Ohio History Journal

PARTY POLITICS IN OHIO, 1840-1850

 

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

 

(Continued from July, 1928, QUARTERLY.)

 

CHAPTER III

NATIONAL ISSUES IN OHIO POLITICS, 1840-1845

The Whigs were surprised by the completeness of

their victory in the national election of 1840. Their

first impulse was to interpret the result as a verdict for

reform, but they deferred developing a positive program

for reasons of political strategy. In Ohio, the Na-

tionalist Whigs were in complete control. There were,

however, a large number of Democrats who had voted

for Harrison in the heat of the Hard Cider Campaign,

but in the reaction, which the Whigs felt might follow

such a campaign, these voters could very easily be lost.

The Ohio State Journal thought that under the circum-

stances prevailing when the Whigs came into power,

with a deranged currency, a national debt and an empty

treasury, their first duty was to institute measures of

economy by dispensing with sinecure offices and stop-

ping various leaks in the Treasury. To raise the reve-

nue, the Journal advocated an import duty, but in order

not to arouse the southern Whigs unduly, in those days

of sectional controversy over the tariff, that paper added

that Congress could not constitutionally levy duties on

imports solely for purposes of protection, but that it did

have the power to levy import duties to meet the ordinary

expenses of the Government, with incidental protection

(47)

• 1
 

48        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

for certain sections of the country.1 Other Ohio Whigs,

less considerate of the difficulties facing the national

party in its hour of triumph, agreed with the Cincinnati

Chronicle in boldly advising an addition of twenty per

cent on import duties and the establishment of a National

bank to provide a uniform currency.² These Whigs were

quite willing to accept the losses to the party in the South,

which such a policy would entail, for they argued that

the election was a victory of the Trans-Alleghany

Country over the South and East. The West, "with one

united voice," had cried, "for the old, good and wise

policy of Washington, a sound National Currency, and

a Tariff sufficiently strong to protect the American la-

borer from the rivalry of those who can live without

meat."³ However, most Whigs in Ohio were content to

await the announcement of the administration program,

taking comfort in the meantime, from Clay's attempts

in Congress to secure the repeal of the Independent

Treasury Act⁴ and to obtain a law distributing the pro-

ceeds from the sale of public lands.⁵ The Democratic

press of Ohio condemned Clay's plan as a bribe to the

states which amounted to an assumption of state debts,

and praised Benton's Log Cabin Bill providing for a

"permanent prospective preemption system" to dispose

of the public lands.⁶

1 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), November 25, 1840.

2 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, December 25, 1841.

3 Ibid., February 23, 1841.

⁴ McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, p. 594.

5 Ibid., v. VI, p. 596; Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), February 6,

1841; Only the Cincinnati Chronicle disagreed with the Clay plan, declaring

that it was "nothing less than paying the debts of the States indirectly, and

this the General Government has no right to do." Daily Cincinnati Chronicle,

January 14, 1841.

• 2
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850

It soon became apparent that the selection of Presi-

dent Harrison's Cabinet might wreck Whig prospects.

Immediately after the election, the Cincinnati Gazette

advised a cabinet selected from men outside of Congress

who were not aspirants for the presidency.⁷ It will be

remembered that, previous to the nomination of Harri-

son and in order to get the vote of the Webster support-

ers, Greene gave definite assurance that Webster would

be offered a place in the Cabinet. But Wright, the editor

of the Gazette, thought that Clay and Webster could be

of far greater service to the party by remaining in the

Senate,⁸ although he later on approved of the selection

of Webster as secretary of state. The Lebanon Star,

Corwin's mouthpiece, objected to the discrimination

against members of Congress.⁹ Many Ohio Whigs de-

manded that John McLean, of their State, should re-

ceive a Cabinet position in recognition of his past serv-

ices and of the importance of the Jackson element in the

party.10 Nothing came of this demand so far as Harri-

son's Cabinet was concerned, but in the realignment,

following the quarrel of Tyler with the Whig leaders,

McLean's supporters again demanded a Cabinet ap-

pointment.¹¹ McLean was offered the position of secre-

tary of war,¹² but he chose to decline.¹³ By December,

1840, it was evident that another Ohioan, Thomas

Ewing, would be offered a Cabinet position, as a recog-

6 McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, 596.

7 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, November 13, 1840.

8 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, November 26, 1840.

9 Ibid., November 23, 1840.

10 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, December 30, 1840.

11 S. Stokely to McLean, September 13, 1841, McLean MSS., v. X

12 Tyler to McLean, September 11, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.

13 McLean to Tyler, September 17, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.

Vol. XXXVIII--4

• 3
 

50       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

nition of the fact that the Ohio Whigs were conserva-

tive, although Ewing's appointment would disappoint

such Jacksonians as Caleb Atwater, who had promised

that Ewing would not be a member of the Cabinet. Na-

tional considerations, however, determined the choice,

apparently on the ground that, as John W. Allen, a

prominent Whig leader of Cleveland, wrote, there could

be no bank or anti-bank, no tariff or anti-tariff objec-

tions raised to his selection,14 and the appointment would

have the additional advantage of conciliating the West,

which was beginning to resent the domination of other

sections in the awards of office. It was clear, in De-

cember, 1840, that Ewing would be offered the port-

folio of postmaster-general, but Ewing preferred the

treasury and his wishes eventually were gratified.¹⁵ The

announcement of Harrison's Cabinet, in February 1841,

were favorably received by papers like the Cincinnati

Chronicle, because all sections of the country were rep-

resented and it showed a "wholesome regard" for the

old Whigs who for twelve years "had borne the brunt

and heat of war against the vindictive and merciless

spirit of Jacksonism."16

Washington was besieged with Whig office-seekers

when the new Administration took office, a phenomenon

which augured ill for Harrison's promise to abide by

the Jeffersonian formula for appointment to public of-

fice. Although the spoils system had been denounced

by Whig newspapers in Ohio,¹⁷ the victors began to

14 John W. Allen to Ewing, December 27, 1840. Thomas Ewing MSS.,

v. V.

15 Ewing to Alien, January 4, 1841. Ewing MSS., v. V.

^{16 D}aily Cincinnati Chronicle, February 18, 1841.

17 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, December 2, 1840.

• 4
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        51

 

demand recognition for their services. A Whig mem-

ber of the Ohio Legislature, who saw the crowds of

office-seekers passing through Columbus on their way

to Washington, declared that the rush for office was

twice as bad as under Jackson.18 Yielding to the tre-

mendous pressure, the Administration found it neces-

sary to remove many government officials. This was

quite in harmony with what the Whigs meant by re-

forming the National Government, namely, the replace-

ment of "defaulting" Democrats by "honest" Whigs.

The Administration's policy of removals from office was

defended by the Ohio State Journal on the ground that

it was only a modest beginning in the task of cleansing

its government offices.¹⁹

Ohio Whigs saw in Harrison's inauguration the

dawning of a new era in which the Constitution would be

restored to the people, and honesty re-established in the

Government.²⁰ In his inaugural, President Harrison re-

vealed a leaning toward the Nationalist Whigs by men-

tioning a National Bank in connection with a condemna-

tion of an exclusively metallic currency,21 and the

Chronicle eagerly jumped to the conclusion that the

President would not veto a National Bank proposal, and

that the Administration would not be an enemy of

credit.22 But many friends of a National Bank, who

clearly realized the utter lack of a Whig program,

feared the effects of a bank bill on the party. Biddle

and Webster, for example, disapproved of the Presi-

18 John Reeves to McLean, February 23, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.

19 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), April 21, 1841.

20 Ohio State Journal (Weekly), March 6, 1841.

21 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 14.

22 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, March 9, 1841.

• 5
 

52       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

dent's message on grounds of expediency, fearing that

"it might rally at once the opposition on topics that

might be turned to mischief against the new adminis-

tration before it had time to strengthen itself."²3  In

his inaugural, Harrison also took cognizance of the

Whig principle of legislative supremacy by deploring

the too ready use of the veto which he thought should

be used only to protect the Constitution from violation,

to prevent the passage of hasty legislation, and to pre-

vent legislation which was the result of combinations

harmful to minorities.²⁴ The tone of this section of

the address, rather than the exceptions made, was care-

fully noted by the Whigs of Ohio.

In the Congressional Session of 1840-1841, the

Whigs had blocked measures to provide revenue for the

Government and, therefore, an extra session of Con-

gress seemed necessary. On the advice of Clay,²⁵ Presi-

dent Harrison issued a call for a special session of Con-

gress to convene on May 31 to consider "sundry im-

portant and weighty matters principally growing out of

the condition of the revenues and the finances of the

country."26

Shortly thereafter, death snatched from the Whigs

their pliant leader, and brought to the presidency John

Tyler, a representative of the State Rights school. The

latter was devoted to State Rights principles with a

tenacity that should have warned the Nationalist Whigs

23 Biddle to Webster, February 2, 1841, in Reginald C. McGrane, The

Correspondence of Nicholas Biddle Dealing With National Affairs, 1807-

1844, p. 341.

24 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 11.

25 A. C. Cole, op. cit., p. 65.

26 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 21.

• 6
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850       53

that he could not be bent to their will. Indeed, during

Harrison's short tenure, there were signs that Clay

considered himself the real leader of his party;27 and

with Clay as the acknowledged leader of the Whigs, and

Tyler as the official representative of the party in the

Executive office, the future boded ill for the Adminis-

tration. Whig leaders in Ohio viewed Harrison's death

as an irreparable loss to the party and predicted that

if Tyler did not follow the Harrison program the party

would be "rent asunder."28 The Ohio Whigs attempted

to appear cheerful,²⁹ the Ohio State Journal asserting

that to doubt that Tyler would carry out the views of

his political brethren would be a great injustice,³⁰ and

characterized his inaugural address as a "clear, con-

cise, and truly Whig document."31

What program would the Whigs evolve in the extra

session? What element of the party would seize con-

trol? How would the people of Ohio react to National

considerations?  Ohio Whigs approved the call for an

extra session and pleaded that legislation be left to Con-

gress, without specifying the program to be followed.³²

Some, however, agreed with the more aggressive Daily

Cincinnati Chronicle and demanded that the extra ses-

sion of Congress should revise the tariff, establish a

National Bank, repeal at once all the acts of its prede-

cessors, and reject all "half-way measures."33     Ohio

Whigs rather generally favored a National Bank in

27 Garrison, Westward Extension, p. 53-55.

28 Reasin Beall to Thomas Ewing, April 13, 1841. Ewing MSS., v. V.

29 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, April 15, 1841.

30 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), April 15, 1841.

31 Ibid., April 21, 1841.

32 Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), March 24, 1841.

33 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, March 18, 1841.

• 7
 

54       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

order to insure a uniform national currency which

would follow the channels of commerce and not simply

remain in the East.³⁴ Western editors pointed out the

growing population of their section and demanded more

political influence. One Ohio editor anticipated the

happy day when the center of power would be removed

to the Ohio Valley, the nation's most healthy and truly

American section.³⁵

With some anxiety the Whigs of Ohio awaited Ty-

ler's message to Congress in June, 1841. That part of

the President's message relating to the tariff argued

that the Compromise Tariff of 1833 should not be

changed except under urgent necessities which were

declared not to exist at that time.³⁶ However, President

Tyler, although admitting that the people had condemned

the Independent Treasury, expressed uncertainty as to

what kind of a "fiscal agent" should be adopted in its

place, adding ominously that he reserved the right to re-

ject any measure which he thought violated the Consti-

tution or jeopardized the prosperity of the country.³⁷

The position taken by the President was clearly opposed

to the wishes of the Nationalist Whigs of Ohio who

damned the message with faint praise.³⁸ Some were so

disappointed that they condemned the message as lacking

in strong and statesmanlike views, especially on the

tariff, apparently still under the impression that Tyler, in

spite of his vagueness, would not veto an act establishing

a National Bank.³⁹

34 Ibid., March 19, 1841.

35 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 3, 1841.

36 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 43.

37 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 46.

38 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), June 9, 1841.

39 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 5, 1841.

• 8
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850           55

Clay marshalled his forces in Congress, and on June

7, 1841, presented the program of the Nationalist Whigs.

It consisted of the repeal of the Independent Treasury

Law, the establishment of a National Bank, the fixing of

duties so as to provide an adequate revenue, and the

distribution of the proceeds from the sale of public

lands.⁴⁰ Within a remarkably short time the Independ-

ent Treasury Law was repealed over the protests of the

Democrats.41     Its defense by Benton and his vigorous

condemnation of a national bank, were wildly applauded

by the Democrats of Ohio.⁴² The second item of the

Whig program came to grief at the hands of the Presi-

dent. Drawn up by Secretary Ewing,⁴³ with the hope of

avoiding the constitutional scruples of Tyler, the plan

finally provided for a Fiscal Bank located in Washington

with a capital of thirty million dollars, and with power

to establish branches throughout the country, indepen-

dent of the consent of the states. The Cincinnati Chron-

icle doubted the wisdom of the plan because it provided

for the participation of states as stock-holders and be-

cause branch banks could issue no notes of circulation

above fifty dollars. Moreover, the same newspaper de-

clared that the plan neglected the West, since most of the

new bank notes would be absorbed on the Atlantic sea-

board.⁴⁴ Much to the satisfaction of the Democrats of

40 Garrison, op. cit., pp. 57-58.

41 McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, p. 630.

42 Ohio Statesman, June 15-July 20, 1841. Benton declared that the

national bank which was proposed by the Whigs was "some monstrous com-

pound, born of hell and chaos, more odious, dangerous, and terrible than

any simple bank could be." "Posterity," he said, "is to be manacled, and

delivered up in chains to this deformed monster . . ." Benton, Thomas H.,

Thirty Years' View, v. II, p. 228.

43 Copy of plan dated June 12, 1841, in Thomas Ewing MSS., v. VI.

44 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 18, 19, 1841.

• 9
 

56        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Ohio, Tyler vetoed the Bill. In their exasperation, the

Whigs quickly prepared another financial measure

which, it was hoped, would meet the demands of the

President. Again the Whigs were defeated by the veto

of Tyler, the Constitutionalist,⁴⁵ and the war was on

between Tyler and the Whigs in Congress. All mem-

bers of the Cabinet, except Webster, resigned and pub-

lished the reasons for their resignation. Ewing, in a

long letter, insinuated that the President had refused

to approve, in the form of the Bill, what he had already

assented to in conferences with leaders of Congress.⁴⁶

The Whigs of Ohio approved the Clay program, but

they were disappointed with its results.⁴⁷ When June

had passed without any of the major items in the Whig

program being carried out, the Whigs of Ohio became

restive, and demanded that something other than "milk

and water alterations" be made.⁴⁸ The Cincinnati

Chronicle demanded the expulsion of those "nonde-

scripts" who would not support the party's program.⁴⁹

By July, Whig leaders like H. H. Hunter, of Lancaster,

announced that Tyler had lost the confidence of the

party in Ohio.⁵⁰ After the presidential veto of the sec-

ond bank bill, an indignation meeting was held by the

Whigs in Congress in which Jeremiah Morrow and

Samson Mason from Ohio played active roles. An ad-

45 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, pp. 68-72.

46 McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, p. 636.

47 From Tyler's accession there was uneasiness on the matter of Fed-

eral appointments, for there were signs that old line Whigs were not receiv-

ing the preference of the new executive; Oran Follett to Frances Granger,

May, 1841, Follett MSS.

48 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 25, 1841.

49 Ibid., June 28, 1841.

50 H. H. Hunter to Ewing, July 10, 1841. Ewing MSS., v. VI.

• 10
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850  57

dress to the people of the United States was drawn up

declaring that the program of the party had been de-

feated by the use of the veto power against which Whigs

had long protested. The President was accused of dis-

honesty in his profession of constitutional scruples, of

a desire to bring about new political combinations, and

of betrayal of the party by seeking counsel from its

enemies. The voters were urged to elect only those per-

sons to Congress who favored the program as outlined

in the extra session.⁵¹ Ohio Whigs were thoroughly in

sympathy with the protesting members of Congress.

The Columbiana County Whigs condemned Tyler's use

of the veto as "contrary to the simplicity and spirit of

the government of the people and at war with the princi-

ple recognized by all true Democrats. * * *"52 Only the

original State Rights men supported Tyler. At a meet-

ing of pro-Tyler men in Columbus, resolutions were

adopted approving the use of the veto,⁵³ and the Presi-

dent was ardently defended in the columns of the Ohio

Confederate and Old School Republican.⁵⁴

The Ohio Democrats had protested steadily against

the calling of an extra session of Congress and had pre-

dicted that its purpose was to allow the Clay Whigs to

work out their hated bank and tariff programs, and to

repeal the Independent Treasury which Democrats re-

garded as a declaration of independence by the people

against the insidious power of monopolies. On July 21,

1841, Senator Allen introduced into the Senate a remon-

 

51 Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), September, 22, 1841.

52 Ibid., September 15, 1841 (Weekly).

53 Ibid., September 8, 1841 (Weekly).

54 Ibid., November 3, 1841 (Weekly).

• 11
 

58       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

strance from citizens of Belmont County against the

United States Bank; a protective tariff; the distribution

of the proceeds from the sale of public lands; and "all

manner of fiscalities."⁵⁵ Senator Tappan attempted to

delay the progress of the Fiscal Bank Measure by mov-

ing an amendment that no part of the act should be so

construed as to imply that Congress had not the power

to "alter, modify, or repeal the charter."⁵⁶ His position

was strictly in line with the policy of the Ohio De-

mocracy, which stood for the right of the legislative

power to alter, amend or repeal acts of incorporation,

principles which they finally succeeded in engrafting in

the Ohio Constitution of 1851.⁵⁷ Senator Tappan also

opposed the proposed bank on constitutional grounds,

arguing that the National Government was one "of

strictly limited and wholly delegated powers, and that

all powers not delegated to it are expressly reserved to

the States and the people."⁵⁸ Democratic county and

district conventions in Ohio condemned the proposed

measures of the extra session and praised Tyler for his

vetoes.⁵⁹ The Democratic State Convention of January

8, 1842, adopted resolutions disapproving the repeal of

the Independent Treasury, and denouncing the distri-

bution of the proceeds from the sale of public lands

among the States.⁶⁰ Thus, Henry Clay's program be-

came the issue in Ohio so far as national questions were

concerned. The only exception to a complete acquies-

55 Congressional Globe, 27th Cong., 1st. Sess., v. X, p. 233.

56 bid., 27th Cong., 1st Sess., v. X, p. 197.

57 See Chapter II.

58 Cong. Globe, 27th Cong. 1st Session, v. X, p. 278.

59 Ohio Statesman, December 20, 24, 1842.

60 Ohio Statesman, January 8, 9, 1842.

• 12
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      59

cence in Clay's program by all Whigs in Ohio was the

support given to the President by a few State Rights

men, notably John G. Miller, in the Ohio Confederate

and Old School Republican. Miller defended Tyler from

the increasingly vehement attacks of the Whig press.

In the reorganization of the Cabinet, in 1841, John

McLean, of Ohio, was offered the post of Secretary of

War.⁶¹ Duff Green, a Calhounite, urged McLean to

accept the position lest it be offered to Corwin. Green

explained that it was the purpose of the President to

build up an entirely new party out of large portions of

each of the major parties, so that the next campaign

might be between Clay and Tyler.⁶² Samuel Stokely, an

Ohio Whig member of Congress, urged McLean to ac-

cept the offer in order to save the country in this crisis.⁶³

The Ohio State Journal, however, regarded the offer of

a secondary post in the Cabinet as an insult to McLean

and to his State.⁶⁴ McLean declined the offer,⁶⁵ possibly

because certain wishes of his had been disregarded at

Washington,⁶⁶ but more probably because he felt that his

own presidential aspirations would have been embar-

rassed by entering the Cabinet.

The results of the extra session of Congress thus

favored the Democratic party in Ohio. The death of

Harrison and the ensuing struggle between Tyler and

the Clay Whigs tended to demoralize the Whig opposi-

tion. The more important items in Clay's ambitious pro-

61 Tyler to McLean, September 11, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.

62 Duff Green to McLean, August 26, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.

63 Stokely to McLean, September 13, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.

64 Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), September 22, 1841.

65 McLean to Tyler, September 17, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.

66 Miller to McLean, August 25, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.

• 13
 

60       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

gram were not realized, and Tyler had approved only of

the Congressional plan for the distribution of the pro-

ceeds from the sale of the public lands, a matter which

did not generate much enthusiasm in Ohio.⁶⁷ With the

exception of the small State Rights element, the Whigs

of Ohio also condemned Webster for remaining in the

Cabinet, arguing that the protest against Tylerism

should have been unanimous. Ambitions and improper

motives were ascribed to Webster and he was warned

that he would lose in Ohio because of his actions. Even

the Ohio State Journal regarded Webster's stated rea-

sons for remaining in the Cabinet as insufficient and

concluded that "In the West, John Tyler's duplicity and

Arnoldism meet with universal reprobation. No man

can be associated with him, and escape the taint of that

scorn and contempt which must forever blast his

name."68

Although local county conventions took notice of na-

tional affairs, the fall elections of 1841 were fought out

largely on the regulation of banking and currency in

Ohio.⁶⁹ Nevertheless, the failure of the Whig National

program and the disappointment of Nationalist Whigs

with the Tyler appointments greatly jeopardized the or-

ganization of the party in Ohio. To these disadvantages

must be added the failure of the Whigs to carry out any

constructive program in Ohio, largely because the Sen-

ate was controlled by the opposite party. Bank failures

and the suspension of specie payments continued, and

the prosperity which Whig orators had promised in

67 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 2, 1841.

68 Ohio State Journal (Semi-Weekly), September 22, 1841.

69 Moses Dawson to Van Buren, September 22, 1841. Van Buren

MSS., v. XLIII.

• 14
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        61

1840 did not materialize. Finally, a reaction had set in

against the excessive emotionalism of 1840. The fall

elections of 1841 gave the Democrats control of both

branches of the State Legislature.⁷⁰    The Whig Ohio

State Journal attributed the results to "apathy and dis-

content.^"71 Senator Allen, a Democrat, declared that

"the sober second thought" of the people had asserted

itself, and that the election was a vindication of the Van

Buren administration and a tribute to the personal popu-

larity of the ex-President among Ohio Democrats.⁷²

The Whigs lost ground, not only in Ohio, but all over

the country in 1841. Fifteen states carried by them, in

1840, swung back into the Democratic column.         The

Democrats explained this political upheaval as a rebuke

of the orgies of the Hard Cider Campaign and as a re-

pudiation of the dictatorship of Clay in the extra session

and saw in the results a mandate to reform the banks,

to compel specie payments, and to repeal the act provid-

ing for the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of

public lands.⁷³

These results, in 1841, naturally favored the move-

ment to renominate Van Buren. Immediately after the

election of 1840, the venerable anti-bank Democrat.

Moses Dawson, of Cincinnati, had hoisted the Van

Buren flag over the editorial columns of the Cincinnati

 

70 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), October 20, 1841.

71 Ibid., October 20, 1841.

^{72 "Jo}hn Hastings, a Democratic leader, of Salem, saw in it not only a

vindication of the Democratic position on the banks, but a tribute to Van

Buren and Van Buren policies. Allen to Van Buren, October 27, 1841, Van

Buren MSS., v. XLIII; Hastings to Van Buren, October 23, 1841, Van

Buren MSS., v. XLIII.

73 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 1-4.

• 15
 

62        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Advertiser.⁷⁴ Two days after the inauguration of Har-

rison, Van Buren, in reply to a pledge of support from

the Missouri State Legislature, had written that he

would not attempt to further his cause, but that he would

not refuse the nomination if offered.75 The left wing of

the Democratic party in Ohio was in control and it was

apparent, at an early date, that it favored Van Buren

for 1844.76 The only opposition to the Van Buren move-

ment came from the conservative wing of the Demo-

crats, a minority of the party which espoused the candi-

dacy of Cass.⁷⁷ The movement for Van Buren's renom-

ination received an added impetus from the victory of

the Democrats in the fall of 1841 and from the passage

of the severe Latham Banking Law.⁷⁸ The latter pre-

cipitated a bitter fight in the party in which the radicals

emerged as victors. In the summer of 1842, Van Buren

visited certain Ohio cities on a western trip.⁷⁹ At Cin-

cinnati, he made an address to the Germans. So en-

thusiastic were his receptions, that Benton rejoiced over

an appreciable quickening of Van Buren enthusiasm,⁸⁰

and Medary attributed the Democratic success in the

fall elections of 1842, at least partly, to the enthusiasm

engendered by Van Buren's visit.⁸¹

74 Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), January 16, 1841.

75 Ibid., (Weekly), April 7, 1841.

76 Elijah Hayward to Van Buren, Van Buren MSS., v. XLII; Moses

Dawson to Van Buren, November 15, 18-?-, Van Buren MSS., v. XLIV.

77 Dawson to Van Buren, February 4, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v.

XLV.

78 See Chapter II.

79 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, June 3, 1842.

80 Benton to Van Buren, June 8, 1842. Van Buren MSS., v. XLIV.

81 Medary to Van Buren, November 16, 1842. Van Buren MSS.,

v. XLIV.

• 16
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    63

With the victory⁸² of Shannon over Corwin in Ohio,

in 1842, on the banking and currency issue, the conserva-

tive forces of the Democrats, who favored a modified

form of the existing banking system, were encouraged to

believe that Shannon had a large popular following. But

the strategy of the two elements of the party was di-

rected toward the control of the Democratic State Con-

vention of January, 1843, in order to name and instruct

delegates to the National Convention. The leaders of

the Cass forces in the State were Rufus P. Spalding;

Edson B. Olds, who had started the True Democrat, of

Chillicothe, as a protest against the radical tendencies of

the Ohio Statesman; Samuel Lahm, a director of the

German Bank of Wooster; and Wilson Shannon, who

courted both factions of the party but was secretly aid-

ing the conservatives in their attempt to dislodge Med-

ary from his powerful position.⁸³ Shannon, as leader of

the Cass forces, at the same time was intriguing with

the Tyler administration which was angling for the sup-

port of the dissatisfied element of the Democrats.⁸⁴ The

Van Buren leaders were fully alive to the situation. In

the county conventions of 1842 and 1844, they suc-

ceeded for the most part, in the selection of Van Buren

delegates to the Democratic State Convention of Janu-

ary 8, 1844. The radicals also controlled the Jackson

Day celebration in January, 1843, chose Medary as

chairman, and secured the passage of resolutions prais-

ing Van Buren, condemning a national bank, and ap-

proving free trade. Great attention was paid to the Ger-

82 Shannon won by a majority of 3,443 and the Democrats won both

branches of the Assembly. Ohio Statesman, March 8, 1842.

83 Stanton to Tappan, February 8, March 7, 1841. Stanton MSS., v. I;

84 Breese to Van Buren, March 21, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v. XLVI.

• 17
 

64        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

mans on this occasion, and Charles Reemelin, a German

leader of Cincinnati, returned the compliments by offer-

ing a toast to "The Ohio Statesman--The mighty sledge

hammer of Ohio Democracy; arrayed on the side of

the people, and by them nobly sustained."⁸⁵ The choice

of William Medill, a Van Buren Democrat, as chair-

man of the Convention, was another triumph of the

radical wing. The Cass men held that the Convention

should name only the senatorial delegates to the Na-

tional Convention, leaving to the congressional districts

the selection of congressional representatives to the Bal-

timore Convention. Their plan, evidently based on the

knowledge that the radicals were in control, was sup-

ported by Shannon, Manypenny, William Sawyer, and

Samuel Lahm.      "After a fierce contest," the Van

Burenites, led by Dawson, Stanton, and Medary, suc-

ceeded in getting the Convention to name congressional

delegates and to instruct them for their favorite. To

complete the victory of the more radical Democrats,

Medary, and James J. Faran of Cincinnati, both Van

Buren supporters, were chosen as senatorial delegates

in opposition to Shannon. The conservatives, however,

pledged their support to the nominations.⁸⁶ The first

official trial of public sentiment in the Ohio Democracy

thus ended in favor of Van Buren.

 

85 Ohio Statesman, January 10, 1843. At a similar celebration pre-

sided over by Moses Dawson, in Cincinnati, a few days later, Reemelin

offered the sentiment "Tariffs, Banks of Issue, Public Debts--They are

nothing else than schemes to enable the few to live at the expense of the

many." Ohio Statesman, January 17, 1843.

86 An excellent description of this important Convention is contained in

a letter of Stanton to Tappan, Columbus, Ohio, January 8, 1843. Stanton

MSS., v. I.

• 18
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      65

But the Cass party in Ohio did not accept this de-

feat as final.  Soon after the State Convention ad-

journed, Cass passed through the State and was enter-

tained at Cincinnati by a group of bank Democrats,

chief among whom was David T. Disney. At this meet-

ing, a semi-popular affair, resolutions approving the

candidacy of Cass were adopted.⁸⁷ The Cincinnati

Daily Enquirer, a Cass organ, had advocated a continu-

ance of the paper money system, and, as a result, the

Cincinnati Mercury was started in order to counteract

the "Softism" of the Enquirer.88  Curiously enough, the

Cincinnati Daily Enquirer was the leading exponent of

the Cass candidacy in Ohio, even though the Hamilton

County Democrats, with the Democrats of the frontier

Northwest, were the most radical in the State on eco-

nomic questions.⁸⁹ Shannon endeavored to convert the

leaders of his party to the support of Cass. It was Ed-

win M. Stanton, a keen young lawyer, who, misleading

Shannon as to his true political preferences, discovered

the latter's plans.  Apparently the friends of Cass

counted upon the Van Buren and Calhoun candidacies

exhausting and neutralizing each other, and for that

reason, were encouraging the rather negligible Calhoun

forces in Ohio.⁹⁰ Shannon was very anxious to get for

Cass the support of Medary, whose power as a presi-

dent-maker he valued very highly, but Stanton assured

Van Buren that Medary would remain loyal.91

87 Dawson to Van Buren, February 4, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v.

XLV.

88 Dawson to Van Buren, August 2, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v. XLVII.

89 Parry to Van Buren, June 1, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v. XLVI.

90 The Whigs busily emphasized the factional differences between Cal-

houn and the Van Buren forces. Ohio State Journal, April 24-27, 1843.

91 Stanton to Tappan, February 8, 1843. Stanton MSS., v. I.

Vol. XXXVIII--5

• 19
 

66       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Although Cass had given the bank men some en-

couragement to believe that he favored banks of issue,

he privately assured Medary that he was a hard money

man, in order to gain support among the radical Demo-

crats of Ohio. The maneuver failed completely. Med-

ary continued to use the columns of the Ohio Statesman

to oppose the Cass forces, and to attack those Demo-

crats in the Ohio General Assembly who favored a com-

promise with the banks. As a result, no man in Ohio

was more cordially hated by the conservative Demo-

crats. In May, a secret circular, requesting informa-

tion on the advisability of holding a State Convention

of the friends of Cass, at Columbus, was sent to the

chief supporters of the Michigan candidate. It was ar-

gued in Cass's behalf that Van Buren could not carry

Ohio, Indiana, or Pennsylvania; that only Cass could

win these states; and that Cass had a special advantage

here in being an object of hatred for the "aristocracy

of England" because he had prevented the consumma-

tion of the Quintuple Treaty.⁹² The latter was a pro-

posed treaty between five nations, including England

and France, whereby each nation was to allow naval

vessels of the others to search vessels suspected of car-

rying on the slave-trade. Cass, as Minister to France,

had defeated French ratification of the Treaty. All the

plans of the Cass leaders were wrecked, according to a

Democratic leader of Cleveland, by "Our Capt. Sam

Madeira," of the Ohio Statesman, who stood like the

"Rock of Gibraltar" against the Cass movement.⁹³ Pub-

92 Printed circular dated in Cincinnati, May 22, 1843. Van Buren

MSS., v. XLVI.

93 Starkweather to Van Buren, May 30, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v.

XLVI.

• 20
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850           67

lie meetings continued to be held in the interest of Cass's

candidacy at Cincinnati and Zanesville.⁹⁴ At the latter,

Thomas L. Hamer played a leading role, along with

Manypenny.⁹⁵     When the Cass forces in Ohio, although

obtaining a semblance of a compromise on banking mat-

ters in the General Assembly, were unable to change the

essential features of the Latham Law,"⁹⁶ a measure dear

to the hearts of the radical Democrats, the conservative

Democratic papers fell upon Medary with bitter denun-

ciations. But they were unable to shake his support of

Van Buren or his advocacy of radical bank policies.97

The Cass movement in Ohio was fully discredited, by

April, 1843, as a result of the odium attached to the Cass

forces as the friends of the banks. The only disaffec-

tion in the ranks of the radical Democrats occurred

among the Cincinnati Germans, who felt that the na-

tive-born Democrats had kept too many offices.98 Any

opposition to Van Buren, on the ground that he was

unpopular in his own state, was silenced by the Demo-

cratic success in New    York in the April elections, and

by his endorsement by the Democratic caucus of the

New York Legislature.99   To counteract the activities

of the Cincinnati conservatives, a large and enthusiastic

94 Weekly Ohio State Journal, November 8, 1843.

95 Medary insinuated that Hamer's objection to Van Buren arose from

a dispute with Amos Kendall over a mail contract. Medary to Van Buren,

November 19, 1843, Van Buren MSS., v. XLVIII.

96 See Chapter II.

97 Stanton to Tappan, February 8, 1843. Stanton MSS., v. I. The Cin-

cinnati Daily Enquirer and the Zanesville Aurora, Cass papers, attacked

Medary as a hard money Democrat. Medary replied that he had never op-

posed the rechartering of any of the sound banks but he simply doubted

whether there were any sound ones. Ohio Statesman, February 3, 1843.

98 Medary to Van Buren, April 27, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v. XLVI.

99 Medary to Van Buren, April 27, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v. XLVI.

• 21
 

68       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Van Buren mass meeting was held in Cincinnati, in

July,¹⁰⁰ and by the end of the year the sentiment for Van

Buren among Democrats in the neighborhood seems to

have become unanimous.

The political situation of the Whigs in Ohio was

closely bound up with the conduct of their party on na-

tional affairs. At the end of the extra session, as has

been shown, the Whig party of Ohio, with the excep-

tion of the Tylerites led by John G. Miller, had en-

thusiastically adopted the Clay program.  The result

was a steady growth in the demand for the nomination

of Clay as the standard-bearer in 1844. Whig county

conventions, evidently in the hands of the Nationalists,

advocated Clay's American system and internal im-

provements.101

The session of Congress, in December, 1841, brought

about a renewal of the quarrel between the Whigs and

Tyler, whom the party by this time had cast out of its

councils. In his annual message, the President appealed

for a conciliatory attitude on the matter of the tariff

and added that "So long as the duties shall be laid with

distinct reference to the wants of the Treasury, no well-

founded objection can exist against them."¹⁰² In an

effort to solve the mooted question of the bank, Tyler

submitted a plan for a government fiscal agent, provid-

ing for a board of control at Washington with agencies

at prominent commercial points to keep and disburse

the public money. It provided for the issue of treasury

notes, instead of gold and silver, and authorized the re-

100 Dawson to Van Buren, July 28, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v. XLVI.

101 Ohio State Journal, February 22, 23, 1842 and July 20, 1843.

102 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 82.

• 22
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850       69

ceipt of individual deposits of gold and silver to a lim-

ited amount, and the granting of certificates of deposit.

Under certain limitations the fiscal agent was allowed

to buy and sell bills and drafts with the consent of the

states in which the branch banks operated.¹⁰³ The Whig

press of Ohio condemned Tyler's proposals unsparingly,

and professed to see in them only another Independent

Treasury which would be a powerful and "plastic" en-

gine wielded for political purposes.¹⁰⁴ After weeks of un-

seemly wrangling, the Whig Tariff Law of 1842 was

passed with the aid of four Democratic votes and signed

by the President. The Law raised the duties above the

twenty per cent rate and put an end to the distribution

of the proceeds from the sale of public lands.105 No

action was taken on the President's proposal for a fiscal

agent.

The endorsement of Clay by the Ohio Whigs, after

the quarrel in Congress, was made easier by the Whig

discontent with Tyler's distribution of Federal appoint-

ments. The federal patronage of Ohio was being dis-

pensed according to the recommendations of John G.

Miller, postmaster of Columbus, who had been ap-

pointed over the protest of the old line Whigs.¹⁰⁶ Dur-

ing July, August, and September, 1842, Whig county

conventions adopted resolutions endorsing Clay for

president and John Davis, of Massachusetts, for vice

president, and declaring in favor of a high protective

tariff. They also condemned the effort of the Demo-

103 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 85.

104 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), December 22, 1841.

105 McMaster, op. cit, v. VII, pp. 63-64.

106 Kelley to Follett, Columbus, Ohio, March 17, 1841, in "Selections

from the Follett Papers, IV," in Loc. cit., 1916, v. XI, no 1, p. 25.

• 23
 

70       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

cratic General Assembly, in the session of 1842, to pass

a law gerrymandering the State for congressional rep-

resentation.¹⁰⁷ The Ohio State Journal declared that

the Whigs wished to restore a sound and uniform cur-

rency for the whole Union, to provide for an effective

and permanent protection of home labour against for-

eign competition, and to distribute the proceeds from

the sale of public lands among the states,¹⁰⁸--the pro-

gram of Henry Clay.

In 1841, Winfield Scott fished for the Whig nomi-

nation, by the publication of a circular announcing that

he had never been a Federalist, a "Jacobin" or an "ab-

stractionist"; that he had great reverence for the Su-

preme Court; and that he favored a constitutional

amendment to allow a majority vote of Congress to

override the president's veto.¹⁰⁹ The sudden publication

of this campaign manifesto elicited the comment from

the Ohio State Journal that the statements were "pretty

substantially Whig," although that organ refused to

express an opinion on their expediency.¹¹⁰ Another con-

tender was Webster. The leaders of the party in Ohio,

as well as the masses of the voters, seem to have re-

ceived Webster's candidacy in 1844 very coldly. Web-

ster had continued in Tyler's Cabinet until it became

evident that even the Whigs of Massachusetts were

turning to Clay. Moreover, he had defended Tyler and

had vouched for his Whiggery so vigorously that some

questioned the genuineness of Webster's own Whig-

107 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 25, October 5, 1842.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., October 26, 1842.

109 Manuscript copy in Ewing MSS., v. VI.

110 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), November 17, 1841.

• 24
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    71

gery.111 When Webster finally resigned from the Cab-

ine, his friends made overtures to Ewing and Clay to

place Webster in nomination for the vice presidency.

Ewing, however, doubted Webster's availability and de-

manded that he give public evidence of a higher regard

for Clay. Ewing pointed out that the people consid-

ered Webster not only an intemperate but a grossly im-

moral man, and argued that the Germans and Irish

would not support him because they felt that all Boston

was concerned in the burning of a convent at Charles-

ton.112 This incident occurred as the result of Nativist

agitation against foreigners, and in Ohio it was gen-

erally felt that the Whigs of the East were allied with

the Nativists.

The force of the anti-slavery objection to Clay was

broken by the argument that Clay really was working

for gradual emancipation. Therefore, men like Gid-

dings found it very easy to join the supporters of Clay.

The Whigs argued that Clay's tariff program would

inure to the benefit of the masses, and, during January,

1842, "Home Leagues" were formed all over the State

to create public opinion in favor of economic self-suffi-

ciency.¹¹³ Tyler's veto of the first Whig tariff measure,

in 1842, met with a storm of denunciation in Ohio, the

Ohio State Journal declaring the President to be "nearer

the model of an imbecile, vicious and capricious public

ruler than any other man who has ever occupied his sta-

tion in modern times, in this or any other country."114

The success of the Whigs in finally passing a tariff

111 McMaster, op. cit., vol. V, pp. 284-285.

112 Ewing to Clay, November 1, 1843, Clay MSS., v. XXIII.

113 Weekly Ohio State Journal, January 19, 1842.

114 Ibid., July 6, 1842.

• 25
 

72       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

measure in the same session was attributed to Clay, and

the partial recovery in 1842 from a financial depression,

which had existed since 1837, was hailed by Whig ora-

tors and editors as a direct result of the Tariff of 1842.115

A loud demand went up for more protection, and when

the next session of Congress ended without an increase

in the tariff rates the Belmont Chronicle asked "Shall

English policy and English rule still bear us down?

What means that rejoicing that is heard in Old Eng-

land, on the triumph of Toryism in America? What,

but that the interests of the locofoco tories of America

and those of their kindred in England are in unison.^"116

The Northwest seemed to be in the crest of a wave of

Nationalism, and the Whig press endeavored to take

advantage of this spirit by identifying protectionism

with patriotism.¹¹⁷ In an appeal for a higher tariff, a

Whig editor declared that "The man who does not feel

that he is under strong obligations to promote the in-

terests of his fellow-citizens above that of all other

people, is a heartless cosmopolite, unworthy the protec-

tion of any government whatever,"¹¹⁸ The Whigs re-

vealed a great sympathy for the factory workers, in

danger of being reduced to the level of English pauper

labour if the "horrible anti-protective doctrine" should

prevail.¹¹⁹ The flow of specie to the United States, in

1843-1844, also was ascribed to the workings of the

Tariff of 1842, and the Ohio State Journal declared that

if the voices of Senators Tappan and Allen, Ohio's

115 Weekly Ohio State Journal, November 16, 1842.

116 Belmont Chronicle, March 10, 1843.

117 Weekly Ohio State Journal, July 5, 1843.

118 Ibid., August 2, 1843.

119 Ibid., May 31, 1843.

• 26
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850       73

Democratic Senators, had prevailed, the United States

would have been left where it was "with horizontal du-

ties, prostrated industry, and a perpetual efflux instead

of an influx of the precious metals."¹²⁰  A recent rise in

the price of Ohio state stocks from 68 1/2 to 86 1/2 was

also ascribed by partisan Whigs to the Tariff of 1842.121

The Democrats, of course, explained the same revival

of prosperity by the forced resumption of specie pay-

ments by the Ohio banks.¹²²   So completely had Ohio

Whiggery been won over to Clay and his "American

System," that Webster's public recommendation of a

change in the tariff to conform to treaty proposals was

denounced as "pernicious and injurious," the Ohio State

Journal declaring that the purpose of the speech was

to increase the claims of "some one" to the presidency

in opposition to Clay.¹²³

By July, 1842, Clay sentiment, even on the Western

Reserve, which was becoming anti-slavery, was over-

whelming,1²⁴ and the Whig organ of the State believed

that Clay's nomination was practically settled.125 "Clay

Clubs" were formed all over the State in an attempt to

repeat the tactics of the campaign of 1840.126  During

the State campaign of 1842, ex-Governor Morehead, of

Kentucky, and Henry Clay entered Ohio to speak in

behalf of Corwin's candidacy for governor. Both

stressed the importance of the Tariff.¹²⁷ In September,

120 Weekly Ohio State Journal, March 8, 1843.

121 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 24, 1843.

122 See Chapter II.

123 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 31, 1843.

124 Ibid., August 4, 1842.

125 Weekly Ohio State Journal, July 27, 1842.

126 Weekly Ohio State Journal, August 4, 1842; May 11, 1842.

127 Weekly Ohio State Journal, September 21, October 5, 1842.

• 27
 

74       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

a gathering of 100,000 people, at Dayton, was ad-

dressed by Corwin, and Clay, J. . J. Crittenden, and

Leslie Combs, of Kentucky. The enthusiasm and the

size of the gathering rivaled the campaign of 1840.128

At Lebanon, the home of Corwin, resolutions favoring

a protective tariff, a national bank, the distribution of

the proceeds from the sale of the public lands among

the States, and a single presidential term were adopted.

Tyler's vetoes were condemned on the ground that the

constitutionality of such questions had long ago been

settled by the Supreme Court.¹²⁹ The Whig Young

Men's State Convention, held at Newark, in August, to

respond to the nomination of Corwin, named Clay and

Davis for the National ticket.130

In the meantime, the Clay movement had developed

rapidly outside the State.  Pennsylvania Whigs, in a

meeting at Harrisburg, in February, 1843, adopted res-

olutions favoring the nomination of Clay and recom-

mending a Whig National Convention at Baltimore, on

May 3, 1844. In the same month Virginia Whigs took

similar action.131 Professor A. C. Cole, in his study of

The Whig Party in the South, has shown that most of

the southern Whigs had come to support the Clay pro-

gram in Congress, often contrary to their earlier

views.132 Accordingly, southern Whigs joined in the

nation-wide movement for the nomination of Clay, in

1844.

There were a few proposals to substitute McLean

128 Weekly Ohio State Journal, October 5, 1842.

129 Weekly Ohio State Journal, June 29, 1842.

130 Weekly Ohio State Journal, August 31, 1842.

131 Ibid., March 8, 1843.

132 Cole, A. C., The Whig Party in the South, pp. 64-104.

• 28
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   75

for Clay as the Whig nominee. McLean's refusal to

become a member of the Cabinet was actuated partly

by his appreciation of the unpopularity which such a

course would bring him in Ohio, among the Whigs.

McLean also felt that membership in the Cabinet might

destroy his availability for the Whigs. He explained

his refusal to join the Cabinet on the ground of Tyler's

fear of a "competitor," but when it was rumored, in

1842, that he would be offered the post of secretary of

the treasury, his friends urged him to accept because

Tyler would do anything to aid a man who, from his

location, had a chance to "head" Clay.¹³³ But McLean

guarded his presidential aspirations carefully, even re-

fusing to press upon the Administration the claims for

appointment of his friends.¹³⁴ In November, certain

Ohio Whig members of Congress--S. Stokely, Joshua

R. Giddings, Benjamin F. Cowen, Patrick G. Goode and

Calvary Morris--started a movement to swing the nom-

ination to McLean.¹³⁵ Morris wrote that there was a

strong movement among Whig leaders of Northern

Ohio for McLean, since Clay could command only the

support of the National Republicans,¹³⁶ and Morris

wanted the support of State Rights Whigs who favored

cooperation with the Administration as well. In May,

1842, he published a letter condemning the factional

bickerings in Congress and calling upon Whig members

to work in harmony with the President. His action was

hailed with delight by the Ohio Confederate and Old

133 S. Stokely to McLean, July 4, 1842. McLean MSS., v. XI.

134 H. H. Leavitt to McLean, March 9, 1842. McLean MSS., v. X.

135 Thomas Sewall to McLean, November 25, 1842. McLean MSS., v.

XI.

136 Morris to McLean, December 19, 1842. McLean MSS., v. XI.

• 29
 

76        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

School Republican, a State Rights paper, and by the

Steubenville Herald which had recently received some

contracts for federal printing. The Ohio State Journal,

on the other hand, condemned the publication of the

letter.¹³⁷ Joshua R. Giddings, an ardent anti-slavery

man and pro-northern apologist, but still a strict party

man who resisted the efforts of the Liberty party to

obtain his support, still felt that the anti-slavery move-

ment would be more effective if it took place within the

ranks of the Whig party.¹³⁸ Giddings, boring from

within, had supported Harrison in 1840, and now stood

ready to support McLean, a northerner and non-slave-

holder, rather than Clay, a southerner and a slaveholder.

The McLean candidacy, however, never attained real

strength, although it was discussed, as late as April,

1843, by men who believed that he could secure the sup-

port of the followers of Tyler and Calhoun, as well as

that of the National Republicans. Clay's followers pro-

posed that McLean be given the vice presidency with the

assurance that he would be supported for president in

1848,139 but McLean, who seemed to have a perfect

genius for procrastination, ignored the suggestion. It

was soon apparent to the friends of McLean and Web-

ster, in Washington, that neither of them had a chance

to dispute the leadership of the party with Clay.¹⁴⁰

Into the midst of the party struggles over such issues

 

137 Letter of Morris and the comments of Ohio Confederate and Old

School Republican and Steubenville Herald in Weekly Ohio State Journal,

June 22, 1842; Weekly Ohio State Journal, July 6, 1842.

138 Western Reserve Chronicle, quoted in Weekly Ohio State Journal,

October 5, 1842.

139 Leslie Combs to McLean, October 14, 1843. McLean MSS., v. XI.

140 Whittlesey to McLean, October 6, 1843. McLean MSS., v. XI.

• 30
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     77

as the tariff, national bank, and the distribution of the

proceeds from the sale of public lands, was hurled the

slavery question. It threatened to set the calculations

of the politicians at naught and to derange all plans for

what promised, in 1843, to be an orthodox political cam-

paign for the following year. The annexation of Texas

precipitated the issue, although there had been earlier

evidence of the diverging interests of the North and

South. The Free States had manifested an increasing

sensitiveness over the reception of abolition petitions in

Congress and, as has been pointed out, the agitation of

this question had led to the formation of a third party,

in 1840, with Birney as its candidate. In Ohio, the Lib-

erty party was inconsequential in 1840, because most

anti-slavery men still found it possible to vote for Har-

rison. But the annexation of Texas raised the issue in

a new and more violent form. Texas was a slave State

which might be divided into two or three other states,

thus threatening the political supremacy of the Free

States and furthering the domination of the Govern-

ment by the "Slave Power."

In 1837, Texan independence had been officially rec-

ognized by the government of the United States,141 and

a Charge d'Affaires had been sent to the Republic of

Texas. Jackson, however, had refused formally to en-

tertain a Texan proposal for annexation, probably be-

cause he feared its effect on the election of Van

Buren.142 Very little interest was aroused until 1842,

when new Texan difficulties with Mexico aroused public

feeling in the West and South.¹⁴³ In the Congressional

141 McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, p. 379.

142 Garrison, op. cit., p. 91.

143 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 306-307.

• 31
 

78       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Session of 1842-1843, John Quincy Adams attacked the

Government for what he termed violations of its neu-

trality, and the invasion of Mexico by a United States

naval officer.144 At the end of the session a protest

against the American policy toward Texas was signed

by Adams and a dozen other congressmen and published

in the National Intelligencer. The address described a

slaveholders' conspiracy to secure the annexation of

Texas by fair means or foul.¹⁴⁵ Although Tyler had

always been an ardent annexationist, conditions had pre-

vented him from carrying out his aims,¹⁴⁶ and the Texan

proposals for annexation met with no encouragement

from the American Government until the summer of

1843. At that time the United States became alarmed

by the trend of British and French negotiations with

Texas and the fear of foreign intervention was in-

creased by the report, probably attributable to Duff

Green, that England was making efforts, by means of a

loan, to secure compensated emancipation in Texas. A

treaty of annexation was drawn up but was defeated in

the United States Senate on June 8, 1844.147

The Liberty party naturally opposed the annexation

of Texas on anti-slavery grounds. Launched in the

frenzied Log Cabin Campaign, this minor party had

been able to make little headway in Ohio. Many ardent

anti-slavery men in 1840 voted for Harrison, whom they

felt to be a "good enough anti-slavery man." In 1841,

144 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, p. 311.

145 Ibid., v. VII, pp. 311-312. See C. S. Boucher "In Re that Aggressive

Slavocracy," in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, v. VIII, pp.

13-80, for a complete refutation of this charge.

146 Reeves, Jesse, American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, pp.

114-122.

147 Garrison, op. cit., pp. 109-122.

• 32
 

Party Politics in, Ohio, 1840-1850                 79

the Liberty party enjoyed a brief revival due to the con-

fusion in Whig ranks over the Clay-Tyler Wrangle.¹⁴⁸

In January, 1841, the Ohio Liberty men definitely de-

cided to abandon the policy of questioning candidates of

other parties and resolved upon independent political

action in all cases where neither of the candidates of the

old parties was satisfactory.¹⁴⁹ The key-note of the Lib-

erty party address of 1841, written by Salmon P. Chase,

was the statement that "The honor, the welfare, the

safety of our country imperiously require the absolute

and unqualified divorce of the government from slav-

ery."150   The party nominated Leicester King, a member

of the State Judiciary and for two terms a State Sena-

tor, for governor in 1842.151

148 There was a distinct tendency among certain of the liberty leaders

to favor the interests of labor. In advising Chase on an address to the

Liberty Party, Samuel Lewis wrote: "I think you should dwell on the im-

portance of protecting the labor of free men so as to increase the privileges

and influence of the free laborers. The various improvements for manu-

facturing, etc., promises a still further reduction of the demand for manual

labor. Shall these improvements operate to ameliorate the condition of the

laborer by reducing the quantity of labor required and augmenting the

compensation? or shall it go on as, at present, merely adding wealth to

the capitalist and affording no possible aid to the poor man? of what serv-

ice is the facilities of canals, railroads, etc.? or the improvements, miscalled

labor-saving machines, to the great body of laborers, so long as they are

required to work the same number of hours and at no increased compensa-

tion?" (Lewis to Chase, December 23, 1841, Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.)

However, the plea of such men as Lewis failed to induce the Liberty Party

to take strong ground in favor of the interests of the laboring classes.

This was possibly due to the desire of the party to recruit its membership

from the conservative Whigs of the Western Reserve who would listen to

complaints about the dominance of the South, but who did not seem to be

particularly interested in the welfare of the laboring man at home.

149 T.C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 50-51.

150 A. B. Hart, Salmon P. Chase, pp. 91-92.

151 In August, J. W. Piatt, a radical Democrat, of Cincinnati, addressed

the following questions to King: first, "By styling yourself the Liberty

Party, do you propose to place all men, negroes included, upon an equality

• 33
 

80          Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

King, Morris and other Liberty party leaders con-

ducted intensive campaigns in 1842 and 1843 and suc-

ceeded in raising the Liberty vote in Ohio from 2,000,

in 1841, to 6,550, in 1843. The slow growth of the Lib-

erty party was probably due to the feeling that the na-

tional political situation did not warrant a break with

the older parties. Nevertheless, the party gained such

notable adherents as Salmon P. Chase, Samuel Lewis,

the first State superintendent of schools, and Edward

Wade.¹⁵²

The organization of the Liberty party was accom-

plished in the face of bitter opposition from the Whigs,

who correctly concluded that it would take more voters

from their ranks than from the Democrats. Many

strong anti-slavery men among the Whigs, like Gid-

dings, strongly condemned the third party movement

on the ground that it weakened the only party which

could be expected to resist the demands of the slave

as to political, civil (and) social rights?"; second, "are you in favor of the

emigration of negroes to (and) settlement in this State?"; third, "Are you

disposed to extend common school privileges to the negro population of this

State?"; fourth, "Are you in favor of the immediate emancipation of the

negroes of the South?"; fifth, "would you return a runaway negro to his

master who had escaped to this State?" On the same day, King answered

that he was in favor of securing to every person, without distinction as to

color, all political, civil and social rights guaranteed to him by the Con-

stitution; that he would prefer an exclusively white population in the State,

but that he would not take steps to prevent the emigration of negroes; that

the negroes of the State had a right to a fair proportion of the school funds;

that the question of emancipation in the southern States was a matter for

them to decide; and that he would never lend his personal aid in returning

a slave to bondage. (Questions and answers in Chase MSS., v. VII, Pa.)

The type of appeal represented in the Piatt questions was particularly

effective in the southern portion of the State where the people came to

have a first-hand experience with the escaped negroes.

152 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 59-61.

• 34
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850                 81

power.¹⁵³ Other Whigs thoroughly detested the Liberty

party movement because it endangered their control of

the State. After 1841, the condemnation of the Whig

press became increasingly bitter. In the campaign of

1842, the Ohio State Journal declared that Medary of

the Statesman, and King, the Liberty candidate for gov-

ernor, were "sworn allies in a desperate effort to de-

feat Governor Corwin's reelection, and to preserve the

means in the General Assembly to return 'Petticoat' Al-

len to the Senate, and to gerrymander the State so as to

send a majority to Congress, who, when there, will sup-

port John C. Calhoun's free trade doctrines, and vote

for the admission of Texas into the Union."¹⁵⁴ This

extract describes fairly accurately the Whig position

toward the Liberty party throughout the history of that

organization. However, no appreciable element of the

Whigs joined the third party movement until 1848, when

153 Giddings' position was immeasurably strengthened by his connection

with the Creole affair. In October, 1841, the Creole, carrying five pas-

sengers and one hundred and thirty-eight slaves, en route from Hampton

Roads to New Orleans, was seized by the negroes, and the crew was forced

to take the ship into Nassau, where the British authorities held nineteen

negroes for murder and set the others free. The pro-slavery interests re-

garded the proceedings as an attack on slavery and Webster demanded the

return of the negroes. At this juncture Giddings offered a set of resolutions

to the effect that slavery was a state institution and that when the Creole

went beyond the waters of Virginia the persons on board ceased to be

bound by the laws of Virginia and could therefore resume their natural

rights. Resolutions censuring Giddings were presented by John B. Weller,

of Ohio. Giddings resigned and was at once re-elected to Congress. The

Geauga Freeman explained that the movement to re-elect him was not an en-

dorsement of his anti-slavery views, but that it was a defense of the right

of free speech, and that Giddings' district was not anti-slavery, but Whig.

It was as a Whig that Giddings had been elected to Congress. Giddings

to Chase, January 4, 1842. Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.; Weekly Ohio State

Journal, April 13, 1842; McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 54-55; Geauga Free-

man, quoted in Weekly Ohio State Journal, April 20, 1842.

154 Weekly Ohio State Journal, September 28, 1842.

Vol. XXXVIII--6

• 35
 

82       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Taylor's nomination drew many into the Free Soil

ranks. The Democrats, on the other hand, were inclined

to speak courteously of the new movement, until 1848,

when it threatened their own success.

Rumors that Tyler planned to annex Texas aroused

instant opposition from the Whigs of Ohio, for annexa-

tion endangered the political supremacy of the free

states by adding a vast slaveholding area. There were

suggestions that the annexation might mean the disso-

lution of the Union by the North.¹⁵⁵ Although profess-

ing sympathy for the Texans in their movement for in-

dependence, the Ohio State Journal declared "We do not

want Texas, nor do we want to extend the Union in any

direction. The ultimate admission of the States of Flor-

ida, Iowa, and Wisconsin, is looked for as a matter of

course, but when they have taken their rank, it will be

time to shut down the gate. The Union is sufficiently

extended and cumbrous without purchasing or accepting

any more territory."¹⁵⁶ In September, 1842, the same

organ characterized the annexation of Texas as a "dar-

ling object" of the southern Democrats, supported by a

subservient northern Democracy.¹⁵⁷ The opposition of

the Whigs of Ohio to the annexation of Texas was con-

siderably strengthened by the attitude of some southern

Whigs, who were beginning to see the necessity of meet-

ing the northern branch of the party half-way on the

Texas question. The Whig press of Ohio noted, with

approval, an editorial of the Richmond Whig to the

effect that it hoped that the "extravagant scheme" for

 

155 Weekly Ohio State Journal, November 9, 1842.

156 Weekly Ohio State Journal, March 16, 1842.

157 Weekly Ohio State Journal, September 14, 1842.

• 36
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850          83

the annexation of Texas would be frowned upon by the

people because it would endanger the peace and even the

very existence of the Union.¹⁵⁸ Three months later, the

Richmond Whig was firmly convinced of the necessity

of opposing the annexation of Texas on the plea of

safety for the Union.¹⁵⁹ If those who sympathized with

the Liberty movement could be made to believe that Clay

was honestly opposed to the existence of slavery and to

the annexation of Texas, the position of the Ohio Whigs

would be greatly strengthened. Realizing this situation,

the Whigs neglected no opportunities to emphasize

Clay's interest in gradual emancipation.¹⁶⁰

The position of the Ohio Democrats on Texas an-

nexation was not so clearly defined. The left wing of

the party in the southern portion of the State, where

the southern stock was large, was inclined to favor an-

nexation, although efforts to stimulate sentiment for

Texas were rather coolly received.161 There was no

formidable opposition to the project in the party. The

efforts of the party press were, for a time, devoted to

minimizing its importance.¹⁶²

On the other hand, there was undoubtedly a genuine

158 Richmond Whig, quoted in Weekly Ohio State Journal, March 8,

1843.

159 Weekly Ohio State Journal, June 14, 1843.

160 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 24, 1843; Cincinnati Daily Ga-

zette quoted in Weekly Ohio State Journal, November 15, 1843.

161 David Quinn to Van Buren, April 9, 1844. Van Buren MSS., v.

XLIX.

162 The position of Ohio Democrats on the annexation of Texas was

probably well expressed by William Parry, of Cincinnati, who wrote Allen

that the people of Ohio were in favor of the annexation of Texas if it were

not made the means of thwarting Democratic policies on the tariff, internal

improvements, and the Independent Treasury. Parry to Allen, May 16, 1844,

Allen MSS., v. IV.

• 37
 

84       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

sentiment to expand the frontier in another direction

before the election of 1844. A great stream of immi-

grants was pouring into Oregon to found homes and to

claim that disputed region for the United States. From

all over Ohio, men and women gathered in companies to

join the overland migrations at Independence or St. Jo-

seph, Missouri. Both Democrats and Whigs in Ohio

demanded the termination of the joint occupation agree-

ment with Great Britain and the assertion of American

claims to Oregon to the Russian line. The Ohio States-

man declared that "To give up such a territory as this

to the British would be madness. It belongs to the United

States by the right of discovery * * * if by no

other title. But who has for a moment doubted our

right to this Territory? * * * A sort of passive

and crouching spirit to British dominion has lately

sprung up in our midst, totally at war with our former

high character."¹⁶³ The simultaneous expansionist

movements into Texas and Oregon gave the Democrats

an opportunity shrewdly to combine the two and to play

upon the nationalistic and imperialistic spirit of the

West. They declared it was the duty of the American

Government to insure the benefits of a democratic

regime to the whole Northwest and probably even to

Canada. Since Texas had been settled by Americans

and was contiguous territory, it was manifestly destined

that it should fall into the American Union also. This

strategy of the Democrats was destined to be extremely

effective.

A summary of political conditions in Ohio thus re-

veals, on the one hand, the dominance of the radical

163 Ohio Statesman, February 8, 1843.

• 38
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850

anti-bank Democrats, determined to nominate Van

Buren,164 and on the other, general acceptance among

the Whigs of the nomination of Clay. In 1842, Shan-

non defeated Corwin on the currency issue, and the

Democrats obtained control of both houses of the Gen-

eral Assembly, and Allen, whose term expired in 1843,

was reelected to the United States Senate over Thomas

Ewing, his Whig opponent, by a vote of 63-44.165 In

1843, the Democrats retained control of the Senate by

a majority of four, but lost control of the House by a

margin of six votes.166 In the same year, Congressional

elections were held under the State Apportionment Law

passed at the end of the 1842-1843 session in accordance

with the Federal Apportionment Law which made single-

member districts mandatory. The Democrats won

twelve and the Whigs nine seats in the 1843-1844 ses-

sion of Congress. Among the more prominent mem-

bers were Alexander Duncan, a Democrat of Hamilton

County; John B. Weller, Democratic candidate for gov-

ernor in 1848; Joseph Vance, an old Whig and a for-

mer governor of the State; Jacob Brinkerhoff, a radical

German Democrat, and reputed author of the Wilmot

Proviso; and Joshua R. Giddings, Whig, the implacable

foe of the "Slave Power" but a powerful opponent of

the Liberty party.167

The sectional issue raised by the agitation of the

Texas question had a determining influence on the

course of both major parties. In 1843 and 1844, Clay

164 Parry to Allen, May 16, 1844. Allen MSS., v. IV.

165 The Globe attributed Allen's reelection to his anti-bank attitude. Mc-

Grane, William Allen, p. 91.

166 Weekly Ohio State Journal, October 18, 1843.

167 bid., October 18, 1843.

• 39
 

86          Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

made a political tour of the country, proceeding through

Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina.

From these contacts with the voters, he probably learned

that the Whig party of the North was strongly opposed

to the annexation of Texas; and that southern Whigs

could be brought to accept the position that Texas should

not be annexed, because it would lead to a war with

Mexico and endanger the existence of the Union. Con-

servative Whigs of the South believed that a large ad-

dition of territory would not be to the best interests of

their class. Accordingly, in April, 1844, Clay explained

his opposition to the annexation of Texas in his famous

Raleigh letter, published in Whig and Democratic pa-

pers all over the country.¹⁶⁸ Clay wanted to unite the

Whig party. Possibly by an agreement with Clay and

much to the dismay of his supporters all over the coun-

try, Van Buren published a similar letter on the same

day, also opposing the annexation of Texas.¹⁶⁹ In Ohio,

168 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 1, 1844. In this famous letter,

Clay explained that he had not given his views before because of the strong

improbability that such a question would be brought before the people, but

now that the treaty of annexation was before the country he was ready

to give his opinions. He declared that "If, without the loss of national

character, without the hazard of foreign war, with the general concurrence

of the Nation, without any danger to the integrity of the Union, and with-

out giving unreasonable price for Texas, the question of annexation were

presented it would appear in quite a different light" from that in which it

was then regarded. Clay then stated that he did not think Texas ought to

be admitted to the Union against "the wishes of a considerable and re-

spectable portion of the Confederacy." There was no need, he said, for

further territory, and the argument that territory should be added to the

Union to strengthen one portion of the country against another was dan-

gerous in the extreme.

169 Garrison, op. cit., p. 124. Garrison suggests that Van Buren and

Clay held a conference over the matter and that they decided on the move

in order to damage the Tyler movement and keep the matter out of the

canvass.

• 40
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     87

the effect of these letters was to secure for Clay the

support of those Whigs who were about to join the

Liberty party, and to place a powerful weapon in the

hands of Joshua R. Giddings, who set out to destroy

the Liberty party of the Western Reserve. Van Buren's

pronouncement did not effect, to any great extent, his

support in Ohio, although some Ohio Democrats, who

understood its disastrous effects on his chances in the

South, urged a modification of his position.¹⁷⁰

With rosy prospects of success, the Whig National

Convention, in May, 1844, ratified the choice of the

people by naming Clay as the standard-bearer of the

party. Ohio supported John Davis for the vice presi-

dency but the Convention named Theodore Freling-

huysen of New Jersey. For the first time in the history

of the party, it adopted a platform. This pledged the

party to "a well regulated National Currency"; to a

tariff for revenue which should discriminate in favor of

the domestic labor of the country; to a single term for

the president; and to a reform of executive usurpa-

tion.171

In order to succeed in Ohio, the Whigs had to pre-

vent the growth of the Liberty party, under the guiding

hands of Bailey, Chase, and John Duffy. The latter

conducted the Freeman, a struggling newspaper in the

interests of the new party, at the Capital.¹⁷² Bailey ob-

tained a large subscription for the Philanthropist, and

accessions to the Liberty ranks increased in 1843.

Thomas Ewing found the Liberty party "increasingly

170 Dawson to Van Buren, May 16, 1844. Van Buren MSS., v. L.

171 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 8, 1844.

172 Duffy to Chase, January 29, 1842. Chase MSS., v. VI.

• 41
 

88        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

troublesome," and advised that the only way to defeat

these "fanatics" was to divide them into "moral" and

"political" abolitionists.¹⁷³ Follett denounced them as

"a gang of mercenary, corrupt scamps, whose only ob-

ject is office," and thought that the best way to combat

them was to accept a part of their creed as good Whig

doctrine in order to win over the rank and file.¹⁷⁴ It

was this strategy which prompted the Whigs of the

Western Reserve to name Giddings for Congress, in

1843. As James A. Briggs, editor of the Cleveland

Herald explained, the nomination of Giddings would

give the Whigs the abolition vote of the district, without

sacrifice, because Giddings was a Clay Whig.175 The

Ohio State Journal also appealed for support for Joseph

Ridgway, Whig candidate for Congress in the Tenth

Congressional District (Franklin, Knox, and Licking)

on the ground that the Whig party was the anti-slavery

party of the Nation. Since the Liberty party intended

to oppose the southern slave power, why not, asked the

Journal, unite with the party which was pledged to op-

pose it?176

The National Liberty Convention at Buffalo, in

1843, was dominated by such Ohio leaders as Leicester

King, who became its chairman; Samuel Lewis, vice

president; and Salmon P. Chase, who drew up the reso-

lutions. After declaring their hostility to the further

extension of slavery, the Convention named Birney and

173 Ewing to Clay, November 1, 1843. Clay MSS., v. XXIII.

174 V.W. Smith to Follett, July 22, 1843 in "Selections from the Follett

Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915, v. X, no. 1.

175 James A. Briggs to Follett, July 25, 1843, quoted in "Selections from

the Follett Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915, v. X, no. 1, p. 9.

176 Weekly Ohio State Journal, July 19, 1843.

• 42
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850           89

Morris for president and vice president, respectively.

Since the Texas question had not yet formally been

placed before Congress, it was not mentioned by the

platform.¹⁷⁷

Ohio Democrats were not displeased by Van Buren's

position on Texas, but they feared its effect on the

southern wing of the party. The Ohio delegates, led

by Medary, entered the Baltimore Convention deter-

mined to secure the nomination of Van Buren.¹⁷⁸. They

would have accomplished this result but for the two-

thirds rule, whereby the southern delegates were able to

defeat the Democracy of the North and to secure a

southern expansionist of the Jacksonian school for can-

didate. Only the superhuman efforts of Medary pre-

vented the Ohio delegation from deserting Van Buren

for Cass when it became evident that the former could

not be nominated. The Ohioans finally threw their

strength to Silas Wright, since he held the same views

as Van Buren; but Wright refused the offer of a nomi-

nation which he probably at no time had a chance to

obtain. As Van Buren's strength began to decline in the

Convention, Medary informed Benjamin F. Butler, Van

Buren's lieutenant at Baltimore, that extreme measures

177 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 69-70.

178 The fiery H. C. Whitman wrote that the Ohio delegation was deteer-

mined that a majority should rule the Convention and that if a faction should

choose to secede because of that determination "let them do it and be

damned." Whitman had a great deal of faith in the power and political

sagacity of his mentor, Senator Alien, who he wished were there "to

rebuke the damned traitors, as they deserve, with a voice of thunder."

(Whitman to Allen, May 27, 1844. Allen MSS., v. IV). The only luke-

warm Van Buren delegate from Ohio was Samuel Lahm, who felt that

Van Buren was not the strongest man the party could name. This attitude

disgusted Whitman who wrote "What better could be asked of a Banker?"

(Whitman to Allen, May 27, 1844, Allen MSS., v. IV).

• 43
 

90         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

were necessary to prevent Ohio from going to Cass.

The Van Burenites then agreed to throw their strength

to Polk.¹⁷⁹ The action of the Ohio Democrats in de-

serting Van Buren, finally, can be explained by the flood

of propaganda, emanating from Washington, to the ef-

fect that availability dictated the choice of another

man,180 and partly by a bid by Cass to secure the support

of the anti-bank Democrats of Ohio by expressing doubt

as to whether the Constitution gave Congress the right

to establish a national bank.¹⁸¹ When Van Buren re-

ceived the majority of votes in the Convention, T. W.

Bartley, an Ohio delegate, offered a resolution, declar-

ing Van Buren the nominee.182 He was declared out

of order but he brought the whole Convention into a

violent commotion by jumping to a table and making an

inflammatory speech to overthrow the two-thirds rule.¹⁸³

The Democratic platform, as is well known, declared for

the "re-occupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of

Texas," thus appealing to the nationalism of the coun-

try and trying to avoid the sectional issue.¹⁸⁴ Other

planks in the platform pledged the party to oppose the

179 Butler to Van Buren, May 31, 1844, Van Buren MSS., v. L.

180 Stanton to Tappan, April 28, 1844. Stanton MSS., v. I; see also

McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, p. 349.

181 McGrane, Reginald C., William Allen, p. 94.

182 Whitman to Allen, May 29, 1844. Allen MSS., v. IV.

183 Whitman would have gone even further by placing Van Buren before

the country as the choice of a "constitutional" majority, even if the Con-

vention did not rescind the two-thirds rule. (Whitman to Allen, May 29,

1844. Allen MSS., v. IV). A delegate declared that Medary acted a

"most disgraceful part" and that another Ohio delegate drew off his coat

as if he intended to go into a regular fight. Blackwell to Polk, May 28,

1844. Polk MSS., v. LVI.

184 Garrison, op. cit., pp. 129-133.

• 44
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850                91

distribution of the proceeds from the sale of public lands

among the states, and favored the use of the veto.¹⁸⁵

The nomination of James K. Polk was not received

with much enthusiasm by the Democracy of Ohio,¹⁸⁶

firmly attached as it had been to the candidacy of Van

Buren;187 but the Democratic press endeavored to stir up

enthusiasm by pointing to Polk's record as Speaker of

the House. Polk was not entirely unknown to the Dem-

ocratic leaders of Ohio. Before the Baltimore Conven-

tion, H. S. Turney had been sent to Columbus in an

effort to persuade the Democratic State Convention to

express a preference for Polk for vice president. Al-

though he came armed with a letter from Jackson,¹⁸⁸ the

Ohio Democrats had expressed a preference for R. M.

Johnson.189

Fearing the effect of Polk's past tariff record on the

Pennsylvania Democracy, Robert J. Walker, a Missis-

185 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 355-356.

186 Taylor to Allen, June 3, 1844, Allen MSS., v. IV. Taylor explained

that the ticket would have been received much more enthusiastically in Ohio

had Wright accepted the nomination for vice president.

187 Birchard to Van Buren, June 7, 1844, Van Buren MSS., vol. LI; on

the other hand, the Cass leaders, of Zanesville, assured Polk of their cor-

dial support and of their attachment to the immediate annexation of Texas.

Hamm to Polk, June 7, 1844, Polk MSS., v. LVII.

188 Laughlin to Polk, Jan. 1, 1844, Polk MSS., v. LV.

189 The Ohio Democrats drew their chief comfort from the defeat of

Cass and Calhoun. (Whitman to Allen, May 29, 1844, Allen MSS., v. IV).

Whitman declared that "The true and brave position of the Ohio delega-

tion--twenty in number, stripped for the fight--determined at least that if

Van Buren could not be saved, that the Jackson and Van Buren policies and

its gallant defenders should not be offered up on the altar of venality, cor-

ruption, and proscription; and that if Lewis Cass and his friends were de-

termined that the guillotine should do its work, then that the damned, rotten,

corrupt, venal Cass cliques from one end of the Union to the other should

be guillotined." Whitman to Allen, May 29, 1844, Allen MSS., v. IV; Cave

Johnson to Polk, January 13, 1844, Polk MSS., v. LV.

• 45
 

92          Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

sippi Democrat, advised him to come out in favor of

"incidental protection."190      In a letter to John S. Kane,

of Philadelphia, Polk declared in favor of a revenue

tariff which would "at the same time afford reasonable

incidental protection to our home industry."¹⁹¹ Polk's

position thus agreed with the pronouncements of the

Ohio Democracy on the tariff, and the tariff discussions

in Ohio between Clay and Polk became one of the de-

gree of protection only. The Kane letter, together with

the naming of George M. Dallas, a Pennsylvania tariff

Democrat, for the vice presidency, dulled the hopes of

the Clay Whigs of Ohio,¹⁹² because they were not able

to make an issue on the tariff question. In their cam-

paign in Pennsylvania, the Democrats openly pro-

claimed that Polk was in favor of a protective tariff.

The Texas question and the national bank absorbed

the interest of the two parties in Ohio during the cam-

paign of 1844. The Whigs favored a safe national cur-

rency which they declared could be obtained only by a

national bank.¹⁹³ On this point the issue was clear cut,

190 Walker to Polk, May 20, 1844. Polk MSS., v. XLVI.

191 Polk to J. S. Kane, Columbia, Tenn., June 19, 1844. Polk MSS.,

v. XLVIII.

192 In the Baltimore Convention, Ohio was ready to give her votes to

Fairfield, of Maine, when the South and Pennsylvania settled upon Dallas,

whereupon Ohio switched her votes to the Pennsylvanian in order to pre-

serve her influence. Whitman to Allen, May 30, 1844. Allen MSS., v. XV.

193 The Democrats also renewed the ancient charge that Clay had de-

feated the will of the people in 1824, by a corrupt bargain with Adams.

The Whigs denied the charge and reprinted Carter Beverly's letter of re-

cantation. Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 1, 1844. The Democrats also

tried to make political capital out of the fact that Bartley, the Whig can-

didate for Governor, while a member of the House, in 1824, had voted for

Adams, for president. The Whigs declared that he could not have done

anything else because his district had given Adams five votes to one for

Jackson. Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 1, 1844; Weekly Ohio State

Journal, May 15, 1844; Ohio Statesman, June, July, August, 1844.

• 46
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   93

since the Democrats reaffirmed their adherence to the

Independent Treasury repealed by the Whigs in the

extra session of 1841.

The campaign turned primarily on the Texas ques-

tion. The Democrats frankly sponsored annexation

while Clay opposed the addition of Texas to the Union,

as indicated in the Raleigh letter. As the compaign

progressed, Clay, apparently fearing the effects of his

letter on the border states, addressed other communica-

tions to his friends in Alabama, stating that he was not

opposed personally to annexation and would be glad to

see it come about were it not for the dangers pointed

out in the Raleigh letter. As a party, the Democrats

of Ohio were more unfriendly to anti-slavery principles

than the Whigs. There were notable exceptions, how-

ever, such as Senators Thomas Morris and Edwin M.

Stanton, both ardent anti-slavery Democrats of the

radical left wing of the party.¹⁹⁴ While Morris had been

discarded by the Democrats, in 1839, on account of his

attitude toward abolition petitions, Joshua R. Giddings

had been retained by the Whigs although his views

were more violently anti-slavery than those of Morris.

Although T. C. Smith, in his Liberty and Free Soil

Party in the Northwest, claims that the basis of the

anti-slavery movement in Ohio was moral and religious,

it appears from the emphasis which their leaders laid

upon the domination of the South in the councils of the

Nation, that it was more nearly a movement of protest

against southern influence, on political and economic

grounds. This protest was animated by the dislike of

the southern aristocracy by Ohioans. The South, for a

194 See Stanton letters to Chase, in Chase MSS., Pa.

• 47
 

94       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

number of years in control of the government, had de-

feated projects for internal improvements and had ob-

tained a very large share of federal appointments. Both

parties showed an abysmal ignorance of the importance

of the Northwest by the scant bestowal of federal

patronage upon the leaders of that section.

Perhaps another reason why the Democrats were

more pro-slavery was the fact that the seat of the

Whigs' strength in Ohio was in the Western Reserve,

settled by New Englanders who were dominated by the

Federalist fear of the growing strength of the South

and West, and who felt a hearty contempt for southern

social and political institutions. The Democratic strong-

holds were in the southern parts of the State, settled by

Virginians, Kentuckians, and North Carolinians; in the

east central portions, settled by the Scotch-Irish and

Pennsylvania Dutch, of Pennsylvania; and in the

Northwest, still in the frontier state where radical De-

mocracy held sway throughout the decade. The Demo-

cratic party had expressed its sympathy with the

grievances of the slaveholders by passing a Fugitive

Slave Law, in 1839, at the request of certain political

leaders of Kentucky. Many Whigs also voted for the

measure, and it will be remembered that Benjamin F.

Wade was defeated for reflection to the General Assem-

bly because the Whigs of his district on the Western

Reserve disliked his vote against the Fugitive Slave

Law.

For a time the sectional issue in Ohio politics re-

volved around the repeal of the Black Laws, possibly

because of the growing demand in northern Ohio for

their repeal and because of the willingness of many

• 48
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850            95

Democrats, who resented the interference of Whig ora-

tors of Kentucky in Ohio politics, to acquiesce in this

action.¹⁹⁵ The Black Laws remained a topic of political

controversy until 1849, when they were partially re-

pealed.196 The attitude of the two major parties on this

question was fairly well shown in December, 1841, when

Philemon Bliss (W) moved in the State Legislature to

strike out the House rule providing that all petitions

and memorials, relating to slavery or the disabilities of

negroes, be received without debate and laid upon the

table without being read or printed. Rufus P. Spalding

(D) favored the amendment on the ground that the

right of petition was a constitutional right which should

not be abridged. The House rule was abolished finally

by the unanimous vote of the Whigs and by a large

number of the Democrats.¹⁹⁷ In the same session of the

General Assembly, Le Grand Byington (D) tried to en-

graft on a bill, incorporating academies and colleges,

provisions to prohibit the education of negroes in those

institutions. This was probably an attempt to prevent

other schools from following the example of Oberlin

College which had recently admitted negroes. The

Democrats thus were not in any position to appeal for

195 Ohio Statesman, December 8, 1842.

196 See Chapter VII.

197 Ohio Statesman, December 31, 1841. Le Grand Byington (D) was

the most earnest opponent of the reception of such petitions. Byington de-

clared that the criticism of the abolitionists was a "certificate of character

which (he coveted) and which (he should) on all occasions endeavor to

merit, at the hands of this nefarious combination of traitors, rogues, and

fools, by recording (his) votes upon the record of the (Ohio General As-

sembly) on all occasions, against each and every part and parcel of the

disorganizing and revolutionary scheme."  Byington ended his flaming

speech by the declaration that the abolitionists were attempting to bring

about racial equality of the whites and blacks.

• 49
 

96       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the support of the third party voters; but they hoped by

a tolerant attitude to get the Liberty party voters to

keep a distinct organization in order to weaken the

Whigs.¹⁹⁸

The Liberty party conducted an intensive campaign,

but found it difficult to combat the arguments of their

former political brethren who pointed out that Clay was

opposed to the annexation of Texas, and that by aiding

in his defeat, the Liberty party was really voting for

the annexation of Texas. So effective was this Whig

argument that the Liberty party began to break ranks,

although Clay's later Alabama letters left some of them

in doubt as to his real position. John C. Wright, one

of the principal Whig leaders of Cincinnati, and editor

of the Gazette, complained that the Alabama letters

were being used as a "bugaboo" among the anti-annexa-

tionists.¹⁹⁹ In order to hold the voters in line, the Lib-

erty party leaders launched a vigorous propaganda to

the effect that Clay was a duelist, a man-stealer, and a

gambler.²⁰⁰

In October, an incident occurred in Michigan which

very seriously injured the Liberty party's strength in

Ohio and contributed to Clay's triumph in the State. On

September 28, Birney, national candidate of the party,

was nominated by a Democratic Convention for the

Michigan Legislature. The news was broadcast in

Whig papers, together with the charges that Birney pre-

ferred Polk to Clay; that he favored free trade and the

198 G. W. Ells to Chase, February 15, 1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII.

¹⁹⁹ J. C. Wright to Clay, September 5, 1844. Chase MSS., v. XXIII.

200 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 73. The Eaton Democrat declared that Clay's

habits had been "vicious and wild" and that "gambling has been one of his

chief pursuits." September 26, 1844.

• 50
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    97

annexation of Texas. The effect on the Liberty men, to

whom it seemed as if Birney had acted falsely, has been

described as "stupefying." Birney hastened to explain

that this nomination was the result of local conditions in

Saginaw County, Michigan, where he had given the

people permission to use his name for the General As-

sembly in order to break up mismanagement in the state

government. This explanation, however, failed to sat-

isfy the new elements of the party completely, especially

when Birney admitted that he preferred Polk to Clay on

the grounds that, while both favored the annexation of

Texas, Clay would be a party leader and Polk would

not.²⁰¹ Matters were further complicated, just before

the election, by the appearance of an alleged letter from

Birney to J. B. Garland, of Saginaw, Michigan, in which

Birney declared that he was a Jeffersonian Democrat,

and that if elected to the Michigan State Legislature,

he would not agitate the slavery question. This letter

was circulated all over the North. The Whig Central

Committee distributed the letter all over the Western

Reserve, hoping to induce wavering Whigs to remain

loyal to their party.202  It undoubtedly decreased the

Liberty vote in Ohio, although Birney promptly issued

a statement branding the letter as a forgery.²⁰3 The

loss of a thousand votes by the Liberty party, between

the state election, in October, and the national election,

may be explained by the "Birney Forgery," although

Liberty leaders argued that the forgery did not reduce

the old Liberty vote but rather repelled many members

201 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 77-88.

202 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 78.

203 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, November 5, 1844.

Vol. XXXVIII--7

• 51
 

98        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of the Whig party who were on the verge of deserting

Clay.²⁰⁴ In the Oberlin district, the Whigs nominated

Edward S. Hamlin, a pronounced abolitionist, in order

to draw the Liberty voters into the Whig ranks.²⁰⁵ Sal-

mon P. Chase was the real director and organizer of

the Liberty party in Ohio. He wrote addresses,

speeches, platforms, and sent out propaganda to his lieu-

tenants all over the State. Robert Gillpatrick, an or-

ganizer at New Madison, appealed to Chase for excerpts

from southern Whig papers to prove that the Whigs of

the South were in favor of annexation.206

On the other hand, many Democrats felt that the

nomination of Polk was a victory for the "slaveholding

oligarchy," and either did not vote or voted for Bir-

ney.²⁰⁷ In Lorain County, most of the accessions to the

ranks of the Liberty party since 1842 came from the

Democrats.²⁰⁸ Although, in the main, composed of con-

servative Whigs, the Liberty party also attracted a con-

siderable element of the laboring classes, who were

drawn into the movement by the feeling that the major

parties sacrificed their interests to those of the southern

slaveholders. John Duffy, editor of the Freeman (Co-

lumbus), informed Chase that the new party in Frank-

lin County was receiving more support from the labor-

ing class than from any other.²⁰9

 

204 Welles to Chase, November 4, 1844. Chase MSS., v. IX.

205 Welles to Chase, October 12, 1844. Chase MSS., v. IX.

206 Gillpatrick to Chase, August 26, 1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII.

207 Adams Jewett to Chase, June 7, 1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII.

208 Welles to Chase, April 2, 1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII; Welles to

Chase, July 5, 1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII.

209 Duffy to Chase, May 21, 1842. Chase MSS., v. VII.

• 52
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850            99

The election of 1844 was hotly contested.²¹⁰ The

Democrats were hopeful in spite of the great Harrison

victory in 1840.211 Such Democratic compaigners as T.

L. Hamer, Lewis Cass, Samuel Medary, and Ganse-

voort Melville toured the State in the interest of Polk.²¹²

Although the Tyler element was weak in Ohio, Silas

Reed, of Missouri, felt that it held the balance of power

and assured them that Polk would be the president of

the whole people and would not embark on a proscriptive

course.²¹3

The Whigs were able to make a great deal of politi-

cal capital out of Polk's former speeches on the tariff,

by charging that he was not in favor of any degree of

protection.²¹⁴ These charges became so damaging that

the Democrats were forced to interpret Polk's position

on the tariff to the effect that he favored a revenue tariff,

so arranged as to give protection to the poorer classes

by placing the burden of taxation on articles which were

used more particularly by the wealthy.²¹⁵    This conclu-

sion was admissible in view of Polk's letter to Kane,²¹6

but the Democratic interpretation in Ohio emphasized

an "incidental protection" which would aid the poorer

classes. But this interpretation was denounced as free

trade doctrine and its protagonists were declared to be

 

210 D. T. Disney, a Democratic leader, of Cincinnati, wrote that "Ohio

never witnessed such a contest as the one we are now engaged in. The two

great parties are so nicely balanced that a straw may decide the fight." He

felt that the outcome depended on the vote of the abolitionists. Disney to

Polk, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 28, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXIV. See also

Medary to Polk, Columbus, Ohio, October 28, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXIV.

211 John A. Bryan to Polk, September 17, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXI

212 Melville to Polk, September 24, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXII.

213 Reed to Polk, October 3, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXII.

214 Daily National Intelligencer, May 31, 1844.

215 Mathews to Polk, June 24, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LVIII.

216 McCormick, Eugene Irving, James K. Polk, a Political Biography,

pp. 260-261

• 53
 

100      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

in alliance with the English aristocracy to defeat Amer-

ican manufacturers and American laborers.²¹⁷ The

Democrats also appealed to class prejudice in order to

defeat Clay. He was reported to have said in a dis-

cussion of the Missouri bill, in 1819, that "If Gentlemen

will not allow us to have black slaves they must let us

have white ones; for we cannot cut our firewood, and

black our shoes, and have our wives and daughters

work in the kitchen."²¹⁸ The Democrats, in the region

of the National Road, were also much distressed by

Polk's previous utterances on internal improvements

and sought an expression of opinion from him in favor

of the continuation of the road.²¹⁹

Both parties endeavored to secure the foreign vote

but there is no reason to believe that the Democrats lost

their hold on that class of voters. Just before the elec-

tion, the Whig State Central Committee warned the

leaders to watch the foreign vote and to encourage every

foreigner who was friendly to the Whigs to become

naturalized.²²⁰  In Cincinnati, in the state election, Whig

nativists drove the Germans from the polls in the Ninth

Ward,²²¹ but Clay endeavored to prevent native Ameri-

canism from becoming an issue, although he admitted

privately to Peter Sken Smith that "at the bottom" the

Native Americans had the "right spirit."²²²    German

217 Clermont Courier, quoted in Weekly Ohio State Journal, March 27,

1844; Ohio State Journal, May 1, 1844.

218 Weekly Ohio State Journal, March 6, 1844.

219 C. Muth to Polk, September 14, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LI.

220 Circular issued at Columbus, Ohio, October 19, 1844, in Thomas

Ewing MSS., v. VII.

221 James A. Ewing to Polk, October 9, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXIII.

222 Clay to Peter Smith, June 17, 1844. Clay MSS., v. XXIII.

• 54
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     101

Democratic political organizations supported Polk and

printed accounts of his life in the German papers.²²³

The State elections held in October forecast the as-

cendancy of the Whigs. Mordecai Bartley defeated

David Tod for governor and the Whigs carried both

houses of the General Assembly.²²⁴ The campaign,

which began as a struggle between the Whig conserva-

tives and the radical Democrats on the banking issue,

became confused when Tod receded from his former

position, in a letter to a Cleveland Committee of Demo-

crats, in which he admitted the necessity of a banking

system.²²⁵

As Stanton complained, the "moral force" of the

campaign was lost for the Democrats.²²⁶ The Whigs,

of course, interpreted their victory in the state elections

as a verdict for a well-regulated system of banks. Med-

ary declared that the defeat of the Democrats was due

to the effects of the pamphlet, The South in Danger,

issued by the Democratic Association of Washington.²²⁷

This pamphlet, which was distributed over the South,

bore the heading "The South in Danger; Read before

you Vote!" and ended with the statement: "If Mr. Polk

is elected, Texas will be annexed. I repeat it, unite with

us and share the glory." The Whig State Central Com-

mittee of Ohio gave this to the voters with the declara-

tion that the real question before the country was "Polk,

Texas, and Slavery; or Clay, the Union and Liberty."

223 Weber to Polk, June 18, 19, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LVIII,

224 Weekly Ohio State Journal, October 23, 1844.

225 See Chapter II.

226 Stanton to Tappan, April 28, 1844. Stanton MSS., v. I.

227 Medary to General Armstrong, October 9, 1844. Polk MSS., v.

LXIII.

• 55
 

102      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The real reason for Democratic defeat was the failure

of the Liberty party to poll a large vote and the defec-

tion in the ranks of Tod's followers on banking and cur-

rency questions.

In the National election, a month later, Ohio cast a

majority of her votes for Clay. The best explanation of

this result is the unpopularity of the Democratic plea for

the annexation of Texas, in Ohio; the disappointment

of the radical Democrats because of the defeat of their

candidate, Van Buren, in the Baltimore Convention by

the two-thirds rule; and the ability of the Whigs to hold

their members in line against the Liberty defection.

Medary declared that "Fraud, forgery and the cursed

abolitionists ruined us. They positively worked the

women and children into the belief that if you (Polk)

were elected, their husbands and brothers should in-

stantly be called to march as soldiers into Texas and

Mexico to be butchered by Spaniards and Indians!^"228

Medary, whose political acumen is not to be doubted,

asserted that the "Birney forgery" was largely respon-

sible for the defeat of the Democrats, because it in-

fluenced those Whigs who were about to join the Lib-

erty party to retain their old loyalty for fear that Birney

really was working for the election of Polk.²²⁹

Undoubtedly, other influences were at work. The

Whigs had accused the Democratic party of being a

leveling, disorganizing group, allied with the Dorrites

of Rhode Island.²³⁰ The reaction in the State against

the policies of the Democrats on banking and currency

228 Medary to Polk, November 10, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXV.

229 Medary to Polk, November 3, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXIV.

230 Ohio State Journal (Tri-Weekly), May-November, 1844.

• 56
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     103

served to weaken the party on national matters, and

there was a widespread feeling among Democrats that

the bankers had conspired with the Whig party to de-

feat incorporation under the Democratic banking sys-

tem. The Whigs also attributed the recovery of pros-

perity to the Whig tariff of 1842, and there can be little

doubt that the constant repetition of this statement had

some effect on voters who were already inclined to doubt

Polk's interest in behalf of the free laborers of the

North.²³¹ The Democrats elected Polk, with New York

as the decisive state. The national result has been

variously interpreted. Garrison claimed that Polk won

because the people of the United States wanted

Texas.²³²

The period of Ohio political history covered in this

chapter witnessed the triumph of the Whigs with no

principles; the bringing forward of the Clay program;

the defeat of a large part of that program by a Virginia

"abstractionist"; the rallying of Ohio behind the Clay

program; the rise of a political anti-slavery party; the

confusion of the expansionist sentiment with the sec-

tional issue of slavery; and the final decision of Ohio

for Clay and against Texas annexation; for the pro-

gram of the old National Republicans and against the

Independent Treasury; and tariff for revenue with "in-

cidental protection." But Ohio's verdict was not the

verdict of the Nation. It remained to be seen what

program the Polk administration would evolve and

231 The Mammoth Stage Company and Moore and Company, controlling

every leading stage company in the State, asked all their employes to work

for the Whig party. Robert Mitchell to Polk, November 22, 1844. Polk

MSS., v. LXVII.

232 Garrison, op. cit., pp. 136-137.

• 57
 

104      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

what the effect of that program would be in Ohio poli-

tics. An important consideration from the point of

view of State politics was the question as to what ex-

tent the major parties sensed the growing political im-

portance of the Northwest.

 

CHAPTER IV

NATIONALISM VERSUS SECTIONALISM, 1845-1848

With the victory of the National Democratic party,

the country was once more launched on a policy of ex-

pansion. Indeed, Tyler, anxious that his administra-

tion should secure the credit for the annexation of

Texas, sent an emissary to the Lone Star Republic to

convey intelligence of the joint resolution for annexa-

tion, passed just three days prior to Polk's inauguration.1

It is important to note that this joint resolution con-

tained an alternative which allowed the President to ne-

gotiate with Mexico concerning the annexation of

Texas in order to avert war. But Tyler preferred the

method of direct annexation and Polk did not interfere

with his predecessor's offer. Texas was admitted to

the Union in December, 1845. There remained the Ore-

gon question, which had become increasingly pressing

with the rapid growth of American population in the

Columbia River region. It was this which was largely

responsible for the strong stand taken by the American

Government on the 49th Parallel as the proper bound-

ary, and the willingness of the British Government to

negotiate on that basis.²

1 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 395-396.

2 Joseph Schafer, "Oregon Pioneers in American Diplomacy," in Turner

Essays in American History, (1910), pp. 35-55.

• 58
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    105

The Oregon and Texas questions were not the only

ones involved in the election of 1844. The tariff influ-

enced a large number of voters and the Kane letter, to-

gether with the popularity of Dallas, the vice presidential

candidate, were largely responsible for Democratic suc-

ces in a manufacturing state like Pennsylvania. The

Democrats of Ohio, as one of their issues, had opposed

"a tariff, the object of which is to raise money by taxing

the consumption of the laboring millions for the support

of particular classes, and to build up and sustain par-

ticular interests in the country at the expense of all

others, without regard to governmental revenue."³

For some Ohio Democrats, it had been a contest to de-

cide between the merits of a National Bank and an In-

dependent Treasury,⁴ while others stressed the issue of

the annexation of Texas.⁵ Cass's argument, induced

by his old hatred of England, that Great Britain was

endeavoring to secure a sphere of influence in Texas in

order to use it as a vantage-point for an attack on the

United States, appealed to the westerner.⁶ To Corwin,

it was evident that the Democrats would repeal the

Tariff of 1842 and wage war on Mexico,⁷ while Medary

thought that New York had "saved" the country and

that Silas Wright's support of the National ticket, in

spite of his bitter disappointment over the defeat of Van

Buren, was largely responsible for the Democratic vic-

tory.⁸ The Whigs, victors in Ohio, interpreted their

3 Eaton Democrat, October 3, 1844.

4 Ibid, October 3, 1844.

5 Ibid., October 3, 1844.

6 McLaughlin, A. C., Life of Lewis Cass, p. 213.

7 Corwin to Crittenden, November 15, 1844. Crittenden MSS., v. IX.

8 Medary to Van Buren, November 16, 1844. Van Buren MSS., v.

LII.

• 59
 

106      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

success as a mandate to oppose annexation of Texas

and to pass banking laws more suitable to the corporate

interests, and possibly even to repeal the Black Laws.⁹

One result of this Whig victory was the election of

Thomas Corwin to the United States Senate, in Decem-

ber, 1844, to succeed Benjamin Tappan (D), whose

term closed with the Congressional session, 1844-1845.

The Whig caucus chose the popular Corwin over

Thomas Ewing by a vote of 47 to 16.10

There were other things at stake, which, although

they did not come to the surface in the newspapers, de-

termined, to a large measure, the attitude of the Demo-

crats in Ohio toward the Polk administration and its

progress, and prepared the way for the general break-up

of parties in 1848. Political parties in the two decades,

prior to the Civil War, exercised a nationalizing influ-

ence by attempting to harmonize the clashing interests

of the different sections of the country, but badly-man-

aged political machinery often threatened National

party lines and allowed purely sectional interests to as-

sert themselves. The Northwest, a rapidly growing

section, was beginning to demand its share in the coun-

cils of National parties and in the distribution of federal

patronage. From party organs and leaders in 1844,

it was evident that the next administration must recog-

nize the West or lose that section. Edward M. Stanton

declared that the Democratic party of Ohio demanded

9 Giddings to Follett, November 14, 1844, quoted in "Selections from

the Follett Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 19-20.

10 Some who were working for the nomination of Corwin for president,

in 1848, feared that his election to the Senate, in 1844, might injure his

chances. William Miner to McLean, December 8, 1844. McLean MSS.,

v. XI.

• 60
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850                 107

a thorough reform in the distribution of federal patron-

age and that "nothing but diligent and decided measures

of reform, on the part of the President, will satisfy

public opinion.11

With the exception of a few Cass Democrats and

one or two personal enemies, the Democracy of Ohio

at once united in pressing upon the Administration the

appointment of Samuel Medary as postmaster general.12

This movement seems to have been spontaneous, since

Medary asked Senator Allen not to press his appoint-

ment,13 while B. B. Taylor, one of the most prominent

 

11 In an effort to impress Polk with the power of the State, he was

invited to visit Columbus and Dayton as well as Cincinnati, on his way to

Washington, but the newly-elected President only touched at Cincinnati,

where he was given an official welcome by the Democracy of that town.

Stanton to Tappan, March 26, 1845, Stanton MSS., v. I; Medary, D. T.

Disney, Bela Latham, T. W. Bartley and others to Polk, December 5,

1844, Polk MSS., v. LXVIII; N. J. Read to Polk, February 4, [18] 45,

Polk MSS., v. LXX.

12 N. H. Starbuck, editor of St. Mary's Sentinel, to Allen, December

28, 1844; J. W. Walters to Allen, February 15, 1845; in Allen MSS., vols.

V and VI; Tod pressed upon Polk the advisability of appointing Medary

to that office, Tod to Polk, December 11, 1844, Polk MSS., v. LXVIII;

Cave Johnson to Polk, January 2, 1845, Polk MSS., v. LXIX; such Cass

supporters as Rufus P. Spalding, William Sawyer, and Edson B. Olds op-

posed the appointment of Medary to the Cabinet and endeavored to get that

office for Cass in the hope of securing the succession for him in 1848. (C.

B. Flood to Allen, April 29, 1845, Allen MSS., v. VIII). Matthias Martin,

a leading Democrat of Columbus, wrote that all the members of the Gen-

eral Assembly, except one, signed a petition to secure Medary's appoint-

ment. Martin to Allen, January 23, 1845, Allen MSS., v. VI; "The Ohio

Democracy assembled en masse and went to the Palace, to demand that

Samuel Medary should be made P. M. Genl! ! ! Their wishes were made

vocal by an eloquent statement of the many virtues and high qualities of

Samuel, by Senator Allen. The President regretted the necessities of the

Republic forbade a compliance with their wishes." Corwin to Follett, Wash-

ington City, March 7, 1845, quoted in "Selections from the Follett Papers,

III," in loc. cit. 1914, v. IX, no. 3, p. 83.

13 Medary to Allen, December 1, 1845, Allen MSS., v. IV.

• 61
 

108      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Democrats of the State, wrote that Medary's appoint-

ment would place Ohio in a secure position, but that

Medary was "of too proud a nature to ask" for it.¹⁴

On the other hand, Tappan explained in 1847, after he

had become a personal enemy of Medary, that the latter

personally solicited the postmaster generalship and that

he caused some twenty Democratic papers of Ohio, over

which he exercised control, to press his appointment.

Tappan insisted that the Democracy of the State really

did not favor Medary's appointment, but that they

pressed his case in order to avoid a rupture in the party.15

Tappan's testimony must be discounted, however, in

view of his bitter personal feud with Medary, in 1846

and 1847, and his betrayal of the Administration, in

1848, by joining the Free Soil party.¹⁶ By January,

1845, Medary was thoroughly disgusted because of the

coldness and indifference with which his friends had

been received at Washington. He professed not to want

an appointment, but that in view of his services he

thought he should be taken into the confidence of the

Administration. From early indications, Medary pre-

dicted that the Polk administration would be worse than

that of Tyler and that there was danger of a revolt in

the party ranks. Medary concluded his diagnosis of the

political situation with the ominous statement that he

sympathized "with those who feel as though they would

like to keep back the Texas question to break certain

 

14 Taylor to Allen, November 22, [18] 44, Allen MSS., v. IV.

15 In an attempt to ingratiate himself with Polk, Tappan stated that his

newspaper (the Ohio Press) was the only Democratic paper in Ohio which

undertook a thoroughgoing defense of the Administration. Tappan to Cave

Johnson, May 11, 1847, Polk MSS., v. LXXVI.

16 See Tappan letter in Ohio State Journal, August 10, 1848,

• 62
 

Party Politics in Ohio, - 1840-1850          109

men's heads with hereafter."17 As a result of the divi-

sion among the Democrats of Ohio on banking and cur-

rency issues and Polk's inability to see the importance of

conciliating the Northwest, Medary failed to receive the

office of postmaster general, which went to the Presi-

dent's intimate friend, Cave Johnson.¹⁸ The gift of the

postmastership of Columbus to Medary was probably

an adequate guage of Polk's appreciation of the Democ-

racy of Ohio, but it failed to satisfy Medary, who sold

the Ohio Statesman to C. C. Hazewell, in 1846, and tried

to secure a consular appointment, only to be tricked by

Tod, who had promised to aid him in securing it.19

Medary was not satisfied with the appointment, but he

was conciliated after a visit to Washington and agreed

to aid the party in the fall elections of 1845.20

Immediately after Polk's election, there was the

usual demand among Ohio Democrats for federal pa-

tronage.²1 Many ardent Democrats sympathized with

the declaration of William Dunbar, a Democratic

leader of Canton, that "The present Administration

* * * has thus far manifested but little disposition

to extend to those who have elevated it to power, a due

proportion of its patronage or favor; while hundreds

 

17 Medary to Allen, January 22, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VI.

18 Johnson to Polk, February 26, 1845. Polk MSS., v. LXXXI.

19 See Chapter II.

20 Medary to Allen, April 10, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VIII.

21 Gephart to Allen, March 23, 1846; Medill to Allen, April 26, 1845;

Allen MSS., vols. XII and XIII; an ardent Democrat, William Sawyer,

wrote Allen: "To the victor belongs the spoils. As it is, said J. K. Polk is

President, thank God and the democracy and me. The Democrats have a

right to demand that the Federal party leave the different offices throughout

the whole land from the highest to the lowest." Sawyer to Allen, Decem-

ber 9, 1844, Allen MSS., v. V.

• 63
 

110         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of   federalists    *   *    *   are   permitted    to   revel   in

the spoils of our victories * * * There is a gen-

eral complaint all over the country, and were it not for

the mortification and disgrace that would follow, the

Administration would be openly denounced for its

timidity in this respect by many of our leading pa-

pers.^"22    Dissatisfied    with   the   Administration,      John

Brough, along with other younger members of the

party, dropped his interest in political affairs for a

time,23 and the Democratic State Convention, of January

8, 1845, revealed an alarming lack of harmony.²⁴ A

great deal of confusion resulted among regular Demo-

crats of Ohio when Polk retained many of the Tyler

appointees in office. For the most part, they had sup-

ported Polk in 1844, but they had been followers of

Harrison, in 1840, and the old line Democrats angrily

demanded their removal.²⁵ Finally, in 1847, the Dem-

ocratic State Convention adopted a resolution roundly

 

22 B. B. Taylor made every effort to secure a consular appointment and

financial support for his paper. Becoming disgusted with his fruitless ef-

forts, he withdrew his application and denounced both Allen and the Ad-

ministration. Dunbar to Allen, February 25, 1846, Allen MSS., v. XV.

Dunbar had been editor of the Wayne County Democrat for six or seven

years; See also James J. Faran to Allen, February 8, 1845, Allen MSS., v.

VI; Taylor to Allen, May 30, 1846, Allen MSS., v. XIV; Medary to Allen,

April 15, 1845, Allen MSS., v. VIII; Morrison to Allen, December 12, 1845,

Allen MSS., v. IX; Taylor to Allen, January 5, 1845, Allen MSS., v. V.

23 William Miner to McLean, June 13, 1845, McLean MSS., v. XI.

24 Stanton to Tappan, January 10, 1845, Stanton MSS., v. I.

25 Herwin to Allen, February 11, 1845; T. P. Spencer and Smith Ingle-

hart to Allen, September 17, 1845; J. Smuckers and L. Cass to Allen, No-

vember 17, 1845; Jacob Medary to Allen, July 24, 1845, Allen MSS.; L.

G. Griswold to Allen, May 26, 1846; J. F. Ankeny to Allen, March 7, 1846;

All in Allen MSS., vols. VI, VIII, XII, and XIV; James K. Etwell to

Allen, February 14, 1846, Allen MSS., v. XI.

• 64
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850             111

condemning Polk for keeping so many appointees of

Tyler in office.²⁶

The radical anti-bank portion of the Ohio Democ-

racy, through Senator William Allen, who became

chairman of the important Senate Committee on For-

eign Relations, was able to control appointments to fed-

eral office in such a way as to impede the activities of

the Cass faction.²⁷     D. T. Disney, a follower of Cass,

asked for an appointment as ambassador to Russia,²⁸

and, although Cass supported his claim, urging that

Disney's was the only appointment from Ohio that he

would ask, Medary induced Polk not to make the ap-

pointment.     Medary confided to Van Buren that Polk

promptly made some appointments in Ohio at his re-

quest "that will put a few "softs" in that State to the

wall for the season.^"29   This procedure in Ohio was in

marked contrast to the policy of the Administration in

New York, where Silas Wright complained that the dis-

tribution of federal patronage produced the impression

that a conservative attitude on questions of banking and

currency was necessary for appointment to federal

office.30

26 Ohio Statesman, January 8, 9, 1847.

27 Stanton to ?, December 26, 1844; Stanton MSS., v. I; In 1846 the

printing of the Post Office Department for the region around Cleveland,

was taken away from the Cleveland Plain Dealer and given to the Cleve-

land Times. In 1848, when J. W. Gray, editor of the Plain Dealer, pressed

for the reasons why that paper should not be given the printing for 1848,

he was given to understand that it was because he had befriended the banks

in Ohio politics. Washington Daily Union, January 31, 1848; E. L. Carney

to Allen, January 4, 1845; Allen MSS., v. V; Thomas W. Drake to Allen,

December 14, 1844, Allen MSS., v. V; M. A. Goodfellow to Allen, Jan-

uary 20, 1845, Allen MSS., v. VI.

28 Disney to Allen, January 25, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VI.

29 Medary to Van Buren, May 22, 1845. Van Buren MSS., v. LIII.

30 Silas Wright to Polk, October 18, 1846. Polk MSS., v. LXXXV.

• 65
 

112        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Although bitterly disappointed with the course of

the Administration,31 the Democratic party in Ohio gen-

erally defended its policies. A striking example of this

party loyalty was the Ohio Democracy's defense of

Thomas Ritchie, editor of the Daily Union, the national

organ of the party, who, in February, 1847, was ex-

cluded from the bar of the Senate by a combination of

Calhounites and      Whigs on      the   ground    that he had

brought the members of that body into disrepute by his

editorial attacks upon them.³²         A  Democratic meeting

of protest was called in Columbus, and the Ohio Press

(D) denounced the Senate's procedure as an attack on

the liberty of the press.³³ To the Cincinnati Daily En-

quirer, this blow at free speech and freedom of the

press, seemed to seal the coalition of the Whigs of the

Senate with "Calhounism.^"34

Polk's inaugural address was well received by the

Democrats of Ohio.³⁵ The Whigs concluded that it out-

lined a course of "degradation and ruin."³⁶ The Dem-

 

31 Medary wrote in December, 1847: "As to men, they are either crazy

or blindly knavish and it is hard to tell which. And although I hold the

office of P. Master of this place, I receive nothing but insults . . . I sent

them my resignation in less than a month after I received the appointment

but they have failed to act on it . . . The P. M. General, a friend confi-

dentially informed (me) not long since, spoke of me as not to be trusted,

as I was of the Van Buren affinities . . .My destruction has been con-

templated ever since the 4th of March, 1845."  Medary to Van Buren,

December 27, 1847, Van Buren MSS., v. LIV. Other Democrats felt that

it was a matter of great difficulty, if not an impossibility for an Ohioan

to get an office from the President. A. G. W. Carter to Allen, June 9, 1846,

Allen MSS., v. XIV.

32 Washington Daily Union, February 16, 1847.

33 Ohio Press, February 20, 1847.

34 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 18, 1847.

35 James Matthews to Allen, March 20, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VII.

36 H. H. Leavitt to McLean, March 19, 1845. McLean MSS., v. XI.

• 66
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850              113

ocrats could find little to commend in the Cabinet which

contained no representative from the Northwest.³⁷

Polk signalized his independence of mind by displacing

Blair and Rives as editors of the Administration organ

in favor of Thomas Ritchie, who, on May 12, 1845, be-

gan to sound the praises of his Chief.³⁸ Polk might

have angled for the support of the Northwest by ap-

pointing Medary to edit the National party organ, an

action which was strongly urged by Disney and Allen,39

but the President apparently failed to see the signifi-

cance of the growing political power of the Northwest.

The first plank of the Democratic platform of 1844

called for the re-annexation of Texas. As soon as Con-

gress met in December, 1844, petitions from individuals

and resolutions from State Legislatures, for and against

annexation, poured in. The Whig General Assembly

of Ohio instructed Allen and Tappan and requested the

Ohio Representatives to vote against annexation, but

the Democratic members of the Ohio delegation chose

to abide by their party platform.⁴⁰ To the Whigs of

37 James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, secretary of state; Robert J.

Walker, of Mississippi, secretary of the treasury; William Marcy, of New

York, secretary of war; Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, post master general;

John Y. Mason, of Virginia, attorney general; and George Bancroft, of

Massachusetts, secretary of the navy. McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, 407.

38 S. I. McCormac, James K. Polk, a Political Biography, 333; Allen

was opposed to Ritchie as editor of the Washington Daily Union and threat-

ened to start a new Democratic paper at the Capital with Blair as editor

if Polk did not displace Ritchie. Polk refused to countenance the matter,

since he and Cass thought that such a paper would be in the interests of

Van Buren and Wright. Polk's Diary, v. I, pp. 355, 361-362.

39 D. T. Disney to Allen, December 20, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VI;

Polk's Diary, v. I, pp. 358-359.

40 Garrison, op. cit., p. 146; Laws of Ohio, 1844-1845, p. 437; T. C.

Smith says that there was some sentiment among the Democratic press of

the State against the action of Tappan and Allen in supporting annexation.

T. C. Smith, op. cit., 106.

Vol. XXXVIII--8

• 67
 

114        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Ohio, the annexation of Texas seemed "unwise, inex-

pedient, and pregnant with the most afflictive results to

the Union," and the method by which the Democrats

proposed to carry it out, "palpably" unconstitutional.⁴¹

The Whigs counselled delay, in the hope that something

might happen to prevent the carrying out of the Demo-

cratic pledge,⁴² although the Whigs were willing to ac-

cept annexation rather than risk a dissolution of the

Union.⁴³ Even Giddings condemned those who spoke

of the dissolution of the Union as a possible result of

the annexation of Texas; although he wrote privately

to Follett that it must be resisted at all costs because

it "must dissolve our present compact,"⁴⁴ and after it

became evident to the Whigs that Texas would be an-

nexed, he urged Follett (W) to call a convention of all

those, irrespective of party, who were opposed to the

annexation    of Texas.⁴⁵     Giddings wanted      the Whig

party to take such strong grounds against the annexa-

tion of Texas that it would absorb the Liberty party.

As a result of contacts with the anti-slavery men of

Massachusetts,⁴⁶ he attempted, but without success, to

organize popular conventions against the annexation of

Texas. Giddings' position was determined by hostility

41 H. H. Leavitt to McLean, February 6, 1845, McLean MSS., v. XI.

42 S. F. Vinton to Greene, December 15, 1844, Greene MSS.

43 Vinton to Greene, December 15, 1844, quoted in "Selections from the

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

Philosophical Society of Ohio, 1919, v. XIV, no. 1, p. 19.

44 Giddings to Follett, November 18, 1844, quoted in "Selections from

the Follett Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 20-21.

45 Giddings to Follett, February 18, 1845, quoted in "Selections from the

Follett Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 21-22.

46 Advances were also made to Chase by Charles Allen and Charles

Francis Adams to sound the anti-slavery sentiment in Ohio. L. C. Phillips,

Charles Allen, C. F. Adams to Chase, June 25, 1845, Chase MSS., v. X.

• 68
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850            115

to the slave power rather than love for the negro. "I

am most confident," he wrote, "in the belief that quiet

submission to the flagrant outrage of annexation, su-

pinely permitting ourselves to be sold and transferred

like Southern slaves to the political control of the Texan

slaveholders; and forming a new union with that Gov-

ernment will prove the grave of the Whig party." He

believed that the Liberty party and the most strongly

anti-slavery portion of the Whigs would ultimately

unite.⁴⁷ Had this move been successful, the Free Soil

party might have been anticipated by three years.

The position of the Democrats of Ohio was difficult

because many believed that the annexation of Texas

would produce an undue southern influence in the Na-

tional Government and would break faith with Mexico,

while others, strongly favoring annexation, urged Allen

and Tappan to disobey instructions they had received

from the Whig Legislature.⁴⁸ Publicly the Democratic

party continued to approve the actions of the Admin-

istration toward Texas. Its State Convention of July

4, 1845, which emphasized the American claims to Ore-

gon, condemned the attitude of the Whigs on Texas as

"anti-national" and compared their action to that of

47 Giddings to Follett, July 16, 1845, quoted in "Selections from the Fol-

lett Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 27-29; Giddings' opposi-

tion was of a somewhat different nature from that of Sumner, who was

possessed by an intense conviction of "the great shame and wrong of slav-

ery." Complete Works of Charles Sumner, (Statesman Edition) v. 1, pp.

154-156.

48 There were still other practical politicians, such as Medary, who felt

a great interest in the matter but who were willing to leave the whole matter

to the judgment of Allen; George Kesling to Allen, January 1, 1845;

Joseph M. Fair, to Allen, Feb. 19, 1845; J. W. Walters to Allen, February

15, 1845; Lewis Day to Allen, December 27, 1844; All in Allen MSS., vols.

V and VI; Many others of same nature in Allen MSS.; Medary to Allen,

January 31, 1845, Allen MSS., v. XI.

• 69
 

116        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the Federalists in the War of 1812.⁴9 In the actual vote

on the annexation resolution in Congress, even Brinker-

hoff and Tappan, who had threatened to oppose it,

voted for the measure.⁵⁰ So completely did the Demo-

cratic party of Ohio fall in line behind the Polk pro-

gram that Senator Benton's course in opposing annexa-

tion greatly injured his standing in Ohio.⁵¹

Some Ohio Whigs wanted to make annexation an

issue in the Congressional elections of 1845, in order to

further the candidacy of McLean,⁵² but the majority

were content to meet in local conventions and adopt reso-

tions in opposition to annexation.     McLean, himself, felt

that, although most Whigs were opposed to annexation,

their attitude was unwise, and that the party should wait

until after annexation was accomplished and then op-

pose the admission of Texas as a slave state.⁵³ This

would have divided the parties hopelessly and brought

about the same state of affairs which the Whigs were

so anxious to avoid in 1848. With public opinion in the

United States thus divided, Texas accepted the offer

of annexation. Following Polk's advice, in his first an-

49 The Democrats of Marion County officially approved the course of

the Administration toward Texas, which they welcomed into the Confed-

eracy. Ohio Statesman, July 7, 1845, Sept. 1, 1845.

50 Stanton to Brinkerhoff, January 19, 1845, Stanton MSS., v. I; Joshua

R. Giddings, op. cit., p. 236; The Xenia Torch-Light (W) denounced Tap-

pan in a scathing manner. Tappan, in violation of Senate rules, had made

public the treaty in an attempt to defeat its passage and "yet . . . the whip

and spur of the slave-dealing politicians were fearlessly applied, until this

dough-headed abortion of progressive democracy yielded -- eschewed his

democratic and abolition principles -- spat out the convictions of his judg-

ment -- forgot that he bore the semblance of a man, and crouched like a

spaniel at the feet of his master." Xenia Torch-Light, March 13, 1845.

51 R. M. Whitacre to Allen, February 16, 1846, Allen MSS., v. XI.

52 C. Morris to McLean, March 13, 1845. McLean MSS., v. XI.

53 McLean to Chase, January 10, 1845. Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.

• 70
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850         117

nual message, Congress acted favorably upon the ques-

tion, and on December 29, the President signed the bill

for admission. On February 19, 1846, Texas was for-

mally admitted.⁵⁴

There remained the "re-occupation" of Oregon, an

issue upon which the Democracy of the Northwest was

enthusiastic. Ready to support the party in its Texas

program, the Democrats of the Northwest expected a

similar aggressive policy on the Oregon question. The

Democracy of Ohio was elated because Allen was chair-

man of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and

they expected him to insist on American Claims to Ore-

gon as far north as the Russian line.⁵⁵ A veritable flood

of letters from party leaders in Ohio poured in upon

Allen urging him to accept nothing less than the Rus-

sian line.⁵⁶ The Northwest was chauvinistic. Charac-

terizing English claims to any portion of Oregon as

"preposterous," the Ohio Statesman declared that "The

Americans are not disposed to trifle any longer in this

matter, and if an appeal to arms must be made, the

quicker it is done the better for all parties.^"57 More-

over, it was felt that the time had come for a settlement

of the Oregon question, and that to give up any part of

the American claims would be cowardly and would only

postpone a necessary war.⁵⁸ The refusal of Polk to

 

54 Garrison, op. cit., pp. 155-156.

55 H. C. Whitman to Allen, April 28, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VIII.

⁵⁶ Jacob Medary to Allen, July 24, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VII.

57 Ohio Statesman, November 5, 1845.

58 Ohio Statesman, November 7, 1845; Medary declared that "Canada

will be a pest to this country until it ceases to be a British colony. It

should cease to be that as soon as possible." The United States, he said,

had missed a golden opportunity to seize Canada at the time of the Canad-

ian revolt. Ohio Statesman, September 10, 1845.

• 71
 

118      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

arbitrate the boundary dispute with England was ap-

plauded with much emphasis by the Statesman,⁵⁹ and

when the editor noticed tendencies in eastern and south-

ern papers to favor arbitration, he declared that he had

no "sympathy with, or faith in this expansive benevo-

lence which continually roams abroad to see that other

nations have their just and proper rights, while our own

may be plucked and plundered ad libitum."⁶⁰ "Political

annihilation" would be the fate of those southern Dem-

ocrats and western Whigs who dared to oppose Amer-

ican interests in Oregon.⁶1

After a satisfactory conference with Allen, in his

capacity as chairman of the Senate Committee on For-

eign Affairs, Polk confided in his diary that the west-

ern Senator would give the Administration "ardent sup-

port."⁶² After reviewing the diplomatic negotiations

between Great Britain and the United States in regard

to Oregon, Polk, in his first annual message to Con-

gress, concluded that the claim of the United States to

the whole of Oregon was indisputable and recommended

the passage of a law to end joint occupation in conform-

ity with the Convention of 1828.63 Medary rejoiced that

the last offer of a compromise had been made and "that

all such propositions are withdrawn never to be again

proposed," and demanded: "The whole of Oregon or

more; and if the British desire it * * * let them

come and take it, soldier-like,--if they are able."⁶⁴

59 Ohio Statesman, November 3, 1845.

60 Ohio Statesman, November 21, 1845.

61 Ohio Statesman, November 21, 1845.

⁶² Diary of James K. Polk, 1845-1849, v. I, p. 96.

63 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, pp. 392-398.

64 Ohio Statesman, December 8, 1845.

• 72
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     119

Polk's policy, evidently designed to bring England

to terms, became a source of party division. On Janu-

ary 4, 1846, Representative James A. Black, of South

Carolina, informed the President that a vote on the

termination of joint occupation would split the party, as

the Northwest was excitedly in favor of such action

while Calhoun and the South opposed it.⁶⁵ Although

Allen strongly urged the claims of the West, he advised

Polk, on December 24, to submit any new British offer

of compromise to the Senate.⁶⁶ Rumors of Polk's will-

ingness to arbitrate raised a storm of protest in Ohio.

A party leader warned Allen that if these rumors proved

to be true, Polk had "sealed his fate forever. The Dem-

ocrats of the West will forsake him, and the Whigs will

laugh him to scorn. Depend upon it, Sir, that since

Congress commenced its session, the public mind has

become so sensitive on our claims to Oregon, that noth-

ing short of the whole territory will be listened to for

a moment."   The West seemed ready for a war to de-

fend their rights.⁶⁷

Most of the Whigs of Ohio, although strongly in

favor of the whole of Oregon, condemned the Demo-

crats for their hasty action, which would lead to war.

Giddings apparently expected war, and welcomed it as

a means of breaking down northern subservience to the

South.⁶⁸ The Cincinnati Daily Gazette (W) favored

arbitration, condemning the Administration for its re-

66 Polk's Diary, v. I, p. 154.

66 Polk's Diary, v. I, p. 139.

67 N. Newton to Allen, January 9, 1846; Allen MSS., v. X; Other let-

ters of a similar tone are: William Dunbar to Allen, January 8, 1846, Allen

MSS., v. X; H. J. Jewett to Allen, January 31. 1846, Allen MSS., v. X.

68 Ohio State Journal, January 10, 1846.

• 73
 

120       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

fusal to arbitrate.⁶⁹ S. F. Vinton, a Whig member of

Congress, saw in the expected war with England a

Democratic ruse to force a pro-British policy upon the

Whigs and to furnish the Democratic party with a "new

crop of heroes that would last them another quarter cen-

tury."⁷⁰ On the other hand, Columbus Delano, a Whig

member of Congress, from Ohio, favored the mainte-

nance of American claims to Oregon even at the cost

of war, in order to strengthen the interests of the free

States.⁷1 The Ohio State Journal, in 1845, saw much to

commend in Calhoun's plan of "masterly inactivity,"⁷²

and declared that those who wished war between Eng-

land and the United States were enemies of the human

race.⁷³

When certain southern Democratic Senators op-

posed this expansionist program, the anger of the

northwestern Democrats knew no bounds. Allen's ef-

forts to defeat non-interference resolutions were ap-

plauded in Ohio,⁷⁴ and all elements of the party united

in condemning the "treachery" of the South. H. C.

Whitman, in a blanket defiance of the eastern Democ-

racy as typified by Calhoun, the patrician, declared that

the West was ready to fight, if necessary, and that it

could "whip the world in arms."⁷⁵   A prominent Demo-

crat of Jefferson County wrote that "If the southern

members cause the defeat of any part of Oregon, I be-

69 Daily Cincinnati Gazette, February 14, 17, 1846.

70 S. F. Vinton to Greene, December 21, 1845, quoted in "Selections

from the William Greene Papers, II," in loc. cit., 1919, v. XIV, No. 1, 21.

71 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), April 16, 18, 1846.

72 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), November 29, 1845.

73 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), November 11, 1845.

74 Stanton to Allen, February 20, 1846. Allen MSS., v. XI.

75 H. C. Whitman to Allen, January 31, 1846. Allen MSS., v. X.

• 74
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850              121

lieve Political Abolitionism will greatly increase by it,

and it will sour the stomachs of a great number of the

North and West against the South and their slave policy

which I would be truly sorry to see."76 The Whigs took

full advantage of the opportunity to emphasize the at-

titude of the South to the embarrassment of the Ohio

Democrats. "Why did the northern and western loco-

focos allow precedence to be given to the Texas meas-

ures, while the Oregon question had been demanding

attention for years ?" asked the Ohio State Journal, and

sagely observed that "The South, having gained all she

sought, is rather coy; and thinks of improving the ad-

vantage gained rather than to risk her cotton trade by

stirring up the bile of John Bull."⁷⁷ The Cincinnati

Gazette (W) approved a compromise and denied that

the people of the West were ready to go to war for a

strip of land in Oregon.78

The result of the imperialistic tone of the party

leaders and newspapers of Ohio was to strengthen Al-

len's determination to insist on the Russian line. In a

conference with Polk, on February 24, Allen would

⁷⁶ Joseph Kithcart to Allen, January 14, 1846, Allen MSS., v. X;

Charles R. Stickney, of Norwalk, wrote that "If again it is offered [49th

Parallel], or even accepted if offered by England, the guillotine is erected

in the West to sever at a moment the political head of our now most popular

President." Charles R. Stickney to Allen, January 19, 1846. Allen MSS.,

v. VIII.

77 Ohio State Journal, January 6, 1846; The Xenia Torch-Light (W)

declared that the reason for southern weakness on the Oregon question

was the "fear that Oregon would be erected into free states to overbalance

the slave power acquired by the South in the annexation of Texas. Their

real fear is not of British soldiers, but of the freemen who might rise up

in Oregon and say to the villainous and corrupting slave power 'thus far

shalt thou go and no farther.'" Xenia Torch-Light, March 12, 1846; See

also Ibid., January 15, 1846.

78 Daily Cincinnati Gazette, January 6, 17, 1846.

• 75
 

122       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

agree to nothing less than the whole of Oregon and ad-

vised the President that if he accepted less he would

lose the support of nine or ten of the Western States.

Polk refused to commit himself, except to say that if an

offer of a compromise were made by the British Gov-

ernment he would submit it to the Senate.⁷⁹ Allen at-

tempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade the President to

accompany any offer of a compromise which he might

send to the Senate with a decided declaration in oppo-

sition to its acceptance.⁸⁰ The result was a clash in the

Senate between Allen and Hannegan, Democratic Sen-

ator from Indiana representing the Northwest, and

Haywood of North Carolina.⁸¹ By his strong insistence

on the whole of Oregon, Allen lost the confidence of the

President, who was firmly convinced that the western

Senator's tactics were bids for popular support in 1848.82

The sectional controversy led to a vote to end joint

occupation. This resulted in a British offer to accept

the 49th Parallel. Allen advised the President to reject

the offer without referring it to the Senate,⁸³ and when

Polk referred the matter to that body, Allen resigned

from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and ad-

vised Cass to take the same action.⁸⁴ As is well known,

the British offer was accepted by the Senate, and the

79 Polk's Diary, v. I, pp. 248-249.

80 Ibid., v. I, p. 300.

81 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 274-277, 262, 246; Congressional Globe, 29th Cong.,

1st Sess., Appendix pp. 369-378; Xenia Torch-Light, March 19, 1846; The

Washington Daily Union attempted to smooth matters over by mild words

and by a condemnation of the talk of secession which was freely uttered.

Washington Daily Union, March 6, 1846.

82 Polk's Diary, v. I, pp. 246, 265, 280.

83 Polk's Diary, v. I, p. 462.

84 Ibid., v. I, p. 471; McGrane, op. cit., pp. 115-120.

• 76
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850                123

northwestern boundary followed the 49th Parallel to

the Straits of Juan de Fuca.

By February, 1845, the Democrats of Ohio were

firmly convinced of the duplicity of many southern

members of their party,⁸⁵ and greatly chagrined and

humiliated by the final settlement on the 49th Parallel.

In bitter disappointment G. L. Patterson, of Huron,

Ohio, wrote Senator Allen that western Democrats had

come to the conclusion that the affairs of the nation

would not be managed correctly until he or some other

western man was elected president.⁸⁶ L. A. Barker, of

McConnelsville, declared in despair, "Oregon is lost,

Polk backed water and is now without a party in the

Senate. * * * I am satisfied that he has never

found out that there are more than three Democrats in

 

85 A prominent Democrat of Hancock County wrote Allen that "We

have been duped by the South, Sir, in this great question. I was for Texas.

But I could now wish that the Texas Resolutions were yet on the Speaker's

Desk ... I begin to doubt the Democracy of the South. Their Democracy

and Patriotism appears to go with self interest, sectional feeling and south-

ern policy . . . W. L. Henderson to Allen, February 6, 1846. Allen MSS.,

v. XI; Charles Reemelin to Allen, May 15, 1846, Allen MSS., v. XIII;

William Parry, a staunch Democrat of Cincinnati, wrote Allen that "your

course on the Oregon question has met with the warm approval of friends.

Continue your most decided efforts for 54-40. It is of the utmost im-

portance to the stability of our Republican institutions that monarchy

should not extend itself over more territory in the north . . . Check it by all

means war not excepted." William Parry to Allen, March 27, 1846, Allen

MSS., v. XII; Tod had written a public letter to the Democratic State

Convention of January 8, 1846, to the effect that our claim to the region

from 42^° to 54°-40^' was incontestible and should be supported. Ohio States-

man, January 9, 1846. In the General Assembly the Democrats attempted

to pass a resolution asserting American rights to the whole of Oregon but

they were defeated by the Whigs. Ohio Statesman, January 15, 27, 28;

1846.

86 G. L. Patterson to Allen, June 25, 1846. Allen MSS., v. XIV.

• 77
 

124      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Ohio."⁸⁷ So keen was the dissatisfaction of the rank

and file that the leaders feared that it would have a

disastrous effect on the fortunes of the party in 1846.88

The Whigs, who at first condemned the Administra-

tion for its bullying tone toward England, now de-

nounced the settlement of the Oregon question as a weak

surrender of American rights. The Xenia Torch-Light

(W) described Polk's policies as a "cowardly" and

"shameful" surrender of what had been proven to be

ours beyond a shadow of a doubt, and contrasted the

President's conciliating attitude on the Oregon question

with his firm defense of the Texan boundary claims.

"Is not this a valiant and chivalric Government of ours ?

See how it struts and swells towards weak, imbecile, dis-

tracted and contemptible Mexico--and then mark how

it cowers and crouches in the presence of the strong and

well-armed England."⁸⁹

The Democrats of Ohio were also greatly embar-

rassed by the manner in which the Whigs were able to

connect the Walker Tariff of 1846 with the Oregon ne-

gotiations. It was well known that Polk was an advo-

cate of a low tariff, but he had modified his position

during the campaign of 1844 by advocating a tariff for

revenue which should be so regulated as to afford "inci-

dental protection." In his annual message of December,

1845, Polk advised the modification of the tariff of 1842

⁸⁷ L. A. Barker to Allen, June 22, 1846, Allen MSS., v. XIV; See also

letters of John D. White to Allen, July 19, 1846; James Parker to Allen,

March 19, 1846; Cretors to Allen, March 13, 1846; H. C. Whitman to Allen,

April 12, 1846. All in Allen MSS., vols. XII, XIII, XV.

88 Medary to Allen, April 12, 1846; R. S. Knapp to Allen, June 22,

1846; Joseph Cable to Allen, June 24, 1846; All in Allen MSS., vols.

XII, XIV.

89 Xenia Torch-Light, July 21, 1846.

• 78
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850       125

in accord with the campaign utterances;90 and the Wal-

ker Tariff of 1846, abolishing specific duties and estab-

lishing twenty per cent ad valorem rates, was passed.⁹¹

The Whigs of Ohio interpreted this low tariff policy of

the President as a concession to the British, in return

for an expected quid pro quo on the Oregon question.

It was loudly proclaimed that Polk was willing to sacri-

fice the interests of the American manufacturer and

laborer in order to gain territory to which we already

had a right.⁹² For a time this rumor created quite a

sensation among the Whig press of Ohio. The Union

(D) declared that it had "its foundation in the criminal

design to complicate the foreign and domestic question,

to the end of preserving a monopoly to the manufactur-

ers in the event of a successful clamor about 'bargain-

ing,' or in the other event and more desired--war it-

self."⁹³

Although banking and currency problems dominated

the campaign of 1846 in Ohio,⁹⁴ national and sectional

issues were also before the voters. Overshadowed as

other issues were by the currency question, the campaign

of 184695 brought a renewed emphasis upon slavery and

its allied questions. The passage of the joint resolution

for the annexation of Texas had increased the anti-

slavery activity in Ohio. The Whigs were bitter against

the Liberty party because they felt that the latter's de-

90 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, pp. 403-404.

91 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, p. 421.

92 Xenia Torch-Light, January 22, February 19, 1846.

93 Washington Daily Union, February 18, 24, 1846.

94 See Chapter II.

95 The Washington Daily Union noted that Tod came "forth upon

strong ground--in powerful opposition to the bank aristocracy, which the

Whigs have organized by their enactments." June 13, 1846.

• 79
 

126      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

fection in 1844 brought about the defeat of the only

man who had a chance to be elected and who was op-

posed to the annexation of Texas. In June, 1845, a

Southern and Western Liberty Convention of anti-

slavery men was held in Cincinnati in the hope of se-

curing uniformity of action of all, irrespective of party,

who believed "that whatever is worth preserving in Re-

publicanism can be maintained, only by eternal and un-

compromising war against the criminal usurpations of

the slave power * * *."96 The Convention was in-

tended, of course, to attract the anti-slavery men of both

parties but the gathering was composed almost entirely

of the Liberty men. William H. Seward, of New York,

declined to attend because of "private" affairs,⁹⁷ stating

that he agreed with the anti-slavery sentiments of the

resolutions but that he regretted the assertion that the

Whig and Democratic views of slavery were on a par

because he thought that the Whigs were the anti-slavery

party of the Nation.⁹⁸ Brinkerhoff represented the anti-

slavery Democrats who could not approve of the actions

of the Liberty party, asserting that the Democratic

party might yet be brought to oppose the extension of

slavery.⁹⁹ Prominent leaders in the Convention were

Birney, Chase, Dr. Gamaliel Bailey, Samuel Lewis,

Owen Lovejoy, and Reverend E. Smith. Both Chase

and Birney favored a liberal political platform, calling

for economic and political reforms; Chase, in particular,

attempted to identify the Liberty party with the radical

 

96 Copy of call, in Chase MSS., v. VII, Pa.

97 Seward to Chase, May 28, 1845. Chase MSS., v. IX.

98 Seward to Chase, August 4, 1845. Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

99 Brinkerhoff to Chase, February 26, 1845. Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

• 80
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850

wing of the Democracy, but Birney prevented an inclu-

sion in the "address to the people" of certain sentiments

looking toward such a coalition.¹⁰⁰ In 1846, a similar

convention for the Northwest was held at Chicago, and

was attended by R. S. Hamlin, a former Whig, as the

only representative from Ohio. An attempt to broaden

the platform to include general demands for reform

again was defeated. A movement for a national anti-

slavery newspaper bore fruit in 1847, when Dr. Bailey

began editing the National Era at Washington.¹01 On

July 2, 1845, the State Liberty Committee of Ohio issued

a call, urging the leaders in the State to prepare for the

fall elections by putting up a full ticket in every county

and by endorsing the address of the late Southern and

Western Liberty Convention.102

The anti-slavery forces in Ohio derived a great deal

of strength from a clash of State jurisdiction which

arose over a kidnapping affair. In July, 1845, Virginia

officials arrested three citizens of Ohio on the Ohio side

of the river on a charge of aiding slaves to escape. The

prisoners were incarcerated in the Wood County, Vir-

ginia, jail and so much indignation was aroused by their

arrest that Governor Bartley (W) of Ohio felt called

upon to demand their return on a charge preferred

against them in the Ohio courts. The Governor of Vir-

ginia refused to honor the request for extradition, but

the trial was delayed until December, 1846, when the

Virginia Supreme Court discharged the prisoners. It

100 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 85-89.

101 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

102 Circular signed by the Committee--Salmon P. Chase, William Bir-

ney, Samuel Lewis, Thomas Heaton, Wm. H. Brisbane, and Henry Lewis-

in Chase MSS., v. X.

• 81
 

128       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

maintained that it had no jurisdiction over them, since,

by a previous decision,103 the territory of Virginia ex-

tended to low water mark on the Ohio side of the river.

Indignation meetings were called all over Ohio while the

case was pending, the Whigs vying with the Liberty

men in the ardor of their support of the sovereignty of

the State against the presumptions of the slave power.¹⁰⁴

In March, 1846, the rescue of a negro slave from

Columbus, by Kentucky officials, further stirred the

anti-slavery sentiment of the State. A slave, Jerry

Phinney, had escaped to Ohio eighteen years previously.

His owner had not made any attempts to have him re-

turned under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, other than

to publish notices of reward in Cincinnati papers. The

heirs of the estate learned of Phinney's whereabouts in

1845 through some insulting notes which he sent to them

demanding a signed statement giving him his freedom.

Two agents, Forbes and Armitage, who were dispatched

to Columbus, succeeded in arresting Phinney, and after

an exciting pursuit by the indignant citizens of Colum-

bus, returned him to the Kentucky authorities. The

Whig and Liberty journals argued that residence in a

free state made a slave free, and the Ohio State Journal

declared that "It is by such outrages that the feelings

of the people of the free states have been aroused and

are increasing every day against the enormities and

103 Handley's Lessee against Anthony in 5 Wheaton, p. 374.

104 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), July 29, August 2, 12, 21, 23,

September 6, November 15, December 24, 1845; Ohio State Journal, De-

cember 22, 1846; Ohio Statesman, December 3, 1845; Ohio Executive Docu-

ments, 1845, v. X, part 1, No. 1, pp. 9-11; Ohio Executive Documents, 1846,

v. XI, part 1, No. 1, pp. 9-10; Galloway to Chase, November 10, 1845, Chase

MSS., v. X.

• 82
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850        129

cruelties of slavery."10⁵ In April, 1846, Governor Bart-

ley requested the Governor of Kentucky to return the

abductors; but the latter refused the request. A Ken-

tucky court ruled, on April 13, that Forbes and Armi-

tage should not be given up, and that Phinney was le-

gally a slave.¹⁰⁶

In southern Ohio, on the other hand, there was a

strong feeling manifested against the negro. That por-

tion of the State received a large proportion of the freed

or fugitive negroes and economic competition resulted

in racial prejudice. The papers of southern Ohio con-

tinually emphasized the danger of making the State the

camping-ground for the worn-out slaves of the border

states. A correspondent of the Ohio Statesman, signing

himself "A Buckeye," called attention to the "alarming"

influx of negroes into Ohio, "the land of universal jubi-

lee, to all the sons of bondage," and added, "If they are

determined not to be driven from the U. S., let them

repair to the tempting soil of 'New England' where blue

light federalists will give them shelter, and where they

can embrace to their bosoms the fair daughters of the

fanatics of those States."¹⁰⁷ Whig papers countenanced

a movement to set aside territory in the West for ex-

clusive settlement by negroes.¹⁰⁸

Increasing racial prejudice resulted in a demand for

the complete prohibition of immigration of negroes to

105 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), March 28, 1846.

106 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), March 28, 31, April 2, 4, 11, 16,

1846; See Frankfort Commonwealth of April 7, 1846, for Kentucky version

of the affair; J. Sullivant to Chase, March 30, 1846, Chase MSS., v. XI.

107 Ohio Statesman, August 13, 1845.

108 Massillon Gazette and Scioto Gazette quoted in Ohio State Journal,

February 28, 1846.

Vol. XXXVIII--9

• 83
 

130         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Ohio.¹⁰⁹ This sentiment crystallized in a bill introduced

in the Senate of Ohio, in December, 1846, by James H.

Ewing (D), of Cincinnati, providing, among other

things, that all negroes in the State should be registered;

that it was the duty of trustees of each township to warn

all negroes, who came in after the registration, to de-

part; and that if any negro did not obey within ten

days, he should be removed from the State. If any

negro returned, it should be the duty of the trustees to

order the constable to sell the services of such person

at public auction for a period of six months.¹¹⁰ This

drastic move, attributable, in part, to recommendations

of the Governor of Virginia to the Legislature of that

State to provide for the expulsion of vagrant negroes,¹¹¹

was lost by a party vote in the Senate in February,

1846.112 The Whigs opposed the measure on the ground

 

109 "Justice," a correspondent of the Ohio State Journal, demanded such

limitation and declared that "The blacks can never rise above the position

in which they now are, unless they become the masters and we the slaves.

Nature has placed between them and us an impassable barrier, which will

never be removed until every physical trace of their origin is obliterated.

There can be no equality where there can be no intermarriage . . . Such

a population can be a benefit to no State."  Ohio State Journal, December

26, 1846.

110 Ohio State Journal, December 31, 1846; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,

December 30, 1846.

111 Ohio State Journal, January 4, 1847; The recommendation of the

Governor of Virginia led the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer to declare, "What

with the forcible removal of cast off negroes from the South, the intro-

duction of fugitive slaves, the general invitation to free negroes in the sur-

rounding states by removing disabilities here, and the natural increase of

that description of people among us--we are in a fair way of having slav-

ery in Ohio--that is to say, slavery of white citizens to sustain burdens im-

posed by the pauperism and vices of the colored people hustled off upon us

by southern slave-holders." Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 30, 1846.

112 Ohio Statesman, February 5, 6, 1847.

• 84
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850             131

that it proposed the introduction of slavery into Ohio.¹¹³

This anti-negro movement was unsuccessful largely be-

cause of the increasing growth of the Liberty party; an

increasing demand among the people of Ohio for the re-

peal of the Black Laws; and the efforts of both major

parties to corral the Liberty vote.

On December 31, 1845, the Liberty State Conven-

tion nominated Samuel Lewis for governor.114 Lewis,

Ohio's first state superintendent of schools, had been

very active in the anti-slavery crusade since 1841. He

typified that variety of earnest reformer who does not

count the cost of an unconventional course of conduct

but who determines his actions by a high sense of duty.

There was an element of discord in the Convention be-

cause of the "dictatorial" spirit of the Methodists who

wanted a candidate from their own church.115 More-

over, the Liberty party was not able to muster its full

strength because of the defection of Abby Kelley,

Stephen S. Foster, and Parker Pillsbury, followers of

William Lloyd Garrison, who rejected political action.116

In spite of the inertia of existing social and political

113 This argument was stated in a forceful manner by the Ohio State

Journal which declared that "He proposed neither more nor less than the

introduction of slavery into the State of Ohio. He proposes, freemen of

Ohio, to introduce within the borders of our free State, the sound of the

auctioneer's hammer and voice, crying off to the highest bidder, the serv-

ices of free men, separating them from their families, and robbing them

of the just wages of their hard labor." Ohio State Journal, December 31,

1846.

114 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 92.

115 Lewis to Chase, December 27, 1845, Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.; in

some instances the Church threatened to expel those members who became

affiliated with the Liberty movement. Jewett to Chase, December 5, 1845,

Chase MSS., v. X; the Methodists of Cleveland fought the candidacy of

Lewis. Rice to Chase, April 20, 1846; Chase MSS., v. XI.

116 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 102-103.

• 85
 

132       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

institutions and the charges of the Whigs that the Lib-

erty party was responsible for the defeat of Clay, in

1844,117 the party attracted adherents by its ardent cam-

paign against the Black Laws.

The Whigs feared that most of the adherents of

the Liberty party would be drawn from their own ranks.

Corwin wrote McLean that abolitionism       was gaining

ground and that it was time to "form quietly some com-

munity of feeling" between the Whig and Liberty par-

ties.118 But Corwin was not willing to go as far toward

union as Giddings. The former insisted that a union

of anti-slavery men upon a common platform without

reference to other issues, such as Chase and Giddings

proposed, was not practicable because it would cause

southern Whigs to leave the national party. Corwin

wanted cooperation on the basis of a Whig platform in

return for which he was willing to give certain "advan-

tages" to the Liberty men.119 Giddings proposed to

Chase that the leaders of the Whig and Liberty parties

meet and agree on a common program of action,120 but

the coalition was not to receive a party label or to men-

tion such issues as the bank and the tariff which Gid-

dings thought should remain dormant "until we get our

necks from under the heels of the slave power." To

Giddings, issues like the repeal of the Black Laws; the

maintenance of the rights of Ohio against the invasions

117 From an active campaign tour of the State, Lewis reported to Chase

that the constant iteration of this charge was having a disastrous effect on

the party and asked Chase to prepare a special pamphlet to combat this

charge. Lewis to Chase, May 29, 1845, Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.; Ohio

State Journal, (Tri-weekly), September 2, 1845.

118 Corwin to McLean, September 2, 1845. McLean MSS., v. XII.

119 S. P. Chase to Giddings, September 23, 1846. Chase MSS., v. XII.

120 Giddings to Chase, August 3, 1846. Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.

• 86
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850         133

of Virginia (a reference to the Parkersburg affair);

the repeal of all federal laws sustaining slavery; and

the prevention of the incorporation of any further slave

territory, were the important questions.121 Chase, on

the other hand, professed such a strong sympathy with

the Democratic position on banking and currency that

he was unfavorable to a Whig anti-slavery platform,

although he was willing to unite with the Whigs pro-

vided they gave anti-slavery action a paramount place

in the platform. Chase still rejected a coalition with

the Democrats, because he distrusted their anti-slavery

professions.¹²2 Giddings and Chase could not agree on

the question of the anti-slavery sentiments of the Whig

party.¹²3 Since Giddings was defending what he con-

sidered to be the "constitutional rights" of the North

against southern domination,¹²⁴ it was reasonable that

he should throw his strength to the party which he

thought had the best chance of defending those rights.

"Can it be wondered," the Ohio State Journal asked,

"that the North is vexed at the disposition, so long and

perseveringly manifested, to bestow upon Southern men

so large a share of the honors and emoluments of the

Government?"125 Had it not been for Giddings' oppo-

sition to the "continued aggressions of the slave power"

the Ohio State Journal would have condemned him          as

 

121 Giddings to Chase, August 31, 1846. Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.

122 Chase to Giddings, August 15, 1846, quoted in Schuckers, J. W., The

Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase, p. 99.

123 Chase to Giddings, October 20, 1846, quoted in "Selected Letters of

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

110; Giddings to Chase, October 30, 1846, Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.

124 Giddings to Follett, March 23, 1846, quoted in "Selections from the

Follett Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 29-30.

125 Ohio State Journal, March 2, 1846.

• 87
 

134       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

"over-zealous."¹²⁶ The efforts toward a union of the

anti-slavery forces in 1846 failed, chiefly because both

Whigs and Liberty men refused to surrender what they

considered to be fundamental principles,¹²⁷ and Gid-

dings, by his strong opposition to southern influence

and his advocacy of the repeal of the Black Laws, pre-

vented the anti-slavery elements of the Whig party from

joining the Liberty movement in any considerable num-

bers.¹²⁸

The real struggle in 1846 occurred over the attempt

to repeal the Black Laws. These laws greatly curtailed

the privileges of negro residents of the State by denying

to them the right to testify against white persons in

courts and the right to a proportionate share of the

school fund, and by requiring that they furnish bonds

that they would not become a public charge. Although

the latter provision had never been enforced, there now

arose a demand, particularly strong on the Western

Reserve, to abolish these unjust laws. The Liberty

party conducted a vigorous campaign for their repeal,129

but the Democrats and Whigs divided on the question.

In his annual message to the General Assembly, in De-

cember, 1845, Governor Bartley (W) asked for their

repeal.130

126 Ohio State Journal (Tri-Weekly, August 25, 1846.

127 Chase to ? (From the tone of the letter it was to a Whig leader of

Ohio), August 15, 1846. Chase MSS., v. XI.

128 B. F. Hoffman to Chase, Warren, October 16, 1846; Hoffman and

Hutchins to Chase, November 3, 1846; both in Chase MSS., v. XII.

129 In an effort to reach more people, the Ohio Standard, a cheap Liberty

paper, was started in this campaign. R. B. Pullan (Secretary of State

Liberty Committee) to Jacob Heaton, March 14, 1846. Chase MSS., vol.

XI.

130 Ohio Executive Documents, 1845, v. X, part 1, No. 1, II.

• 88
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     135

In the Campaign, Bebb, the Whig candidate, came

out for the repeal of the testimony clause of the Black

Laws and even asserted, in the Western Reserve, that

he favored the repeal of all the Black Laws.131 The

Democratic press at once appealed to race prejudice

against the negroes, the Coshocton Democrat asserting

that "He [Bebb] will at once recommend and advocate

passage of such laws as will place the negroes on the

same footing with white men. * * *"¹³² The Cin-

cinnati Advertiser (D) maintained that Bebb was in

favor of "placing the negroes on an equality with the

whites" and allowing them the same privileges in the

public schools.¹³³ The Washington Daily Union pointed

out that Bebb was the first candidate for governor who

ventured to stump the State on the principle of "Equal

Rights to the Negro."¹³⁴ Moreover, Bebb's position did

not go unchallenged in his own party. The Cincinnati

Daily Gazette (W) felt that repeal would be an invita-

tion to the blacks to come into the State and that Africa

was the best place for them.¹³⁵ The New York Express

thought that the Whig gubernatorial candidate should

not have endangered the success of his party by making

repeal an issue, but the Ohio State Journal defended him

by pointing out that it already was an issue.136 Bebb

found his position on the Black Laws so unpopular

among the Whigs of the central and southern portions

131 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), July 18, 1846.

132 Coshocton Democrat, quoted in Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly),

August 20, 1846.

133 Cincinnati Advertiser quoted in Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly),

August 27, 1846.

134 Washington Daily Union, November 2, 1846.

135 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, January 1, 1846.

136 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), November 5, 1846.

• 89
 

136      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of the State that he modified his earlier statements. In

Mercer County, he declared that the repeal of the testi-

mony clause would enable the slaveholder to prosecute

abolitionists by the use of negro testimony; and even

proposed laws to prevent the colonization of negroes in

Ohio, and to prohibit them from holding real estate.

Moreover, he reiterated these statements more em-

phatically at Dayton.¹³⁷ At Columbus, Bebb was care-

ful to deny that the repeal of the Black Laws would

bring about an influx of negroes.¹³⁸ The Whigs thus

clearly straddled the issue of the repeal of the Black

Laws by opposing such action in southern and central

Ohio and actively demanding it in northern Ohio.

The Democrats were also embarrassed by this ques-

tion which threatened to divide both parties if faced

squarely by the candidates. Tod, the Democratic can-

didate for Governor, ignored the issue until it became

known that, while a candidate for the State Senate from

Trumbull County in 1838, he had answered, in the af-

firmative, a question of the Youngstown Anti-Slavery

Society as to whether he favored the participation of all

residents of the State in the common school funds.¹³⁹

The Whigs of southern Ohio were horrified. "Are the

people of Ohio prepared to endorse such a sentiment?"

asked the Ohio State Journal. "Will they say, with

David Tod, admit the Blacks into our common schools,

along with their sons and daughters? This outstrips

Whigs, Liberty men and all; it is but once removed from

137 Chase to Giddings, October 20, 1846, quoted in "Selected Letters of

Salmon P. Chase, February 18, 1846 to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v.

VII, pp. 110-111.

138 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), September 26, 1846.

139 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), October 3, 1846.

• 90
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850       137

an advocacy of Amalgamation and Social Equality."¹⁴⁰

The Whigs industriously spread the report, in southern

Ohio, that Tod favored a repeal of the Black Laws.

This raised such a furore among the Democrats of Chil-

licothe that a query as to his real position was sent to

Tod, who answered categorically that he was not in

favor of repeal. His reply was printed in all the papers

of southern Ohio in order to reach as many voters as

possible.¹⁴¹

Although the election of 1846 resulted in the choice

of Bebb for governor and in the control of the General

Assembly by the Whigs, the latter did not repeal the

Black Laws. In December, 1846, however, Bartley

urged their repeal, arguing that it would not increase

the influx of blacks, and suggesting that something

might be done to discourage negro immigration.¹⁴²

Bebb, the incoming Whig governor, also recommended

the repeal. This provoked the retort from the Cincin-

nati Enquirer, "Aye, read it, ye Whigs of Ohio, who

claim that you are not in favor of repealing existing

laws, and making our State the asylum of all the free

negroes in the land."¹⁴³ That the Whig party was not

really in favor of the repeal of the Black Laws was

shown in the defeat, for clerk of the House, of Henry

A. Swift, a decided anti-slavery Whig, by E. G. Squier,

editor of the Scioto Gazette and a strong opponent of

140 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), October 8, 1846.

141 Democrats declared that Tod's views on the Black Laws had been

published in the Trumbull Democrat, his recognized mouthpiece, so that

everyone on the Western Reserve knew his real position. Ohio Statesman,

October 9, 1846.

142 Ohio Executive Documents, 1846, v. XI, part 1, No. 1, p. 10.

143 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 25, 1846.

• 91
 

138      Ohio Arch: and Hist. Society Publications

repeal.144 In the unsuccessful legislative struggle for

repeal, Bebb's conflicting promises and the unwilling-

ness of Whigs from southern Ohio to support the meas-

ure were clearly revealed. These enactments remained

on the statute-books to complicate the political situation

in 1848 and 1849.145 A large portion of the Democratic

party agreed with the Democrats of Mercer County,

who declared, in August, 1847, that they would cast

their votes for no one who was an Abolitionist in prin-

ciple or who favored the repeal of the Black Laws.¹⁴⁶

Even Brinkerhoff, the father of the Wilmot Proviso,

objected to a total repeal, admitting that he had "selfish-

ness enough greatly to prefer the welfare of my own

race to that of any other, and vindictiveness enough to

wish to leave and keep upon the shoulders of the South

the burden of the curse which they have themselves cre-

ated and courted."¹⁴⁷ This whole issue shows to a

marked degree the intra-state sectionalism at work in

the politics of Ohio in this decade.

The Liberty party polled four thousand more votes

in 1846 than in 1845.148 This was due, in part, to a

lack of interest in the Mexican War among the Ohio

Democrats; to the bitterness which followed the com-

promise of the Oregon claims; to the resignation of

Allen from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs;

and to the dissatisfaction of party leaders with the dis-

tribution of federal patronage. The Whigs appealed to

144 Ohio State Journal, December 8, 10, 1846.

145 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 9, 1847; Ohio Statesman, Jan-

uary 27, February 2, 1847.

146 Ohio Statesman, August 28, 1847.

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

148 Hart, Chase, p. 94.

• 92
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850              139

the labor vote by pointing to sneers at the masses by

southern Democrats,¹⁴⁹ and to statements favorable to

labor made by Bebb during the course of the cam-

paign.¹⁵⁰ The Whigs obtained twelve seats in Congress

while the Democrats won nine.151 A feature of the Con-

gressional election was the contest in the Twentieth Dis-

trict (Geauga, Cuyahoga, Ashtabula, and Lake) be-

tween Joshua R. Giddings, Whig; Zenas Blish, Demo-

crat; and Edward Wade, Liberty man. Due to the

intensity of his anti-slavery utterances and actions, Gid-

dings was able to hold the Whigs of the Western Re-

serve against Wade, a fact resulting in much bitterness

between the two men.152

In the meantime, the United States had entered a

War with Mexico, precipitated by the failure of the

Mexican Government to receive Slidell after a long

series of negotiations over debt complications and

claims against the Mexican Government. After the re-

fusal153 of Mexico to receive Slidell, General Zachary

 

149 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly) July 28, 1846.

¹⁵⁰ Massillon Gazette, quoted in Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), June

23, 1846.

151 Ohio Statesman, December 17, 1846.

152 In the Twelfth Congressional District (Athens, Hocking, Lawrence,

Gallia, Meigs) Calvary Morris, Whig, refused to withdraw from the race

after the Whigs regularly nominated Samuel F. Vinton, on the ground that

delegates favorable to him were prevented from taking their seats in the

nominating convention. Vinton defeated both his Whig and Democratic

opponents. Calvary Morris to McLean, September 12, 1846, McLean MSS.,

v. XII; Vinton to Greene, October 9, 1846, quoted in "Selections from the

William Greene Papers II," in loc cit., 1919, v. XIV, No. 1, p. 22.

153 This refusal of the Mexican Government to receive Slidell was

characterized by the national organ of the Democracy as a procedure which

should arouse the "pride and indignation" of the American people. Wash-

ington Daily Union, April 18, 1846.

• 93
 

140        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Taylor was ordered to the Rio Grande,154 in order to

defend Texas from possible Mexican attack, since that

country had threatened war in case of the annexation

of Texas. Although war had already been determined

upon by Polk and his Cabinet, the Mexican attack on

the troops of General Taylor placed the proposed war

in a much better light, and, in spite of the opposition of

Benton,155 Polk, on May 11, 1846, urged Congress to

recognize a state of war with Mexico on the grounds

of unredressed wrongs and the shedding of the "blood

of our fellow-citizens on our own soil."¹⁵⁶ Two days

later Congress voted that a state of war existed.157 The

Ohio State Journal characterized the war message as a

"labored" effort to make out a case in which the United

States really had been the aggressor.158 But the Journal

added that Ohio would honor the call for troops and

would "recognize no party lines, or distinctions, but at

the signal will march against those who oppose us in

this conflict."¹⁵⁹

Within a short time the Whigs of Ohio followed the

leadership of the Whigs of the Nation, in a most re-

 

154 House Documents, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., No. 69, p. 107; Channing,

op. cit., v. V, p. 554.

155 Benton on May 3, 1846, announced to Polk his aversion to a war

with Mexico. He thought the territory of United States did not go beyond

the Neuces River. Polk's Diary, v. I, p. 375.

156 The Democratic national party organ sounded the call to action with

the declaration that "The foreign foe dishonors and desecrates American

soil by his footsteps, and has made it red with American blood. Before

such a fact, a patriotic people can know--and an American Congress--

ought to know--no party divisions;" Richardson, Messages, v. IV, pp. 437-

443; Washington Daily Union, May 11, 1846.

157 Channing, op. cit., v. V, p. 557.

158 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), May 16, 1846.

159 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), May 21, 1846.

• 94
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   141

markable course of opposition to the War, although

only five of their representatives in Congress had voted

against its declaration.¹⁶⁰ The Whig press denounced

the course of the United States as a "continued repeti-

tion of wrong, outrage and hypocrisy" by which the

Government "In violation of existing treaties * * *

[had] come to the aid of her outlawed citizens, and

taken the territory in possession for the avowed purpose

of strengthening the slave position of the Union against

the free." The Torch-Light openly professed its sym-

pathy for the Mexicans because "They fight for their

country, their altar and their homes! We, for power,

for plunder, and extended rule! They are fighting for

liberty--we, to extend the area of slavery. They are

in the right, we are in the wrong."  Moreover, that

organ declared that it was not a war supported by the

whole country but brought about for the express pur-

pose of reflecting Polk in 1848.161 Although honoring

the call for troops, Governor Bartley, in his annual mes-

sage of December, 1846, declared that if the War were

begun for the purpose of acquiring territory he had no

hesitation "in pronouncing it a violation of the funda-

mental principles of our Government and of the spirit

and true intent of our national constitution."¹⁶²

As the war progressed and American armies pene-

trated Mexico, to the military glory of the Government,

the Ohio Whigs adopted a more positive course of op-

position.  In September, 1847, the Madison County

Whigs condemned the war as uncalled for, inexpedient,

160 They were: Delano, Giddings, Root, Tilden, and Vance. Giddings,

op. cit., pp. 252-253.

161 Xenia Torch-Light, May 21, 28, 1846.

162 Ohio Executive Documents, 1846, v. XI, part 1, No. 1, pp. 6-7.

• 95
 

142      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and unjust, and declared that it was "commenced by

James K. Polk, as president, for personal, political and

sectional aggrandizement, and not to redress National

wrong and vindicate National honor--to acquire terri-

tory for the use, benefit, and extension of Southern

Slavery and the augmentation of the Slave power in the

councils of our General Government."¹⁶³ The Ohio

State Journal declared that it was the duty of citizens

to demand a statement of the purpose of the War.¹⁶⁴

Two months later the Journal was convinced that it was

"vulgar greed" for territory which actuated the Amer-

ican Government.¹⁶⁵ The resolutions adopted by the

Whigs of Greene County, in May, 1847, are typical of

the resolutions passed in many county conventions.

They declared that the War was being waged "for the

acquisition of the territory of the Mexican Republic,

with a view to the extension of slavery and to give that

interest a preponderating influence in the councils of the

Nation at the expense of freedom and free labor * * *".

They added that Polk's order to the army to take pos-

session of the territory beyond Corpus Christi was a

"wanton, reckless and wicked assumption of power not

authorized by the Constitution and laws of the coun-

try," and urged the impeachment of the President. The

Greene County Whigs promised to oppose anyone who

favored the extension of American territory.¹⁶⁶ The

latter was a distinct thrust at the candidacy of General

Taylor, to whom many Whigs were turning as a presi-

 

163 Ohio State Journal, September 11, 1847.

164 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), March 20, 1847.

165 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), May 1, 1847.

166 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), May 22, 1847.

• 96
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850         143

dential possibility in 1848, because of his astounding

military successes.167

In a famous speech in the Senate, February 11,

1847, Corwin climaxed this Whig opposition to the War,

and thereby made himself a contender for the presi-

dency in 1848. After a review of the relations between

Mexico and the United States which led him to the con-

clusion that the sending of Taylor into the disputed area

was the cause of the War, he combatted the argument

that the United States needed more territory. It was

in this connection that he made the oft-quoted statement

that "If I were a Mexican I would tell you 'Have you

not room in your own country to bury your dead men?

If you come into mine we will greet you with bloody

hands, and welcome you to hospitable graves.' " The

strategy of Corwin's argument, in calling attention to

the struggle over slavery in any territory which might

be obtained as a result of the war, was apparent, and he

added the warning, "We stand this day on the crumbling

brink of that gulf--we see its bloody eddies wheeling

and boiling before us--shall we not pause before it be

too late? * * * Let us abandon all idea of ac-

quiring further territory¹⁶⁸ and by consequence cease at

once to prosecute this war."169

The Whig party in Ohio received Corwin's speech

167 The position of the Greene County Whigs met the cordial response

of the Cincinnati Atlas and the Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), June 1,

1847.

168 Seven days before he delivered this famous speech Corwin had ex-

plained to Follett that "If we resolve there shall be no further acquisition

of territory, the war will die in 24 hours." Corwin to Follett, February 4,

1847, quoted in "Selections from the Follett Papers, II," in loc. cit., 1914,

v. IX, No. 3, p. 90.

169 Josiah Morrow, Life and Speeches of Thomas Corwin, pp. 277-314.

• 97
 

144      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

with mixed emotions. It was highly praised by the

Cleveland Herald as an expose of the miserable, wicked

and unholy acts" of the Government.¹⁷⁰ John Teesdale,

a Whig leader of Columbus and manager of McLean's

candidacy for 1848, wrote that Corwin's speech was ad-

mired by the Whigs, but that it could not make him

president.171 Corwin's position was popular with the

radically anti-slavery portion of the Whig party, but it

was equally clear that his "ultra doctrine" of withhold-

ing supplies from the government in time of war would

make him unpopular with the masses of the people.¹⁷²

The Ohio State Journal recognized the situation clearly

in the statement that the tendency was towards the se-

lection of a military man for 1848 and that no man in

civil life would have a chance to be nominated.¹⁷³ The

Whig members of the Senate failed to support Corwin's

position, and a few weeks later the latter published a

letter stating that they had agreed to support him but at

the last moment had left him to face an excited public

opinion alone.¹⁷⁴

The attitude of the Whigs on the war now became

clarified. Sectionalism and partisan opposition to the

conduct of the war had asserted itself under the cloak

of a desire to save the country from civil strife, which

the Whigs asserted would follow an extension of Amer-

ican territory. The Whigs of North and South now

were willing to unite in opposition to the extension of

170 Cleveland Herald quoted in Ohio State Journal (Tri-weekly), March

2, 1847.

171 Teesdale to McLean, February 23, 1847. McLean MSS., v. XIII.

172 A. I. Brown to McLean, February 26, 1847. McLean MSS., v. XIII.

173 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), May 27, 1847.

174 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, May 19, 1847.

• 98
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   145

territory, thus giving further proof that the Mexican

War was not the result of a slaveholder's' conspiracy to

obtain more territory for slavery.¹⁷⁵ The Whigs of

Ohio felt free to embarrass the government in the con-

duct of the war by denouncing its injustice; by advo-

cating the withholding of supplies; and by advancing

the argument that renunciation of territory would end

the war and save the country from civil strife.

The Democracy of Ohio came to the defense of the

Administration and advocated a vigorous prosecution of

the War. The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer condemned

Bartley's message of December, 1846, with the predic-

tion that if its policy were adopted "we should be

spurned and spit upon by every petty State and Sever-

eignty in the world. Our national honor would be

mocked--our prowess derided--our treaties trampled

upon--our commerce despoiled and our people op-

pressed by every nation on the face of the earth."176

That organ also approved Polk's message of December,

1846. The Federal Union, a Democratic paper of

Georgia, had asserted that the purpose of the War was

to secure a balance of power to the South in the Senate.

When this assertion was broadcast over Ohio by the

Whig press, the Democrats vigorously denied it.¹⁷⁷ The

Democrats officially announced their stand by a set of

resolutions introduced in the Ohio House of Repre-

sentatives on December 15, 1846, by Clement L. Vallan-

digham. The fifth section asserted a belief in the jus-

tice of the War and advocated hearty support of the

175 C. S. Boucher, "In Re That Aggressive Slavocracy," The Mississippi

Valley Historical Review, v. VIII, pp. 13-80.

176 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 10, 1846.

177 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 3, 1846.

Vol. XXXVIII--10

• 99
 

146        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Administration.¹⁷⁸ The Vallandigham resolutions failed

by a strict party vote and the Whigs carried resolutions

condemning the War and the course of the President.179

The Democrats charged the Whigs with encouraging the

enemy, and leading the Mexicans to believe that a Whig

victory in the elections of 1847 would mean the with-

holding of supplies from the army, and the withdrawal

of American troops.¹⁸⁰

Democratic county and district conventions invaria-

bly adopted resolutions defending the justice of the war

and condemning the Whigs for their opposition.¹⁸¹ Spe-

cial pro-war meetings were called to endorse the Polk

administration. At Cincinnati, resolutions were adopted

applauding the conduct of the war and calling for its

vigorous prosecution, demanding ample indemnity, and

condemning the actions of the Whigs as "factious" and

"unpatriotic." Some of the most prominent men in this

meeting were Charles H. Brough, James H. Swing,

Charles Reemelin, George E. Pugh, Charles Cist, Her-

man    Roedter, and     Clement L. Vallandigham.182  On

January 8, 1847, the assembled Democracy of the State

178 Ohio Statesman, December 15, 1846.

179 Ohio Statesman, December 14, 1846.

180 Ohio Statesman, October 7, 1847; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, May

28, 1847; The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer declared that the Whigs had done

more to prolong the war and to cause bloodshed than had all the armed

forces of Mexico. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, May 18, 1847.

181 The Democrats of Portage County approved the War and "Re-

solved, That the factious opposition to the war, in which the country is

engaged, is but the reiteration of the sentiments of the Tories of the

Revolution, and the federalists of 1812, and that the course pursued by them

is calculated to 'prolong the war eternally!'" Ohio Statesman, September

30, October 2, 1847.

182 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 25, 1847; similar meetings were

held at Dayton and Canton. Washington Daily Union, March 23, 1847.

• 100
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850           147

gave its approval to the origin and conduct of the

War.183    The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer summarized

the Democratic arguments as to its justice in the state-

ment that "Negotiations had been refused with insult

--the country was ours--or if not so, beyond a ques-

tion we had a valid claim, and therefore a right peace-

ably to take possession of and hold it--our minister so

advised-our General so advised--it was the dictate of

self-defense--who will undertake to say the act was

wrong?"¹⁸⁴ The Democratic newspapers in Ohio main-

tained that the United States was bound to protect all

of Texas; that Texan territory extended to the Rio

Grande River; and that, therefore, the ordering of Tay-

lor to the Rio Grande was not a usurpation on the part

of the President.185 Democratic members of Congress

flooded the State with documents defending the War,¹⁸⁶

while the Whigs sent in documents to prove its injustice

and the domination of the Administration by the slave

power.187

Corwin's speech in the United States Senate enabled

the Democrats to take the patriotic position of support-

ing the Government in a time of crisis.188       The Union

183 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 14, 1847.

184 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, April 26, 1847.

185 Washington Daily Union, December 14, 1846.

186 Edward Archbold to Allen, June 8, 1846, Alien MSS., v. XIV;

David Smith to Allen, January 15, 1847, Allen MSS., v. XV.

187 P. B. Hyers to Allen, January 12, 1847. Allen MSS., v. XV.

188 It had been proposed by a Corwin admirer that his speech should

be read in all the churches. Regarding this, the Circleville Watchman (D)

suggested that the following hymn be sung on that occasion:

"Traitor to thy country--go!

Haste thee quick to Mexico!

O'er thee let her banner wave,

Make her furnish thee a grave,

• 101
 

148       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

declared that the address was the "most violent ana-

thema ever hurled against the American Govern-

ment."¹⁸⁹   The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer concluded it

was Corwin's intention to "place himself at the head

of all the self-sanctified isms which oppose the war and

sympathize with the enemy       *  *   *."190   The Demo-

crats of Miami County saw in Corwin's speech the coun-

terpart of the Federalist attitude toward the War of

1812,191 and the Democrats of Brown County advised

Corwin to submit his name as a candidate for the pres-

idency of Mexico.192   On December 23, 1847, State Sen-

ator Reemelin introduced a petition in the Senate,

signed by eighty-one citizens of Richland County, re-

questing the General Assembly to invite Corwin to re-

sign and to confine him in the State penitentiary until

the close of the war. In the debate on the petition, Ed-

son B. Olds (D) opposed imprisonment as too gentle a

punishment.    "No," said Olds, "Let not the black pall

of oblivion cover the traitor, nor hide his treason, but

rather let him live ten thousand years, an object of scorn

and hatred, that posterity may point to him, and say

 

And 'scape thy injured country's hate,

So richly won a Tory's fate!

Columbia's free men own thee not--

Ohio blushes at the thought!

Rank with Arnold's deeds, thy name

Will in hist'ry share his fame,

In every page in every clime,

Now, and through all coming time."

--Ohio Statesman, April 26, 1847.

189 Washington Daily Union, February 23, 1847.

190 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, March 2, 1847.

191 Ohio Statesman, April 7, 1847.

192 Ohio Statesman, April 23, 1847.

• 102
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     149

there goes a traitor  *  *  *."¹⁹³ But with the extreme

anti-slavery Whigs, Corwin suddenly became popular.

Sumner wrote from Massachusetts, "Corwin has done

well for Ohio. His speech has touched the public heart.

Is he sound enough on slavery to be trusted as Presi-

dent ?"194

Had there been a clear understanding at the begin-

ning of the War that no accretions of territory would

result from it, much of the sectional controversy would

have disappeared. But the intention of the Adminis-

tration to secure more territory was evidenced by the

Slidell mission before the War began. What would be

the attitude of the Democratic party of Ohio toward

the addition of more territory? In an executive session

of the Senate in August, 1846, Allen had declared that

the United States should secure California as well as

the Rio Grande frontier. "This Government should

make it an ultimatum of peace that England should

not obtain that territory * * * Whatever may be

the object of the war, the object of the peace should be

to get California."¹⁹⁵ In February, 1847, the Cincin-

nati Daily Enquirer thought that Mexico must be made

to "atone" for the commencement of the War and

"bound over to keep the peace in the future" by the ces-

sion of California and New Mexico to the United States,

and it had no sympathy with the fears of the Cincinnati

Herald (Liberty) that slavery would be introduced into

193 The Ohio State Journal denounced the Democratic resolutions as

"foul and malignant" and Olds as a "low, truckling demagogue, whose own

party spurns him." Ohio Statesman, December 23, 1847.

194 Sumner to Chase, March 12, 1847. Chase MSS., v. XII.

195 Extract from a MSS. copy of speech in Allen MSS., v. XV; Mc-

Grane, op. cit., p. 123.

• 103
 

150        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

those territories.196 To the Democrats it appeared that

Whig opposition to the acquisition of new territory

sprang from the same motives as those which had ac-

tuated the Federalists in their opposition to the Louisi-

ana Purchase.197 In February, 1847, Berrien, a Whig

Senator from Georgia, introduced, as an amendment to

a bill appropriating three million dollars to negotiate a

peace, a provision that the War should not be waged to

obtain any part of Mexico.         The Democrats of Ohio

considered Whigs like Berrien as men with "Mexican

hearts and Mexican arguments."198         They agreed with

their national organ that the War was for the whole

nation, that it was not being waged to extend the area of

slavery, and that the accusations of the Whig press to

the contrary were efforts to array one part of the Union

against another.¹⁹⁹ The Democrats declared that the

Whig plan of "no more territory" presented the real

issue between Democracy and Federalism. "To the

Democratic party the extension of our Union and the

spread of our free institutions are commanded at once

by the love of liberty and the pride of patriotism."²⁰⁰

In accord with this sentiment, Democratic meetings

throughout the State demanded territory as a "just in-

 

196 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 15, 1847.

197 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, May 1, 1847.

198 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 10, 1847; "We are to have, ac-

cording to Mr. Berrien, no indemnity for the expenses to which we have

been subjected by the atrocious conduct of Mexico; no atonement for the

refusal of that obstinate power to receive the olive-branch of peace,

tendered by the hands of Mr. Slidell, our Minister, and since then, over

and over again; no guarantee against future outrages; nothing, in short,

to satisfy our national integrity and honor, and vindicate our cause in the

eyes of the world." Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 11, 1847.

199 Washington Daily Union, November 25, 1847.

200 Washington Daily Union, August 14, 1847.

• 104
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   151

demnity" for the past and a "reasonable security" for

the future.²⁰¹

Having taken the position that the United States

should acquire territory as an indemnity for the War,

the Democrats were faced with the embarrassing ques-

tion of slavery in that territory. The introduction of

the Wilmot Proviso, in the shape of an amendment to

an appropriation bill, providing that slavery should not

exist in any territory which might be acquired from

Mexico, made this a direct issue.²⁰² The Proviso was

fathered by Jacob Brinkerhoff (D), of Ohio,²⁰³ but was

introduced into the House by David Wilmot (D), of

Pennsylvania, because of Brinkerhoff's opposition to

the annexation of Texas. The Ohio State Journal ap-

proved the Proviso and rejoiced in the thought that it

would "blunt the appetite of certain members for ac-

quisition."²⁰⁴ A portion of the Democratic press disap-

proved of the Proviso, but papers like the Enquirer had

no sympathy with the argument that the South had a

right to demand slavery in the new territory.  "Let

the institution and the rights acquired under it be re-

spected where they now exist. But to push it beyond--

to extend--to new-create it--that is a good deal further

along * * *. If the South has not been compen-

sated in the triumph of those measures and men (of the

Democratic party)--in the policy and in the honors and

the emoluments of the Republic--let the South ascertain

the deficit and send in her bill; the Democracy of the

North and West can pay it in many ways beside the

201 Ohio Statesman, July, August, September, 1847.

202 Cong. Globe, 29th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 1217.

203 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, p. 451.

204 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), August 13, 1846.

• 105
 

152      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

barter of their free votes to the new creation and exten-

sion of slavery.²⁰⁵ Nearly all the Democratic leaders

of Ohio condemned the extension of slavery, but took

the position that it could not exist in any of the terri-

tories acquired from Mexico until it was provided for

by positive enactments. The purpose of the agitation

of the slavery question, they concluded, was simply to

embarrass the Administration in the conduct of the

War.

The attitude of the Democrats on the question of

slavery in the territories was revealed in their local

county conventions. The Democrats of Summit County

would respect slavery in those states where it existed

but opposed its extension to any new territory;206 while

the Democracy of Fairfield County deplored the agita-

tion of all subjects not essential to victory and recom-

mended that the Wilmot Proviso be "silently disposed

of" by the ensuing Democratic State Convention.²⁰⁷ The

resolutions of the Democrats of Montgomery County,

drawn up largely by C. L. Vallandigham, were signifi-

cant and prophetic. These reechoed Jefferson's compact

theory of the Constitution; declared that Congress

could only require an incoming State to have a repub-

lican form of government; that slavery was a municipal

institution and, therefore, the people of the territories

should determine whether it should exist in the state at

the moment when it was ready to enter the Union.²⁰⁸

It will be observed that this was virtually the position

taken by Senator Cass in his doctrine of popular sover-

205 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 7, 1846; March 6, 1847.

206 Ohio Statesman, October 9, 1847.

207 Ohio Statesman, December 30, 1847.

208 Ohio Statesman, December 23, 1847.

• 106
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850            153

eignty enunciated somewhat later.²⁰⁹ The resolutions

adopted in Belmont County also suggested this solution.

The resolutions of the Democrats of Wayne County, typ-

ical of the procedure of many of the county conventions,

approved the War and indemnification by means of ter-

ritories and opposed the extension of slavery to any

part of the new territories; but disapproved of the at-

tachment of the Wilmot Proviso to any bill for settling

the terms of peace with Mexico.²¹⁰

Thus the Democracy of Ohio anticipated Cass with

the doctrine of popular sovereignty and deserted the

position taken by Polk's official organ, which had not

only opposed the Proviso but had urged that slavery

should be allowed in any territory south of the Old Mis-

souri Compromise line which was to be extended to the

Pacific.211 Nevertheless, the Democrats of Ohio, un-

willing to break their party ranks, vigorously opposed

the measure passed by the Whig Legislature instructing

the Senators of Ohio to support any measure excluding

slavery from territories to be derived from Mexico, on

the ground that the motive of the Whigs was "hostility

to the war with Mexico."²¹² The official organ of the

Pennsylvania Democrats deplored the agitation of the

209 McMaster, op. cit., VII, p. 496.

210 Ohio Statesman, December 14, 1847. The Democrats of Perry

County opposed the Wilmot Proviso because they considered it unwise to

legislate for territory not yet acquired, and because they thought that the

people of the territory were the best judge of what their particular institu-

tions should be. Ohio Statesman, December 10, 1847. The Democrats of

this county thus prepared themselves to approve either the popular sov-

ereignty doctrine of Cass or the position that Congress could legislate for

the territories.

211 Washington Daily Union, January 11, 1847.

212 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 27, 1847.

• 107
 

154      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

question and hoped "that our friends would all see the

propriety of refusing to encumber the extension of our

territory with a question so full of danger to the nation,

and upon which so many prejudices equally inflamma-

tory and uncontrollable are entertained on both

sides."²¹³ In fact so anxious was the Administration

to avoid the embarrassing topic of the Proviso that Polk

offered Wilmot the ministry to France if he would aban-

don his proposal.214 Brinkerhoff's proposal of the Pro-

viso also has been partially explained in some quarters

by Polk's refusal to grant him an office as paymaster

in the Army,215 and to his dissatisfaction with the tariff

measures of the Administration.²¹⁶

The Democracy of Ohio rebelled against certain pro-

posals of southern Democrats to make opposition to the

Wilmot Proviso a test of party loyalty. In September,

1847, James Buchanan warned his party against the

agitation of the slavery question and proposed the ex-

tension of the Missouri Compromise line to any new

territory which might be acquired,²¹⁷ but there were few

Democratic conventions in Ohio willing to concede so

much. To the proposal of the Calhounites that the

South make support of the extension of slavery a party

test, the Cincinnati Enquirer returned the warning that

secession would be the result,218 and reminded the Dem-

ocrats of the South that the northern Democracy had

 

213 Pennsylvania quoted in Washington Daily Union, January 18, 1847.

214 Dunlap to McLean, March 2, 1847, McLean MSS., v. XIII.

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

216 Polk's Diary, v. I, p. 497.

217 Ohio State Journal, September 8, 1847.

218 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, March 26, 1847.

• 108
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850               155

held the reins of government but four years during its

sixty years of existence.219

Almost without exception, the Ohio Whigs opposed

the extension of slavery into any new            territory.   The

Ohio   State Journal indignantly exclaimed that "It is

vain to talk of dark ages, and of ignorant people held

in vassalage by a Federal Aristocracy, when even in

this day of light in politics and Christianity in religion,

the bold claim is put forth, that this free Republic shall

conquer Empires only to make their people slaves."²²⁰

Petitions were introduced into the Senate of Ohio by

W. L.      Perkins, a     Whig     Senator     from    Ashtabula

County, asking the General Assembly to declare the dis-

solution of the Union and recall Ohio's Representatives

in Congress, rather than add new slave territory to the

Union.²²¹    Such sentiments represent the extreme anti-

slavery views of some Ohioans; but national Whig lead-

ers, realizing the intensity of opposition to the extension

of slavery, soon developed the principle of opposition to

219 The Cincinnati Enquirer took an advanced position in opposition to

the extension of slavery, along with a few Democratic leaders, like Jacob

Brinkerhoff, who had boasted of his authorship of the Wilmot Proviso in

the campaign of 1846. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, March 9, 1847; Ohio

State Journal, (Tri-weekly), October 3, 1846; Brinkerhoff claimed that

the South was the first to violate the Missouri Compromise. "Twice have

Oregon Bills passed this House under a yea and nay vote, and each time

every Southern man on this floor, save five in one case and six in the other,

voted against incorporating into the bill the anti-slavery provision of the

Ordinance of 1787." Cong. Globe, 29th Cong. 2nd Sess., p. 378.

220 Ohio State Journal, February 6, 1847.

221 Ohio State Journal, January 14, 1847; Ohio Statesman, January 14,

1847; A similar petition was sent to the Senate in December, 1847, by citi-

zens of Stark, Columbiana, and Guernsey Counties. Ohio Statesman, De-

cember 10, 1847.

• 109
 

156        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

any extension of American territory,²²² and the Whigs

of Ohio fell in behind this program. To unite the

party, Corwin denounced the Abolitionists and also op-

posed the further extension of American territory, in a

speech to a Whig gathering at Carthage, in September,

1847.223   In Corwin's view     such questions were danger-

ously apt to sever the bonds of union between the dif-

ferent sections of the country and should, for that rea-

son, be avoided. He asserted, however, that if terri-

tories were added, he favored the application of the Wil-

mot Proviso.224   The chief Whig organ of the State was

thoroughly in sympathy with the new strategy of op-

posing all annexations and thereby avoiding a sectional

controversy, and accused the Ashtabula Sentinel (Gid-

dings' organ) of unorthodoxy, because the latter in-

sisted on the policy of opposition to further extension

of slave territory, rather than opposition to all exten-

sion of territory.²²⁵ Almost without exception, Whig

county conventions condemned the addition of terri-

tory.^"226   The Whigs of Cuyahoga County, the center of

222 The Washington Union ascribed the authorship of the "no more ter-

ritory" principle to Thomas Ewing. Washington Daily Union, September

16, 1847.

223 Ohio Statesman, September 22, 1847.

224 Ohio Statesman, September 29, 1847.

225 Ohio State Journal, September 7, 1847.

226 Typical of this sentiment was the "no territory" plank of the Butler

County Whigs which "Resolved, That as we have ample room within the

present limits of the United States for the fullest and freest enjoyment of

all we now possess, and for all the purposes of settlement for many years

to come, we are opposed to the admission of any new territory into the

Union, as by doing so, we would bring about the most violent sectional dif-

ferences between the North and the South and thereby seriously endanger

if not totally destroy our free institutions," but asserted that if any more

territory were added it should not be open to slavery. Madison County

Whig resolutions in Ohio State Journal, September 11, 1847; the Scioto

• 110
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850               157

the most intense opposition to southern influence, de-

clared   "unqualified    opposition    to     any  further annexa-

tion of territory to this Union."²²⁷                Corwin's middle-of-

the-road speech at Carthage undermined the confi-

dence of the Liberty men who had favored a union of

anti-slavery men behind his candidacy for president,

following his famous speech of February 11 in the Sen-

ate in opposition to the granting of supplies.²²⁸           Chase,

moreover, thought that his attack on the Abolitionists

pleased the pro-slavery men far more than his bitter

condemnation of the War had offended them.²²⁹

The Mexican War, with all the questions it involved,

became the real issue in the fall elections of 1847 in

Ohio. From a stage of mild condemnation of the War,

the Whigs had proceeded through all the phases of op-

Gazette (W) favored the Berrien resolutions rather than the Wilmot Pro-

viso because "That of Wilmot admitted the principle that it was right to

wrest territory from Mexico. That of Berrien expressly denied any such

right. That of Wilmot was narrow and sectional, compared with the

other, calculated to array the Northern and Southern portions of the Union

against each other--while that of Berrien would have had the tendency

to unite all good men, of all sections and all parties, against dismembering

Mexico, under any pretence whatever." Quoted in Ohio State Journal,

November 18, 1847. Montgomery County Whig resolutions in Ohio State

Journal, September 16, 1847. The Ohio State Journal declares that two

reasons for its opposition to any extension of territory were: to rid politics

of the slavery question and to show the world that the United States did

not enter the war for conquest. Ohio State Journal, August 18, 1847. The

Whig position was well shown in resolutions of a large gathering of Whigs

at Lebanon at which ex-Governor Morrow, Governor Bebb, Lewis D.

Campbell, R. C. Schenck, and Thomas Corwin were present. Ohio State

Journal, September 1, 1847. Ohio State Journal, January 5, 1848.

227 Ohio State Journal, September 14, 1847.

228 M. Sturges to Chase, October 25, 1847. Chase MSS., v. XIII.

229 Chase to Sumner, September 22, 1847, quoted in "Selected Letters of

Salmon P. Chase, III, February 18, 1846 to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902,

v. II, pp. 122-123.

• 111
 

158        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

position, such as condemnation of expenses,230, discour-

agement of enlistment of armed forces,231 opposition to

the granting of supplies,²³² and finally to opposition to

the further extension of American territory, until the

Democrats were able to make the election a test of pa-

triotism.²³³ The Ohio State Journal proposed a great

anti-War State Convention, at Columbus,²³⁴ but this did

not materialize. The Cincinnati Daily Gazette suggested

that the people express themselves in local conventions.²³⁵

The Cincinnati Atlas and the Cleveland True Democrat

favored    a   state-wide    convention²³⁶     but   the   Elyria

Courier saw in this proposal too much that resembled

the famous Hartford Convention.²³⁷ Although in the

language of the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer (D), "The

issue is made up * * * between those who sus-

tain the cause of the country, and those who oppose

it,^"238 neither party forgot that the apportionment of

the State for legislative purposes was a duty of the next

Assembly and that the election of a United States sena-

230 Ohio State Journal, January 7, 1847.

231 Wall to Allen, June 2, 1846; Joseph Burns to Allen, June 8, 1846,

Allen MSS., v. XIV.

232 Morris to McLean, December 22, 1847, McLean MSS., v. XIV;

Teesdale to McLean, April 3, 1847, McLean MSS., v. XIII; Woods to

McLean, April 17, 1847, McLean MSS., v. XIII.

233 See Ohio Statesman, July-October, 1847.

234 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), April 13, 1847.

235 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), April 17, 1847.

236 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), April 17, 1847.

237 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), April 27, 1847.

238 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 11, 1847. Earlier in the year the

Enquirer had declared: "We have presented to us, by the Whig leaders, in

so many words, the issues whether the country is, or is not to be sustained,

when at war with a foreign enemy. Whether her flag is to be borne aloft

in triumph, until peace be honorably acquired, and permanently established-

or be trailed in the dust, an emblem of weakness, and an'object of scorn."

Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, March 19, 1847.

• 112
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850       159

tor to succeed William Allen would take place in the

following session.239

The election returned seven Democrats and twelve

Whigs to the Senate and thirty-one Democrats and

forty-one Whigs to the House of Representatives of

Ohio.²⁴⁰ The Dayton Empire (D) interpreted the re-

sults as an approval of Corwin's course in opposing the

War,²⁴¹ but the Ohio Statesman denied this, and pointed

to a Democratic majority of 1,563 as proof that the

State was not anti-War.²⁴²

While the political parties in Ohio were maneuver-

ing for position on the questions of the further exten-

sion of American territory and the character of the

municipal institutions in such territories, the friends of

the several candidates for the presidential nomination

in 1848 were pushing the claims of their favorites. It

is probable that Corwin was the first choice of the

Whigs of Ohio. He was popular with the masses of

the people whom he swayed by his captivating oratory.

With the attention of the Nation centered upon him

by his brilliant defense of General Harrison, in 1839,

Corwin had been elected governor of Ohio, in 1840, and

United States senator in 1844. In 1845, Corwin Clubs

were formed in Ohio to urge his claims to the presi-

dency in 1848,243 and in 1847 a movement originated

among the Whig members of the Legislature to urge

239 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 29, 1847; Cleveland Herald,

quoted in Ohio State Journal, September 17, 1847.

240 Ohio Statesman, October 22, 1847.

241 Dayton Empire, quoted in Ohio Statesman, October 20, 1847.

242 Ohio Statesman, October 26, 29, 1847.

243 Ohio State Journal, August 2, 1845.

• 113
 

160      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

his claims upon the party leaders in Washington.²⁴⁴ This

did not attain much strength, however, because the

party leaders at the Capital were aware of Corwin's

weakness in the country at large.²⁴⁵ Corwin's opposi-

tion to the granting of supplies and his severe castiga-

tion of the Administration allied him with the most bit-

ter opponents of slavery and southern influence. It has

been shown that the Liberty men thought of throwing

their support to him on this account, but Corwin consid-

ered his anti-slavery principles as of secondary impor-

tance, and Chase, as the protagonist of Democratic prin-

ciples, could not accept so ardent a Whig. The Ohio

State Journal favored Corwin, and on April 10, 1847,

asserted, in connection with his endorsement by the

Whigs of Geauga County and the favoritism shown to

Taylor by the Philadelphia United States Gazette, that

"Our motto is 'Soldiers for the war--Civilians for the

State.'" Corwin's opposition to the Administration and

his fiery denunciation of the War made him popular in

the Western Reserve, and before the end of 1847 most

Whig county conventions had recorded their opposition

to the further extension of American territory and had

indicated their preference for Corwin.²⁴⁶ But the latter

had no chance to obtain the support of the Whigs of the

South, and the party leaders in Ohio soon realized the

weakness of their favorite son outside the State. The

editor of the Wheeling Times thought that Corwin's

speech on supplies had ruined his chance for the presi-

244 Teesdale to McLean, February 2, 1847. McLean MSS., v. XIII,

245 N. H. Swayne to McLean, February 11, 1847, McLean MSS., v.

XIII; Samuel Galloway to McLean, February 11, 1847, McLean MSS.,

v. XIII.

246 Ohio State Journal, September 18, 1847.

• 114
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850           161

dency,²⁴⁷ while Whig leaders in New        York concluded

that the speech indicated that he had abandoned his as-

pirations for the presidency.²⁴⁸ In September, 1847,

most of the leading Whigs in Massachusetts favored

Corwin's nomination, but Flamen Ball, Chase's protege,

after an interview with them, concluded that Corwin's

anti-War speech might defeat him in that State.²⁴⁹ By

that time, it was also evident to John Teesdale, Mc-

Lean's lieutenant in Ohio, that the Democrats had used

certain passages of Corwin's speech, touching upon the

motives and bravery of the soldiers, to such good effect

that Corwin was obnoxious to the volunteers, many of

whom had now returned from the front.²⁵⁰ By May

the Ohio State Journal admitted the drift to Taylor and

the unpopularity of Corwin's position, and reluctantly

recognized that no civilian had a chance to obtain the

presidency.251 The efforts of Corwin and his followers

henceforth were directed to bring about the defeat of

Taylor and to bargain for political consideration in re-

turn for their support.

It was the irony of fate that, instead of manufactur-

ing a Democratic president, which the Whigs charged

 

247 Teesdale to McLean, April 3, 1847. McLean MSS., v. XII.

248 Harvey to McLean, August 1, 1847, McLean MSS., v. XIII. A New

York Whig wrote that although Corwin's violent opposition to the War

had helped him in some places, "with the masses of our people (whose im-

pulses are always patriotic) the wagon-boy has missed a figure. The rank

and file of Mr. Corwin's supporters are not to be found here, except with

the ultra anti-war men....." Dowling to McLean, August 17, 1847, McLean

MSS., v. XIII.

249 Ball to Chase, September 1, 1847, Chase MSS., v. I, Pa.

250 Teesdale to McLean, September 23, 1847, McLean MSS., v. XIII;

see also letter of Harvey to McLean, March 16, 1847, McLean MSS., v.

XIII.

251 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), May 27, 1847.

Vol. XXXVIII--11

• 115
 

162       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

was its purpose, the Mexican War produced a Whig

military hero whom the anti-slavery leaders could not

defeat. Early in 1847, strong indications of popular

enthusiasm for Taylor came from local nominating con-

ventions and the party press of the country.²⁵²      This

movement was greeted with open defiance by the Whigs

of the Western Reserve,²⁵3 the Cleveland True Demo-

crat (a radical anti-slavery Whig paper, edited by Ed-

ward Stowe Hamlin), declaring that it would support

no man for the presidency unless he were openly pledged

against the further annexation of territory and the ex-

tension of slavery.²⁵⁴ In Ashtabula County, at a meet-

ing of Whigs which took the same position, Giddings

announced that he would oppose Taylor.²⁵⁵       The Ohio

State Journal was more moderate, although it consid-

ered the movement to nominate Taylor premature, and

announced that it was not working for the nomination

of any particular person.²⁵⁶    On the other hand, the

Xenia Torch-Light (W) denounced Taylor in such

scathing terms that it was mistaken for an abolition

newspaper by readers in other states.2⁵⁷ Nevertheless,

the Whigs defended General Taylor against charges

that he made indiscreet utterances concerning the con-

duct of the War,258 and charged that the War Depart-

252 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 437-542.

253 John Woods, a prominent Whig, wrote that "He (Taylor) must oc-

cupy a very different position before the country from what he does at

present before I can vote for him." Woods to McLean, April 17, 1847.

McLean MSS., v. XIII.

254 Cleveland True Democrat, January 3, 1847.

255 Cleveland American, May 26, 1847, quoted in T. C. Smith, op. cit.,

pp. 108-109.

256 Ohio State Journal, January 30, 1847.

257 Washington Daily Union, May 20, 1847.

258 Ibid., January 26, 1847; Ohio State Journal, April 6, 1847.

• 116
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850            163

ment had refused supplies to Taylor in the hope of de-

stroying his military reputation.²⁵⁹ With further news

of Taylor's astounding victories in Mexico, the move-

ment in his behalf invaded Ohio, and in April, a meet-

ing of Cincinnati Whigs placed "Old Zach" before the

people as their choice for the presidency.²⁶⁰ Taylor's

admirers in Chillicothe adopted laudatory resolutions,²⁶¹

and Thomas B. Stevenson, editor of the Cincinnati Atlas

(W) and a friend of Clay, favored Clay's withdrawal

in favor of Taylor.²⁶² Chase confided to Sumner that

Taylor's attitude on the tariff and a United States Bank

would make him acceptable to the Whigs of Ohio in

spite of the fact that he was a slaveholder.²⁶³ By May,

Stevenson, who would "joyfully go into a Buena Vista

battle" for Taylor, was forced to admit to Crittenden,

a Kentucky leader of the movement for Taylor, that

the support of the latter by the Whig party of Ohio

could not be relied upon because a large element refused

to vote for a slaveholder.²⁶⁴ The proposal to place Cor-

win on the ticket with Taylor, a proposal which Corwin

was willing to accept,²⁶⁵ did little to allay the sectional

spirit among the Whigs of Ohio, and the Hamilton

 

259 Ohio State Journal, February 2, 1847; Ohio Statesman, May 28,

1847; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February 6, April 6, June 18, July 9, 1847;

McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 455-456.

260 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), April 20, 1847.

²⁶¹ Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), April 15, 1847; The Chillicothe

Gazette came out strongly in favor of the nomination of Taylor, quoted in

Ohio Statesman, April 23, 1847.

262 Stevenson to Letcher, April 23, 1847. Crittenden MSS., v. X.

263 Chase to Sumner, April 24, 1847, quoted in "Selected Letters of Sal-

mon P. Chase, February 18, 1846 to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v. II,

p. 116.

264 Stevenson to Crittenden, May 1, 1847. Crittenden MSS., v. X.

265 Stevenson to Crittenden, May 1, 1847. Crittenden MSS., v. X.

• 117
 

164        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

News declared that the Whigs "have no desire to pre-

sent the people with a ticket baited with blood on one

side and olives on the other."²⁶6

In the hope of presenting Taylor's candidacy more

forcefully to the people of Ohio, the Cincinnati Morning

Signal published a letter from the candidate, evoked by

an editorial favoring his nomination,²⁶⁷ in which Taylor

expressed his willingness to become a candidate by the

"spontaneous" action of the people, but under no cir-

cumstances would he permit himself "to be the candidate

of any party, or yield (himself) to party schemes."²⁶⁸

To the Democrats this letter seemed a "pointed rebuke"

to the Whigs²⁶9 and many staunch Whigs were disap-

pointed because Taylor did not avow Whig principles.

The Lebanon       Star asked, "What individual, of any

party, who has the slightest regard for principles, is will-

ing to approach the polls and cast his vote with his eyes

bandaged?"²⁷⁰ The Hamilton News rejected the move-

ment to nominate Taylor as evidence of southern dic-

 

266 Hamilton News quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer May 31, 1847;

the Union (D) saw "a bold stroke for the spoils of office" in the proposal to

nominate Taylor. It declared that "The Mexican party of the country

seeks to come into power on the glory of the man who has bravely con-

tributed to fight down the Mexican armies. Denouncers of their country's

war while yet it is to be fought--traitors to the cause of their country, and

advocates of the cause of its foreign foe--for while the battle is yet raging

this herd of office-beggars would make the hour of hard-won victory their

jubilee, and weave for themselves a crown of party triumph out of the

laurels which adorn the Victor's brow." Washington Daily Union, April

16, 1847.

267 Cincinnati Signal, April 13, 1847.

268 Reprint of letter in Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), July 1, 1847.

269 Washington Daily Union, July 1, 1847.

270 Lebanon Star, quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, July 7, 1847.

• 118
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850                165

tation and urged that the party select someone who was

not afraid to be called a Whig.²⁷¹

In the hope of quieting the growing discontent

among the party in Ohio, the Whig State Central Com-

mittee²⁷² issued a manifesto "To the Whigs of Ohio,"

condemning the further acquisition of territory as dan-

gerous to the welfare of the Union and disclaiming any

intention of barring any man from the presidency.²⁷³

But this address did not dispel the growing distrust of

Taylor among the Whigs of Ohio,²⁷⁴ and Taylor's fre-

quent letters, stating that he did not care for the of-

fice,²⁷⁵ and the proposal to defeat the old General in a

National Convention, were seized upon in an effort to

show that he would not be the choice of the party in

271 Hamilton News, quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, July 7, 1847;

See also Hamilton News quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, August 3,

1847.

272 John A Lazell, Joseph Ridgway, Joseph Sullivant, Lawson Curtis,

Lewis Heyl, and John B. Thompson.

273 Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly), June 19, 1847; on the matter of

territory the Ohio State Journal was firm, asserting that it was absolutely

opposed to the further extension of territory and that "If this exciting

question is to be thrown into the political arena; if it is to be mingled in

the next Presidential contest; if it is to be forced upon us, we will meet it

like men. We are ready-aye ready."   Ohio State Journal, (Tri-weekly),

June 19, 1847. The Cincinnati Chronicle disliked the threatening tone of

the manifesto and the editorial of the Ohio State Journal which it thought

should be left "to the chivalry of the Palmetto State." Ohio State Journal,

(Tri-weekly), June 19, 1847.

274 Giddings wrote, "I am delighted with the apparent subsiding of the

'Taylor fever.' That movement has shaken my confidence in the Whig

party more than anything that has previously happened. . . . But why our

Whigs and the Whig press should have lent such encouragement to those

reckless demagogues is unaccountable to me." Giddings to Follett, July 26,

1847, quoted in "Selections from the Follett Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915,

v. X, No. 1, p. 33.

275 Ohio State Journal, August 23, 1847.

• 119
 

166        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

1848.276 Although Taylor's Signal letter was construed

by many Whigs to mean that he would not veto a bill

embodying the principles of the Wilmot Proviso,²⁷⁷ op-

position to his candidacy increased in Ohio through the

summer of 1847, and by September, most local Whig

conventions declared against any candidate who was

not pledged against any further acquisition of terri-

tory.²⁷⁸ Corwin followed an extremely vacillating policy

in this maneuver for office. Finding that his attitude

on the granting of supplies had weakened his position

before the voters, he coquetted with the various other

candidates. He assured Greene that his first choice was

Clay and his second McLean, and that he would not

support Taylor until he knew what he would do on

"certain vital points."²⁸⁰ At the same time he encour-

aged certain southern politicians to believe that Taylor

could carry Ohio.²⁸¹

An analysis of the state of public opinion in Ohio,

at the end of 1847, with reference to the movement to

nominate Taylor, reveals the bitter hostility of anti-

southern Whigs, like Giddings, the willingness of the

 

276 Hamilton Intelligencer quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, August

3, 1847. See also New York Express, quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,

August 3, 1847; Ohio State Journal, August 19, 1847.

277 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 11, 1847.

278 Ohio State Journal, September 13, 23, 1847. On the other hand such

Whig leaders as Oran Follett thought that most Whigs could be "coaxed

into position" because they resented Clay's change of position on the Texas

question and because they wanted to "chastise the civilian war hawks who

would not try to stop the war."  Stevenson to Letcher, June 20, 1847,

Crittenden MSS., v. X.

279 Stevenson to Crittenden, September 1, 1847. Crittenden MSS., v. X.

280 Corwin to Greene, December 24, 1847, quoted in "Selections from the

William Greene Papers, I," in loc. cit., 1918, v. XIII, No. 1, p. 25.

281 McLean to Chase, December 22, 1847. Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.

• 120
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   167

rank and file of the party to acquiesce in his selection

only if he would come out against extension of Amer-

ican territory, the vacillation of certain elements anx-

ious to make the best possible bargain, and the ardent

support of many expansionist Whigs in the southern

part of the State who were not animated by sectional

jealousy of southern influence in the Government.

Clay's strength in Ohio was not evident to the super-

ficial observer. Everyone admitted a strong popular

attachment for Clay, and the supporters of McLean

seem to have feared the partisans of Clay even more

than they did those of Corwin.²⁸² Clay could not com-

mand the support of all the old National Republicans

because his efforts to hold the southern Whigs in line

on the Texas question had alienated many of the most

ardent anti-slavery leaders. Finally, a succession of de-

feats cooled the ardor of his strongest supporters. The

result was that the Whigs of southern Ohio, who had

no fear of the "slave power," supported Taylor, while

the Western Reserve Whigs tended to give their aid to

McLean or Corwin because they were northern men,

and the Clay sentiment remained very weak.

In November, 1847, Clay suddenly came back upon

the political horizon through a series of resolutions

drawn up by him and adopted by a convention of Whigs

at Lexington. In an effort to capitalize the feeling

against the Administration among the Whigs, the War

was denounced as "unconstitutional" and the right of

Congress to declare the objectives of the War was

282 N. H. Swayne to McLean, February 11, 1847, McLean MSS., v.

XIII; J. L. Miner to ?, February 16, 1847, McLean MSS., v. XIII; Tees-

dale to McLean, December 29, 1846, McLean MSS., v. XII; Ohio State

Journal, December 11, 1847.

• 121
 

168       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

stressed. That portion of the resolutions relating to

territories was artfully planned to catch the votes of

both northern and southern Whigs by opposing the an-

nexation of Mexico to the United States, and disavow-

ing any purpose of acquiring territory for the purpose

of introducing slavery.²⁸³ But the Whigs of Ohio failed

to respond in any marked degree to Clay's appeal, al-

though the Ohio State Journal characterized the reso-

lutions as "temperate, dignified, statesmanlike and pa-

triotic."²⁸⁴ The Democrats interpreted Clay's action

as a skilful effort to unite the straggling sections of

the Whig party.²⁸⁵ At the end of the year, the forces

favoring Clay were decidedly quiescent, the Lexington

movement having failed to awaken a response in Ohio

or elsewhere.²⁸⁶

The same reasons which operated in Ohio against

the nomination of Taylor, were effective arguments for

the support of John McLean, United States Supreme

Court judge.²⁸⁷ On the other hand, the latter's reserve

and his decisions in cases involving the return of slaves

repelled the anti-slavery elements among the Whigs.²⁸⁸

The movement to nominate McLean necessarily ran

counter to the wishes of the friends of Corwin. There

followed some rather bitter contests between the ad-

283 Ohio Statesman, November 15, 1847; Ohio State Journal, November

15, 1847.

284 Ohio State Journal, November 22, 1847.

285 Washington Daily Union, November 19, 1847; Ohio Statesman, No-

vember 15, 1847; Teesdale to McLean, September 23, 1847, McLean MSS.,

v. XIII; McLean to Ewing, October 6, 1847, Ewing MSS., v. VII.

286 McLean to Chase, November 26, 1847. Chase MSS., v. VIII.

287 Chase to Mrs. Chase, July 24, 1847. Chase MSS., v. XIII.

288 Teesdale to McLean, January 29, 1847. McLean MSS., v. XI.

• 122
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850      169

herents of the two men, although both appealed to the

anti-southern sentiment of the party in opposition to

Taylor. McLean was handicapped by a persistent feel-

ing among the old National Republicans that since he

had once been a Jacksonian he could not be an orthodox

Whig.²⁸⁹ Moreover, his judicial position served to re-

move him from the people, thus preventing the develop-

ment of popular enthusiasm. The McLean movement

decidedly lacked virility.

Immediately after the election of 1844, McLean's

friends, Teesdale, Calvary Morris, Samuel Galloway,

and H. H. Leavitt, had begun to plan for his nomina-

tion in 1848,290 believing that he not only could command

the full strength of the Whigs, but that he could secure

the support of many conservative Democrats, as well.²⁹¹

But McLean's chances were injured in the beginning

because Whig leaders in the South understood that Ohio

preferred Corwin.292 Some attempt was made to have

the selection of a candidate for governor, in 1846, a

test of strength between the several Whig candidates,²⁹³

and Bebb, a follower of Corwin, was successful.²⁹⁴ It

appears that the younger and more impulsive elements

of the Whig party favored Corwin, while such a man as

J. C. Wright, editor of the Cincinnati Daily Gazette,

 

²⁸⁹ Leavitt to McLean, January 24, 1847. McLean MSS., v. XIII.

290 Morris to McLean, November 20, 1844, McLean MSS., v. XI; Gall-

oway to McLean, October 13, 1845, McLean MSS., v. XI; Leavitt to Mc-

Lean, December 23, 1845, McLean MSS., v. XI.

291 Miner to McLean, January 29, 1845. McLean MSS., v. XI.

292 Leavitt to McLean, December 23, 29, 1845. McLean MSS., v. XI.

293 A. T. Holcomb to McLean, January 14, 1846. McLean MSS., v. XI.

294 Morris to McLean, November 2, 1846. McLean MSS., vol. XII.

• 123
 

170        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

favored McLean in 1848.295 On the other hand, certain

elements of the Whig party in northern Ohio sought to

give the impression in Washington that Winfield Scott

was the choice of the Whig party of Ohio.²⁹⁶ That Mc-

Lean's claims were not popularly supported was seen

when the Corwin leaders practically forced the with-

drawal of Teesdale as editor of the Ohio State Journal

because the latter was strongly urging the selection of

McLean.²⁹⁷ McLean's realization that the Whigs sus-

pected his "Whiggery" led him to publish his opinions,

in May, 1846. He favored "a tariff for revenue, so

graduated as to protect" the manufacturing interests,

although he deprecated the custom of questioning can-

didates.²⁹⁸ It was McLean's aloofness and conserva-

tism, as well as his hearty condemnation of the spoils

 

295 Wright told Corwin that he might be President "some day if he be-

haved himself but it was d--d nonsense for him to think of it at the next

election," to which Corwin assented. Miner to McLean, January 3, 1846,

McLean MSS., v. XI.

296 Harvey to McLean, April 24, 1846, McLean MSS., v. XII; the

Ohio State Journal defeated the suggestion made by the Toledo Blade, in

1846, that the party should select Scott in 1848. Ohio State Journal, (Tri-

weekly), July 30, 1846.

297 Teesdale to McLean, March 23, 1846, McLean MSS., v. XI; The

Eaton Register opposed McLean because he had been a follower of Jack-

son while the Lower Sandusky Telegraph objected to him because he was

not "available" and because his opinions were not well enough known to

entitle him to popular support. Quoted in Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, No-

vember 26, 1846; Teesdale to McLean, December 7, 1846, McLean MSS.,

v. XII; The Xenia Torch-Light asserted that Teesdale was discharged from

the Ohio State Journal because he was trying to use the state organ in Mc-

Lean's behalf. Teesdale to McLean, January 4, 1847, McLean MSS., v.

XII.

298 Copy dated May 7, 1846, in McLean MSS., v. XII.

• 124
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850            171

system, that kept the politicians at arms' length and de-

feated his candidacy.²⁹⁹

By June, 1846, McLean's manager, H. H. Leavitt,

of Steubenville, William Miner, of Cincinnati, and Tees-

dale, of Columbus,³⁰⁰ thought that some action in his

behalf should be undertaken by the Whig State Con-

vention of January, 1847, but Corwin and his adherents,

although apparently friendly,301 discouraged the move-

ment as premature, and Horace Greeley, of the New

York Tribune, expressed a distinct preference for Cor-

win.³⁰² The newly-elected Whig, Governor Bebb, was

actively hostile to McLean,303 as was the Steubenville

Herald.³⁰⁴ Moreover, the rabidly anti-southern portion

of the Whigs feared that McLean did not condemn the

Mexican War strongly enough, although he assured

Chase that no one had ever heard him say anything in

favor of the War.^"305

When the Whig State Convention met in January,

1847, the president-makers were divided into two

groups, those favoring an expression by the Convention

299 Stevenson declared that McLean's keynote was "an honest man for

President and a moral tone in administration..." Stevenson to Crittenden,

May 1, 1847, Crittenden MSS., v. X; Dunlap to McLean, December 14,

1846, McLean MSS., v. XII.

300 See letters in McLean MSS., v. XII.

301 Miner to McLean, September 28, 1846, McLean MSS., v. XII;

Some of Corwin's friends in Miami County thought that if McLean were

selected in 1848, Ohio could not be expected to contribute another candidate

for years and that Corwin would thus be thrown aside forever. Young to

McLean, December 25, 1846, McLean MSS., v. XII.

302 Teesdale to McLean, January 22, February 19, 1847. McLean MSS.,

v. XII.

303 Teesdale to McLean, December 15, 1846. McLean MSS., v. XII.

304 Leavitt to McLean, December 13, 23, 1846. McLean MSS., v. XII.

305 McLean to Chase, December 19, 1846. Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.

• 125
 

172        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

in favor of Corwin, and the followers of McLean, who

opposed an expression of any kind because they knew

that a majority of the Convention favored Corwin.³⁰⁶

Samuel Galloway hoped that if the Convention insisted

on endorsing Corwin, an equal endorsement would be

given to McLean. Many Whig leaders, like Bebb, John

Woods, and John Lazell, of the State Central Commit-

tee, opposed McLean because they feared that he

doubted the constitutional right of Congress to abolish

slavery in the territories. Consequently, his managers

importuned him for an expression of opinion, which,

from the tone of Teesdale's letters, seems to have been

that a law of Congress abolishing slavery in any new

territories would be a mere expression of opinion, and

that the better method of accomplishing the desired re-

sult was to pass a constitutional amendment.³⁰⁷ The

Miami district delegates favored Corwin, and a caucus

of a portion of the Western Reserve Delegation voted

 

306 It was the opinion of the followers of McLean that the calling of the

mass convention of January 19, 1847, was designed to further the pretensions

of Corwin for the presidency and of Delano for governor. Leavitt to Mc-

Lean, December 28, 1847, and Miner to McLean, December 26, 1847, Mc-

Lean MSS., v. XIV.

307 Moreover, it appears that McLean took the viewpoint of the legalist,

that under previous decisions of the Supreme Court, the inhabitants of

territories added to the United States, must retain the same municipal in-

stitutions which they had at the time of cession until such time as Congress

may change those institutions. According to this view, the status of any

territory derived from Mexico would be free. For views of McLean on

power of Congress over slavery in territories see National Intelligencer,

December 22, 1847; also McLean to Chase, December 22, 1847, McLean

MSS., v. VIII, Pa. On December 29, the National Intelligencer printed an

article under the caption "Has Congress Power to Institute Slavery," which

was recognized by the Cincinnati Gazette as having come from the pen of

McLean. McLean laid down the proposition that Congress had the power

neither to institute or prohibit slavery in the territories, since it was local

and the creature of local laws. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, August 9, 1848.

• 126
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850              173

40 to 14 for the same candidate. The delegates from

Jefferson, Hamilton, Licking, and Muskingum opposed

the endorsement of any candidate. The McLean dele-

gates, after voting first for James Collier, of Steuben-

ville, for governor, threw their strength to Seabury

Ford, of Geauga County, who became the candidate of

the party in 1848. The Corwin delegates favored Co-

lumbus Delano for governor, but the latter's attitude on

the Black Laws proved unsatisfactory to the Whigs of

southern Ohio. The decision of the Convention against

an endorsement of any candidate was a victory for Mc-

Lean's followers, as was also the appointment of Joseph

Vance and Daniel Kilgore as senatorial delegates to the

National Convention, for Kilgore strongly favored Mc-

Lean's nomination.³⁰⁸

Throughout the period of Polk's Administration, the

Democratic party of Ohio was in a weakened condition;

out of power in the State on the banking and currency

issue, and largely out of sympathy with the Polk

regime. Medary wrote that the party, indignant over

the surrender of American claims to all of Oregon and

divided by the Wilmot Proviso, had come to the point

that, had it not been for the War, the Administration

would not have had a friend in Ohio.³⁰⁹ Without hope of

political preferment and with no indication that Van

Buren would be any more acceptable in 1848 than in

1844 to the Democrats of the South, the radical Demo-

crats in Ohio seemed to lose hope. The followers of

308 For the proceedings of the Convention, see letters of Teesdale to

McLean, January 4, 11, 19, 1847; and Galloway to McLean, January 7, 10,

1847; in McLean MSS., v. XII.

309 Medary to Van Buren, December 27, 1847. Van Buren MSS., v. VI,

Pa.

• 127
 

174         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Cass took advantage of the dissatisfaction among the

office-seekers,³¹⁰ and his strength increased so fast³¹¹ that

only an overwhelming victory of the radicals in 1846

could have saved Ohio for the Van Burenites. That

victory did not come, and the local Democratic conven-

tions in 1847 began to record their preference for

Cass.³¹² The ranks of the radical Democrats were

broken still more in 1847 by a bitter editorial contro-

versy between Medary and Tappan over the control of

the Ohio Statesman;³¹3 and control over the Democratic

party was seriously jeopardized by a struggle of the

Democrats of the Senate to include in the annual ap-

propriation bill for 1847, the expenses of Medary as

printer to that body.³¹⁴

As the date of the State Convention of 1848 ap-

proached, the Democrats, in county conventions, adopted

resolutions approving Polk's administration, favoring

the addition of territory as indemnity for the war, and

deploring the agitation of the slavery question as cal-

310 Glover to Allen, April 5, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VIII.

311 Whitman to Allen, January 26, 1856. Allen MSS., v. X.

312 Medary to Van Buren, December 27, 1847. Van Buren MSS., v.

LIV.

313 Ohio Statesman, June 2, 1847.

314 The Senate, which became Democratic by the election of 1846, gave

the Senate printing contract to Medary, although the previous Whig As-

sembly had given all the printing of the General Assembly for two years

to the Ohio State Journal. The House refused to appropriate money to pay

Medary and the Senate held out, for more than a month, before it would

agree to the House appropriation bill. Finally Medary wrote a letter to

the Democratic leaders in the Senate, asking them to allow the appro-

priation bill to pass. The editor of the Statesman was referred to as "Sam

Medary, the $3000 Martyr" and the "Dictator" of the Senate, because of

the role he played in this affair. Ohio Statesman, January 22, February 1,

3, 8, 1847; Ohio State Journal, February 8, 1847; Ohio State Journal, (Tri-

weekly), February 9, 13, 16, 1847.

• 128
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850   175

culated to embarrass the prosecution of the war and to

promote discord between the North and South.³¹5

Many conventions recommended that the people of the

territories be allowed to settle their own municipal in-

stitutions--a position endorsed by Cass on December

24, 1847, in a letter to A. O. P. Nicholson, a Democratic

leader of Nashville, Tennessee. Cass appealed for sup-

port in the South by his condemnation of the Wilmot

Proviso and in the West by his plea for popular sover-

eignty. Cass interpreted that clause of the Constitution

which provided that "Congress shall have the power to

dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations,

respecting the territory and other property belonging

to the United States," to mean that Congress had the

right to regulate its property, but not the lives or prop-

erty of its citizens in the territories.³¹⁶ There was some

opposition to this position among the Democrats. In

Richland County, Brinkerhoff, enraged at the dictation

of the South, secured the passage of resolutions con-

demning the War and approving the Wilmot Proviso,

over the strenuous opposition of T. W. Bartley.³¹⁷ The

radical Democrats of northwestern Ohio also adopted

strong resolutions against the extension of slavery, but

Cass's apparently Democratic plan, which would leave

the slavery question to the settlers in the new territory,

gained strength in that section in spite of its opposition

to Cass because of his position on banking matters.

The ascendancy of Cass and conservatism was sig-

 

315 Ohio Statesman, August-December, 1847.

316 Ohio State Journal, July 18, 1848; Washington Daily Union, Decem-

ber 20, 1847.

317 Ohio State Journal, December 30, 1847.

• 129
 

176       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

nalized at the Democratic State Convention of January

8, 1848, by the election of David T. Disney as chairman.

The Convention then proposed Lewis Cass for president

and nominated John B. Weller, a reputed ally of south-

ern interests and a hero of the Mexican War, for gov-

ernor. The determination of the Convention to put

down any radical anti-slavery sentiment was shown by

the deliberate omission of Brinkerhoff from the Com-

mittee on Resolutions. The selection of Alfred P. Ed-

gerton, of northwestern Ohio, and David T. Disney, a

Cass leader from Cincinnati, as senatorial delegates, was

in harmony with the other actions of the Convention.³¹⁸

The Ohio Democrats evaded the question of slavery in

the territories, and after deploring its existence as an

evil, declared that matters concerning slavery should be

left to the individual states.³¹⁹ Stanton ironically com-

mented that "When the convention resolved to hoist

Cass upon its shoulders and place their banner in his

hands, they should have inscribed it with plain words,

not reading 'in the North Freedom, in the South Slav-

ery.'"320 The Ohio State Journal declared that the

Convention had "ingloriously surrendered to the im-

perious South the utmost it has ever claimed."³²¹ Al-

though the Ohio Democrats officially endorsed a can-

didate and a program suitable to the Democracy of the

318 Ohio Statesman, January 11, 1848.

319 Tappan declared that the federal office-holders had prevented the ex-

pression of any opinion on slavery in the territories, while Stanton, who had

been urged by Chase to be present at the Convention in order to procure

the adoption of the principle of the Wilmot Proviso, was extremely disap-

pointed. Tappan to Chase, April 7, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XIII, Pa.; Chase

o Stanton, January 9, 1848, Stanton MSS., v. I.

320 Stanton to Chase, February 16, 1848. Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.

321 Ohio State Journal, January 10, 1848.

• 130
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850    177

South and thus furnished one more example of the na-

tionalizing influence of a political party, there were

ominous signs of revolt. The dissatisfaction over the

matter of patronage, augmented by the surrender of

the American claims to that portion of Oregon above

the 49th Parallel, added to the resentment against the

South and prepared the way for the gradual collapse

of the Democratic party culminating in the famous elec-

tion of 1860.

The Whig State Convention met on January 19,

1848, in order to select a candidate for governor, to

designate presidential electors, and to provide a delega-

tion for the Whig National Convention.³²² Those Whigs

who favored a moderate attitude toward the War en-

dorsed the candidacy of James Collier, of Steuben-

ville,³²³ who had been severely attacked by the Xenia

Torch-Light because he had officiated at a meeting in

1846 which had supported the War.³²⁴ This incident in-

jured Collier to such an extent that he published a letter

in the Ohio State Journal, in December, 1847, disclaim-

ing any sympathy with the pro-War resolutions.³²⁵ The

bitterest anti-southern delegates favored the nomination

of Columbus Delano, a protege of Corwin in the art of

abusing the Administration and its war program, but

the trend of events seemed to point to the selection of

Seabury Ford, of Geauga, who could command the sup-

port of the Western Reserve because of his location,

and could, at the same time, secure the votes of the

Whigs of southern Ohio because of his more moderate

322 Ohio State Journal, December 15, 1847.

323 Ohio State Journal, January 16, 1848.

324 Leavitt to McLean, December 28, 1847. McLean MSS., v. XIV.

325 Ohio State Journal, December 31, 1847.

Vol. XXXVIII--12

• 131
 

178        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

attitude on the War.³²⁶ The forces of Corwin and

Delano, led by the opinionated R. McBratney, editor

of the Xenia Torch-Light, and the delegates from the

Western Reserve, determined to secure the nomination

of Corwin,327 but they were defeated by a combination

of the friends of Clay, Taylor and McLean.³²⁸ Never-

theless, the friends of Corwin, by a margin of one vote,

secured the adoption of resolutions extravagantly prais-

ing the policy of their leader toward the War.³²⁹ The

pre-convention prediction that the friends of Corwin

and McLean would neutralize each other and that Tay-

lor would thus carry off the nomination,330 seemed about

to come true. The marked attentions paid by the friends

of McLean to some of the Whig "War-Hawks," of

Cincinnati, provoked many of McLean's anti-southern

supporters from    other sections of the State.331    The net

result of the Whig State Convention was an increased

bitterness between the forces of Corwin and McLean.³³²

No nomination for president was made.

The nomination of a governor brought a compro-

mise between Corwin and McLean forces.              For four

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

1847. See also Cleveland Herald, quoted in Ohio State Journal, February

16, 1847, with comments.

327 Teesdale to McLean, January 17, 1848.

328 Teesdale to McLean, February 1, 1848. McLean MSS., v. XIV.

329 Miner to McLean, January 23, 1848. McLean MSS., v. XIV.

330 Ohio State Journal, January 4, 1848.

331 John Woods to McLean, February 29, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV;

Teesdale to McLean, January 20, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV. Just previ-

ous to the Convention, the Cincinnati Gazette and the Ohio State Journal

engaged in exchange of acrimonious editorials in which Wright, of the

Gazette, warned W. B. Thrall, of the Ohio State Journal, against engaging

in "under current intrigues." Ohio State Journal, December 30, 1847.

332 Teesdale to McLean, McLean MSS., v. XIV.

• 132
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850     179

ballots, Ford, Collier, and Delano polled almost an equal

vote, but on the fifth and sixth ballots the supporters

of Collier turned their votes to Ford, who was nomi-

nated.³³³ The Democrats declared that the result was

a rebuke to the Mexican policy of Corwin and Delano,³³⁴

while the bitterest of the anti-southern Whig papers

greeted the result with the announcement: "John B.

Weller and war--Seabury Ford and peace!"³³⁵

While a division among the presidential aspirants

of Ohio prevented an endorsement for president, it

did not prevent the Whigs from serving notice to the

nation as to their attitude on the extension of slavery

in the territories. After denouncing Polk, the Whigs

declared against the forcible annexation of any Mex-

ican territory and demanded that if any territory be

obtained neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should

exist in its except as punishment for crime. The Con-

vention also called upon Congress to end the War "by

the application of the most efficient constitutional

means." Significantly, at the end of the Convention,

cheers were given for Corwin, Clay, Jeremiah Morrow

"and other distinguished American statesmen; and for

General Zachary Taylor."³³⁶   The Ohio State Journal

declared that the slavery clause of the resolutions would

"send a thrill of joy through the heart of every lover

of freedom throughout the Union."³³⁷ The whole

course of the Whigs appeared to the Democrats to be

an adoption of a base and unpatriotic position in the

333 Miner to McLean, January 21, 1848. McLean MSS., v. XIV.

334 Ohio Statesman, January 19, 1848.

335 Xenia Torch-Light, quoted in Ohio State Journal, January 31, 1848.

336 Ohio State Journal, January 20, 1848.

337 Ohio State Journal, January 21, 1848.

• 133
 

180       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

midst of the War for the sake of partisan advantage.³³⁸

Whig editors echoed the sentiments of the Convention

but added the ominous warning to Taylor "That to se-

cure the support and cooperation of the Whig press of

Ohio, the man whose name shall be presented for the

next Presidency, must be a Whig, a whole Whig and

nothing but a Whig."339

The State election of 1846 marked the flood-tide of

the Liberty party in Ohio. The vote fell to 4,000 in

1847. The leaders were becoming weary of a contest

which held out no prospects for the spoils of office. The

view that Congress could abolish slavery in the states,

which was gaining some vogue elsewhere, was not ac-

cepted to any extent in Ohio.³⁴⁰ Chase, being a practi-

cal politician, was anxious to fuse the Liberty party

with either of the major parties which would adopt Lib-

erty principles.³⁴¹ Consequently, Chase and his lieu-

tenant, Adams Jewett, of Dayton, thought that the Na-

tional Liberty Convention should be held in 1848 after

those of the major parties, in order to take advantage

of any schism in the ranks of either.342 Chase believed

that the Whigs would be forced to accept Taylor, thus

impelling the Democrats of the North to take an anti-

slavery position. The way would then be open for a

 

338 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 28, 29, 1848.

339 Ohio State Journal, January 21, 22, 1848.

340 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 97-99.

341 Chase to Sumner, September 22, 1847, quoted in "Selected Letters of

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

1902, v. II, p. 123.

342 Jewett to Chase, June 7, 1847, Chase MSS., v. XII; Chase to Leavitt,

June 16, 1847, quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, III, Febru-

ary 18, 1846 to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, pp. 116-117.

• 134
 

Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850       181

union of the Liberty and Democratic parties.³⁴³ Chase's

hopes were without foundation. The Democratic party

of Ohio had been in a state of discontent since the de-

feat of Van Buren in the Baltimore Convention, and

in June, 1846, the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer,

probably angered because Polk had refused to grant

him the government printing in that district,³⁴⁴ declared

that it was "time that the lovers of freedom should unite

in opposing the common enemy by fixing bounds to their

aggression." The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer constantly

opposed the extension of slavery in the new territories

and the Hamilton County Democratic Convention fa-

vored the extension of the Ordinance of 1787 to any

newly acquired territory, while Tappan declared, in the

Ohio Press, that the unanimous opinion of every north-

ern state was against the further extension of the slave

system.³⁴⁵

However, the Liberty men of Ohio were overruled

and the National Liberty Convention met at Buffalo in

October, 1847. Chase refused to allow his name to be

used as a candidate for president,³⁴⁶ and rejected the

offer of a place on the ticket with John P. Hale, of New

Hampshire, who was nominated.³⁴⁷ In the Buffalo Con-

vention, the Liberty men of Ohio, as practical politi-

cians, proposed alliances with either of the major par-

 

343 Chase to Thomas, June 24, 1847, quoted in "Selected Letters of Sal-

mon P. Chase, III, February 18, 1846 to May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902,

v. II, pp. 118-119.

344 E. L. Carney to Allen, January 4, 1845, Allen MSS., v. V; Wash-

ington Daily Union, January 31, 1848.

345 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 109.

346 Leavitt to Chase, September 27, 1847. Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.

347 Schuckers, op. cit., p. 82; Hart, op. cit., pp. 95-96.

• 135
 

182      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications ties which would accept the anti-slavery portion of their doctrine, but they were violently opposed by the extrem- ists of the Garrisonian type.348 In fact, Seward wrote Chase that this "eccentric Convention" was incapable of direct political action,349 but the New York politician judged the situation without adequate information. Clashing sectional and economic interests were threatening the national bonds of the parties. In Ohio, the major parties were compromising on the issues but each showed signs of a coming disruption, which was hastened greatly by the addition of new territory in 1848 as a result of the Mexican War. 348 Sturges to Chase, December 10, 1847. Chase MSS., v. XIII. 349 Seward to Chase, December 28, 1847. Chase MSS., v. XIII.

• 136