cit., 1916, v. XI, No. 1, p. 33; See also J. W.

Allen to Crittenden, September 9, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI.

212 Elisha Whittlesey, a former law instructor of Giddings, charged his

pupil with having secured undue mileage allowances. T. C. Smith, op. cit.,

pp. 151-152.

213 Hamlin to Chase, September 14, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI; Washing-

ton Daily Union, October 1, 1848.

214 Ewing to Taylor, July 22, 1848, Ewing MSS., v. VII, (Letter marked

"Copy").

• 47
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850                307

to Allison to strengthen the impression that he would

not use the veto to defeat the anti-slavery opinions of

the majority. In spite of this second letter, Van Buren

continued to gain in Ohio.²¹⁵       It would be difficult to over-

emphasize the use made in Ohio of this doctrine of

Congressional supremacy. For the Free Soilers, it

proved very embarrassing.²¹⁶          By August, Ohio Whigs

no longer urged the choice of Taylor as the lesser of

two   evils;217 but gave      the  positive   assurance     that he

would not only allow a territorial bill to pass embodying

the principles of the Wilmot Proviso, but that he posi-

tively favored that method of settling the question.

Of course the Democrats denounced this argument

as pure sophistry. Was it reasonable that Taylor, a

southern slaveholder who used bloodhounds to catch his

runaway slaves, would neglect the welfare of his sec-

tion, and prevent the extension of its "peculiar insti-

tution"? Southern Whig papers were quoted to prove

that quite the opposite interpretation of Taylor's atti-

tude on slavery in the territories prevailed in the

South.²¹⁸ The Democrats pointed out the ambiguity of

 

215 Stevenson to Clay, October 2, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXVI.

²¹⁶ Jewett to Chase, September 1, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV; in regard to

Corwin's labors to that end, George M. Swan wrote Van Buren that "Thim-

blerigging is less reputable business compared to his labors in cajoling the

people of Ohio into the belief that General Taylor is a Wilmot Provisoist,

by intimations that he had in his possession a private letter to that effect.

Thomas Ewing so declares and Mr. Corwin does not deny it." Swan to

Van Buren, October 17, 1848, Van Buren MSS., v. LVI; Ohio Statesman

September 21, 1848; Wilmot Proviso, (Massillon, Ohio), quoted in Cin-

cinnati Daily Enquirer, September 23, 1848; The Whig State Central Com-

mittee issued a secret circular in which they emphasized their belief that

Taylor would not veto any measure prohibiting slavery in the territories.

Ohio Statesman, September 22, 1848.

217 Ohio Statesman, June 22, 1848.

²¹⁸ Natchez (Mississippi) Courier, quoted in Ohio Statesman, August 22,

1848; The Statesman declared that "while thus in the North Whiggery

claims General Taylor as the opponent of slavery, in the South he is claimed

as its friend, and his southern birth and his southern property as all cited

• 48
 

308        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Taylor's statements,²¹⁹ and the Enquirer called atten-

tion to a pamphlet issued by the "Rough and Ready

Club," of New Orleans, arguing that the election of

Taylor would afford the greatest possible protection to

the South and West, and that these sections had noth-

ing to fear from the Wilmot Proviso if Taylor were

president, because he was a slaveholder, a native of Vir-

ginia, and a citizen of Louisiana with every feeling and

interest identified with the southern Whigs.²²⁰

In the energetic campaign carried on by the Whigs

in order to meet the double attacks of their enemies,

Thomas Corwin, who had occupied the most advanced

ground in opposition to the Mexican War, was the out-

standing figure. The Democrats pointed out the incon-

sistency of Corwin's new position;221 and the anti-south-

ern leaders in Ohio, who had only recently thought of

him as a possible candidate for the presidency, be-

moaned his lack of principle.²²² Corwin confined his at-

tention largely to the Western Reserve, where Whig

fortunes were at lowest ebb. According to Whig ac-

counts his campaign was very effective.²²3 The Free

Soilers thought that he was received very coldly.²²⁴ Wil-

liam Dennison, Thomas Ewing, Joseph Vance, William

 

as evidence, which cannot be gainsaid, to show that in feeling he is arrayed

against the party that supports him in other sections." Ohio Statesman,

August 11, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, July 15, 1848.

219 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 10, 1848; Washington Daily

Union, May 5, 1848.

220 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 10, 1848.

221 Ibid., August 23, 1848; Washington Daily Union, September 14, 1848.

222 Giddings to Chase, September 20, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.

223 Ewing to Crittenden, September 24, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI;

Vance to Crittenden, September 21, 1848, v. XI; Ohio State Journal, Sep-

tember 23, 1848.

224 Bolton to Chase, September 18, 1848, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.; Corwin

was burned in effigy at Cleveland, and no remonstrance was made although

he was making an address at the time. Hamlin to McLean, September 16,

1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI.

• 49
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      309

H. Seward, Governor Metcalfe of Kentucky, and in the

latter part of the campaign, Columbus Delano,²²⁵ were

other Whig orators who joined Corwin in a desperate

attempt to save the party from dissolution; but the fail-

ure of McLean and Clay to interest themselves vigor-

ously in behalf of Taylor greatly injured the party in

Ohio.²²⁶ This flying squadron of Whig orators was kept

busy denying minor charges calculated to prejudice

northern votes against Taylor. The Democrats claimed

that Taylor used bloodhounds to catch his runaway

slaves, and Corwin hastened to explain that they were

only used in tracking the slaves.²²⁷ The charge that

Taylor had sworn at the Third Ohio Volunteers and

described them as cowards and thieves, during the Mex-

ican  War, brought a categorical denial from        the

Whigs.²²⁸ Another fact which the Democrats kept be-

fore the public was that Taylor was a man of wealth,

and that he owned more than two hundred and eighty

slaves, valued at $150,000.00.229

Weller, the Democratic candidate for governor, was

loyally supported by the Democratic organization and

consequently the margin of his defeat was very small,

in spite of the fact of the Free Soil support of Ford.

Weller was attacked by the Whigs as a "hard-money,

sub-treasury free trade, pro-slavery, annexation Loco-

foco, of the straightest sect" and a "pitiful toady of the

Southern Slavocracy."²³⁰  He was one of the two mem-

 

225 Ohio State Journal, July 22, August 8, 1848; Ohio Statesman, No-

vember 3, 1848.

226 Vance to Crittenden, September 21, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI.

^{227 O}hio Statesman, September 19, 1848.

228 Ohio Statesman, August 4, 5, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, No-

vember 1, 1848.

229 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, July 8, 1848.

230 Ohio State Journal, January 25, 1848.

• 50
 

310       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

bers of Congress from Ohio who had voted for the

"gag" rule,²³¹ and his participation in the Mexican War

was conclusive proof that he was a supporter of south-

ern expansion. His resolution to censure Giddings for

his conduct in the Creole case completed the proof of

his abject servility to the South.²³² The Whigs added

that Weller had acted the coward during a military en-

gagement, and that, as one of the commissioners of the

Surplus Revenue Fund, he had loaned money without

requiring proper securities.²³³

The Ohio Black Laws again became an issue during

the gubernatorial campaign, Ford unreservedly favor-

ing their repeal apparently because of pressure from

the Free Soilers.²³⁴ The Democrats of the Western

Reserve avoided the issue but their brothers in the

southern part of the State opposed repeal, the Enquirer

drawing a gloomy picture of what would happen to

southern Ohio if repeal, an open invitation to negroes

to come to Ohio, were carried out. That organ ap-

pealed to all the latest race prejudices of whites who

were forced into economic competition with the incom-

ing blacks. The Democrats denied that the Black Laws

were cruel, and argued that they were measures to pre-

serve the State from the offal of slavery.²³⁵  The En-

quirer declared that "Ford, and his Abolition neighbors

on the Reserve, may well grow large and liberal-minded,

and soar above all petty and vulgar prejudices on ac-

231 Niles' Register, v. XVI, p. 15.

232 Ohio State Journal, August 22, 1848.

233 Ohio Statesman, May 2, 1848; Ohio State Journal, July 10, October

24, 1848.

234 Chase to Ford, July 11, 1848, quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon

P. Chase, February 18, 1848, to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, pp.

138-139.

235 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 14, 1848.

• 51
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    311

count of color. They have easy times in the way of

paying the piper. It is not their poorhouses that are

filled--nor their criminal courts that are burdened-

their white laborers are not subjected to such a competi-

tion, nor their properties subject to be plundered by

such a people. The southern portion of the State takes

all that. Hamilton County has heaped upon her shoul-

ders a back-breaking load, by way of foretaste to the

delightful burden she may prepare for, when the Re-

serve has it all her own way--at our expense."²³⁶ The

issue was far more clearly drawn in 1848 than in

1846.237

The Whigs also emphasized what they termed Cass's

lack of enthusiasm for internal improvements, a good

campaign argument in Ohio where the people favored

internal improvements by the Federal Government, al-

though the Democratic organization had always ren-

dered a perfunctory obeisance to the traditional Demo-

cratic principle of strict construction. In July, 1847, a

Convention was held in Chicago in the interest of in-

ternal improvements, and Cass, among others, was in-

vited. When "circumstances" prevented his attend-

ance²³⁸ the Whigs interpreted his action as opposition

to western interests. The Democrats, in answer, pointed

to Cass's vote in the last Congress in favor of a River

and Harbor Bill.²³⁹ The Plain Dealer maintained that

Cass had always favored internal improvements in op-

position to certain "crack-brained and hair-splitting

politicians" of the party, and that he had refused to

236 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 26, 1848.

237 Geauga Whig, (Ford's organ), quoted in Ohio Statesman, November

30, 1848; See also Ohio Statesman, January 31, 1848.

238 Ohio State Journal, July 3, 1848.

• 52
 

312       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

attend the Chicago Convention because he knew that

it was arranged by the Whigs for political purposes.²⁴⁰

Both parties endeavored to make political capital out

of Cass's efforts, while Minister to France in 1841, to

defeat the British proposal to allow her men-of-war to

search suspicious vessels off the Coast of Africa in order

to suppress the slave-trade. Cass had defeated French

ratification of the British treaty and, therefore, was

roundly abused by the anti-slavery interests on the

charge of being pro-slavery. But his position, that only

a belligerent can exercise the right of search, was cor-

rect from the standpoint of American and international

law.²⁴¹ The Whig papers condemned Cass as an apol-

ogist of the slave-trade; while the Democrats lauded

him as a patriotic defender of the old American doctrine

of resistance to the right of search.²⁴²     The Enquirer

appealed to the anti-British complex of its readers by

assuring them that the aristocracy of England hoped for

the election of Taylor because of their hatred of Cass.²⁴³

The importance of the ever-increasing foreign vote,

due to a large immigration of Irish and Germans in the

'forties, cannot be overlooked in the election of 1848.

The Democrats not only pointed out that the Whigs

were the traditional enemies of the newcomers, having

inherited this nativist attitude from the Federalists, but

that their candidate was endorsed by every native Amer-

239 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, June 7, November 3, 1848.

240 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, May 27, June 12, 1848.

241 J. S. Reeves, American Diplomacy Under Tyler and Polk, pp. 33-38.

242 Ohio Statesman, June 28, July 6, 1848; the Enquirer declared that if

it had not been for Cass "The decks of a vessel, above which floated the

glorious stars and stripes, could be polluted by the tread of some upstart

minion of England's navy with impunity..." Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,

June 21, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Gazette, June 26, 1848; Cleveland Daily

Plain Dealer, November 6, 1848.

243 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 27, 1848.

• 53
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          313

ican paper in the East.²⁴⁴ The Enquirer asked the for-

eigners if they would join the "motley throng which

enrolls in its members the church-burning Nativists of

Philadelphia?^"245. That the Democrats were clearly

alive to the necessity of retaining their already formid-

able hold on this class of voters is seen from the follow-

ing announcement of a political meeting in Cleveland:

"¹⁰⁰⁰ Laborers Wanted! Irishmen, Germans and La-

boring Men" to be addressed by a Cleveland me-

chanic."²⁴⁶  Although the Whigs made energetic efforts

to reach the Germans and Irish with campaign ma-

terial,²⁴⁷ the Democrats were successful in retaining their

allegiance,248 an enthusiastic Democrat writing that

"The Irish Catholics are right to a man. The Germans

are fired with unappeasable resentment against the Na-

tives and their well-known allies."²⁴⁹

Some effort was made by the Democrats to turn the

election of 1848, like that of 1847, into a patriotic refer-

endum    on the Mexican War. In their gubernatorial

candidate, the Democrats had the incarnation of patriot-

ism. The Ohio Statesman declared that the oft-quoted

statement that Ohio had been in the "forefront of oppo-

sition to the War" would be verified if Ford were

elected;250 while the Enquirer argued that Weller's de-

244 Ohio Statesman, June 16-30, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, June

23, 1848.

245 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 25, 1848.

246 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, October 31, 1849.

247 Whittlesey to Follett, October 19, 21, 1848, quoted in "Whittlesey Se-

lections from the Follett Papers, IV," in loc. cit. 1916, v. XI, No. 1, pp.

31-32.

248 Jacob Reinhard, editor of the Westbote, made particular efforts to

retain all the Germans in the Democratic ranks, Ohio Statesman, October

28, 1848.

249 Humphrey to Allen, April 17, 1848, Allen MSS., v. XVI.

250 Ohio Statesman, September 23, 1848.

• 54
 

314      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

feat would be interpreted as a condemnation of the War

with Mexico: "The struggles and sacrifices and brilliant

triumphs of our brave troops, as having been put forth

in a war against God * * * * Yes, the bloody hands

of Tom Corwin may then well be raised in tri-

umph * * * *"²⁵¹ However, the excitement over

slavery in the territories almost completely absorbed the

interest of the voters.

Ford was chosen by a narrow margin in an election

which was not finally determined until after the votes

were officially canvassed by the General Assembly.²⁵²

The Free Soilers held the balance of power, both in the

House and on joint ballot of the Legislature. Most of

the Free Soil members came from the Western Reserve,

the old Whig stronghold.²⁵3 If two Free Soilers should

join the Democrats in the House, the Whigs would be

outvoted. A bitter legislative fight followed, aggra-

vated by a dispute over the seating of two Hamilton

County Democrats.²⁵⁴ Taylor Whigs explained Ford's

small majority on the ground that "he lost many Whig

votes that stood too over plumb to vote for a man the

least bit tinctured with abolition" and because he failed

to endorse Taylor.²⁵⁵ The Plain Dealer maintained that

"Old fashioned federalism, new light Van Burenism,

fanatical Abolitionism, National Reformism, par excel-

lence Free Soilism, and every other ism known in this

wizard age, have joined, or rather conspired, to elect

Ford," and that only a nonentity like the Whig candi-

 

251 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, August 30, 1848; See also Washington

Daily Union, December 27, 1848; Ohio Statesman, September 25, 1848.

252 Ohio Statesman, January 20, 1849.

253 Ibid., October 23, 1848.

254 See Chapter VI.

255 Vance to Crittenden, October 24, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XII.

• 55
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850           315

date could have combined all those elements.²⁵⁶ The

Enquirer concluded that the Democrats had virtually

won a victory, since Ford's election had been conceded

by a large majority in September, and because the Dem-

ocrats won a majority of seats in the next Congress.²⁵⁷

The Enquirer explained these results on the ground that

the progressive and liberal tendencies of the Democratic

party attracted the younger voters; that the Whigs were

disgusted with the nomination of Taylor; and that nine-

tenths of the foreign voters were in the Democratic

party.²⁵⁸   In  some   cases   the  election   of  Free    Soil

members to the General Assembly had occurred in the

face of bitter opposition from both major parties. In

Summit County, the Free Soilers coalesced with the

Democrats to elect an anti-slavery Democrat (Lucien

Swift), while in other counties the third party threw

its strength to the Whig candidate.²⁵⁹ In many cases,

the Whig party was badly demoralized, having lost its

hold on the Western Reserve for the first time since

the organization of the party in Ohio.

The narrow margin of victory in the State election

convinced the Whigs that Ohio would cast its votes for

Cass unless vigorous steps were taken immediately. On

 

256 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, October 11, 1848.

257 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 22, 1848; The Daily Union judged

the close vote to be a victory for the Democrats and declared the result to

be largely due to the speaking of Allen and Weller and to the sterling work

of Medary. Washington Daily Union, October 15, 18, 1848; There were

eleven Democrats elected to Congress, among whom were David T. Disney,

Edson B. Olds, Charles Sweetser, Moses Hoagland, and Joseph Cable; five

Taylor Whigs, Robert C. Schenck, Moses B. Corwin, John L. Taylor,

Samuel F. Vinton and Nathan Evans; two Whigs who were not Taylor

Whigs, William F. Hunter and Lewis D. Campbell; and three Free Soilers,

John Cromwell, Joshua R. Giddings and Joseph M. Root. Ohio Statesman,

October 21, 1848.

258 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 15, 1848.

259 Ohio State Journal, October 25, 1848.

• 56
 

316      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the day of the State election, Ewing wrote that if Ford

carried the state by 12,000, Taylor would win; but that

if the Whig gubernatorial candidate had a majority of

only 6,000, Ohio was lost for the national candidate. At

the same time, Ewing pointed out that if support of Ford

were represented as a test vote in the presidential elec-

tion, the Whigs would lose 5,000 votes which would

otherwise be cast for Ford.²⁶⁰ Cass carried Ohio by

a plurality: 154,769 for Cass, 138,349 for Taylor, and

35,344 for Van Buren--the latter obtaining most of his

support from the counties of the Western Reserve, and

carrying only Ashiabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lo-

rain, and Trumbull.²⁶¹

It was evident that the Free Soil movement had al-

most wrecked the Whig party in Ohio. Vance believed

the refusal of McLean and Clay to endorse Taylor and

the enmity of the farmers in the sugar-maple region of

Ohio, against the competition of slave labor in the sugar

districts of Louisiana, had injured the party in Ohio.262

Chase concluded that Cass carried Ohio because it was

generally believed that Taylor would not veto the Pro-

viso. The Cleveland True Democrat thought the small

Free Soil vote was due to the inherent prejudice of the

Whigs of the Western Reserve to Van Buren.263

The reaction of the major parties to Taylor's elec-

tion is interesting. To the Democrats it appeared to

be a Southern triumph and an indication that the South

had deserted Cass because Taylor would preserve the

interests of slavery more securely.²⁶⁴ The Ohio States-

260 Ewing to Crittenden, October 6, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XII.

261 Ohio Statesman, November 22, 25, 1848.

262 Vance to Critenden, November 13, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XII.

263 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 155.

264 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, November 23, 1848.

• 57
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      317

man and the Enquirer maintained that it was a vote

of the East against the West, and that it was "time

the West had set up for itself, if selfishness is the pre-

dominant and ruling idea in the East and South."²⁶⁵

The reaction of the Plain Dealer also revealed the grow-

ing dislike of the voters of both parties in Ohio to

the influence of the South in the government. For

"Forty-eight years the South, with less than one-third

population have had the administration of this Govern-

ment," so ran the comment of the Plain Dealer, "and

they have used its patronage and power to strengthen,

extend, and perpetuate the dominion of slavery * * * *

The people of the North have decided to continue this

power in the hands of slaveholders another four years

* * * * It was a crisis at which the Free States, if

ever, should have had the management of the govern-

ment, and settled all sectional questions in favor of free-

dom."266

1848 witnessed the birth of a formidable third party,

dominated by a protest against southern dictation, and,

on the surface, the extension of slavery. The Whig

party in Ohio had been torn asunder by the nationaliz-

ing influence of party organization, on the one hand;

and the insistent demands of the sectionalism of the

Northwest, on the other. The Democratic party, al-

though it felt the strain to a considerable extent, was

able to avoid a breach as an older organization with

strong traditions of party loyalty. The election of 1848

265 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, November 17, 1848; the Union protested

against this interpretation declaring that if they, in the East, had failed to

sweep the country, it was not from any Democratic opposition to the can-

didate from the West. Washington Daily Union, November 14, 1848.

266 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, November 10, 1848.

• 58
 

318      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

began the disintegration of political parties which culmi-

nated in the formation of the Republican party in 1854.

The struggle between the economic and political interests

of the Northwest and those of the Nation as a whole

continued and formed the basis for the rivalry of the

parties in Ohio for the remainder of the decade.

• 59
 

CHAPTER VI

 

 

THE APPORTIONMENT BILL OF FEBRUARY, 1848

From its admission into the Union to 1840, Ohio

had, for the most part, been under the control of the

followers of Jefferson. A number of causes combined

to break this control and make of Ohio during the 'for-

ties a bitterly contested battle-field. The most important

was the transformation of the Whig party from an or-

ganization somewhat "tainted" with Federalism into

one which deigned to engage in the saturnalia of a

"Hard Cider" campaign and trumpet through the state

its pretensions to Jeffersonianism. The Whig party pa-

raded as the "poor man's friend" and its leaders talked

much of the homely virtues. Another cause was the

failure of the national Democratic organization to re-

alize the power of the growing Northwest and the conse-

quent neglect to reward its followers in that section with

patronage in proportion to their importance. Other im-

portant reasons were the recurrent financial depressions

growing out of the panic of 1837 and the stringency of

specie during the early 'forties. Financial intimidation

of debtors by the holders of wealth added followers to

the Whig ranks--followers who accepted the prosperity

arguments of the Whig orators with a facility which an-

ticipated the success of the "full dinner pail" appeal of

later years. These forces resulted in a close political

division of the State. Perhaps as a consequence, gerry-

(319)

• 60
 

320       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

mandering, a device which lent itself to the schemes of

wily politicians, was frequently used in Ohio to defeat

the will of the majority of the voters and to insure po-

litical control to the party which happened to have a

majority in the Assembly.

Both in aim and in methods of resistance to its exe-

cution, the Whig Apportionment Bill of February, 1848,

resembled the earlier attempt of the Democrats in 1842

to divide the State into congressional districts in order

to secure control of the congressional delegation. This

attempt had been defeated, as has already been pointed

out, by the resignation of the Whig members of the

House, which left the Assembly without a quorum.¹

The first Ohio State Constitution provided that the

General Assembly should apportion representation

among the several counties in proportion to population.²

The controversy over the constitutionality of the act

passed by the Whig Legislature on February 18, 1848,3

in accordance with this provision of the State Constitu-

tion, became so bitter that it convulsed the State for

two years; interrupted legislative procedure for weeks;

led to a realignment of parties and to the election of

Salmon P. Chase to the United States Senate.4

Before the State elections were held in October,

1847, attention had been called by Whig papers to the

need of a fair districting of the State, on the ground

that the Democrats had been able to control the General

 

1 Ohio Senate Journals, v. XI, Part 2, pp. 340, 348, 353, 354, 395-396

Vote for passage stood 18-17; See also Chapter II. McMaster, op. cit., v.

VII, p. 71. Ibid., p. 67. Ohio Senate Journals, v. XL, Part 2, p. 400.;

Niles' Register, August 27, 1842, p. 403-404.

2 Article I, Sections 2 and 6.

3 Laws of Ohio. v. XLVI, pp. 57-64.

4 See Chapter VII.

• 61
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850            321

Assembly, previously, by gerrymandering.⁵ The issue

assumed additional importance because upon the 1848-

1849 Legislature depended the election of a successor to

William Allen to the United States Senate. The Ham-

ilton Intelligencer favored dividing the State into single

member districts; and the Clermont Courier recalled

how the Democrats in 1839-1840 had united Clermont,

Brown, and Clinton Counties in order to overcome Whig

majorities.⁶

Reapportionment had not figured in the campaign

of 1847, and the Democratic leaders, therefore, were

all the more surprised, when on January 12, 1848, an

apportionment measure was introduced by the Whigs

in the Senate, providing among other things, for the

division of Hamilton County into two electoral districts

and assigning two senators and five representatives to

the whole County as before.⁷ This measure the Demo-

crats denounced as unfair, unjust and unconstitutional,⁸

and centered their fire on the proposed division of Ham-

ilton County. The Whigs, of course, defended the act,

the Cincinnati Chronicle declaring that it provided for

representation of the business and commercial classes

 

5 Carroll Free Press, quoted in Ohio State Journal, September 7, 1847.

6 Hamilton Intelligencer, quoted in Ohio State Journal, November 13,

1847.

7 Laws of Ohio, v. XLVI, pp. 57-64. As finally passed, the Law pro-

vided that the General Assembly of Ohio should be composed of thirty-six

senators and seventy-two representatives, to be apportioned as follows--"To

the County of Hamilton, two senators and five representatives, to be elected

as follows: So much of said County of Hamilton, as is comprised within the

limits of the district now constituted by the First, Second, Third, Fourth,

Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Wards of the City of Cincinnati, shall

compose the First District, and shall be entitled to one senator and two

representatives; . . . So much of said County of Hamilton, as is not in-

cluded in the First District, shall compose the Second District, and shall be

entitled to one senator and three representatives . . ."

8 Ohio Statesman, February 19, May 10, 1848.

Vol. XXXVIII--21

• 62
 

322         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of the city which hitherto had been outvoted by the

suburban and rural population.9

The Democratic press of the State was united in the

assault on the Apportionment Bill of 1848. The Mount

Vernon Banner described it under the caption, "Revo-

lution at the Capitol"; the Guernsey Jeffersonian re-

ferred to "High-handed Federal Villainy"; and the Lan-

caster, (Ohio), Eagle considered the measure "Revolu-

tionary in    the extreme."¹⁰ Samuel Medary's attacks,

as editor of the Ohio Statesman, afford a typical ex-

ample of the violent journalism of the 'forties. Med-

ary spared neither the Bill nor its authors.¹¹ Democratic

leaders and Democratic newspapers followed his lead-

ership, although some papers, like the Cincinnati Daily

Enquirer, adopted a milder and more conservative

tone.¹²

The Bill passed the Senate,¹³ was amended slightly

 

9 Cincinnati Daily Chronicle, quoted in Ohio State Journal, February 1,

1848. It became clear in the campaigns of 1848 and 1849 that the division

of Hamilton County had been proposed as early as 1843, but that the "older"

and "wiser" Whigs had opposed the scheme on the ground of constitutionality

and expediency. Nevertheless, zealous and partisan Whigs determined to

press the matter; and, in the 1844 session of the Legislature, R. F. Payne

(W), at the instance of the Hamilton County Whigs, had brought the pro-

posal before the Judiciary Committee only to have that committee, which

was composed of three Whigs and two Democrats, again reject the plan as

unconstitutional. The Senate then requested an opinion from the attorney-

general, Henry Stanbery, and the latter reported, on January 17, that the

General Assembly had the power to divide Hamilton County for purposes

of representation. J. J. Coombs, B. F. Cowen, and R. F. Payne were the

Whig members of the committee; Edward Archbold and James H. Ewing,

the Democrats; Senate Journals, v. XLVI, p. 245. Cincinnati Daily En-

quirer, January 26, 1848.

10 Editorials from these papers quoted in Ohio Statesman, February 26,

1848.

11 Ohio Statesman, January 17, May 10, 1848.

12 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer for this entire period. There had been

friction between the Broughs, John and Charles (editors of the Enquirer),

and Medary, since the campaigns of 1844 and 1846, when Medary supported

Van Buren and "Hard Money," while the Broughs sided with Cass and

"Constitutional Currency."

13 Ohio Senate Journals, v. XLVI, pp. 339-340, January 28, 1848.

• 63
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   323

by the House and returned to the Senate on February

14. Seeing that its passage was certain, the Demo-

cratic senators vacated their seats in order to prevent

a quorum.¹⁴ In a paper submitted to the Speaker of

the Senate, setting forth the reasons for their with-

drawal,¹⁵ the Democratic Senators declared the Bill was

a "daring infraction of the Constitution and a violation

of all established usage," and argued that, "To divide a

county for representatives and senators, and to appor-

tion one part of the county to one legislative district and

a part of it to another is a plain act of revolution on the

part of the majority who attempt it; it is a fundamental

change of our political organization plainly forbidden by

the Constitution."¹⁶ The Democrats consented to return

only if the bill were purged of its objectionable feature

or if the Senate should consider other measures.

The seceding Democratic senators also drew up an

address to the people, notable as a document of social

protest. After referring again to the unconstitution-

ality and injustice of the Apportionment Bill and the in-

ability of the minority to get redress from the courts,

they concluded, "The remedy is now in the hands of the

people. The Democrats have struggled valiantly but

hopelessly for four years against invasions of every de-

scription upon the rights of the people. Law upon law

went upon your statute-books * * * all having one

tendency to destroy that political equality upon which

alone rests the fabric of our democratic government.

Rights were granted to wealth and denied to labor,

 

14 Ohio Senate Journals, v. XLVI, p. 560.

15 Ohio Statesman, February 15, 1848; Ohio Senate Journal, v. XLVI,

pp. 562-563.

16 Letter printed in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 15, 1848.

• 64
 

324      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

burthens were placed upon labor and wealth was ex-

empted from them. Link after link was added to the

chain and the helpless would have stood before mocking

Whiggery, this giant growing rapidly in the favor of

the people of Ohio."17  The issue was joined for a real

political battle and Medary eagerly accepted the Whig

challenge. His paper gave high praise to the decamp-

ing Democratic senators,¹⁸ whom Whig papers, like the

Ohio State Journal,¹⁹ denounced as "absquatulators",

accusing Medary of instigating the withdrawal of the

Democratic senators.²⁰ To the reply of the Democrats

that they were only exercising the same right claimed

by the Whigs in 1842, the latter replied that the situa-

tions were not analogous, because in 1842 the Whigs had

resigned during a special session of the Legislature con-

vened for a specific purpose.21 To discredit the Demo-

crats with the voters, the withdrawal was denounced by

the Whig press as a revolutionary and treasonable con-

spiracy to prevent all legislation of which the Democrats

did not approve. "People of Ohio! You are now

threatened with civil revolution * * * equal repre-

sentation is no cardinal principle with the anarchy, the

overthrow of all your state institutions they have in

contemplation,"²² -- so ran one protest.

The Democrats sought a possible compromise, but

the Whigs refused to discuss such proposals and ad-

journed the Senate on February 16 and 17, for lack of

 

17 Ohio Statesman, February 15, 1848.

18 Ibid., February 15, 1848.

19 Ohio State Journal, February 15, 1848.

20 Ibid., February 26, 1848.

21 Ibid., February 19, 1948.

22 Ibid., February 16, 1848.

• 65
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      325

a quorum.²³ On February 18, while the Bill was still

before the Senate, the House receded from its amend-

ments which were of little practical significance anyway,

and notified the Senate of its action. Thereupon, the

presiding officers of the Senate and House signed the

Bill, and it was declared law.²⁴  This action was de-

nounced by the Cincinnati Enquirer as a "mockery of

all form, a transgression of all rules, a violation of all

the laws which ever governed legislation in Ohio, an

outrage upon all principle, and all common-sense."²⁵ On

February 25, forty-one Democratic members of the

General Assembly issued an address to the people of

Ohio intended as a battle-cry for the coming campaign.²⁶

The Whigs promptly issued a counter-blast, upholding

the constitutionality and fundamental justice of the Ap-

portionment Law.²⁷

Democratic meetings all over the State protested

against the measure as a deliberate and unconstitutional

attempt by the Whigs to thwart the will of the people.²⁸

At Dayton, the Resolutions Committee, with C. L. Val-

landigham as chairman, produced a strong indictment

of the Whigs, charging that the Apportionment Bill not

only was unconstitutional and unjust but that it was not

law; and argued that if the Governor did not call a spe-

cial session of the General Assembly to pass a new ap-

portionment measure the State would be without a legal

 

23 Ohio Statesman, February 17, 1848; Ohio Senate Journals, v. XLVI,

pp. 561-564.

24 Ohio Statesman, February 19, 1848; Ohio Senate Journals, v. XLVI,

pp. 566-567.

25 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 21, 1848.

26 Ohio Statesman, February 25, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, March

1, 1848.

27 Ohio State Journal, February 26, 1848.

28 Ohio Statesman, March 15, 1848.

• 66
 

326       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

government.²⁹   In the columns of the Western Empire,

(Dayton), Vallandigham declared that the Bill had not

been passed according to parliamentary procedure.30

The Dayton gathering also urged the Democratic State

Central Committee to call a State Convention at an early

date in order to devise "a uniform course of action for

the Democratic party throughout the State. * * *"31

On March 3, the Democratic State Central Committee

complied and called a State Convention "to determine

upon such measures as may be deemed advisable to meet

the exigencies of the time."³²   The date selected was

April 20, but this was later changed to May 10.

The Whigs, taking their cue from the Dorr Rebellion

in Rhode Island, pronounced the proposals of their op-

ponents as revolutionary. The Ohio State Journal be-

moaned the fate of the State: "One week, only one

week, and this fabric of government under which we

have dwelt * * * will be swept away, and all those

institutions which have been organized in the hope to

secure to the citizen the possession of life, liberty, and

property, will be gone as the baseless fabric of a vision

--gone, gone, forever."³³ Nearly every Whig county

convention adopted resolutions upholding the Apportion-

ment Law and condemning the Democratic members

for withdrawing from the Senate.³⁴ The conservative

portion of the Democracy unquestionably feared the

 

29 Ibid., March  1, 1848.

30 The Ohio State Journal pointed out that David T. Disney (D) had

once signed an appropriation bill after his term expired and if that law

were valid, by the same token this law was legal. This the Enquirer ad-

mitted, but claimed that Disney had said that if the law had been contested

it would have been thrown aside. Ohio State Journal, March 20, 1848.

31 Ohio Statesman, March 1, 1848.

32 Ohio Statesman, March 3, 4, 1848.

33 Ohio State Journal, May 3, 1848.

34 Ibid., March 1, April 5, 1848.

• 67
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   327

effect of these charges, and endeavored to reassure the

voters on the one hand, and to restrain the more radical

members of their own party on the other. The Cincin-

nati Daily Enquirer favored settling the matter in the

courts,35 and, although not rejecting the proposed Dem-

ocratic State Convention, regarded the latter only as

means to take counsel with the party membership.³⁶

While this party warfare was going on in the news-

papers, the Democrats, in county conventions, adopted

resolutions condemning the Apportionment Bill; ap-

proving the course of the fifteen seceding Democratic

senators; and appointing delegates to the State Conven-

tion of May 10.37   The Richland County Democrats

resolved, "That it becomes the freemen of Ohio, who

are determined to maintain their liberties, to resist and

oppose this high-handed usurpation and tyranny by all

means within their power and to defeat it peaceably if

they can, but forcibly if they must.^"38 The Ashland

County Democratic Convention took equally strong

grounds resolving to "stand by the people of the other

counties of the State, even to the last resort of vio-

lence."³⁹

With feeling running high, the leaders of the Demo-

cratic party met in Columbus, May 10, 1848,40 elected

Rufus P. Spalding chairman of the Convention, and

appointed a committee on resolutions headed by David

T. Disney. The importance attached to the Conven-

tion may be seen from the presence of such outstanding

³⁵ Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, March 21, 1848.

36 bid., March 4, 1848.

37 Ohio Statesman, March 21, May 10, 1848.

38 Ibid., April 21, 1848.

39 Ibid., May 1, 1848.

40 Full proceedings of this Convention are given in the Ohio Statesman,

May 10, 11, 1848.

• 68
 

328      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

leaders of the party as Samuel Medary, A. F. Edger-

ton, John Brough, David T. Disney, C. L. Vallandig-

ham, Edson B. Olds, T. W. Bartley, E. B. Flood, and

H. C. Whitman. The Convention met at a time when

the Democratic party in Ohio found itself jockeyed out

of a favorable position on the question of slavery in the

territories,⁴¹ and therefore the Apportionment Law was

seized upon as a new issue in the hope of rehabilitating

the political fortunes of the Democracy. Since there

were signs that the Whigs also were divided on the ap-

portionment question, conservative Democrats felt that

a radical move on their part would discredit them in

the eyes of the people at the moment when fortune was

playing into their hands. In the Convention, Brough,

a leader of the more conservative wing of the party,

attempted to tone down the sharp resolutions presented

for adoption. Resolutions finally were adopted to the

effect that there was no law by which the General As-

sembly could be formed after the second Tuesday in

October; that the Governor should call an extra session

to pass an apportionment law; and that if the Governor

failed to call such a session, Democrats should abide by

the Apportionment Law to the extent of voting in full

force at the next election, "with a view to ulterior

measures for the preservation of their past political

rights." These "ulterior measures," an ominous threat

according to Whig critics, were the refusal of Demo-

cratic senators and representatives to take their seats

in the Legislature. By such tactics, the Democrats

hoped to force a call for a constitutional convention by

the Whigs. Another resolution provided that if the

 

41 See Chapter V.

• 69
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          329

Governor did not call an extra session of the Legisla-

ture, a Democratic State Convention should assemble on

the first Monday in December "to devise the necessary

measures for securing the action of the whole people

on the subject of a new Constitution."42 Another revo-

lutionary act was the appointment of a Committee of

Public Safety consisting of twenty-one members, one

from each congressional district, to meet at the call of

the chairman "to confer for the public good.^"43 A com-

mittee of five was appointed to draft an address to the

people of Ohio, and eight days later a document of ten

thousand words appeared, repeating all the old argu-

ments against the Whig Apportionment Law,44 and con-

cluding with an appeal to the people, but assuring them

at the same time, that the remedy was "peaceable,

natural, and constitutional."⁴⁵

The Whigs dubbed the Democratic Convention a

"Dorr Convention" and a "Jacobin Revolt."⁴⁶ The main

Whig organ of the State warned its followers "that

measures to revolutionize the State and subvert the

Constitution are still in progress--that not one item

of the infamous plots and plans of May 10 has been

abandoned or neglected--that the machinery of treason

and anarchy has been silently, but constantly at work--

42 Ohio Statesman, May 10-11, 1848.

43 Years afterward, with an ironical flourish, Medary, a member from

the Tenth Congressional District, resigned from the Committee of Public

Safety. The appointment of a Committee of Public Safety was a step

which the Hamilton County Democratic Convention had not taken, chiefly

because of the opposition of John Brough. The failure to do this brought

protests from the Hamilton County Democrats. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,

April 17, 18, 19, 1848. Brough probably did this in order to nip in the bud

an "independent" movement among some of the Democrats who were in-

clined to seek Whig support, especially in 1849, by agreeing to the legality

of the Apportionment Law.

44 Ohio Statesman, May 18, 1848.

45 Ibid., May 19, 1848.

46 Ohio State Journal, July 1, August 8, 1848.

• 70
 

330       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and that every threat, even to that of force, bloodshed

and murder, will most assuredly be carried out and ful-

filled to the letter, if the result of the election shall fur-

nish the means by which it may be done."⁴⁷ The Whig

emphasis on law and order was probably partly in-

duced by the unfavorable position of their party in the

State on national issues.48    Many Whigs were bolting

the Taylor ticket⁴⁹ in 1848, and state leaders hoped, by

stressing the "revolutionary" tactics of the Democrats,

to keep insurgent Whigs in line.⁵⁰ By July, the Paines-

ville Telegraph (W) was convinced that state issues

were far more important than national questions, and

declared, with the approval of the Ohio State Journal,

that the question was "Whether we shall maintain law

and order in the State, and preserve the Constitution

and government in its present useful and reliable form,

or cast it at loose ends to the management of such cor-

rupt demogogues as Sam Medary, Dr. Olds, and John

B. Weller."⁵1

The first reaction of the Democratic press⁵² and

Democratic county conventions53 was to applaud the

work of the State Convention of May 10. At the same

time, there was evidence of a desire to avoid the charges

of revolutionary tactics.⁵⁴   The Dayton Western Em-

pire, for example, declared, "We contemplate no vio-

47 Ibid., September 18, 1848.

48 Chase to Sumner, November 27, 1848, quoted in "Selected Letters of

Salmon P. Chase," in loc. cit., v. II, pp. 142-143.

49 E. S. Hamlin to McLean, September 16, 1848. McLean MSS., v. XVI.

50 Ohio State Journal, August 24, 1848.

51 Ibid., July 10, 1848.

52 Approval was voiced by such papers as the Akron Democrat, Coshoc-

ton Democrat, Wayne County Democrat, Hillsboro Gazette, Georgetown

Standard, Knox County Democratic Banner, Guernsey County Jeffersonian,

Ohio Sun, Western Empire, quoted in Ohio Statesman, May 20, 1848.

53 Ohio Statesman, May 20-September 4, 1848.

54 Ohio Statesman, September 4, 1848.

• 71
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   331

lence. It is folly to talk of bayonets and bloodshed. We

propose simply to fold our arms, stand by and see if the

Whig party can carry on this government without our

cooperation."⁵⁵  The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer vig-

orously refuted the charges of the Cincinnati Daily Ga-

zette (W) that the plans of the Democrats were revo-

lutionary and claimed for the Democrats the right to

vote for all the representatives from Hamilton County;

and in case that right were denied, to contest the election

in a peaceable manner.56  The Enquirer advised every

Democratic voter to cast his ballot for the senator and

the five representatives to be elected from Hamilton

County.⁵⁷ This was in direct contravention to the Ap-

portionment Law and would, if carried out, force the

issue upon the Clerk of the Hamilton County Court

of Common Pleas, whose duty it was to issue certificates

of election to the properly qualified representatives.

Moreover, this would force the judges of election in the

several wards to accept or reject voters according to

their interpretation of the Apportionment Law and the

State Constitution. The General Assembly, of course,

was the judge of the qualifications of its own members.

but the practice had arisen to accept the certificates of

election as prima facie evidence of a right to a seat in

that body. Thus, a crucial issue was referred to the

Hamilton County Clerk. The plans was endorsed by the

Hamilton County Democratic Central Committee⁵⁸ and

the battle was on.

The election in Hamilton County turned out as ex-

 

55 Ibid., May 20, 1848.

56 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 29, 1848.

57 Ibid., September 3, 1848.

58 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 8, 1848.

• 72
 

332      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

pected. According to the Apportionment Law of Feb-

ruary, 1848, two Whigs were elected from the first elec-

toral district, but according to the Democratic interpre-

tation, all five of the Democratic representatives were

returned. On October 16, E. C. Roll, clerk of the Ham-

ilton County Court of Common Pleas, gave certificates

of election to the Democratic senator and to the five

Democratic representatives.⁵⁹ The seats of two of them,

George E. Pugh and A. N. Pierce, were claimed by O.

M. Spencer and George W. Runyan. Thus the issue

came squarely before the House of Representatives.

As pointed out earlier, the State election of 1848 was

bitterly contested between the Whigs, Democrats, and

Free Soilers,⁶⁰ and resulted in the Democrats and Demo-

cratic Free Soilers obtaining control of the House, pro-

vided the two members from Hamilton County, whose

election was disputed by the Whigs, were given their

seats. Control of the Senate was in doubt, and the pros-

pects for a peaceful legislative session were not bright;

for, in addition to this controversy, there were doubts

as to the eligibility of George D. Hendricks, senator-

elect from Preble and Montgomery Counties; and the

seat of Alanson Jones, representative-elect from Clin-

ton County, was in question because he was sheriff of

Clinton County at the time of the election and thus was

barred by the Constitution from holding a seat in the

Legislature.⁶¹

The first attempt to organize the House ended in

confusion.⁶² On the first day of the session, the Demo-

59 Ohio State Journal, October 20, 1848.

60 See Chapter V.

61 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 3, 1848.

62 Ohio House Journals, v. XLVII, pp. 3-4.

• 73
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    333

crats went to the Capitol two hours earlier than the time

for organization and were called to order by B. F. Lei-

ter, of Stark County, as acting chairman.⁶³ They claimed

they were merely forestalling the Whigs, who, it was

said, were contemplating a similar course.64 The Demo-

crats feared that if the Whigs controlled the temporary

organization of the House, the Whig chairman and

clerk would refuse to seat the Democratic claimants

from Hamilton County. Since the House was elected

every year the ordinary course of procedure was for

the clerk of the former House to receive the certificates

of election which had formerly been accepted as prima

facie evidence of right to a seat. When the Whigs ar-

rived, they rejected the Democratic plan of organiza-

tion, and set up one of their own with A. T. Holcomb

as chairman.65 The Whigs seated themselves in a group

on one side of the House, with the Democrats on the

other. Each side then attempted to drown out the other

by shouts and hisses, and, to add to the confusion, a

crowd of spectators expressed their sympathies with

the warring factions.

In the role of a peacemaker, Norton S. Townshend,

(Free Soiler), offered a resolution asking Pugh, Pierce,

Spencer and Runyan from Hamilton County not to take

their seats until after the organization of the House

had. been completed and their respective claims settled.⁶⁶

Spencer offered to accept this proposal provided the

others would also; but as this procedure would have dis-

 

63 Ohio Statesman, December 4, 1848; Ohio State Journal, December 4,

5, 1848.

64 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 7, 1848.

65 Ohio Statesman, December 4, 1848; Ohio House Journals, v. XLVII,

p. 5.

66 Ohio Statesman, December 5, 1848.

• 74
 

334      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

carded the chief Democratic argument, namely, that

certificates of election were prima facie evidence of

rights to seats in the Assembly, the proposal failed. Al-

though the Whigs insisted that the certificate of Alan-

son Jones, the Whig representative from Clinton

County, be accepted as evidence of his right to a seat,

they would not accord the same privileges to the Demo-

cratic holders of such certificates from Hamilton

County. On Friday, December 8, Riddle, on behalf

of the Free Soil members, presented a proposition to the

effect that the four disputing Hamilton County claim-

ants leave the House until after the organization had

been carried out, the Free Soil members pledging that

no business would be carried on until their claims were

settled;⁶⁷ but this proposal also failed.

On the following day a committee, appointed by the

Democratic organization in the House to investigate

the Hamilton County dispute, reported in favor of seat-

ing Pugh and Pierce.⁶⁸  C. H. Brough defended the

Democrats in an article printed in the Ohio Standard

(Free Soil) and reprinted in the Ohio Statesman of De-

cember 9, 1848, pointing out that the Assembly, in the

disputed election case of Chandler vs. Betts in the ses-

sion of 1845-1846, had held that a representative district

could not be less than a county.⁶⁹ The position taken

by the Ohio Standard foreshadowed a Democratic and

Free Soil coalition. By January, 1849, the Ohio Stand-

ard, a Chase organ, was wholeheartedly in favor of the

repeal of the Apportionment Law.70 As one of the

67 Ibid., December 8, 1848.

68 Ohio Statesman, December 9, 1848.

69 Ohio Statesman, January 19, 1849.

70 Ohio Standard, quoted in Ohio Statesman, January 19, 1849.

• 75
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     335

chief organizers of the Free Soil party, he was busily

engaged at Columbus in promoting his own election to

the United States Senate.71

On December 14, Townshend again tried to bring

the warring factions together by introducing resolutions

to the effect that the certificates of membership which

had been given to Lucien Swift (Free Soil), who had

been recognized by some of the Whigs as clerk of the

House, should be passed to the clerk's desk and filed

with the others; that Leiter should be recognized as

chairman for the purpose of organizing the House; and

that the first business to be considered should be the

resolution: "That Messrs. Pugh and Pierce, are, by

their certificates, prima facie entitled to seats until their

claims shall be finally decided upon their merits. On

which resolution the said Pugh and Pierce shall not be

entitled to vote, but the same shall be finally decided by

the remaining seventy members. The vote on said reso-

lution shall be decisive of the prima facie right of the

said Pugh and Pierce to seats; but nothing in the afore-

said proceedings shall be construed to interfere with the

right of either Messrs. Spencer and Runyan, or Pugh

and Pierce, of contest for such seats after the organiza-

tion."⁷²  Both Whigs and Democrats agreed to make

these resolutions a special order for the following day

in their own separate organizations; but again the peace-

makers failed, because the Whigs feared this proposi-

tion gave the Democrats too great an advantage.⁷³ A

week later, Townshend, on behalf of the Free Soilers,

 

71 See Chase correspondence in Chase MSS.; See also "Some letters of

Salmon P. Chase, 1848-1865," The American Historical Review, XXXIV,

536-556.

72 Ohio Statesman, December 14, 1848.

73 Ibid., December 15, 1848.

• 76
 

336      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

offered another plan similar to the previous one except

that it provided for a vote by the seventy members, about

whose qualifications no question was raised, on alternate

sets of resolutions.  The first resolution was on the

seating of Spencer and Runyan and the second on the

seating of Pugh and Pierce.⁷⁴ If both resolutions were

negatived, both sets of contestants were to withdraw,

and present claims for their rights to seats after the

organization of the House. Two days later the House

organized on this basis with Leiter, as chairman, and

McClure (Free Soil), as clerk,⁷⁵ and a date was set to

hear the Hamilton County case.

From that time until the final decision of the case,

the arguments in the House revealed, with increasing

clarity, the unity of the Whig Free Soilers with the Tay-

lor Whigs on the Hamilton County question. This

union of Whigs and Whig Free Soilers drove Town-

shend and Morse, who sympathized with the Democratic

position on banking and currency, into the arms of the

Democrats, because they feared that the Whig Free

Soilers were attempting to betray the Free Soil party to

the regular Whigs.⁷⁶ Chase had convinced both Morse

and Townshend of the unconstitutionality of the Appor-

tionment Law. When, on January 2, the vote was taken

on the seating of Pugh and Pierce, there was still a

deadlock, Townshend and Morse voting with the Demo-

crats and the remainder of the Free Soilers voting with

the Whigs.⁷7 The vote stood: 38-32 against seating

74 Ohio Statesman, December 21, 1848.

75 Ibid., December 23, 1848.

76 This influence is accurately shown in a letter of Norton S. Town-

shend to the editor of the Cleveland True Democrat. Reprinted in Ohio

Statesman, January 22, 1849.

77 Ohio Statesman, January 3, 1849; Ohio State Journal, January 3

1849; Ohio House Journals, v. XLVII, p. 12.

• 77
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      337

Spencer and Runyan, some of the Whig Free Soilers

joining the two Independent Free Soilers because they

thought that the election should go back to the voters of

Hamilton County.

A few days before Townshend reported a set of reso-

lutions⁷⁸ that finally resulted in the seating of Pugh and

Pierce, A. G. Riddle brought in a bill to repeal that por-

tion of the Apportionment Law of February, 1848, di-

viding Hamilton County into two electoral districts, with

the proviso that nothing in his bill should be so construed

as to affect any rights acquired under the Apportion-

ment Law 79--a proyiso which the Enquirer denounced

as a "legal absurdity."⁸⁰   In the House, Smith (D)

warned the Whigs that unless they repealed the division

of Hamilton County, "you may look again for the fright-

ful scenes of the fourth, fifth, and sixth of December--

all springing from your Senate Bill, number seventy.

Go not home to your constituency, as you have done, and

with cool impudency say to them with the blood-brother

Danton, 'I looked my crime in the face and I did it.' Do

so, and I solemnly believe your government ends. You

will have held the last session of the General As-

sembly, till we get by violence, that civil reformation

which you deny us by peaceful legislation."⁸¹ The House

acted favorably on the Riddle Bill, the Independent Free

Soilers, Townshend and Morse voting with the Demo-

 

78 Ohio Statesman, January 27, 1849.

79 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 25, 1849.

⁸⁰ Ibid., January 25, 1849.

81 H. C. Whitman (D) declared that in the beginning of the session, a

Whig Senator had agreed to vote with the Democrats to repeal the division

of Hamilton County if they would not push an investigation into the method

of its passage. Ohio Statesman, March 8, 21, 1849.

Vol. XXXVIII--22

• 78
 

338      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

crats;82 but the Senate failed to concur and so the issue

was projected into the fall elections of 1849. The main

burden of defense of the Riddle Bill had fallen upon

Pugh, who declared that the Apportionment Law "was

a vain and sharp-sighted attempt to secure a present

representation to those bankers and money-lords" of

Cincinnati, who were doing everything they could to

fasten their iniquitous banking system on the State so

that even a revision of the Constitution could not affect

them.⁸³ Riddle (Whig Free Soiler) denounced the Ap-

portionment Law as a "most unwarrantable measure,

carried by most unwarrantable means, and for still more

unwarrantable and unworthy purposes * * * *"84 In

spite of the warnings of the Democrats and the en-

treaties of a few Free Soil leaders like Chase and Town-

shend, most of the Whig Free Soilers voted with the

Whigs to retain this troublesome enactment on the stat-

ute-books.

The machinery of government was at a standstill.

Each party blamed the other for the dire results which'

each predicted were sure to follow. Seabury Ford, who

had been elected governor after a canvass of the votes

by the Legislature, was awaiting his inauguration.⁸⁵ Ap-

propriations were endangered. Some of the Whigs sug-

gested that in case there was no settlement of the ques-

tion, according to the Constitution (Article II, Section

2) the old Governor would hold office until the new Gov-

ernor was qualified, and that the State Auditor could

 

82 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 20, 1849; Ohio Statesman, March

16, 1849.

83 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 10, 1849.

84 Ohio Statesman, February 14, 1849.

85 Ohio State Journal, December 11, 1848.

• 79
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          339

levy and collect taxes equal to the amount of interest

on the public debt.⁸⁶ This proposal attracted wide at-

tention, and the Democrats, by way of protest against

such powers claimed for the State Auditor, introduced a

resolution in the Senate instructing the Judiciary Com-

mittee to inquire into the constitutionality of the laws

authorizing the State Auditor to levy taxes to pay inter-

est on the state debt.⁸⁷    The Whigs, interpreting this

proposal as a thrust at the state credit, and at the banks,

defeated the resolution.

Meanwhile the status of the State Government be-

came the topic of political discussion all over Ohio. The

Whig papers denounced the Democrats as revolution-

aries and the Ohio State Journal insisted that "No party

question ever involved interests so vital--consequences

so vast. It is not some insignificant question of policy

between parties, both of whom recognize and appeal to

fundamental law in existence and in force; but it is--

shall that fundamental law be destroyed at a blow, leav-

ing the State to all the perils of anarchy"?88 Whig pro-

test meetings denounced Townshend and Morse for not

voting with the Whigs, and Muskingum County Whigs

concluded that the Democrats were animated with a ma-

licious and fixed determination to overthrow the Consti-

tution of the State.* * *"89

The Democratic papers and county conventions were

 

86 Cincinnati Atlas, quoted in Ohio State Journal, December 11, 1848.

87 Ohio Statesman, December 19, 1848; Ohio Senate Journals, v. XLVII,

p. 51.

88 Such Whig papers as the Highland News, Sandusky Clarion, Clinton

Republican, Eaton Register, Cincinnati Daily Chronicle, and Richland Jef

fersonian applauded the Whigs. The Cleveland True Democrat (Whig Free

Soil) was mild in its comments of approval. Reprints of editorials con-

tained in the above papers in the Ohio State Journal, December 15, 1848.

89 Ohio State Journal, December 15, 1848.

• 80
 

340       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

even more violent. Medary sounded the battle-cry when

he declared in the Statesman that "The days of Crom-

well are being revived and conscienceless Whiggery is

converting the State of Ohio into the worst, the most

detestable and dangerous monarchy. Let the people

awake to these dangers before it is too late."⁹⁰ In the

eyes of the Enquirer the Apportionment Law was a

"sheer party measure. It was a scheme of party politi-

cians, concocted to secure place and power to partisans,

reckless of the consequences to the State and the rights

of freemen * * * and now, that party recklessness

which prompted the outrage in the Apportionment Bill,

is more fully developing the desperation of its leaders,

in their violent refusal to organize a Legislature they

cannot control."91 On the Reserve, the chief organ

of the Democracy joined the hue and cry, condemned

the apportionment and praised the Democrats in the

Legislature.⁹² In a two-thousand-word address to the

public, the twenty-three Democratic electors, who met at

Columbus in December to cast the vote of the State for

Cass, also condemned the Whigs for refusing to organ-

ize the House;93 and similar action was taken by many

mass meetings at various times in the State.⁹⁴

Persons of authority and reputation added their

opinions. Frederick Grimke, a retired Democratic

judge residing in Chillicothe, thought that certificates of

election should be accepted as prima facie evidence of

right to a seat.⁹⁵ William Greene, in an article in the

95 Grimke to William Greene, January 9, 1849, Greene MSS.

90 Ohio Statesman, January 1, 1849.

91 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 13, 1848.

92 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, January 3, 1849.

93 Ohio Statesman, December 7, 1848.

94 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 14, 1848; Ohio Statesman, De-

cember 10, 1848.

• 81
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   341

Ohio State Journal under the signature of Charles Ham-

mond, set forth the opposite view.⁹⁶ Greene urged that

if the Apportionment Law were unconstitutional, neither

set of claimants had a right to seats in the House and

that if it were constitutional both could not have legal

claims. The House alone, he concluded, had the right

to pass upon the question of constitutionality, and until

such action were taken the law must be accepted as con-

stitutional. From an examination of the Constitution

dealing with the issuance of certificates of election by

clerks, he concluded that the Hamilton County Clerk had

failed to perform his duty, and that the granting of cer-

tificates to Pugh and Pierce was invalid, because they

certified an election from a locality not known to the law

under which the election was held. Edwin M. Stanton,

a young lawyer of growing reputation, was asked by

the Pittsburgh Daily Morning Post for an opinion, and

in a long and able review he found the Apportionment

Law of February, 1848, unconstitutional, arguing that

the certificates held by the Whig claimants stated that

they were representatives of only a portion of the county

and hence were invalid on their face.⁹⁷ By the end of

January, 1849, it became clear that public opinion was

generally opposed to the division of Hamilton County.

Thereupon the Whigs became more willing to settle an

embarrassing question. Chase felt that the Whigs, out-

side of Columbus, had abandoned hope of excluding

Pugh and Pierce, and that few lawyers cared to defend

the constitutionality of the law.⁹⁸

96 Ohio State Journal, December 21, 1848.

97 Pittsburgh Daily Morning Post, quoted in Ohio Statesman, December

26, 1848.

98 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Cincinnati, January 26, 1848, quoted in Se-

lected Letters of Salmon P. Chase," loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 160.

• 82
 

342      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

On January 18, 1849, the majority of the Joint Select

Committee on Privileges and Elections had decided in

favor of Ford, the Whig candidate for governor.⁹⁹ Nine

days earlier, the minority of the Committee had reported

in favor of Weller, throwing out the votes of Defiance

County because the returns did not name the person for

whom the votes were cast for governor. The minority

also rejected the votes of Lorain County because the

returns were not certified under the official seal of the

clerk of that county, and refused to count eighty-four

votes cast in Crawford County for "Seabury."¹⁰⁰ The

Democrats were able to secure the election of Breslin

as Speaker of the House through the support of Town-

shend and Morse. Whig leaders had offered to support

Townshend, the regular free Soil nominee for Speaker,

if the latter would promise to resign after the settlement

of the Hamilton County contests.101 Townshend re-

garded this offer not only as a personal insult but as

further evidence that the Whigs were attempting to ab-

sorb the Free Soil party. Accordingly, he and Morse

voted with the Democrats. This union brought about

the seating of Pugh and Pierce, the noted election of

Salmon P. Chase to the United States Senate, and the

repeal of the Black Laws.

In the campaign of 1849, attempts were made by

the Democratic Free Soilers to secure the support of the

Free Soil organization on the basis of a repeal of the

Apportionment Law; but since this would have divided

the Free Soil party, the latter wisely refrained from

 

99 Ohio Statesman, January 20, 1849.

100 Ohio Statesman, January 9, 1849.

101 Townshend to Briggs, printed in Cleveland True Democrat and re-

printed in the Ohio Statesman, January 22, 1849.

• 83
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  343

taking any action, and the result was that both Demo-

crats and Whigs adhered to their position on the Ham-

ilton County question. In those counties where the Free

Soil party was powerful and composed largely of Dem-

ocrats, the tendency was for the regular Democrats to

support the Free Soil nominee with the more or less

open understanding that he would favor a repeal of the

Apportionment Law insofar as it related to Hamilton

County.102 The reverse was true in counties where the

Free Soil party was powerful and composed largely of

Whigs. In Hamilton County, most of the Free Soilers

supported Pugh, Herman Roedter, and William Long,

but many refused to support the remainder of the

ticket.¹⁰³

The political situation in Hamilton County, in 1849,

was complicated by an independent movement among

the Democrats. John C. Thorp announced himself as an

"Independent" candidate for the office of county treas-

urer, contrary to the action of the County Democratic

Convention; and Thomas Heckwelder, a candidate for

the office of recorder, did likewise.¹⁰⁴ Their action seems

to have been instigated by the Whigs who were anxious

to take advantage of jealousies in the dominant party.

The "Independent" movement spread to the aspirants

for the General Assembly and the Whig Central Com-

mittee announced that the Whigs would support the "In-

dependent" Democratic candidates, Richard A. Morton,

James Huston, and Richard D. Markland,¹⁰⁵ who had

102 William Dennison, Jr., to Ewing, July 10, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. X;

Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, September 12, 1849.

103 Hoadly, Jr., to Chase, August 30, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX.

104 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 1-6, 1849.

105 Ibid., October 3, 1849.

• 84
 

344       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

bolted the regular Democratic nominating convention

and announced themselves as candidates for the House

of Representatives from the Second District of Hamil-

ton County, thus signifying their acceptance of the Ap-

portionment Law, in order to obtain Whig support. The

Democrats met this attack from within by new assaults

on the Apportionment Law. From September 26 to

October 2 the Enquirer ran a series of strong articles

under the caption of "Veto," in which the perniciousness

of the Whig apportionment scheme was pointed out.

The regular Democrats of Hamilton County felt safe in

taking a dogmatic position against the insurgents within

their own ranks, because the Free Soilers of Hamilton

County also were opposed to the Apportionment Law.¹⁰⁶

In Summit County, the Free Soilers nominated H. B.

Spelman, a former Liberty man, who took the Demo-

cratic position on such issues as the Apportionment Law,

banking and currency, and taxation, and received the

support of the Democratic organization.¹⁰⁷ The Whigs

nominated McClure (Whig Free Soiler) who was en-

dorsed by the Whig portion of the Free Soil party in

Summit County which objected to the radical tendencies

of Spelman. McClure was strongly supported by Tees-

dale as editor of the Summit County Beacon.

As in 1848, the controversy over the representation

of Hamilton County came to a head when, in September,

106 In a long article in the Enquirer, Stanley Matthews, one of the most

prominent of the Free Soil leaders of Cincinnati, argued that the terms

apportioning and districting were identical, and hence that part of the Ap-

portionment Law which apportioned five representatives and two senators

to Hamilton County was inconsistent with that part which divided the county

into electoral districts. Consequently, only the first part, which was con-

stitutional, should be regarded as law. Matthews also argued that the Gen-

eral Assembly had the right to determine the constitutionality of its enact-

ments. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 20, 1849.

107 Hoadly to Chase, August 11, 1849, Chase MSS. v. XIX.

• 85
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      345

1849, the sheriff of Hamilton County, in accordance

with his constitutional duties, issued a proclamation of

election notifying the qualified electors of Hamilton

County to meet in their usual voting-places "for the

purpose of electing one senator and two representatives

to the General Assembly, in and for the First District;

and the three representatives for the Second District

of said County. * * *"109  The Whig press of Cin-

cinnati considered the proclamation of the sheriff, an

"Independent Democrat," as a recognition of the va-

lidity of the Apportionment Law.110 The Enquirer, (D)

objecting to this interpretation, pointed out that the

proclamation was directed to all the voters of Hamilton

County and that it had nothing to do with the manner

of holding the election. The Ohio Statesman urged

the Democrats of Hamilton County to disregard the

Sheriff's proclamation and to vote for all the representa-

tives to be chosen from that county.111

The Democrats of Hamilton County refused to abide

by the Sheriff's proclamation; and the election of Octo-

ber, 1849, led to a dispute as to who was the properly

elected senator to the General Assembly from Hamilton

County. If the votes from all parts of the county were

counted, the Democratic candidate, William Johnson,

was elected to the Senate; if only the votes of wards in

the First District, provided for by the Apportionment

Law, were counted, the Whig candidate, Lewis Broad-

well, was elected. Acting according to the same princi-

108 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, October 17, 1849.

109 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 18, 1849.

110 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, Sep-

tember 18, 1849.

111 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 15, 1849; Ohio State Journal,

September 18, 1849; Ohio Statesman, September 14, 1849.

• 86
 

346        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ples which induced him to return Pugh and Pierce in the

previous year, E. C. Roll, Clerk of the Hamilton County

Court of Common Pleas, issued a certificate of election

to Johnson."112

The Whigs made numerous efforts to remove Roll.

Upon the death of Charles H. Brough, (D), president

judge of the Cincinnati Circuit, it was rumored that

Governor Ford (W) would appoint a successor who

would remove Roll from his position.¹¹³ Nothing re-

sulted from this rumor and the Whigs then determined

upon impeachment. The attempted impeachment in the

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas attracted

wide-spread interest. In November, 1849, the Court

decided that it had not been shown that Roll was cor-

rupt or dishonest and that his action was a mere mistake

in judgment for which no officer under the Constitution

of the State of Ohio could be removed.114

The State elections of October, 1849, resulted in a de-

cided reverse for the Whigs, only one Taylor Whig being

returned from the Western Reserve. The Democrats

secured thirty-six seats in the House; the other thirty-six

members being divided between Whigs and Free Soilers.

In the Senate there would be a tie if Johnson, Democratic

claimant from Hamilton County, were seated, and if

Swift, Democratic Free Soiler, should vote with the

112 Ohio State Journal, December, 1849; Ohio Statesman, December,

1849.

113 Ohio Statesman, May 17, 1849.

114 Judge Saffin (W) dissented from the decision of the Court, declaring

that Roll deliberately refused to obey the law in order to promote the po-

litical supremacy of his party. The Democrats applauded the decision of

Judge Hart, a Whig, as a victory for justice, but the Whigs claimed thai

Hart had shown Democratic proclivities since his appointment, and sug-

gested that his relation to Pugh as a brother-in-law might have affected his

decision. Ohio Statesman, May 17, 1849; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, Octo-

ber 24, November 11, 12, 1849; Ohio State Journal, November 15, 1849; New

York Tribune, quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 19, 1849.

• 87
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      347

Democrats.¹¹⁵ Since Swift was elected by the Democrats

and Democratic Free Soilers in opposition to the Whig

Free Soilers and Whigs, it was generally believed he

would act with the Democrats on all matters of State

policy. No one single issue can be said to have been set-

tled by this election. Some considered the outcome a

verdict in favor of the "bargains" which sent Chase to

the United States Senate, divided the State offices be-

tween the Democrats and Free Soilers, and seated the

Hamilton County claimants.¹¹⁶ To others the result was

a plain rebuke to the Whigs for resisting constitutional

reform; while radical Democrats interpreted it as a con-

demnation of the State banking system.117

In the organization of the House, an arrangement

was made between Democrats and Free Soilers, whereby

the Free Soilers agreed to support the Democratic candi-

didate for speaker and sergeant-at-arms in return for

Democratic support of Stanley Matthews, Free Soil, for

clerk.¹¹⁸

Benjamin F. Leiter (D) was elected speaker of the

House in accordance with this agreement. This so en-

raged the Whigs that they voted for Blair, the Demo-

cratic candidate for clerk, in order to defeat the coalition

of Democrats and Free Soilers. The Democrats had in-

tended to give a formal vote or two to Blair and then

turn their strength to Matthews; but they were deter-

mined not to allow the disappointment of the Free Soil-

 

115 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, December 19, 1849.

116 See Chapter VII for further discussion of this interesting senatorial

election.

117 Ohio State Journal, October, November, 1849; Ohio Statesman, Octo-

ber, November, 1849.

118 Bargain explained in a letter of Plain Dealer correspondent at Co-

lumbus. Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, December 7, 1849.

• 88
 

348        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ers over the election of Blair to prevent further harmon-

ious cooperation with the third party. In order to con-

ciliate the Free Soilers, a project was set on foot to elect

Matthews (Free Soiler) secretary of state and John G.

Breslin (D), treasurer.¹¹⁹

Organization of the Senate was more difficult because

Johnson and Broadwell both claimed the right to repre-

sent Hamilton County.¹²⁰ The Senate was organized

temporarily on the first day of the session by the election

of Myers (D) as temporary chairman. Due to the

Johnson-Broadwell dispute, it was agreed that only those

senators who were elected in 1848 should vote before the

organization of the Senate, and the Democrats, having a

majority of old members, recognized the right of John-

son to a seat in the Senate. In the vote for speaker there

was a tie, brought about by allowing Johnson's but dis-

allowing Broadwell's vote.¹²¹

At the opening of the session, the Whigs would have

succeeded at once in the election of a Whig Free Soil

speaker of the Senate, had not Lucien Swift (Demo-

cratic Free Soiler) refused to vote for Brewster Randall

(Whig Free Soiler) unless that gentleman would first

119 This interesting exposition of Ohio legislative politics is given in a

letter of Stanley Matthews to Chase, December 3, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XX.

See also Chase to Stanley, December 5, 1849, in "Some Letters of Salmon

P. Chase 1848-1865", loc. cit., XXXVIV, 549-550.

120 The Washington Daily Union declared that "The difficulty proceeds

from the revolutionary conduct of the federal party, who hope to throw

the control of the State government permanently into the hands of the fed-

eral party by districting the State, in drect volation of the Constitution."

December 29, 1849.

121 Ohio State Journal, December 22, 1848; Matthews to Chase, December

3, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XX. The Democrats of the House were led by the

fiery H. C. Whitman, senator from Fairfield County and a Jacksonian Demo-

crat. He was described by a Whig as the "master spirit of the Locofocc

whirlwind. His hair is longer and shaggier than usual and his looks and

tones more terrific--and yet with all his bravado and blustering he is as

harmless as a Quaker." Galloway to McLean, December 5, 1849, McLean

MSS., v. XVI.

• 89
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  349

pledge himself to vote for a repeal of the Hamilton

County division.¹²² The Democrats found that, as an or-

ganization, the Free Soilers were not only more amena-

ble to manipulation by the Whigs than in the previous

year, but that they did not cooperate so easily with the

Democrats, possibly because there were not so many

offices to divide. The Whigs were determined not to per-

mit a Democratic and Free Soil coalition to organize the

Senate, as in the previous year.¹²³

After numerous unsuccessful attempts to settle the

question by a bargain, Myers, temporary chairman of the

Senate, tiring of the prolonged Senate session without

organization, produced by a tie vote as indicated above,

directed the members of that body to prepare their bal-

lots for the election of speaker. The Whigs claimed that

a speaker could not be chosen until Broadwell's right to

vote was recognized.¹²⁴ After numerous futile ballot-

ings, in which Swift (Democratic Free Soil) was sup-

ported by the Democrats and Democratic Free Soilers,

Brewster Randall (Whig Free Soiler) was given the

votes of the Whigs and Whig Free Soilers. Swift de-

clined to be a candidate any longer, explaining that this

action was taken with the object of hastening the organ-

ization of the Senate. Swift promised to vote for any-

one for speaker who would recognize Johnson's right to a

seat in the Senate. The Whigs apparently had offered to

support Swift for the office if he would promise to vote

for a rule to exclude Johnson from voting on any motion

touching his own case. The Whigs had promised to

recognize the right of Johnson to a seat in the Senate

122 Matthews to Chase, December 2, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XX.

123 Breslin to Chase, February 12, 1850, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

124 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 15, 1849.

• 90
 

350         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

until the case should be finally decided. Swift refused

the Whig proposition because he felt that Johnson's right

should not depend on any pledges which he (Swift)

might make.¹²⁵ The battle of ballots continued while the

issues of the case were freely discussed in the press.126

The Hamilton County question again became the subject

of resolutions in numerous local conventions over the

State.¹²⁷

On December 30, on the three-hundred-and-first bal-

lot, Harrison G. Blake, Whig Free Soiler of Medina

County, was elected speaker and John R. Knapp,¹²⁸ rad-

ical Democrat, was chosen clerk of the Senate.129             Swift

had transferred his vote to Blake upon the latter's prom-

ise to recognize Johnson's right to a seat in the Senate

until final action could be taken by that body.¹³⁰ Blake

recognized Johnson's motion that the Senate should pro-

 

125 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 21, 1849.

126 The Ohio State Journal declared "It is a vital question going to our

whole system of government. It is nothing short of the question whether

the laws of the State are sufficient for the protection of the citizen, or

whether we are resolved into a state of anarchy and given over to the

caprice of a mob." Horace Greeley, in the columns of the New York

Tribune, stated in a succinct manner the argument of the Whigs. "The

certificate of Clerk Roll, on which Mr. Johnson and his party rely, shows

on its face that Johnson is not legally elected, not elected at all. It certi-

fies that he has been chosen by Hamilton County when there is no such

Senatorial district known to the law. . . . There is a First District and

a Second District of Hamilton County, neither of which has elected Mr.

Johnson, nor does his certificate say it has; but the First District has

elected Mr. Broadwell, and he has a certified transcript of the votes, show-

ing that such is a fact." Ohio State Journal, quoted in Cincinnati Daily

Enquirer, November 14, 1849; New York Tribune, quoted in Cincinnati

Daily Enquirer, December 19, 1849.

127 The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer reported a rumor that the banking

powers were behind the refusal of the Whigs to organize the Senate, be-

cause a number of Whigs were dissatisfied with the arbitrary actions of

the Board of Control and the bankers feared a curtailment of their powers.

Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 20, 1849.

128 Editor of the Marion Democratic Mirror.

129 Ohio Statesman, December 30, 1849; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,

January 1, 1850.

130 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 4, 1850.

• 91
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  351

ceed to the election of clerk and allowed Johnson to vote

for clerk and sergeant-at-arms. But the legislative

troubles of the session were not yet over. Byers (D)

moved that the Committee on Privileges and Elections

and the Committee on the New Constitution be elected by

the Senate instead of being appointed by the Speaker, as

was the usual custom.¹³¹ The motive behind this action

was to prevent Blake from appointing a committee unfa-

vorable to the seating of Johnson. The Whigs decided

upon a counter-move, and on January 2, 1850, Broadwell

demanded and received from Blake recognition as sena-

tor from Hamilton County. The Senate again was in an

uproar and Swift openly charged Blake with a treacher-

ous violation of his pledge.¹³² Blake denied that he had

promised to recognize the right of Johnson to a seat in

the Senate but Swift's charges were supported by open

letters by E. S. Hamlin and H. B. Payne.¹33

The affairs was finally settled with another bargain.

Blake, after being condemned as dishonest for not ad-

hering to his part of the first agreement, resigned from

the speakership; whereupon Swift agreed to support

Converse (Free Soil) for speaker, if the Whig Free

Soilers would vote for a repeal of the Hamilton County

division. In February, 1850, this acrimonious and pro-

tracted contest was closed by the repeal of that part of

the Apportionment Law of 1848, dividing Hamilton

County, and the seating of Lewis Broadwell (W) in the

place of William F. Johnson, (I) who had held the seat

131 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 3, 1850.

132 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 4, 1850.

133 Ohio Statesman, January 3, 1850.

• 92
 

352      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

through most of the session.¹³⁴ The Democrats had won

a signal victory through the division in the Whig ranks.

The Democrats obtained a majority of the delegates

to the State Convention for the revision of the Constitu-

tion in 1850, and proceeded to write into the Constitution

the principles of apportionment for which they had con-

tended in the 1848 and 1849 sessions of the Legislature,

namely, that the county is the unit of State representa-

tion.¹³⁵

The struggle over the division of Hamilton County

brought out two important characteristics of Ohio poli-

tics during the 'forties. In the first place, it exhibited

the bitterly partisan character of political contests and

the willingness of both parties to gerrymander a repre-

sentative district in an unjust and unconstitutional man-

ner. In the second place, it revealed a breakdown of the

two-party system, qualified by the tendency of Whig

and Democratic Free Soilers to return to their old al-

legiance. The sectional contest arising over the question

of slavery in the territories brought the Free Soil party

into existence as a protest against the subservience of the

major parties to southern influence. Holding a balance

of power in the Legislatures of 1848 and 1849, the Free

Soil party was able to exert a marked influence on the

policies of the old political organizations by combining

with that party which offered the greatest inducements.

The Independent Free Soilers, convinced at an early date

of the unconstitutionality of the Apportionment Law,

used their influence to secure the admission of the Demo-

134 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 3, 1850.

135 Okey, George B., and Morton, John J., The Constitutions of 1803 and

1851, pp. 98-101.

• 93
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    353

cratic claimants from Hamilton County to the Legisla-

ture and the repeal of the Apportionment Law in return

for concessions to Free Soil principles. It was a remark-

able example of the influence of a third party on the poli-

cies of older and more powerful political organizations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vol. XXXVIII--23

• 94
 

CHAPTER VII

 

THE END OF A DECADE

The Whig victory in the national campaign of 1848

brought new raids on the federal patronage. But the

Whigs of Ohio could expect little in the way of appoint-

ments because the loss of the State greatly lessened their

influence in the councils of the party.¹ President Taylor

showed his appreciation of the support given his candi-

dacy by the old-line Whigs of the Northwest in the ap-

pointment of Thomas Ewing to the Cabinet as secretary

of the interior.²   Ewing's appointment had been urged

on the ground that someone be selected from the West

in order to save the party from total dissolution in that

section.³ Ewing was besieged immediately by western

office-seekers, and he proved so pliant in their hands,

making so many removals, that he soon earned the sobri-

quet of "Butcher Ewing."⁴ Ewing adopted the policy of

giving appointments in Ohio only to those who had sup-

ported Taylor from the first.⁵ This resulted in great

 

1 Corwin wrote Crittenden that there were many things he wanted to

say touching politics but the memory of "free soil Ohio" made him

"dumb." Corwin to Crittenden, November 25, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v.

XII; see also Corwin to Greene, April 26, 1849, Greene MSS.

2 McMaster, op. cit., v. VIII, p. 7; Blair declared that the appoint-

ment of Ewing was the best the Whigs had made in their "filthy bargain"

and that he was looked upon as the "wheel-horse of the team." Blair to

Van Buren, June, 1849, Van Buren MSS., v. LVI; see also Bebb to Crit-

tenden, November 24, 1849, Crittenden MSS., v. XIII.

3 Wright to Crittenden, January 19, 1849, Crittenden MSS., v. XII.

4 Hardin to Crittenden, May 14, 1849, Crittenden MSS., v. XIII;

Washington Daily Union, September 8, 1849.

5 Odlin to Ewing, March 14, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. VIII.

(354)

• 95
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        355

dissatisfaction among some of the old-line Whigs who

had been slow in accepting the party candidate.⁶ Among

those early supporters who were favored by the Taylor

administration was E. G. Squier, former editor of the

Chillicothe Gazette, who was appointed as charge d' af-

faires to Nicaragua.⁷ Daniel Duncan, defeated Whig

congressman from the Tenth District, asked Ewing for

an appointment as charge to New Granada, alleging that

he could not endure the "taunts and jeers" of the Demo-

crats; that he was financially embarrassed; and that his

bad health required a change of climate.⁸ There was

some disposition among the supporters of McLean to

criticize the Administration for not making enough re-

movals.⁹

The Democrats set up the cry of proscription, and de-

clared that Taylor had forgotten his pledge to be the

President of all the people.¹⁰ The Ohio Statesman la-

mented that "In Ohio nearly every Postmaster has felt

the axe, and so it is in other states."¹¹ As a matter of

fact, Ewing secured so many appointments for Ohio and

distributed them so judiciously, that the Whig Free Soil-

ers looked upon the new Administration with much

favor, anticipating a complete rapprochement between

Free Soilers and the Whig administration, provided

Taylor would sign a bill extending the Ordinance of

1787 over the new territories.¹² Many leaders who had

6 Follett to Whittlesey, June 4, 1849, Follett MSS.

7 Squier signalized his appointment and characterized himself as an

imperialist by making a flamboyant utterance to the effect that the United

States would not permit any nation of the world to invade the rights of any

of the American states. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 23, 1849.

8 Duncan to Ewing, March 10, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. VIII.

9 Miner to McLean, April 6, 1849, McLean MSS., v. XVI.

10 Ohio Statesman, June 8, July 9, 1849.

11 Ohio Statesman, May 18, 1849.

12 Blake to Ewing, July 16, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. X.

• 96
 

356       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

doubted Taylor's "Whiggery" were most agreeably sur-

prised by the opening events of his presidency;13 and

the Whig press of Ohio joined in a chorus of praise for

Taylor's inaugural address in which he took occasion to

reiterate his former statements on the use of the veto.14

Hope of appointment to federal office led the Whigs

of Ohio to ignore those elements which had recently de-

serted their ranks to join the Free Soil movement. The

scurrilous abuse which the regular Whigs heaped upon

Free Soil leaders, as well as the friendly overtures of the

Democrats, seemed to pave the way for Democratic-Free

Soil coalition. This was made still easier by the fact

that the Ohio Democrats were, for the moment, cut off

from the National party without hope for the emolu-

ments of office. In an editorial on the organization of

the General Assembly, in November, 1848, the Cleveland

Plain Dealer predicted a coalition of Democrats and

Free Soilers, in common opposition to the administration

of Taylor and in order to keep supporters of the Admin-

istration from holding state office in Ohio.¹⁵ The Free

Soilers, conscious of holding the balance of power in

Ohio, resolved to make the Democrats pay a respectable

price for their aid.16

This political situation, obviously, was dangerous for

the integrity of the new party, since the Democratic and

Whig Free Soilers were already suspicious of each

other.¹⁷ There was danger that the party might dissolve

 

13 Van Trump to Ewing, May 31, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. IV.

14 Ohio State Journal, March 6, 1849.

15 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, November 24, 1848.

16 See correspondence of Free Soil leaders of Ohio with Chase in

1849, Chase MSS., in Library of Congress and in Pennsylvania Historical

Society Library; see also "Some Letters of Salmon P. Chase 1848-1865",

The American Historical Review, XXXIV, 436-556.

17 Vaughan to Chase, May 26, 1849, Wade to Chase, April 23, 1849,

• 97
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      357

into its former elements, or definitely amalgamate with

either of the old parties.¹⁸ Hamlin, understanding this

situation perfectly, urged all the newly-elected Free Soil

members of the General Assembly to form a Free Soil

organization in order to carry out their decisions, irre-

spective of either of the old party organizations.¹⁹

Accordingly, when the Assembly met in December,

a Free Soil caucus prepared decisions and nominations.20

However, in the Free Soil State Convention which met

at Columbus in the heat of the struggles over the seating

of Pugh and Pierce, resolutions were adopted favoring

the Democratic position on matters like a proportional

property tax, exemption of homesteads, a ten-hour law,

opposition to corporations and the Whig bank law, and

a convention to amend the Constitution.21 Chase con-

fided to his wife that he wrote the platform, and that it

was his effort that defeated proposals for a union of

Free Soilers and other parties with which the former

agreed on the single question of slavery.    Ex-Whigs

tried to eliminate parts of the platform which revealed

Democratic principles, but their efforts were defeated by

the Chase faction led by men like Matthews and Ham-

lin. So pleasing was this result to the Democrats that

many of the leading members of that party assured

Chase that they were ready to adopt the entire Free Soil

platform including the repeal of the Black Laws.22 As

Chase predicted, the Democrats were ready to coalesce

Gray to Chase, October 1, 1849, Chase MSS., vols. VI, XII, XIII, Pa.

18 Bolton to Chase, November 25, 1848, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

19 Hamlin to Chase, October 22, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.

20 Townshend to Briggs, January 15, 1849, quoted in Ohio Statesman,

January 22, 1849.

21 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 167.

22 Chase to Mrs. Chase, December 30, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.

• 98
 

358       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

on the basis of the new platform, which the Enquirer

praised as "essentially Democratic."²³

The seating of Pugh and Pierce, referred to in the

preceding chapter, was not the only question which

hinged upon which party would get control of the lower

house of the Legislature. Many state offices were to be

filled, and there was a vacancy in the United States

Senate created by the expiration of Senator Allen's

term. The hero of the Democrats was not averse to an-

other term, but a number of factors worked against his

success. In the first place, the Free Soilers rejected him

because he was not an anti-slavery man;24 and in the

second place, many regular Democrats were dissatisfied

with Allen because he had not been able to secure suffi-

cient appointments for his political henchmen in the

State.²⁵ As a matter of fact, Allen's influence with the

Polk administration had suffered severely because the

President suspected the Ohio Senator of presidential as-

pirations.²⁶ Giddings, a senatorial candidate, would have

been acceptable to the Free Soil party, but he encoun-

tered strong opposition among Whigs who thought he

had betrayed their party by joining the Free Soilers in

1848.27 Before the election it had been intimated to Mc-

Lean, also prominently mentioned for the office, that the

Whigs would support him for the Senate if he would

publicly support Taylor for the presidency.²⁸ The Ohio

 

23 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 2, 1849.

24 McGrane, op. cit., pp. 133-134.

25 James R. Morris to Morris, January 29, 1849, Allen MSS., v. XVI.

26 Polk's Diary, v. I, pp. 246, 265, 280.

27 Ohio State Journal, February 15, 1849; Chase to Stanley, January

29, 1849, "Some Letters of Salmon P. Chase 1848-1865", loc. cit., XXXIV,

547.

28 Vaughan to McLean, no date, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI. See also

Miner to McLean, February 14, 1849, McLean MSS., v. XVI.

• 99
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850         359

State Journal favored McLean, declaring that support

of his candidacy would be a test of the honesty of the

Free Soil members;29 but the Circleville Herald (W)

concluded that McLean's selection would look "too much

like truckling to the infamous demands of free soilism."³⁰

The Plain Dealer (D) concluded that "If we cannot get

a Democrat, we know of no better free soil Whig to fill

that place than Judge McLean."³¹ But McLean declined

the offer of the Whig caucus to support him,³² possibly

because he knew that his election was impossible without

the support of the Democratic Free Soilers, who objected

to him because of his conservatism on political and

economic questions.33

Probably Chase was the most logical candidate for

the senatorship because of his position as the organizer

of the Free Soil movement in Ohio, and because of his

known leanings toward Democratic policies on banking

and tariff questions. Chase actively aided the forces

working for his election. He spurned the suggestion

that he was destined for the Supreme Bench; but admit-

ted that he would be "highly gratified" if he should be

elected to the Senate, because he believed that he under-

stood "the history, principles, and practical workings of

the Free Soil movement as thoroughly as most men

*   *   *  ."34 Moreover, it was Chase who had actively

 

29 Ohio State Journal, February 15, 1849.

30 Circleville Herald quoted in Ohio Statesman, February 26, 1849.

31 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, February 17, 1849.

32 Ohio Statesman, February 15, 1849.

33 See letters of Edwin M. Stanton to Chase in Chase MSS., Pa.

34 Chase to Nichols, November 9, 1848, quoted in "Selected Letters of

Salmon P. Chase, February 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861," in 1902, loc. cit., v.

II, pp. 140-141. Although ready to acquiesce in the selection of Giddings to

the Senate, Chase wrote Hamlin that "I think, also, as I said to him that he

being in Congress, and I not, that the interests of the cause require my elec-

tion or that of some reliable man not in Congress rather than his. I may be

• 100
 

360        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

collaborated with Democratic leaders, by causing the

Free Soil leaders to adopt many Democratic principles

in their State Convention of December, 1848.

The Black Laws were also involved in this complex

situation. During the campaign of 1848, the Whigs

called for their repeal and this demand had been reiter-

ated by the Free Soilers in their Columbus Convention.

Indeed, repeal was regarded by the Free Soilers as a

sine qua non of cooperation with any other party, and it

was this alone which proved a stumbling-block for a

coalition with the Democrats, who otherwise had every-

thing to gain by cooperation with the new party.

Organization of the House in 1848 was delayed more

than three weeks because of the difficulties explained in

the preceding chapter, resulting in the lack of a quorum.35

The Democrats and Free Soilers took advantage of the

situation in order to make a political bargain. The Whig

Free Soilers proposed that the Whigs support Giddings

for the United States Senate, but the regular Whigs,

disgusted with Giddings' recent actions, rejected the of-

fer.³⁶ The Democrats were in a better position for a bar-

gain; moreover, they wanted to secure the admission of

Pugh and Pierce to the House.         Consequently Town-

shend, after consultation with Morse and Chase, sup-

wrong in this-misled, perhaps, by the 'Ambition' so freely ascribed to me.

If so, let Giddings be chosen; I shall not complain. 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

permanent Free Democratic organization, will do the cause and the friends

of the cause more good." Chase to Hamlin, January 27, 1849, quoted in

"Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, February 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861,"

loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 161.

35 This situation is well explained in a letter of Chase to Mrs. Chase,

December 20, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XVI.

36 Townshend to Briggs, January 15, 1849, in Ohio Statesman, January

22, 1849.

• 101
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850              361

ported Pugh and Pierce for their seats in the House,

with the secret agreement that the Democrats would

vote for Chase for the United States Senate and for the

repeal of the Black Laws.³⁷ Chase was in Columbus at

the time and in close touch with both Democratic and

Free Soil leaders. It was he who drew up the proposal

to seat Pugh and Pierce as well as the bill to repeal the

Black Laws;38 but a perusal of the manuscripts of Chase,

Ewing, McLean, Crittenden, Van Buren and others fails

to solve the question as to whether he proposed his own

election as payment for Free Soil support for Pugh and

Pierce. The Free Soilers secured a written agreement

from the Democrats to repeal the Black Laws.³⁹ During

the election of a speaker, Townshend was the choice of

the Free Soilers, but he received no votes outside of the

Free Soil organization. The Whig proposal to vote for

Townshend, if he would promise to resign as soon as the

contested seats were settled, was considered a personal

insult and Townshend promptly withdrew his name from

further consideration for the speakership. The same

37 The atmosphere of a political "bargain" was graphically portrayed

in a letter of Stanley Matthews to Chase. "I had a conversation last evening

with Capt. Roedter (Herman Roedter, German representative in the House

from Cincinnati) on the subject of future operations. It was in substance

this: that it was very important that the reliable Free-Soil members and the

Democrats should cooperate together; that to that end, Pugh and Pierce

should be admitted to seats in the contest; to justify which the Democrats

will assist in your election to the U. S. Senate, provided that in other matters

of office the Democrats shall have the two Supreme Judges, the President

Judgeship in Hamilton County, and other Democratic counties--the Free

Soil men to have their own selection in the other counties." The only diffi-

culty in the way of the bargain was that the Democrats were insisting

on Judge Reed, a man who was very distasteful to the Free Soilers, for the

Hamilton County judgeship. But Roedter thought the Democrats would

suggest Caldwell who was agreeable to the Free Soilers. Matthews to

Chase, January 11, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVI.

38 Hamlin to Chase, January 19, 1849, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa. Chase to

Mrs. Chase, December 22, 1848; Chase MSS., v. XVI.

39 Matthews to Chase, January 20, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVI.

• 102
 

362        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

offer was also refused by A. G. Riddle. Thereupon the

Whigs turned to Leverett Johnson, a?? Whig Free Soiler,

but Morse and Townshend, regarding this maneuver as

another attempt of the Whigs to absorb the Free Soil

party, defeated his election. The two Independent Free

Soilers then helped the Democrats to elect John G. Bres-

lin (D) as speaker of the House, in order to defeat any

further attempt of the Whigs to coalesce with the Free

Soilers.⁴⁰ The Whigs and Whig Free Soilers declared the

act was the result of a "bargain" with the Democrats in

return for patronage,⁴¹ while the Democratic papers lav-

ishly praised the honesty and tenacity of Townshend and

Morse.42

On January 22, 1849, the long party struggle in the

Ohio Legislature ended in the election of Chase to the

United States Senate through the combined vote of the

Democrats, the Democratic Free Soilers, and the two

Independent Free Soilers, Morse and Townshend. Chase

did not receive a single vote from the Whig Free Soil-

ers, who were now       completely estranged from       Morse

and Townshend.⁴3 Chase's success was a bitter disap-

pointment to the Whigs, who had even proposed a com-

bination with the regular Democrats in order to defeat

 

40 Townshend to Briggs, January 15, 1849, in Ohio Statesman, January

22, 1849.

41 Noble to Chase, February 24, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVI.

42 Ohio Statesman, January 25, 1849; Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer,

January 19, 1849.

For a fairly accurate account of the whole proceedings see letter of

Chase to Sumner in Hart, Chase, pp. 106-109. See also McGrane, op. cit.,

pp. 131-134. For thirty-five years Townshend had been an intimate ac-

quaintance of Chase. While a young medical student at the Cincinnati

Medical College, he heard Chase argue a fugitive slave case and was so

impressed that he resolved to vote for him if he ever had a chance. He met

Chase again in an Anti-slavery Convention at Columbus in December, 1847,

and again at the Free Soil Convention of August, 1848. N. S. Townshend,

"Salmon P. Chase" in Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Publica-

tions, v. I, pp. 112-117. See also Schuckers, op. cit., pp. 42-43.

• 103
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          363

the election of a Free Soil senator.⁴4 At the last moment

the Whigs frantically offered Morse assurances that they

would support Giddings for the Senate if the two Inde-

pendents would aid in seating Spencer and Runyan,

the Whig claimants from Hamilton County,⁴⁵ but the

"bargain" had already been agreed upon with the Demo-

crats, Morse and Townshend having been convinced by

Chase of the unconstitutionality of the Apportionment

Law.⁴⁶

Apparently the Democrats gave only half-hearted

support to Allen, although protesting that they were sin-

cerely interested in his reelection. They explained that

since no one could be elected without the aid of the Free

Soilers, they were forced to accept the best man who had

any   chance   of   success.   Moreover, the Democrats

claimed that the support of Chase was necessary to pre-

vent the selection of Giddings by a combination of Free

Soilers and Whigs.⁴⁷ Stanton, who had rejoiced at the

election of Allen to the Senate six years previously, now

felt no regret over his defeat.⁴⁸ Tappan, Medary's bitter

enemy and a Free Soiler, assured Allen that leaders of

the party like Medary, Olds, Disney, and Spalding were

working against his reelection.⁴⁹ H. C. Whitman, who

 

44 Hamlin to Chase, January 18, 1849, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa. Chaffee

objected to Chase because he inclined too far toward the Democracy. Gid-

dings attempted to change this opinion but without giving the impression that

his own pretensions to the Senate were not to be urged as long as there was

a chance. Giddings to Chase, January 27, 1849, Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.

This impression is borne out in McLean to Chase, May 26, 1848, Chase

MSS., v. VIII, Pa. Giddings accepted Chase's elevation to the Senate very

loyally, refusing to believe the rumors of a political bargain. Giddings to

Chase, January 27, 1849, Chase MSS., v. V. Pa.

45 Hamlin to Chose, January 26, 1849, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.

46 Hart, Chase, p. 110.

47 Ohio Statesman, January 27, 1849.

48 Stanton to Chase, May 27, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XI.

49 Tappan to Allen, December 25, 1848, Allen MSS., v. XVI.

• 104
 

364      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

led the fight to reelect Allen, claimed that the organiza-

tion of the House could have been secured without a bar-

gain with the Free Soilers, had not H. B. Payne, of the

Western Reserve, and D. T. Disney (D), of Cincinnati,

sold their votes in return for State offices. Whitman

opposed, to the last, the understanding between the Dem-

ocrats and Free Soilers.50 It is hardly reasonable to sup-

pose that the Democratic Free Soilers opposed Allen's

reelection solely because he did not sympathize with their

anti-slavery views, because he had given assurances that

he would oppose the further extension of slavery.⁵¹ The

more reasonable explanation would be that a division in

the party defeated the election of Allen. This conclu-

sion is borne out by the following important and inter-

esting letter from Tappan to Allen: "I was at Columbus

during the session and until some days after the elec-

tion. After you were nominated in caucus as the can-

didate of the Democratic party, by authority of the True

Democracy, I proposed to the so-called Democrats--

those who had nominated you in caucus--that if they

would vote for you their entire strength you should be

reelected on the first ballot by ten free soil votes--and

the reason why they gave you but 27 votes on the first

ballot, was the fear that you would be elected--during

the balloting Medary reporters distributing tickets for

Chase to the Convention * * * You would have

been elected had they wished it."⁵² Tappan's statement,

however, must be discounted in view of his tricky deal-

ings with the Polk administration53 and his bitter feud

50 Whitman to Medill, January 30, 1849, Allen MSS., v. XVI.

51 Johnson to Alien and reply of Allen, January 30, February 6, 1849,

Allen MSS., v. XVI.

52 Tappan to Allen, March 19, 1849, Allen MSS., v. XVI.

53 See Chapter V.

• 105
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 18₄0-1850       365

with Medary over the leadership of the Democrats of

Ohio. Medary hastened to explain to Allen that Chase's

election was the best thing the party could have done in

view of the impossibility of his own reelection, and to

assure him that Chase would not be hostile to the Sen-

ator.⁵⁴

The election of Chase produced various reactions

among the Ohio Democrats. In the Statesman, Medary

explained that since Chase's views on the tariff, banks,

the Independent Treasury, and the Apportionment Law

were identical with those of the most radical Democrats,

it was thought best by party leaders to promote his elec-

tion when it became evident that they could not secure

the election of their own candidate.⁵⁵ Although the Plain

Dealer had supported Judge Reuben Wood for the Sen-

ate, it approved of Chase because of his Democratic

views on the banks and the tariff and because "He is the

very man to thorn the incoming administration."⁵⁶ The

Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed the selection, declaring

that it was a choice between such Federalists as Giddings

or Hitchcock, and Chase who was a radical Democrat on

all the important issues of the day.⁵⁷ The Lima Argus

(D) and the Sandusky Mirror (D) enthusiastically ap-

proved the election of Chase.⁵⁸ On the other hand,

papers like the Mount Vernon Banner and the Chilli-

cothe Sentinel, characterized the outcome as a "misstep

in the Democracy" and "foul wrong" to Allen.⁵⁹

54 Medary to Allen, February 23, 1849, Allen MSS., v. XVI.

55 Ohio Statesman, February 22, 1849.

56 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, February 23, 1849; Ibid., quoted in

Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 28, 1849.

57 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 23, 1849.

58  Lima Argus, quoted in Ohio Statesman, March 10, 1849; Sandusky

Mirror, quoted in Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, February 28, 1849.

59 Quoted in Ohio State Journal, February 28, March 2, 6, 10, 1849. In

• 106
 

366         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The Whigs considered the whole proceeding a "cor-

rupt political bargain."       With reference to Chase the

Ohio State Journal, with much truth, declared, "He not

only secured his own election, but he dictated, one by one,

and provided by his own management all the means of

accomplishing each preliminary step by which the diffi-

culties of his path were swept away. He gave by his

influence, to the Locofocos, the organization of the

House. * * * Every act of his was subsidiary to

his own ambition. He talked of the interests of Free

Soil, he meant his own. He harangued on the benefits of

electing a Free Soil senator, he intended that none but

himself should be that Senator."⁶⁰ Teesdale (W)

charged that there had never been "so much base cor-

ruption, such wanton disregard of public sentiment, right

and honor, as has been witnessed there [at Columbus]

this winter," while McClure (Whig Free Soiler) ac-

cused Chase and Townshend of sacrificing the Whig

party for their own "aggrandizement."61

A very important part of the bargain, so far as Town-

defending his actions, Chase wrote George Reber that "I will not say that

in the counsel I gave last winter I was not uninfluenced by personal con-

siderations; but I can say that I do believe that I was not influenced by such

considerations in any extraordinary degree." Chase to Reber, June 19, 1849,

quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, February 18, 1846, to

May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 175.

60 Ohio State Journal, April 19, 1849. That part of the accusation of the

Ohio State Journal, which refers to Chase's efforts in giving his influence

to the Democrats, was apparently true. It is also true that he practically

asked Giddings to withdraw and he constantly urged upon the Free Soil

leaders his own "superior" qualifications for the office. Chase was ac-

cused of changing his policy on the Mexican War in order to make his can-

didacy agreeable to the Free Soilers but he denied the charge asserting that

although he condemned the War he favored its prosecution. He declared

that not more than a dozen members of the Assembly knew his opinions on

the War. Chase to Kephart, June 19, 1849, and Chase to Smith, May 8,

1848, in "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, February 18, 1846, to May 1,

1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, pp. 172-173, 175; see also Chase's defense, in

Chase to Riddle, February 24, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XIII; see editorial of

Ohio State Journal, February 22, 1849.

61 Teesdale to McLean, February 23, 1849, McLean MSS., v. XVI.

• 107
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850           367

shend and Morse were concerned, was the repeal of a

portion of the Black Laws. Democratic support for

their repeal was secured only by the "most determined

and rigid application of party discipline,"⁶² and those

Whigs, who had once been anxious to secure repeal, now

either discouraged or openly opposed the move;63 yet at

the same time some of the Whig Free Soilers opposed

repeal because it was being carried out by the Demo-

crats.⁶⁴ Democratic meetings in Northern Ohio adopted

resolutions approving repeal, at the same time that sim-

ilar conventions in Southern Ohio condemned "Free

Soilism, Abolitionism, Demogoguism, and Negroism."⁶⁵

This famous political agreement between the Democrats

and Free Soilers was completed by the election of R. P.

Spalding and W. B. Caldwell, Democrats, to the State

Supreme Court; and by the choice of Democratic judges

in judicial districts, recognized as Democratic, and Free

Soil Judges in all other districts.⁶⁶ Perhaps the most dis-

tasteful feature of the whole affair, to the Whigs, was

the awarding of the Senate printing contract, granted to

the Ohio State Journal the previous year, to Medary in

return for the election of Stanley Matthews (Free Soil)

as clerk of the House.⁶⁷ Legislative struggles in the

62 Matthews to Chase, January 26, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVI.

63 Matthews to Chase, January 24, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVI.

64 Morse to Chase, January 24, 1849, Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa. The bill

as drawn up by Chase and introduced by Chase repealed all laws making

distinctions on the basis of color but it was so amended in the Senate as

to exempt all those laws which prevented colored persons from sitting on

juries and from securing poorhouse relief. J. W. Schuckers, op. cit., pp.

96-98.

65 Ohio State Journal, February 26, May 12, 1849.

66 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 96-98.

67 Ohio State Journal, January 17, 22, 1849.

The Ohio State Journal declared that the election of Edward Stowe

Hamlin to the presidency of the Board of Public Works was the worst item

in the whole bargain. Ohio State Journal, July 12, 1849. Hamlin wrote

Chase that "The Democrats say they are willing to give me any desired

• 108
 

368         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

1849 session still further accentuated the rift between

the Democrats and Whig Free Soilers.⁶⁸

Immediately after the inauguration in 1849, Presi-

dent Taylor was confronted with the problem of pro-

viding a civil government for California and New

Mexico.     The question as to whether the new territories

should be free or slave had agitated the country ever

since the treaty of peace with Mexico.             In a speech at

Warren, Ohio, Giddings accused Taylor of betraying

his promise not to interfere in legislation, by using his

influence in favor of the Walker amendment to an ap-

propriation bill to the effect that the Constitution and

the revenue laws of the United States should be ex-

tended to the new territories.69   The Whigs called upon

Giddings to prove his charges. Giddings asked Lynn

Boyd, of Kentucky, and Crowell, a Free Soil representa-

tive in Congress from Ohio, to substantiate his charges,

place. The president of the Board of Public Works only gets $2.50 for

time in actual employ[ment]--a rather poor compensation."    Hamlin to

Chase, January 27, 1849, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa. The Free Soilers carried

out the agreement to the letter and gave the judgeship of the Hamilton

County Court of Common Pleas to Charles Brough (Democrat) instead of

to their own caucus nominee James W. Taylor of Signal fame. Matthews

to Chase, February 23, 1849; Taylor to Chase, February 21, 1849, in Chase

MSS., v. XVI.

68 An incident occurred in the House, in January, 1849, which revealed

the completeness of the schism in the Free Soilers. Alanson Jones, Whig

representative from Clinton County, was rejected by the House because he

was not constitutionally eligible for membership, being the sheriff of that

county. In the new election to return a successor, the Whig Free Soilers

of the House, Beaver, Chaffee, Blake, and McClure, issued an appeal to the

Free Soilers urging them not to put up a candidate of their own but to

support Jones, who had now resigned as sheriff. But the Free Soilers placed

a candidate in the field in spite of the opposition of the Whig portion of the

party. This incident produced sharp recriminations in the ranks of the new

party and tended to cause the two wings to go back to their old loyalties.

Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 23, 1849; Ohio Statesman, January 26,

February 5, 1849; Hamlin to Chase, January 18, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI,

Pa.; Hibben to Chase, January 22, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVI; Chase to

Hamlin, January 24, 1849, quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase,

February 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 157.

69 Ohio State Journal, March 31, 1849; Cleveland True Democrat, quoted

in Ohio Statesman, March 21, 1849.

• 109
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850           369

but Boyd refused and Crowell denounced the "base and

wilful fabrication, got up on the part of Mr. Giddings,

for partisan effect, and with a view to prejudice the Ad-

ministration with the people."⁷⁰ Seward also defended

Taylor, asserting that the latter had only expressed a

wish that civil government should replace military rule.⁷¹

The upshot of the incident was to increase the enmity be-

tween the Whigs and Free Soilers. The Democrats

stressed Giddings' charges in the hope of encouraging

a Democratic-Free Soil alliance.⁷²

The Democratic press of Ohio joined in the chorus

of denunciation of Taylor obviously for the same politi-

cal reasons. The President was charged with betraying

his "no party" pledges by suspending many government

employees merely for differences of opinion; and when

Taylor permitted his cabinet officers to take care of ap-

pointments and removals, he was accused of aloofness

and of distrusting the people.⁷³ Very effective with the

Free Soilers was the constant reiteration by the Demo-

crats that Whig papers in the South believed that Taylor

would veto any bill containing the principles of the Wil-

mot Proviso.74   When an expedition was sent against

the Indians in Florida, the Ohio Statesman declared that

70 Cincinnati Chronicle, quoted in Ohio State Journal, May 5, 1849; Ohio

State Journal, May 30, 1849; Ohio Stateman, May 1, 1849.

71 Washington Daily Union, March 31, 1849. In August, when Taylor

passed through Pennsylvania, he assured a Whig delegation from Warren

that Giddings' charges were untrue. Ohio State Journal, September 3, 1849.

72 The Ohio State Journal characterized Giddings as a "political leper"

who disgraced his Congressional district. Ohio State Journal, April 30,

1849. See also Ohio State Journal, April 14, September 10, 1849; Cincinnati

Daily Enquirer, April 14, June 26, 1849; Ohio Statesman, May 9, 1849.

73 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, April 15, 24, June 22, July 4, 1849; Ohio

Statesman, September 10, December 17, 29, 1849.

74 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 13, 1849.

Vol. XXXVIII--24

• 110
 

370       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

its real purpose was to clear that territory for the slave-

driver.⁷⁵

The Democrats, like the Free Soilers, opposed specu-

lation in the public lands, properly belonging to the

"landless," and supported a plan to exempt homesteads

from sale on execution for debt.⁷⁶ Although no state

convention of the Democrats was held in 1849, prac-

tically every county convention adopted resolutions to

this effect.⁷⁷ The two groups also united to demand a

new constitution and this agitation culminated in 1849 in

a popular referendum on the question. Throughout the

decade there had been an increasing demand for amend-

ments to the first Constitution of Ohio; or else a con-

vention to draft a new instrument of government. The

Whigs revealed their conservatism by generally dis-

couraging the movement or by out-and-out resistance,

while the Democrats strongly favored revision.

Most of the dissatisfaction with the original Constitu-

tion arose from the inadequacy of the judicial system to

handle the volume of cases coming before it.⁷⁸ In 1840,

Thomas L. Hamer, a conservative Democrat, declared

that "Its inefficiency is daily becoming more and more

manifest, and at the present time its operation is such as

to almost amount to a denial of justice."⁷⁹ Attempts to

remedy this situation in the General Assembly of 1841-

1842 were opposed by the judges and ended in failure.⁸⁰

In December, 1843, Governor Shannon (D) had urged

75 Ohio Statesman, August 29, 1849.

76 Ohio Statesman, July 3, 1849.

77 Ohio Statesman, July 9, 1849.

78 Letter of John C. Wright in Cincinnati Daily Gazette, January 5, 1841.

79 Letter of Thomas L. Hamer in Ohio Statesman, June 15, 1841, over

signature of "A Democrat." See also Ohio Statesman, May 12, 1849.

80 Ohio Statesman, December 28, 1841; January 11, 1842. Ohio Senate

Journals, 1841-1842, v. XL, Part 1, pp. 127-133.

• 111
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      371

the General Assembly to call a constitutional conven-

tion,81 but the Whigs, in control of the House, had re-

jected the proposal, apparently fearful of entrusting a

constitutional question to the people during a political

contest.⁸²  The demand for a new constitution grew

rapidly during the decade. With the success of the

Whigs on the banking and currency issue in 1845, the

Democratic demands for a revision of the Constitution

widened to include the prohibition of all chartered and

exclusive privileges, limitation of the power of the Gen-

eral Assembly to create a state debt, and the popular

election of all public officers.⁸³ In January, 1846, the

Democrats tried to get the General Assembly to permit

the people to vote on the question of a constitutional con-

vention. The Whigs were able to defeat their proposal

because the first Constitution required a two-thirds vote

of the Legislature for such a popular referendum. The

Whigs considered it dangerous to submit that "sacred"

document to the people during a period of so much "ul-

traism."  Moreover, "Bank Destructive" Democrats

were unfit to remodel the Constitution anyway.⁸⁴ The

attitude of the parties remained the same throughout

the decade.

In the 1847-1848 session of the General Assembly,

the Whigs of the House twice defeated a Senate pro-

posal to allow the people to vote on the calling of a con-

stitutional convention.⁸⁵ The Democrats, furious at the

 

81 Ohio Executive Documents, 1843-1844, v. VIII, No. 1

82 Ohio State Journal, February 7, 1844.

83 See letter of Tod to the Democratic State Convention of January 8,

1846, in Ohio Statesman, January 9, 1846.

84 See House Debates on bill in Ohio Statesman, January 27, 1846;

Ohio State Journal, January 27, 1846.

85 Ohio Statesman, February 7, 1847.

• 112
 

372      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

stubborn opposition of the Whigs and smarting under

the Apportionment Law of 1848, now centered their fire

on the inadequacy of the old Constitution. The more

radical Democrats proposed to repeat the experience of

Rhode Island by having local conventions call a consti-

tuent assembly without complying with the legal forms

prescribed by the Constitution, but this suggestion was

discouraged by the more conservative members of the

party.⁸⁶ In January, 1848, the Democratic State Con-

vention approved the calling of a constituent Assembly,⁸⁷

and in December of the same year, the Free Soil State

Convention also demanded a change in the fundamental

law to provide for the reform of the judiciary; an "ade-

quate" public school system; prohibition of the state

debt beyond a limited amount; the prohibition of bank-

ing corporations except by the special consent of a ma-

jority of the people; the division of the State into single

member districts for purposes of state representation;

and the election of all state and county officers by the peo-

ple.⁸⁸ How closely the Free Soil and Democratic views

harmonized can readily be seen. In February, 1849, A.

G. Riddle, a Whig Free Soiler, denounced the Whigs

for their resistance to the popular demand for a new

Constitution, declaring that "It [the Whig party] be-

longs essentially to the past, and with the past must per-

ish. * * * Progress never came from an old politician

or an old organization."⁸⁹ In the face of the combined

attacks of Free Soilers and Democrats, the Whigs finally

 

86 Ohio Statesman, April 12, May 3, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,

April 29, 1848.

87 Ohio Statesman, January 11, 1848.

88 Ohio Statesman, December 30, 1848.

89 Ohio Statesman, February 27, 1849.

• 113
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        373

consented to a popular referendum.⁹⁰ Their action prob-

ably was precipitated by the threat of Randall (Whig

Free Soiler) to vote with the Democrats to repeal that

part of the Apportionment Law dividing Hamilton

County.⁹¹

Although the question was now before the people,

some of the Whigs continued their opposition,⁹² while

others insisted that the question of a new Constitution

was a non-partisan matter.⁹³ The Whigs of Champaign

County opposed a convention because they feared "to

run the risk of having an exclusive gold and silver cur-

rency and unqualified Negro Suffrage entailed upon us

by the swapping propensities of the Locofoco and the

'balance of power' parties."⁹⁴ Medary wholeheartedly

favored a new constitution, and issued a special cam-

paign paper, The New Constitution, to urge a constitu-

tion providing for a "total" reform of the judiciary; the

election of all officers by the people; vote of the people on

any increase of the State debt; a public school system;

and the right of the Assembly to alter, amend or repeal

acts of its predecessors. Medary declared "there is a

progressing, reforming radical spirit spreading over the

civilized world, and let not Ohio be the last to partake

of the regenerating spirit."⁹⁵ The Democratic party fol-

lowed Medary's lead, reiterating his principles and add-

ing others like the prohibition of the issue of bank notes

90 Ohio Statesman, March 14, 23, 1849.

91 Morse to Chase, April 9, 1849, Chase MSS., v. IX, Pa.

92 The Chillicothe Gazette (W) opposed the call, declaring that the

Democrats might prohibit banks; that chartered rights would be endan-

gered; and that there was no public demand. Quoted in Ohio State Jour-

nal, September 4, 1849.

93 Zanesville Courier, quoted in Ohio State Journal, September 3,

1849.

94 Ohio State Journal, August 18, 1849.

95 Ohio Statesman, March 23, 1849.

• 114
 

374       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and the popular election of judges.⁹⁶ The Free Soilers

endorsed these demands in nearly all of their county and

district conventions.⁹⁷ When it became evident that sen-

timent was overwhelmingly in favor of the convention,

the conservatives in some instances resorted to various

tricks to defeat revision, such as asserting that the

new Constitution would give the negroes the right to

vote, or trying to mislead the voters by issuing the wrong

kind of ballots.⁹⁸

In October, 1849, the people of Ohio expressed them-

selves in favor of a constitutional convention by a vote

of nearly three to one.99 The Lower Sandusky Demo-

crat declared that the staunch supporters of Taylor were

the only group who dared oppose the convention.¹⁰⁰ The

opposition of the Ohio State Journal to a new constitu-

tion suddenly changed in November, 1849, when W. T.

Bascom replaced William Thrall as its editor. Bascom

announced that he would follow a policy midway between

veneration for an instrument of government because of

its age and radical desire for innovation.¹⁰¹ Although

the General Assembly was again embarrassed and de-

layed by a struggle in the Senate over the rival claims to

seats in that chamber,¹⁰² it managed, in February, 1850,

to issue the call for a Constitutional Convention for May

of that year.¹⁰³ It is not within the province of this study

 

96 Ohio Statesman, April 3, 4, 5, July 3, 12, August 21, 24, 25, 1849.

97 Ohio Statesman July 24, 1849.

98 Ohio Statesman, October 19, 25, 1849.

99 Ohio Statesman, October 27, 1849.

100 Lower Sandusky Democrat, quoted in Ohio Statesman, October 22,

1849.

101 Ohio State Journal, November 3, 1849.

102 See Chapter VI.

103 Composition of Senate: 17 Democrats (counting Johnson) and

15 Whigs, (Broadwell not counted); House, 35 Democrats, 31 Whigs, and

6 Free Soilers. Ohio State Journal, October 16, 1849.

• 115
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      375

to discuss, in detail, the work of this Second Constitu-

tional Convention in Ohio which is being done in another

monograph.¹⁰⁴

In the election of 1849, as in the legislative session

of 1848, the Free Soil party, as has been shown, was

being wooed by both major parties. The Democrats,

having tasted the sweets of office in Ohio, were anxious

to maintain cordial relations with the new party. The

Free Soilers frankly sympathized with many Demo-

cratic principles, but they were indifferent on the Ham-

ilton County question. Many Whig Free Soilers, en-

couraged by Taylor's course on the territories and by

positive assurances that he would sign a bill embodying

the principles of the Wilmot Proviso, were ready to de-

liver the new party into the hands of the Whigs. Men

like Beaver, McClure, Lee and Chaffee, enraged by the

coalition which sent Chase to the Senate, were anxious

to cooperate with the Whigs.105 The Free Soilers, with-

out an independent course of their own, pursued the

policy of fusing with the party which would nominate

the most satisfactory anti-slavery candidate.¹⁰⁶

In July, 1849, a union of the Free Soilers, or Free

Democracy as Chase denominated the third party, and

the Cass Democrats was proposed; but Chase, as the

leader of the new party in Ohio, rejected such a proposal

because it foreshadowed the sacrifice of the Buffalo plat-

form.107 According to Chase, the Free Soilers could

agree to nothing short of the prohibition, by Congress,

 

104 Roseboom, Eugene H., "Ohio Politics in the 1850's," a doctoral dis-

sertation in the course of preparation at Harvard University.

105 See Chase Correspondence during 1849.

106 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 162.

107 Chase to Butler, July 26, 1849, in "Selected Letters of Salmon P.

Chase, February 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861," loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 161.

• 116
 

376       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of slavery in the territories.¹⁰⁸ Democratic Free Soilers

looked to the Free Soil Convention, to be held at Cleve-

land in July, 1849, to celebrate the passage of the Ordi-

nance of 1787, to cement the union between the two par-

ties which Chase's election had forecast.¹⁰9 The Plain

Dealer led the movement to unite the two groups, but a

satisfactory division of the spoils of office could not be

agreed upon.110

At the Cleveland Convention, in July, 1849, to cele-

brate the Northwest Ordinance, resolutions were

adopted affirming the Buffalo Platform. Some of the

more prominent leaders at this meeting were Chase,

Vaughan, Giddings, Taylor, of Cincinnati, Benjamin

Tappan, and John Van Buren, of New York. Charles

Sumner sent a letter expressing the hope that the Ordi-

nance of 1787 would be extended to all the territories,

but Clay refused to attend, fearing the effects of slavery

agitation on the Union.111 Despite rumors that the Con-

vention would deliver the Free Soilers into the hands

of the major parties,112 harmony reigned. The new

party would not take a stand either for or against the

Apportionment Law which was exercising both major

parties at that time. It was equally clear that the Dem-

108 Chase to Breslin, July 30, 1849, in Schuckers, op. cit., p. 102.

109 Hutchins to Chase, May 10, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVII.

110 Edward Wade to Chase, May 6, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIII, Pa.

111 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 178; Sumner's Works, v. III, pp. 2-3;

Chase to Mrs. Chase, July 13, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVIII; Washington

Daily Union, July 25, 1849. Chase kept in constant touch with Sumner

for whom he had a sort of fawn-like admiration. In September, 1849, he

wrote Sumner, "I never feel my poverty so much as when I am among

you affluent scholars of Boston and its environment." Three days later he.

confessed that "I find no man so congenial to me as yourself; though I

do not pretend to be up to your theories in all respects." Chase to Sum-

ner, September 2, 5, 1849, in "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, Feb-

ruary 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v II, p. 183.

112 Briggs to Ewing, June 18, 1849, and King to Ewing, July 6, 1849,

Ewing MSS., v. X.

• 117
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     377

ocrats would support no one for office who would not

pledge himself to vote for the repeal of this obnoxious

law. Consequently, the political situation was allowed

to work itself out according to peculiar local conditions.

In the senatorial district comprising Morgan and Wash-

ington Counties, the Democrats and Free Soilers united

in support of Lemon Fouts who was pledged to oppose

Thomas Corwin for United States senator in 1850, and

who expressed doubts as to the constitutionality of the

division of Hamilton County.113    In Lorain County,

Townshend was renominated by Free Soilers at the in-

stigation of Democrats and Free Soilers all over the

State, but the Lorain Argus (D) began a campaign of

abuse against him on the ground that he had sacrificed

Allen and the Democratic party. The regular Demo-

crats of Lorain County, dissatisfied with some local ap-

pointments, and encouraged by the Whigs, nominated

Joseph L. Whiton in opposition to Townshend. The

Whigs and Whig Free Soilers also named a candidate,

and Townshend was left with only the support of the

Liberty leaders, Barnburners and those Democrats who

sympathized with his choice of Chase for the Senate.114

The True Democrat, controlled by James A. Briggs, op-

posed Townshend and Morse.115 As a result of this

strategy of the two major parties, Townshend was de-

feated and his retirement was interpreted as the verdict

of the voters on the "bargain" of the last legislative ses-

 

113 Ohio Statesman, September 17, 1849; Ohio State Journal, September

22, 1849.

114 Chapman to Chase, August 11, October 3, 1849, Chase MSS., v.

XIX; Chapman to the editor of Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, October 15,

1849 in Weekly Plain Dealer, October 17, 1849; see also Townshend to

Chase, May 10, April 18, August 14, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX, Pa.

115 Chapman to Chase, October 24, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX.

• 118
 

378      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

sion.116 Townshend, himself, explained his defeat by the

number of Whigs who voted for his Democratic op-

ponent.¹¹⁷

The actions of the Free Soilers on the Western Re-

serve were determined by the desire to secure a balance

of power in the Assembly. Where the party was strong

enough to elect a candidate without a union with the

Democrats, it made its own nominations; where the Free

Soilers needed the assistance of the Democrats, they

were ready to bargain. In Ashtabula, a Whig Free

Soiler was nominated for the Senate and a Democrat

for the House, the only demand that the Democrats made

on the Free Soiler being that he favor a repeal of that

part of the Apportionment Law of 1848 which divided

Hamilton County. The same policy was pursued in

Cuyahoga, Summit, Geauga, and Trumbull Counties

largely as a result of the labors of Hamlin and Giddings,

the latter of whom had, at last, thoroughly isolated him-

self from the Whig party.¹¹⁸ In Geauga, the Free Soil

representative in the General Assembly courted the

Whigs by publicly commending Taylor's administration

and by advising the discontinuance of the Free Soil or-

ganization.¹¹⁹ In Hamilton County, the Free Soilers

supported Pugh, Roedter, and William Long on the

Democratic ticket, because they had voted for Chase

and for the repeal of the Black Laws.¹²⁰ In Summit

County, the Democrats and Free Soilers supported H. B.

116 Dayton Journal, quoted in Ohio State Journal, October 13, 1849.

117 Townshend to Chase, October 16, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XII, Pa.

118 This situation is well explained in letter of William Dennison, Jr., to

Ewing, August 22, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. X.

¹¹⁹ Dennison to Ewing, July 10, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. X; a very re-

vealing letter. Dennison had just toured the Western Reserve in the in-

terest of the Whig party.

120 Hoadly to Chase, August 30, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX.

• 119
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          379

Spelman, a former Liberty man who held the Demo-

cratic view on the Hamilton County question, banks,

and taxation.121    In  the coalition movements on the

Western Reserve, Giddings hoped a union with the

Democrats would result in disbanding the Democratic

organization. Since he had completely alienated himself

from the Whigs this was his only hope of political suc-

cess. Nevertheless, he refused the plea of the Demo-

crats to make the repeal of the Apportionment Law a

test of union, although      Chase urged     such   action.1²²

Chase, fearful that the regular Democrats would omit

the slavery question as an issue, warned them that a con-

tinued cooperation between them and the Free De-

mocracy would be contingent upon their acceptance of

true anti-slavery principles."123

The Whigs endeavored to make an issue of the "cor-

rupt bargain" of 1849 by denouncing it in their county

conventions124 and by encouraging the Whig Free Soilers

to defeat the Independent and Democratic Free Soilers

who had aided in carrying it out.¹²⁵ In fact, Beaver and

Chaffee, Whig Free Soilers, contributed articles to the

Cleveland Herald (W) under the caption of "Cavaig-

nac," attacking Townshend and Morse for their actions

121 Hoadly to Chase, August 11, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX; Ohio State

Journal, September 27, 1849.

122 Thomas Bolton to Chase, July 30, 1849, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.;

Dennison to Ewing, July 10, August 22, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. X. Gid-

dings made a vigorous campaign for the fall elections, assailing the Whigs

at every opportunity and asserting that the Hamilton County question was

merely one of power between the old parties and one on which the Free

Soilers should vote so as to serve the interest of their party. Ohio State

Journal, October, 1849.

123 Chase to Breslin, ? 1849, in Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, Octo-

ber 24, 1849; see also F. D. Parrish to Chase, October 31, 1849, Chase MSS.,

v. X, Pa.

124 Ohio State Journal, September 19, 1849.

125 Ohio State Journal, May 29, July 23, 1849; Morse to Chase, April 9,

1849, Chase MSS., v. IX, Pa.

• 120
 

380         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

in the Assembly.¹²⁶ To the Whig taunt that the election

of Chase was the result of a bargain, Townshend and

Morse replied that it had first been suggested by the

Whigs.127      The emphasis placed by the Whigs on the

"bargain" compelled the Free Soilers to avoid the issue

except in Morse's and Townshend's counties where it

was not possible to escape the accusation.¹²⁸ Giddings, as

the leader of the Free Soilers of the Reserve, finally in-

duced Morse not to run for reelection, in order to de-

prive the Whigs of their issue.¹²⁹ The Whigs argued

that the issue was one of "Law and Order," between

those who would abide by the Apportionment Law and

those who would revolutionize the State government by

refusing to accept its laws.130

The repeal of a portion of the Black Laws in 1849

reacted very unfavorably against the Democrats in some

parts of the State.131 In Seneca County, Democrats, dis-

satisfied with their representative, John G. Breslin, be-

cause he had voted for repeal, adopted resolutions call-

ing for the nomination of a "Democrat in whose integ-

126 Morse to Chase, August 20, 1849, Chase MSS., v. IX, Pa. See also

Giddings to Chase, August 10, 1849, Chase MSS., v, Pa.; Parrish to

Chase, April 20, 1849, Chase MSS., v. X, Pa.

127 Matthews to Chase, March 1, 1849. Chase MSS., v. XVI.

128 Bolton to Chase, April 23, 1849, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

129 Morse to Chase, August 12, 1849, Chase MSS., v. IX.

130 The Ohio State Journal declared that "There is a force party in the

State, and there is a law and order party. The one is pledged by illegal

means to annul a law of the State; the other is bound to its defense." The

Cincinnati Chronicle thought that the Western Reserve would rebuke the

Free Soilers for conniving at the evasion of the Apportionment Law. The

Slyria Courier (Whig Free Soil) declared that Townshend was elected by

Whig Free Soilers with the understanding that he would support the Whig

position on the Apportionment Law. Ohio State Journal, October 1, 1849;

Cincinnati Chronicle, quoted in Ohio State Journal, September 19, 1849;

Elyria Courier, quoted in Ohio State Journal, September 17, 1849.

131 Ohio State Journal, March 8, September 7, 1849.

• 121
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850             381

rity all can place reliance."¹³²    So intense was the reac-

tion in Hamilton County, that Pugh declared that his

"political hopes for the present were dead."¹³³ The

Whigs, sensing the situation, adopted resolutions de-

ploring the tendency of the Assembly to encourage the

immigration of negroes to Ohio to glut the labor market

and fill the jails and almshouses.¹³⁴ The Whigs of Mus-

kingum County appealed to the people to vote a "white

man's ticket," declaring that the next purpose of the

"bargain" was to give the negroes the right to vote.¹³5

Although the Democrats of Ohio were ready to com-

promise with the Free Soilers in order to elect a Free

Soil Senator with Democratic proclivities and share the

spoils of office, and even to repeal the Black Laws, with

a few exceptions,¹³⁶ they were unwilling to abandon their

old position on slavery in the territories. The resolu-

tions of most Democratic county conventions either

omitted any mention of the question of slavery in the

territories or reiterated Cass's doctrine of popular

sovereignty.137

The Democrats, in northern Ohio, who were willing

to take a more advanced position on the slavery question,

deplored the timidity of their allies from the southern

part of the State.¹³⁸    The Plain Dealer, anxious to pla-

 

132 Ohio State Journal, September 12, 1849; Breslin to Chase, October 19,

1849, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.; Breslin was reelected in spite of their opposi-

tion.

133 Pugh to Chase, February 3, 1849, Chase MSS., v. X, Pa. Chase to

Smith, May 8, 1849, quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, III,

February 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 121.

134 Tuscarawas Advocate, quoted in Ohio State Journal, September 5,

1849.

135 Ohio Statesman, October 17, 1849.

136 See resolutions of Democrats of Morgan County and Jefferson

County in Ohio Statesman, July 3, September 10, 1849.

137 Ohio Statesman, July 9, August 24, December 17, 19, 29, 1849.

138 C. R. Miller to Chase, June 26, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVIII.

• 122
 

382        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

cate Free Soil sentiment and at the same time resentful

against Southern domination, demanded the immediate

abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and de-

clared that the southern representatives controlled pub-

lic opinion through their control of Washington so-

ciety.139

There was a decided tendency on the part of the

Democrats to revive the old issues of the tariff and the

interests of the masses against the classes. The Plain

Dealer saw signs everywhere of a reunion of the Dem-

ocrats upon the old principles of the supremacy of the

people over incorporations and special privileges.¹⁴⁰ The

Democrats of the Western Reserve pictured a struggle

between, popular government and aristocracy and

charged that the Whig party was composed of "the rich,

the proud and privileged--of those, who if our govern-

ment were converted into an aristocracy, would become

our Dukes, Marquises and Baronets."¹⁴¹ The Demo-

cratic Central Committee of Hamilton County flayed the

profligacy of the Whigs in the State Government;142 and

the party press as a whole united in praising the Walker

Tariff of 1846.143 The Democrats of the Western Re-

serve claimed that theirs was the true land-reform party

and that the needs of the people demanded the abolition

of banks of issue.144

 

139 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, November 27, 1848. The Plain Dealer

declared "The South voted against our candidate at the last election; we

will vote against theirs at the next." Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, Feb-

ruary 1, 1849.

140 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, March 26, 1849.

141 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, September 5, 1849. See Chapter II

for revival of interest on banking and currency.

¹⁴² Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 5, 1849.

143 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, February 19, 1849; Cincinnati Daily

Enquirer, November 22, 1849.

144 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, July 25, October 10, 1849.

• 123
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   383

After the election of 1849, the Free Soilers again held

the balance of power, having four members in the Sen-

ate and six in the House; while the Democrats controlled

seventeen seats in the Senate, excluding the disputed

claims from Hamilton County;145 at the same time the

Whigs obtained fifteen.   In the House there were

thirty-five Democrats, thirty-one Whigs and six Free

Soilers.¹⁴⁶ The Free Soilers were thus in a position to

control the Legislature, provided the regulars of the

major parties did not unite to oppose the pretensions of

the third party. Probably the most significant feature

of the state election was that only one Taylor Whig was

returned to the General Assembly from the Western Re-

serve,¹⁴⁷ the former stronghold of Whiggery.

The elections of 1848 and 1849 marked the close of

a political era in which problems like the tariff, internal

improvements, and banking and currency were settled,

so far as Ohio was concerned, according to Democratic

principles. This was due to the partial dissolution of

the Whig party. In spite of a strong tendency for the

Whig factions to go back to their former allegiance in

1849, the influence of Giddings was enough to give the

Free Soil party a degree of permanence on the Western

Reserve. This threw the power in the Legislature into

the hands of third party leaders who were inclined to act

with the Democratic party because of sympathy with its

program on political and economic issues. Moreover,

the Democrats, out of power in the national government,

were angling for new support in the State. The political

parties of Ohio, as in other northern states, were torn

145 See Chapter VI for a detailed discussion of this matter.

146 Ohio State Journal, October 16, 1849.

147 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, October 24, 1849.

• 124
 

384      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

asunder by the sectional struggle over southern domina-

tion, as symbolized by a demand for the further exten-

sion of slavery.

Among the more prominent Whig politicians of Ohio

during this period were Thomas Corwin, Judge John

McLean, Joshua R. Giddings, Seabury Ford, and Alfred

Kelley. Corwin experienced a rapid rise to fame by his

brilliant defense, in Congress, of General Harrison's

military reputation; by his election as governor of Ohio

in 1840; and by his choice as United States Senator in

1843. In the Senate, Corwin's oratorical powers were

highly appreciated and his opposition to the Mexican War

placed him among the contenders for the presidency. But

Corwin was only an ambitious and adroit politician en-

dowed with a genial nature which endeared him to many

people. Finding his own nomination impossible in 1848,

Corwin vacillated between supporting Scott, Taylor, and

McLean to such an extent that he was freely accused

of treachery. It was clear to the political observers of

his day that he desired the defeat of McLean in order to

better his own chances in 1852. It was the irony of fate

that Corwin finally campaigned for the man whose poli-

tical fortunes were made by the Mexican War. The

course of Giddings, a typical Western Reserve product,

was remarkably consistent throughout the decade. Al-

though he was a strong party man. refusing to join the

third party in 1840 and 1844, he finally threw his great

popularity into the Free Soil movement in 1848, hoping

to find in Van Buren a man who would resist the further

extension of slavery, thereby curbing the power of the

hated Southern Slavocracy. Giddings was not a politi-

cal liberal on economic policies, but he was a product

• 125
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  385

of the sectional spirit which grew up in Ohio during

these years to demand a proper voice in the National

Government. Giddings was possessed with a hatred,

which amounted almost to an obsession, of the dictation

of the "Slave Power," and his most ardent hope was to

secure the "constitutional rights" of the North. Judge

John McLean, a former Jacksonian, hoped to secure

popular support for the presidency but the regular

Whigs suspected his orthodoxy, and his conservatism

prevented the cordial support of the anti-southern and

Free Soil elements. A cold analyst, the Judge at no time

felt that he could be elected and he, therefore, refused to

allow some of his admirers to place his name before the

voters. Seabury Ford was prominent in Whig circles

throughout the decade, and although from northern

Ohio, he endeavored to secure the support of the Whigs

of southern Ohio by a moderate course on sectional is-

sues. The apotheosis of this middle-of-the-road policy

occurred in 1848, when Ford, candidate for governor,

refused to commit himself on Taylor's candidacy, hoping

to retain the support of both Whigs and Free Soilers.

Alfred Kelley, of Franklin County, is chiefly known for

his consistent and conservative Whiggery in all policies.

His fame rests, also, in the general banking law of 1845

which bore his name. Kelley was an able executive and

a conservative business man who found his natural niche

in the Whig party.

Among the more prominent Democratic leaders of

Ohio during this decade were Wilson Shannon, David

Tod, John B. Weller, John and Charles Brough, Thomas

W. Bartley, and Samuel Medary. Shannon, governor of

Vol. XXXVIII--25

• 126
 

386      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Ohio at the beginning of the decade, was really a con-

servative Democrat who obtained the support of the rad-

ical Jacksonians by his advocacy of bank reform. Al-

though the candidate of his party for governor in 1840

and 1842, being reelected in the latter year, Shannon de-

nounced the radical policies of some of his party, lost

caste thereby, and was thrown into the ranks of Tyler

who was casting about for discontented Democrats and

Whigs. As a result, the Democrats turned to David

Tod, of Trumbull County, to carry on the anti-bank

principles of the party in 1844 and 1846. Tod lost both

elections chiefly as the result of divisions between the

conservative and radical Democrats. Tod, himself, was

not consistent, changing his policies from time to time to

suit the wishes of that portion of his party which hap-

pened to be in control. John Brough, who, together with

his brother Charles, edited the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer

throughout most of the 'forties, achieved an enviable

record as State Auditor in the beginning of the decade.

The Broughs showed themselves fairly consistently re-

sponsive to the wishes of the Democracy of Cincinnati,

a radical stronghold throughout this period. At times

their willingness to dispute the leadership of the Ohio

Democracy with Medary made them appear conserva-

tive. Thomas W. Bartley was a consistent Jacksonian

Democrat, imbued with hatred of special privileges and

banking corporations, and like most of the Jackson Dem-

ocrats, he refused to join the Free Soil movement in

1848. Probably Samuel Medary, editor of the Ohio

Statesman, the state organ of the Democracy, was the

most colorful and consistent Jackson Democrat of Ohio

in the 'forties. Throughout the period he exerted a pow-

• 127
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  387

erful influence on his party, and made himself feared and

hated by his political opponents.

Salmon P. Chase was probably the ablest of this list

of Ohio politicians. On general policies his sympathies

were with the Democracy, although after 1840, he be-

came the organizer of the Liberty party. In the cam-

paign of 1848, he exerted a powerful influence to bring

about a coalition between the Liberty party of Ohio and

the New York Barnburners. Chase was anxious at all

times to secure the application of what he considered

Democratic principles to the question of slavery in the

territories. On the other hand, he was willing to cooper-

ate with the Whig party if the latter would make oppo-

sition to the question of slavery its primary duty.

Chase's political acumen and ambition prepared the way

for that cooperation of Democrats and Free Soilers

which repealed the Black Laws, seated the Democratic

claimants from Hamilton County in the State Legisla-

ture, and elected Chase, himself, to the United States

Senate.

The political history of Ohio in the 'forties had been

marked by a bitter contest between the major parties on

the banking and currency issue. Although Ohio had

lost some of the characteristics of a frontier state by

1840, distrust of corporations and special privileges still

dominated the average voter. This distrust was sharp-

ened by a succession of bank failures and by continued

"hard times," following the panic of 1837. Accepting

the rational attitude, which their position as men of

wealth and social position seemed to require, the Whigs

became the defenders of the banks and condemned the

assaults of the Democrats on those institutions as revo-

• 128
 

388      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

lutionary designs of levelling agrarians. In the first

half of the decade, the Democrats successfully appealed

to the electorate on a program of radical bank reform

and enacted severe banking laws which contained such

principles as individual liability of stock-holders and

directors for losses to noteholders, penal regulations for

violations of the banking laws by stockholders and direc-

tors, and specie payment. By a conspiracy, or other-

wise, the banking interests refused to incorporate under

the Democratic laws and the resulting invasion of Ohio

by worthless paper from other states produced a reac-

tion which placed the Whigs in power. The conserv-

ative Whigs then enacted a rather elaborate banking law

which represented a compromise between the radical

program of the Democrats and the Whig demand for an

unregulated system of banking. Overshadowed for a

time by an outburst of sectionalism growing out of the

issue of slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico,

the issue of the masses versus the privileged classes arose

again in 1848 and 1849, and this became the link between

old-line Democracy and the new Free Soilism. Pro-

tests against excessive privileges for bankers became a

prominent factor in the demand for a new constitution.

Forces, representing a tendency toward a greater democ-

ratization of the State's government and a protest

against the privileged classes, won a signal victory in

1849 through the partial break-up of the conservative

Whig party. The result was a convergence of all the

liberal political forces in the State in the Constitutional

Convention of 1850-1851, where, with the exception of

the "hard money" proposal of the extreme left wing of

the Democracy, most of the Democratic ideas on banking

• 129
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  389

and currency, corporations, popular elections, and state

debts, were engrafted on the new Constitution.

The political history of Ohio during the 'forties re-

vealed some very marked sectional alignments, which in

the main, corresponded with the racial origins and eco-

nomic interests of each section. The influence of Vir-

ginia and Kentucky settlers in southern Ohio was evi-

denced throughout the decade by the opposition of that

section to the repeal of the Black Laws and by the fact

that the southern Ohioans formed the core of the Dem-

ocratic party. It was natural that the Kentucky and

Virginia settlers should become Democrats, since most

of them came from the poorer non-slaveholding classes

of the South. Moreover, racial antipathy, induced by

fear of economic competition from the free negro,

caused the people of southern Ohio to favor barriers

against the immigration of negroes into the State. The

wealthier people of southern Ohio were inclined to sym-

pathize with the southern slaveholder and to decry agi-

tation of sectional questions because they wished to pre-

serve the efficiency of their business connections in the

South. These economic and racial factors did not

operate on the people of northern Ohio who emigrated

from New York, Pennsylvania, and New England.

They favored the repeal of the Black Laws and protested

vigorously against the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave

Law. Throughout the decade the press of northern

Ohio was more active than that of southern Ohio in

defying the South. Most of the foreigners who entered

the state during this decade joined the Democratic party;

partly because the party name denoted an association

with the political philosophy of Jefferson, which appealed

• 130
 

390      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

to them; partly because of their sympathy with the Dem-

ocratic opposition to the privileged classes; and partly

because of the efficiency of the Democratic foreign lan-

guage press and the Nativist tendencies of the Whigs.

The immigrants, city laborers, and frontiersmen of

northwestern Ohio caused the Democratic party of the

State to favor a radical political and economic program

throughout the decade.

The most prominent political development of this

period in Ohio was the contest between the nationalizing

influence of political parties and the economic and sec-

tional demands of the State, as a part of the larger

northwest. One of the most important, although least

mentioned, aspects of this contest was involved in the

distribution of federal patronage.  Political awards,

when judiciously placed, have been among the strongest

bonds which have united divergent elements of Amer-

ican political parties. The converse of this statement is

equally true. Both major parties showed a surprising

ignorance of the growing political importance of Ohio

and the northwest in the distribution of federal patron-

age. Throughout the decade, hope of political reward

and resentment of party workers against what they con-

sidered the treasonable neglect of the national party

rather than great matters of policy, were the forces

which, to a surprising degree, determined the results of

elections and the existence or dissolution of political

parties in Ohio. The resentment of leaders of both

parties against the control of federal offices by the South,

perhaps quite as much as religious or moral scruples of

the voters against the wrongs of slavery, was the basis

• 131
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   391

of the third party when it became of practical political

importance.

Sectionalism in Ohio also was a protest movement

by leaders of both parties against political domination

of the national government by the unified South. In

Ohio, the feeling was widespread that the Mexican War

was the result of a slaveholders' conspiracy which in-

tended the addition of a large number of slave states to

enable the South to control the policies of the National

Government.148 This sentiment was expressed by the

press of both parties, although the Democrats attempted

some apology for the Mexican War and the addition of

territory. In order to avoid the embarrassing question

of slavery in the territories, the Democrats emphasized

the theory of Manifest Destiny and appealed to the Dem-

ocratic pre-disposition of western voters by adopting

Cass's doctrine of popular sovereignty. This policy, the

effect of the nationalizing influence of party, was ex-

changed for one of protest against the domination of

the "Southern Slavocracy" when the Whigs obtained

control of the National Government in 1848. The Dem-

ocrats then joined wholeheartedly with the Free Soilers

in condemning "Southern Dictation." That this resent-

ment against southern influence in the National Govern-

ment was among the most potent political forces of the

decade, was shown by the attempts of each party to place

upon the other the stigma of being servile to the interests

of the South. Both parties attempted to secure the sup-

port of labor by asserting that the other had conspired

 

148 The reaction against this theory, which has been ercognized only

recently, is expressed in C. S. Boucher, "In Re That Aggressive Slavocracy,"

in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, v. VIII, pp. 13-80.

• 132
 

392       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

to elevate the interests of slave labor at the expense of

the free labor of the North. Ohio sectionalism was best

represented in the continued demands of men like Gid-

dings for a political party which would defend the "con-

stitutional rights" of the North against the "criminal

usurpation" of the "Slave Power." Although the "white

flame" of humanitarianism animated many of the Liberty

leaders, the third party movement failed to become a

practical political party until the anti-southern elements

of the major parties were convinced that it was neces-

sary to unite in order to protect the interests of their

own section. The Northwest, like the South, was de-

veloping a sectionalism which culminated in civil war.

 

CHAPTER VII

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

I. PRIMARY SOURCES-

A. UNPUBLISHED CORRESPONDENCE1

Allen MSS. An examination of the correspondence of

William Allen is essential to an understanding of the

forces at work in the Democratic party of Ohio dur-

ing this period.

Chase MSS. Extensive use has been made of the Chase

correspondence which is located at the Pennsylvania

Historical Society Library and at the Library of Con-

gress. It is invaluable for a correct understanding

of the Liberty and Free Soil parties since it contains

the letters of the Ohio Liberty and Free Soil leaders

to Chase, who was the organizer of the party.

Clay MSS. Contains several letters from the conserva-

tive Whig leaders of southern Ohio.

Corwin MSS.     The Library of Congress collection

contains only one volume of Corwin's correspondence

which is of any value for this study.

Crittenden MSS. Contains a few letters from the Whig

1 Unless otherwise stated, these collections of unpublished manuscripts

are to be found in the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress.

• 133
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        393

 

leaders of southern Ohio, which throw some light on

sectionalism within the State.

Ewing MSS. There are some letters of great value in

the Thomas Ewing MSS, but the collection is some-

what disappointing.

Follett MSS. To be found in the Library of the His-

torical and Philosophical Society of Ohio. Most of

the letters of any real political value have been pub-

lished by the Society.

Greene MSS. In the Library of the Historical and

Philosophical Society of Ohio. Most of the letters

of any value have been published by the Society.

McLean MSS. Valuable for an estimate of Ohio po-

litical forces. Reveals McLean's aspirations for the

presidency and his connection with the Free Soil move-

ment as well as the personal ambitions of Corwin.

Polk MSS. Contains a few letters from the Democratic

leaders of Ohio.

Stanton MSS. Only one volume of the Stanton papers

applied to this period but it contains some very valu-

able letters on the factional fights within the Demo-

cratic party as well as on the attitude of the anti-

southern Democrats.

Van Buren MSS. Important for any study of Ohio

political history. Reveals the attachment of the Ohio

Democracy to Jackson's protege

B. PUBLISHED CORRESPONDENCE, DIARIES, SPEECHES, ME-

MOIRS, AND REMINISCENCES.

Benton, Thomas Hart, Thirty Years' View, or a History

of the Workings of the American Government for

Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850, 2 vols., New York,

1854. A source of much value for the entire period.

Bixby, W. K., Letters of Zachary Taylor from the Bat-

tlcfields of the Mexican War, Rochester, 1908. Of

some value for the election of 1848.

Chase, Salmon P., "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon

P. Chase," in the Annual Report of the American

Historical Association, 1902, v. II. The citations in

this study are taken from the reprint in the House

Documents, 57th Cong., 2nd Sess., 461, in vol. CIV,

serial number 4543.  This correspondence is very

valuable.

"Some Letters of Salmon P. Chase 1848-1865," The

American Historical Review, XXXIV, 536-556.

• 134
 

394       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Colton, Mrs. Chapman, The Life of John J. Crittenden

with  Selections  from  his  Correspondence   and

Speeches, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1871.

Dyer, Oliver, Great Senators, New York, 1889. The

reminiscences of a journalist written long after the

events which he described. To be used with care.

"Selections from the Follett Papers," in Quarterly Pub-

lications of the Historical and Philosophical Society

of Ohio, Cincinnati, vols. V, IX, X, XI. Contains a

number of letters of great value for this study.

Greeley, Horace, Recollections of a Busy Life, New York,

1868.

"Selections from the William Greene Papers," in Quar-

terly Publications of the Historical and Philosophical

Society of Ohio, Cincinnati, vols. XIII, XIV.

Howells, William C., Recollections of Life in Ohio, 1813-

1840, Cincinnati, 1895.

Julian, George W., Political Recollections, 1840-1872,

Chicago, 1884. Relates to the anti-slavery movement

and the part played in it by the writer.

McGrane, Reginald C., (editor), The Correspondence of

Nicholas Biddle Dealing with National Affairs, 1807-

1844, New York, 1919.

Moore, John Bassett, Works of James Buchanan, 12

vols., Philadelphia, 1909.

Morrow, Josiah, Life and Speeches of Thomas Corwin,

Cincinnati, 1896. The sketch of Corwin's life is un-

satisfactory but the collection of his speeches has been

of some value for this study.

Phillips, Ulrich B., (editor) "Toombs, Stephens, Cobb

Correspondence," in the Annual Report of the

American Historical Association, 2 vols., Washing-

ton, 1913.

Quaife, Milo M., (editor) The Diary of James K. Polk,

4 vols., Chicago, 1910. Invaluable for a understand-

ing of party politics during Polk's administration.

Richardson, James D., A Compilation of the Messages

and Papers of the Presidents, II vols., Washington,

1906.

Riddle, Albert G., "Recollections of the Forty-Seventh

General Assembly of Ohio, 1847-1848," in the Maga-

zine of Western History, v. VI, pp. 341-352.

Riddle, Albert G., "Rise of the Anti-Slavery Sentiment

on the Western Reserve," in Magazine of Western

History, v. VI, pp. 145-156.

• 135
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        395

 

Riddle, Albert G., "The Election of S. P. Chase to the

Senate, February 1849," in Republic, v. IV, p. 179.

Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, "Salmon Portland Chase,"

in Ohio Archacological and Historical Publications,

Columbus, 1919, v. XXVIII, pp. 119-161. Contains

many early Chase letters.

Schuckers, Jacob W., The Life and Public Services of

Salmon Portland Chase, New York, 1874. Valuable

for the excerpts of Chase letters which it contains.

Complete Works of Charles Sumner, (Statesman Edi-

tion), 2 vols., Boston, 1900.

Townshend, Norton S., "The Forty-Seventh General

Assembly of Ohio," in Magazine of Western History,

v. VI, pp. 623-628. Compare the versions of Riddle

and Townshend.

Tyler, Lyon G., Letters and Times of the Tylers, 3 vols.,

Richmond and Williamsburg, 1884-1896. An inter-

esting and able defense of Tyler from Whig attacks.

Contains some valuable letters.

"Autobiography of Martin Van Buren," in Annual Re-

port of the American Historical Association, 1918,

v. II.

Warden, Robert B., An Account of the Private Life and

Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase, Cincin-

nati, 1874. Contains many excerpts from the Chase

letters.

C. STATE AND FEDERAL DOCUMENTS.

Congressional Globe, 1839, 1850.

Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the Conven-

tion for the Revision of the Constitution of the State

of Ohio, 1850-1851, 2 vols., J. V. Smith, Reporter,

Columbus, 1851. Contains a copy of the second Ohio

State Constitution as adopted.

Laws of Ohio, 1838-1849.

Ohio Executive Documents, 1839-1850.

Ohio House Journals, 1840-1850.

Ohio Senate Journals, 1840-1850.

Okey, George B. and Morton, John H., The Constitutions

of Ohio of 1803 and 1850.

D. NEWSPAPERS.

National and state newspapers, along with published

and unpublished manuscripts, have been the main

sources for this study. A very careful examination

• 136
 

396       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

has been made of the files of the two chief party organs

in the State, the Ohio Statesman (D) and the Ohio

State Journal (W.). The newspapers of the 'forties

were literally filled with accounts of political events,

each paper attempting to mirror the political sentiments

of its patrons. Moreover, each party paper acted as a

check upon the papers of the opposite faith, chron-

icling any defection in the ranks of its opponents. The

custom which both parties had of printing practically

all local happenings in their state organ makes a

careful perusal of the latter a very sound basis for

the formation of conclusions. These papers are to be

found in the Library of the Ohio State Archaeological

and Historical Society unless otherwise specified.

Belmont Chronicle (W), 1840-1848.

Cincinnati Daily Chronicle (W), 1840-1850.

Cincinnati Daily Enquirer (D), 1841-1850.

Cincinnati Daily Gazette (W), 1839-1850.

Eaton Register (W), 1840-1847.

Eaton Democrat (D), 1840-1847. Scattering.

Harrison Flag (Whig campaign paper), April 25, 1840-

October 26, 1840.

National Intelligencer (Whig National organ), 1840-

1848. Scattering. The Whig Press of Ohio followed

their national organ very closely.

Niles' Register, 1840-1846.  Contains many items on

Ohio.

New   Constitution, 1849. This was Samuel Medary's

campaign paper in behalf of a constitutional conven-

tion.

Ohio Confederate and Old School Republican (State

Rights organ), 1840-1842.

Ohio State Bulletin (Conservative Democratic), 1839-

1841'.

Ohio Press (Radical Democrat), 1846-1848.

Ohio State Journal (W), 1839-1850.

Ohio Statesman (D), 1839-1850.

Daily Political Tornado (Whig campaign sheet), 1840.

Washington Daily Globe (D), 1840-1844. The central

organ of the national Democratic party until displaced

by Polk. Library of Congress.

Washington Daily Union (D), 1845-1850. Successor

to the Globe. Edited by Thomas Ritchie. Library

of Congress.

• 137
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850         397

 

Wayne County Standard (D), 1840-1848. Scattering.

Xenia Torch-Light (W), 1840- 1847.

 

II. SECONDARY SOURCES.

A. BIOGRAPHIES.

Ambler, Charles H., Thomas Ritchie, a Study in Virginia

Politics, Richmond, 1913. Of some value for this

study as an exposition of national politics during

Polk's administration.

Bassett, John S., The Life of Andrew Jackson, 2 vols.,

New York, 1916.

Bates, James L., Alfred Kelley, His Life and Work,

Columbus, 1888.   Unsatisfactory.  Consists of ex-

tensive excerpts from committee reports of which

Kelley was a member.

Colton, Calvin, The Life and Times of Henry Clay, 2

vols., New York, 1846. Has some of the value of a

primary source because of Colton's intimate associa-

tion with Clay.

Hart, Albert Bushnell, Life of Salmon P. Chase (Amer-

ican Statesman Series), Boston, 1899.

Julian, George W., Life of Joshua Reed Giddings, Chi-

cago, 1897. Has some of the value of a primary

source. Giddings deserves a more complete study.

Lewis, William  G. W., Biography of Samuel Lewis,

First Superintendent of Common Schools, Cincin-

nati, 1859. Highly eulogistic. An unsatisfactory ac-

count of this Puritanical but able figure.

McCormac, Eugene I., James K. Polk, A Political Bi-

ography, Berkeley, 1922. An excellent piece of schol-

arship which corrects many former false impressions

of Polk.

McGrane, Reginald C., William Allen, A Study in West-

ern Democracy, Columbus, 1925. A very satisfactory

account of a real Democrat.

McLaughlin, Andrew C., Life of Lewis Cass (American

Statesman Series), New York, 1899.

Riddle, Albert G., The Life of Benjamin F. Wade, Cleve-

land, 1886. Filled with moralizations, but it is of

some value because it came from the pen of a con-

temporary Ohioan.

Roosevelt, Theodore, Life of Thomas Hart B'enton,

(American Statesman Series), Boston, 1899. Written

in typically Rooseveltian style.

• 138
 

398       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Russell, Addison P., Thomas Corwin, Cincinnati, 1881.

A collection of gossip concerning the personal qualities

of Corwin.

Schurz, Carl, Henry Clay (American Statesman Series),

2 vols., Boston, 1887.

Shepard, Edward M., Life of Martin Van Buren (Amer-

ican Statesman Series), Boston, 1899.

Vallandigham, James L., Life of C. L. Vallandigham,

Baltimore, 1872. Entirely unsatisfactory. His career

deserves a detailed investigation.

Wilson, James Grant, (editor) The Presidents of the

United States, 1789-1914, New York, 1914.

B. ARTICLES.

Boucher, Chauncey S., "In Re That Aggressive Slavoc-

racy," in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review,

v. VIII, pp. 13-80. A very enlightening article which

effectively counteracts the old theory of a slaveholders'

conspiracy.

Buell, Walter, "Joshua R. Giddings," in Magazine of

Western History, v. I, pp. 96-109.

Cochran, William C., "The Western Reserve and the

Fugitive Slave Law," in Publications of the Western

Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, no. 101.

Dahlgren, Madeline Vinton, "Samuel Finley Vinton," in

Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Publica-

tions, Columbus, v. IV, pp. 231-263.

Downes, Randolph Chandler, "Evolution of Ohio County

Boundaries," in Ohio Archaeological and Historical

Society Publications, v. XXXVI, p. 340-477.

Ellis, Alston. "Samuel Lewis, Progressive Educator in

the early History of Ohio," in Ohio Archeological

and Historical Society Publications, Columbus, v. XV,

P. 71-87.

Galbreath, Charles Burleigh, "Anti-Slavery Movement in

Columbiana County," in Ohio Archaeological and His-

torical Society Publications, Columbus, v. XXX, pp.

355-395.

Galbreath, Charles Burleigh, "Ohio's Fugitive Slave

Law," in Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society

Publications, Columbus, v. XXXIV, pp. 216-240.

Gladden, Washington, "Samuel Galloway," in Ohio

Archaeological and Historical Society Publications, Co-

lumbus, v. IV, pp. 263-279.

Hutchins, John, "The Underground Railroad," in Maga-

zine of Western History, v. V, pp. 672-682.

• 139
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850         399

 

Janney, J. J., "The State Bank of Ohio," in Ohio Arch??-

ological and Historical Society Publications, Colum-

bus, v. I, pp. 96-99.

Kennedy, James H., "Alfred Kelley," in Magazine of

Western History, v. III, pp. 550-557.

Lynch, William O., "Anti-Slavery Tendencies of the

Democratic Party in the Northwest, 1848-1850," in

The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, v. XI, pp.

319-331^.

Persinger, Clark E., "The Bargain of 1844 as the Origin

of the Wilmot Proviso," in Annual Report of the

American Historical Association, 1911, 2 vols., Wash-

ington, 1913.

Schafer, Joseph, "Oregon Pioneers in American Di-

plomacy," in Turner Essays in American History,

1910.

Shilling, David Carl, "Relation of Southern Ohio to the

South During the Decade Preceding the Civil War," in

Quarterly Publications of the Historical and Philo-

sophical Society of Ohio, Cincinnati, 1913, v. VIII,

p. 3-19.

C. SPECIAL WORKS.

Bogart, Ernest L., Internal Improvements and the

State Debt in Ohio, New York, 1924. A very able

treatment of the subject.

Bogart, Ernest L., "Financial History of Ohio," in Uni-

versity of Illinois Studies in the School Sciences, Ur-

bana, 1912. An excellent study which has been ex-

tensively used in this work.

Bowers, C. K., The Party Battles of the Jackson Period,

Boston, 1922.

Chaddock, Robert E., "Ohio Before 1850," in Columbia

University Studies in History, Economics and Public

Law, New York, 1908, v. XXXI. Valuable for an

estimate of the economic and social forces at work in

Ohio.

Cole, A. C., The Whig Party in the South, Washington,

191₃.  Justin Winsor prize in American History,

1912. A penetrating study of the economic, social,

and sectional forces involved in the history of the

southern Whigs. Valuable for the purposes of this

study because it shows cooperation between northern

and southern Whigs.

• 140
 

400       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Fiske, John, "Harrison, Tyler and the Whig Coalition,"

in Essays Historical and Literary, v. I, New York,

1902.

Garrison, George P., Westward Extension, (American

Nation Series, (edited by A. B. Hart), v. XVII, New

York, 1906.

Hart, Albert B., Slavery and Abolition, (American Na-

tion Series, v. XVI) New York, 1906.

Hockett, Homer C., Western Influences on Political Par-

ties to 1825, Columbus, 1917.

Huntington, Charles C., A History of Banking and Cur-

rency in Ohio Before the Civil War, Columbus, 1915.

Very valuable for the purposes of this study.

Macy, Jesse, Political Parties in the United States, 1846-

1861, New York, 1900.

Ogg, Frederic A., The Old Northwest, (Chronicles of

American Series, v. XIX), New Haven, 1919. The

spirit of the western democracy is well shown in this

interesting exposition.

Peck, Charles H., The Jacksonian Epoch, New York,

1899.

Powell, Thomas E., History of the Democratic Party in

Ohio, 2 vols., Columbus, 1913. Not very reliable.

Price, Erwin H., "The Election of 1848 in Ohio," in

Ohio Arch??ological and Historical Society Publica-

tions, Columbus, v. XXXVI, pp. 188-311.

Reeves, Jesse S., American Diplomacy under Tyler and

Polk, Baltimore, 1907. An excellent study of Amer-

ican foreign relations during the 'forties.

Roseboom, Eugene H., "Ohio in the Presidential Election

of 1824," in Ohio Arch??ological and Historical So-

ciety Publications, Columbus, v. XXVI, pp. 157-224.

Roseboom, Eugene H., "Ohio Politics in the 1850's," a

doctoral dissertation in the course of preparation at

Harvard University. Mr. Roseboom was kind enough

to allow the writer to use his conclusions which have

been of great value in the preparation of this study.

Siebert, Wilbur Henry, The Underground Railway from

Slavery to Freedom, New York, 1899.

Smith, J. H., The War With Mexico, 2 vols., New York,

1920. A thorough treatment of the Mexican War.

Smith, J. H., The Annexation of Texas, New York,

1911.

Smith, Theodore C., The Liberty and Free Soil Parties

in the Northwest, (Harvard Historical Studies), New

• 141
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850         401

 

York, 1897. A reliable account of the Liberty and

Free Soil parties but the author gave little attention

to the economic and sectional forces involved.

Stanwood, Edward, A History of the Presidency, Bos-

ton, 1906.

Wilson, Henry, The Rise and Fall of the Slave Power

in America, 3 vols., Boston, 1874. Suffers from the

old conception of a slaveholder's conspiracy.

 

D. LOCAL HISTORIES.

This is not an exhaustive list of local histories of Ohio, but it repre-

sents an attempt to name those from which some appreciable information

has been gleaned.

Abbott, John S. C., History of the State of Ohio, De-

troit, 1875.

Evans, Lyle S., A Standard History of Ross County,

Ohio, Chicago, 1917.

Finley, Isaac J. and Putnam, Rufus, Pioneer Record and

Reminiscences of the Early Settlers and Settlements

of Ross County, Cincinnati, 1871.

Galbreath, Charles Burleigh, History of Ohio, 5 vols.,

Chicago and New York, 1925.

Greve, Charles T., Centennial History of Cincinnati, 2

vols., Chicago, 1904.

Howe, Henry, Historical Collections of Ohio, 3 vols.,

Columbus, 1889-1891. Contains some valuable in-

formation but should be used with caution.

Knapp, Horace S., History of the Maumee Valley, To-

ledo, 1872.

Lee, Alfred E., History of the City of Columbus, Capital

of Ohio, 2 vols., New York and Chicago, 1892.

Randall, Emilius 0., and Ryan, Daniel J., History of

Ohio, 5 vols., New York, 1912.

Riddle, Albert G., History of Geauga and Lake Coun-

ties, 1878.

Taylor, William A., Ohio Statesmen and Hundred Year

Book, Columbus, 1892. Very valuable for purposes

of ready reference as to names of legislators, loca-

tions, etc.

Walker, Charles M., History of Athens County, Ohio,

Cincinnati, 1869.

Williams, William W., History of Ashtabula County,

Philadelphia, 1879.

 

Vol. XXXVIII--26

• 142
 

402       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

E. GENERAL WORKS.

Channing, Edward, History of the United States, 5 vols.,

New York, 1921.

McMaster, John Bach, History of the People of the

United States, 8 vols., New York, 1914. These vol-

umes have been used very extensively in correlating

political events of Ohio with those of the Nation.

Schouler, James, History of the United States under the

Constitution, vols., III, IV, Washington, 1880, New

York, 1880-1891.

Wilson, Woodrow, Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,

New York, 1893.

 

AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I, Edgar Allan Holt, was born in Tazewell, Ten-

nessee, October 12, 1900. I received all of my secondary

education from the Claiborne County High School,

Tazewell, Tennessee. My undergraduate education was

obtained at Lincoln Memorial University from which I

received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1921. I have

pursued graduate studies in History and Political

Science at the State University of Iowa, where I re-

ceived the degree of Master of Arts in 1925, and from

the Ohio State University. At the latter university I

was a Fellow in 1926-1927 and a graduate assistant in

1927-1928, receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in 1928.

• 143