THE OHIO FREE SOILERS AND PROBLEMS OF FACTIONALISM
by FREDERICK J. BLUE
The history of the Free Soil party in Ohio from 1849 until it was dissolved in 1854 was one of incessant factional conflict. One source of controversy was the question whether the party should form a coalition with one of the major parties or should continue as a separate party. This controversy over the organization of the party was finally successfully resolved when Free Soil leaders helped form the new Republican party and thus eliminated the need for them to maintain a third party dedicated to antislavery. The
NOTES ARE ON PAGES 89-93 |
18 OHIO HISTORY
Ohio party strategy was complicated by
the vacillating position of the leading
Ohio Free Soiler, Salmon P. Chase of
Cincinnati. His desire to further his
own political career at times prompted
him to favor Free Soil union with
Ohio Democrats. Chase was frequently
opposed in this effort by more dedi-
cated antislavery leaders such as Joshua
Giddings and Samuel Lewis. Other
men of Whig background worked to achieve
Free Soil union with their
original party. In addition, other
issues such as the proposed repeal of Ohio's
Black Laws and a reapportionment law of
doubtful constitutionality com-
plicated the situation.1
Chase had played a leading role in the
Liberty party, the antislavery
group which had preceded the Free Soil
movement in the 1840's. Following
the election of 1844, Ohio Liberty men,
led by Chase, made repeated efforts
to bring their national organization into
an alliance with one of the major
parties. When these attempts failed,
Chase helped to form the wider-based
Free Soil party. It included not only
Liberty men but also numerous northern
Whigs and Democrats who defected from
their old parties because the latter
groups refused to oppose the extension
of slavery. The Liberty party had
been a one-issue group concerning itself
only with antislavery problems while
the Free Soil party took positions on
many other problems such as the tariff,
internal improvements, and land policy.
This broadened platform helped
to deepen the factionalism among Ohio
antislavery men, however, since it
introduced more issues over which they
could disagree.2
In the election of 1848 the new Free
Soil party, led by presidential candi-
date Martin Van Buren, nationally made a
disappointing showing.3 In Ohio,
most of the Free Soil support came from
the antislavery and former Whig
stronghold of the Western Reserve,4 and
this campaign proved to be the
highpoint of the Free Soil movement, but
in the ensuing years the party was
unable to develop an effective
organization. It continued in weakened form
for five more years, during which time
the Ohioans faced agonizingly difficult
problems.
With the election of 1848 over,
antislavery leaders paused to consider
their position for the coming months.
Their party had successfully focused
attention on the slavery question and
had helped intensify sectional conflict.
How could they best continue their
agitation and maintain interest in the
antislavery movement? Should they
attempt to preserve their independence
from the major parties or should they,
by forming coalitions, seek to bring
Democrats and Whigs to their point of
view? They realized that one of the
glaring weaknesses of the Free Soil
party during the campaign had been the
lack of an established organization.
Support had grown spontaneously with
the enthusiasm of electioneering, but
there had been no central coordination
or direction. With the excitement over,
there would be little to sustain the
movement unless someone assumed
leadership and acted quickly.
In their 1848 platform, the Free Soilers
had pledged to "fight on and
fight ever until a triumphant victory
shall reward our exertions." After the
election the Free Soil press was almost
unanimous in its desire to continue.
The Cleveland True Democrat remarked,
"The Campaign of 1848 is now
ended, but not so the mission of our party. . . . This day begins the Presi- dential campaign of 1852, which will be concluded when Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men will be triumphant." Gamaliel Bailey, former editor of a Cincinnati antislavery paper and by 1847 the editor of the Washington, D. C., paper, the National Era, noted the practical problem of establishing a permanent party organization to keep the people aroused: "We must pre-occupy the public mind and establish a machinery of agita- tion."5 Before 1848 the Liberty party had resisted all suggestions of coopera- tion with either of the major parties. By separate action the members had hoped to build their organization until they could replace one of the older parties. Some Free Soilers felt that this was still the best policy. For example, Joshua Giddings, Congressman from Jefferson, Ashtabula County, argued that the group must resist the efforts "to get our members back into the old parties." On the other hand, Salmon P. Chase argued that the antislavery interests would best be served by a coalition with the Democratic party because the Democrats "were ready to 'progress' in the direction of Free Soil."6 |
20 OHIO HISTORY
This difference of opinion between
Giddings and Chase was reflected in
the struggle within the Ohio Free Soil
party that began when the campaign
of 1848 ended. It may be characterized
as one between a practical politician
and a dedicated antislavery idealist.
Chase, although motivated by a sincere
opposition to slavery, moved so
frequently from one political group to
another in the 1840's and early 1850's
that he exposed himself to constant
charges that he acted purely for
political advantage and with little regard
for principle. He early abandoned faith in a separate
third party antislavery
organization, feeling that the best way
to accomplish antislavery ends was
through coalition with the established
Democratic party. He also agreed
with the Democrats on important banking
and tariff questions.7
On the other hand, the humorless but
courageous Giddings, having joined
the Free Soil party in 1848 at the time
of its formation, remained true to it
throughout its most difficult years,
even though coalition might have brought
him higher political rewards. Having
once been a Whig, Giddings had little
in common with the Democrats on most
issues. Most important, coalition
with either major party meant to
Giddings a compromise of the antislavery
principle. He realized that both
Democratic and Whig parties had strong
Southern wings to consider and thus could
never adopt a strong antislavery
stand. Giddings possessed an inflexible
certainty of the worthiness of his
approach and thus reflected the dismay
of many Ohio Free Soilers over
Chase's seemingly devious actions.8
The Free Soilers of Ohio were the first
in the nation to have to grapple
with the problem of coalition versus
continued independence. The need to
organize was further increased by the
extremely complex problems caused
by an apportionment law of doubtful
constitutionality that was passed in
early 1848 by the Whig legislature, by
the political maneuvering associated
with the election of a United States
senator by the Ohio legislature, and by
the proposed repeal of the state's
discriminatory Black Laws. In 1849 the
Free Soil party held the balance of
power in the legislature. In the house
there were thirty-two Democrats, thirty
Whigs, and eight Free Soilers; while
in the senate there were seventeen
Democrats, fourteen Whigs, and three
Free Soilers. Thus the third party was
in a position to play a key role in
Ohio politics and thereby reap political
benefits both for the party and for
its individual members. Unfortunately
for the party's future, its members
could not agree among themselves what
was the best strategy to achieve
political power. The result was a long
drawn out power struggle within the
party. Even though the Free Soilers
realized several of their aims, they
incurred charges that the party not only
had seriously compromised its
position, but had endangered the very
existence of an independent Free Soil
party in the state.9
Because it was common for Ohio to be
closely divided between Democrats
and Whigs, each party typically resorted
to gerrymandering when it was in
power. In early 1848 the Whig-controlled
legislature pushed through an
apportionment law designed to insure
Whig control of the next legislature
as well as the election of a Whig to the
United States Senate. The bill pro-
THE OHIO FREE SOILERS 21
vided, among other things, for the
division of Hamilton County, which in-
cluded Cincinnati, into two electoral
districts that would elect two state
senators and five representatives
(divided 2-3). Never able to carry the
county as a unit, the Whigs expected in
this way to win at least two repre-
sentative seats. Democrats, however,
questioned both the constitutionality
of dividing a county and the procedure
in the legislature in so doing, and in
the election of 1848 refused to honor
the new law.10
Since the Democrats and Whigs were so
evenly divided, the Free Soilers,
holding the balance of power, could
determine not only the disputed returns
from Hamilton County but also which of
the major parties controlled the
legislature. Had the apportionment law
been accepted as valid, there would
have been two Whigs and three Democrats
from the county. However, follow-
ing a long stalemate, two Free Soilers,
Norton Townshend of Elyria and
John F. Morse of Painesville voted with
the Democrats, thus giving them
all five seats and control of the
legislature. The remaining Free Soilers who
originally had been Whigs voted with
their former party. Townshend and
Morse agreed with the Democrats on other
important issues including bank-
ing and currency.11 This
inability of the Ohio Free Soilers to unite on a
common policy became an unfortunate
characteristic of the group throughout
its brief history.
To the antislavery party the most
important issue at stake in the long
legislative deadlock was the election of
a United States senator. Because of
their position, the Free Soilers knew
that they might elect one of their own
members in return for voting with a
major party on other issues. The prob-
lem was which party and which candidate
should be chosen. Some Free
Soilers favored the Democrats and Salmon
P. Chase for the senatorship,
while others preferred the Whigs and
Joshua Giddings. Since the third party
members as a whole could not again agree
among themselves which set of
choices would be best, both Democrats
and Whigs busily negotiated with
each of them as individuals.12
Chase himself was an active participant
in the bargaining. He appeared
in the state capital at the strategic
times and did very little to hide his desire
to be senator. He wrote to his close
confidant Stanley Matthews that if all
the Hamilton County Democrats were
chosen, the Democrats in the legisla-
ture "will naturally prefer among
Free Soilers the persons, supposed to be
democratic in sentiment. They may prefer
me for Senator." He admitted that
he would be highly gratified to be
elected to the Senate because he felt he
understood the "history, principles
and practical workings of the Free Soil
movement as thoroughly as most
men."13
Chase's Democratic leanings had been
noticeable for several years, and
by 1849 he believed that the best hope
for antislavery action lay in Free Soil
union with the Democrats. Albert Riddle,
an ex-Whig Free Soiler from
Chardon who directed the Giddings
campaign in the 1848 legislature, wrote
that Chase had favored the Democrats
"to an almost dangerous extent."14
When the Ohio Free Soilers held a
convention in Columbus in December
1848, the Chase faction had dominated.
Chase himself wrote the platform,
22 OHIO HISTORY
which endorsed many Democratic positions
on economic issues not related
to slavery. The platform supported the
liberal Democratic position on such
things as a ten hour law, a proportional
property tax, and opposition to
development of corporations and to the
Whig bank law which provided for
the expansion of banking opportunities.
The Whig element in the party tried
unsuccessfully to eliminate these parts
of the platform, thus revealing that
the two factions were divided on
important issues related to the platform
as well as the leadership and
organization.15
The Chase anti-Whig platform had
naturally pleased the Democrats and
furthered talk of their support of Chase
for senator. He had personally con-
vinced Townshend and Morse of the
unconstitutionality of the aforemen-
tioned Whig apportionment law. When the
Free Soilers met, they agreed
on Giddings, a former Whig, as their
candidate for the Senate seat, but
Townshend and Morse refused to abide by
their decision. Since Townshend,
and to a much lesser extent Morse,
sympathized with the Democrats on
most other issues, they were easily
persuaded by Chase to vote with the
Democrats. Also, they feared that the
other Free Soilers were betraying
the party to the Whigs. Their price for
voting with the Democrats would
be high -- the legislature must elect
Chase and repeal the Black Laws.16
While Chase worked for his own election
to the Senate, those Free Soilers
who had originally been Whigs continued
to push Giddings' candidacy and
to seek a working agreement with their
former party. Giddings himself,
remaining in Washington for the
congressional session, was not personally
involved in these maneuverings, but he
confided to his friend Riddle that he
would be as grateful for the election to
the Senate as for any "earthly
exaltation." He indicated in his
diary that he would have mixed feelings
about leaving the House where his
influence was substantial, but "the moral
effect of my election would be great,
and on that account I feel a desire to
succeed to that office."17 In the
end it was the Whigs themselves who decided
against Giddings. A majority of the Whig
caucus agreed to have him, but
the members from Cuyahoga County could
not be persuaded to endorse
his "apostasy," and the
attempt to negotiate his appointment had to be
given up. Giddings' break with the Whigs
in 1848 was the deciding factor.
Since Giddings was the only man that
Whigs and Free Soilers could agree
on, Whig negotiations with the Free
Soilers were broken off. When the one
other potential candidate, Whig Supreme
Court Justice John P. McLean
who had shown Free Soil leanings in 1848,
telegraphed his refusal to be con-
sidered in the race, Chase's senatorial
prospects improved, although the
former Whigs among the Free Soilers
refused to follow Giddings' advice to
unite on Chase if his own candidacy
should be rejected.18
Of the two, Chase was probably the
logical choice for the Senate. Giddings
was already in Congress, and his
election would mean resigning his seat in
the House. Chase had been the organizer
of the Free Soil movement in Ohio
and would add an additional antislavery
voice in Congress. Nevertheless, his
actions and those of his supporters made
him vulnerable to charges of a
political bargain. He professed to be
interested only in antislavery. He even
THE OHIO FREE SOILERS
23
wrote to Morse, "Everything but
sacrifice of principle, for the cause, and
nothing for men except as instruments of
the cause." In the same letter,
however, he called for the election of a
senator "acceptable to the old Liberty
men and Democratic Free Soilers."
In the bargain that was finally adopted
by the Democrats and pushed through the
legislature, Townshend and Morse
agreed to vote in favor of seating all
five of the Democrats from Hamilton
County, thus giving the Democrats enough
power to organize the House. In
return for their votes the Democrats
agreed to the election of Chase and
the repeal of the Black Laws. The
arrangement was completed with the elec-
tion of two Democrats as judges.19 Whigs
throughout the state vehemently
denounced Townshend, Morse, and
especially Chase for "selling out to the
loco focos in the legislature."20
Even though all Free Soilers regarded
the repeal of Ohio's Black Laws
as a requirement for cooperation with
any party, the methods used to achieve
repeal proved to be a major stumbling
block in the way of a lasting Free
Soil coalition with either major party.
The Free Soilers for their part were
fearful that the Democrats would not
keep their promise and therefore
demanded they give a written pledge that
they would support repeal. They
felt that since Democratic strength was
concentrated in the southern part
of the state where anti-Negro resentment
was strongest, the Democrats
would not have agreed to the Black Laws'
repeal, had this not been a neces-
sary part of the bargain. Coalition with
the Whigs for the Free Soilers was
also doubtful because of the nature of
the repeal arrangements. Chase and
his supporters feared that antislavery
Whigs would oppose the Free Soil-
sponsored bill in retaliation for the
defeat of Giddings. These fears proved
to be unfounded, however. The bill was
drawn up by Chase, introduced by
Morse and, after amendments, passed both
houses with large majorities and
substantial Whig support. The bill
stated, among other things, that Negroes
could enter Ohio without restriction;
they could testify against whites; and
they were to be provided separate
schools. They still could not vote, hold
office, sit on juries, or secure
poorhouse relief. Although Free Soil agitation
had won significant reforms, it was only
a beginning, and it was clear that
these gains were possible only because
of political maneuvering.21
The bargain above, completed in 1849,
reflected little credit on either
faction of the Free Soil party of Ohio.
While each of the major parties was
capable of offering various
"deals" for Free Soil support, the Free Soilers
were unable to transform this victory
into the formation of a powerful anti-
slavery party. In fact, the Whigs,
having been the immediate losers, were
vehement in their reaction and were in
no mood for further deals with the
Free Soilers. Their feelings were well
expressed by the Ohio State Journal:
"He [Chase] gave, by his influence,
to the Locofocos the organization of the
House. . . . Every act of his was
subsidiary to his own ambition. He talked
of the interests of Free Soil -- he meant
HIS OWN. He harangued on the
benefits of electing a Free Soil Senator
-- he intended that none but himself
should be that Senator." Even the
ex-Whig Free Soilers could not reconcile
themselves to the selection of Chase. As
Albert Riddle said, "I would not
24 OHIO HISTORY
regard the election of Mr. Chase as a
thing to be seriously depricated [sic]
if it was not to be effected by the
means that will be employed to accomplish
it. . . . I never will be a party to
such a transaction as this in any shape."22
Other Free Soilers, like Charles Sumner
of Massachusetts, admitted they
were confused and disappointed on seeing
party members split between
Giddings and Chase. But unlike some of
his friends, Giddings showed no
trace of bitterness toward his rival or
toward Townshend and Morse. In a
letter to Sumner, he successfully hid
his unhappiness and he noted, "I felt
neither mortification nor disappointment
at his success over me. On the
contrary, I regarded his election as a
great victory. . . . I could not disguise
the fact that his election would carry
conviction to the doubting portion of
the community that our cause was rapidly
advancing, and that in the end
he might do more in that body than I
could."23 Nonetheless, neither Giddings
nor most other Free Soilers looked upon
Chase's course in early 1849 as a
completely honorable one. Nevertheless,
two great antislavery goals had been
achieved, the repeal of some of Ohio's
Black Laws and the election of a Free
Soil senator. Probably some kind of
bargain was inevitable, but Chase's
self-righteousness and overeagerness for
the office helped to divide the Free
Soil party.24
The apparent good feelings between Chase
and Giddings reflected no basic
agreement as to the future course of
Ohio Free Soilers. Chase continued to
support a permanent fusion with the
Democratic party, feeling that the
Democrats could be brought around to an
antislavery position without the
Free Soilers compromising themselves. In
June of 1849, he wrote: "I am a
Democrat unreservedly. Investigation and
reflection satisfied me long since
that the leading measures and maxims of
the Democracy were right. . . .
Last winter I desired to see the
Democrats and Free Soilers in our Legisla-
ture act together, because I knew that
many in the old Democratic line
were tired of the alliance with Slavery
and felt sure that a liberal and concili-
atory course on the part of the
Freesoilers towards them would do much
toward breaking up that alliance and
bringing the entire party upon our
platform." He had even dropped the
name Free Soil and referred to the
movement as the Free Democracy. He
optimistically believed that the
defeat in 1848 of the Southern-backed
presidential candidate Lewis Cass
had broken the last link binding
Democrats "to the Slave Power."25
Even though Chase temporarily achieved
victory through cooperation
with the Democrats in 1849, he failed in
his efforts to create a permanent
coalition with that party. In a state
where most Free Soil support centered
in the Western Reserve and was Whig in
origin there was not likely to be
much enthusiasm for the Democratic views
of Chase, a Cincinnatian. Instead,
many Free Soilers were more interested
in unity within their own party than
in union with the Democrats. At a
Western Reserve convention of Free
Soilers in May 1849, the members pledged
themselves to support "the great
principle of Human Freedom" and to
ignore insignificant questions such as
the apportionment law dividing Hamilton
County. Giddings and Townshend
delivered speeches calling for a
restoration of the mutual confidence of all
THE OHIO FREE SOILERS
25
Free Soilers.26 Chase, however, was of
another mind. He had staked much
of his reputation on the Hamilton County
issue and was eager to find common
ground with the Democrats who continued
to clamor for its repeal. He
therefore wrote to Giddings that the
Free Soilers must combine with the
Democrats and take the apportionment
problem to the voters.27
In July of the same year antislavery men
made another effort to obtain
Free Soil unity when they planned a
convention in Cleveland to celebrate
the passage of the Northwest Ordinance
of 1787. A large audience heard
addresses by Giddings and John Van
Buren, among others,28 and the
convention then reaffirmed the
principles of the 1848 campaign. Representa-
tives of the five states preserved for
freedom by the Ordinance were invited.
Temporarily, unity prevailed, and even
Chase talked of refusing a Democratic
coalition which might sacrifice Free
Soil principles. With Free Soil-
Democratic union becoming a reality in
New York, however, the most
prominent wing of his party was leading
the way toward coalition, and
Chase was eager for Ohio to be included.
By fall, in his thinking, such progress
had been made in the Democratic party
that there was no need for an
independent third party movement.29
Chase was unable before the election to
work out the complete union
with the Democrats that he desired.
Democrats rejected his demands that
they accept antislavery principles, and
Free Soilers refused his request that
they embrace the apportionment issue.
Therefore leaders in each Ohio
district were left to form a coalition ticket
if they desired. Surprisingly, agree-
ments of Free Soilers with Democrats
were most frequent in northern Ohio,
including the Western Reserve, because
there the latter were often willing
to accept the Free Soil position. The
coalitions helped the Democrats retain
power, but the Free Soilers elected
independently, state wide, four members
in the senate and six in the house.
Again the party held the balance of power
in both houses and did almost as well in
total votes as it had in 1848. In the
house there were now thirty-five
Democrats, thirty-one Whigs and six Free
Soilers, while in the senate Whigs and
Democrats both had sixteen members
compared to four Free Soilers.
Nevertheless, Giddings was far from happy
with the results and told Sumner that
Chase's insistence on stressing the
Hamilton County issue "came near
ruining us in this state."30
The results of a year's Free Soil
agitation in Ohio did not bode well for
the future of the party as a separate
movement. The united, enthusiastic,
and independent Free Soil party of 1848
had lost its drive and had become
divided and dependent on others. Only
the Whig background of many of its
members prevented its absorption by the
Democrats in 1849.
In the nation as a whole, the Free Soil
party reached its lowest point in
1850 and 1851 as Whigs and Democrats
worked successfully to convince
most voters that the Compromise of 1850
was the final solution to the
troublesome slavery issues before the
country. Major party politicians argued
that the Compromise settlement
eliminated the need for a third party dedi-
cated to antislavery. Free Soilers in
Congress led by Giddings and Chase had
worked to prevent the passage of the
Compromise but to no avail. In a
26 OHIO HISTORY
speech in the House on December 9, 1850,
Giddings attacked the Fugitive
Slave Law on moral and legal grounds
and, in the following language, pre-
dicted the impossibility of enforcing
the law:
He [the President] may send his troops
-- his Swiss guards of slavery;
... he may drench our free land with
blood; . . . but he will never compel
them [the people of northern Ohio] to obey that law.
To Giddings and other Free Soilers the
law was an affront to the repeal of
the Black Laws of Ohio. After the
passage of the Compromise, however, voters
seemed to want to forget the issues that
had brought the Free Soil party
into existence. True, the Fugitive Slave
Law continued to provoke disputes,
and in June 1851 Uncle Tom's Cabin began
appearing in serial form in the
National Era and was soon to become the most effective piece of
antislavery
literature ever published. Yet, the Free
Soil party remained in semi-activity
during this period as members drifted
away or agreed to absorption by the
Democrats. As politicians argued that
there was no need for further agitation,
nowhere did Free Soilers show the
vitality and enthusiasm of 1848.31
Salmon P. Chase, undaunted, redoubled
his attempts to unite his "Free
Democracy" with the regular
Democrats of the state. His efforts were futile,
however, and he further weakened the
third party in the process. The Demo-
crats nominated Judge Reuben Wood for
governor, a Western Reserve anti-
slavery man. Refusing to endorse the
Compromise, the Democrats let each
district define its own position and
thus attempted to conceal the state party's
divisions. The Free Soilers first chose
Daniel Tilden for governor in May,
but when he declined to run, they
selected an old Liberty party leader, Rev.
Edward Smith, at a convention in
Cleveland in August. The Ohio Whigs
were embarrassed by President Fillmore's
endorsement of the Compromise
and attempted to avoid discussion of the
issues, leaving the Free Soil party
as the only one to take a stand.
However, the party did not benefit from
this confused situation because Chase,
continuing to look for Democratic
union, remained neutral, while the
party's leading mouthpiece, the Cleveland
True Democrat, was less than enthusiastic over Smith. Free Soil
meetings
were poorly attended and displayed
little of the enthusiasm of 1848. As a
result, few were surprised when Smith's
showing was only about one-third
of the party's total of two years
earlier. Giddings was the lone Free Soiler
from Ohio returned to Congress in 1850.32
The following year marked a slight
resurgence of Free Soil strength in
Ohio. The party continued to hold the
balance of power in the state legisla-
ture and was thus in a position to
influence the election of a senator as it
had done in 1849. Chase naturally hoped
for an antislavery colleague to join
him in Washington and even held out the
prospect of election to Giddings
if he would cooperate with the Democrats
more closely. With Giddings un-
willing to change his political loyalty
and Ohio Democrats refusing to endorse
anyone who continued to agitate against
slavery, Free Soil-Whig agreement
for a coalition remained the only
possibility. Such a prospect, however,
alarmed Chase who wrote privately that
it would gravely endanger his plans
for national Free Soil-Democratic
fusion. In the early balloting of the state
|
legislature Free Soilers remained loyal to Giddings. Finally, with a dead- lock developing, Free Soilers and Whigs combined to elect the antislavery Whig, Judge Benjamin Wade to the Senate, the only prominent candidate on whom they could agree. Wade received Free Soil support because of his vehement opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law. His election was a personal defeat for Chase and indicated to him that chances for a union with the Democrats had become only a remote possibility in Ohio.33 The election of Wade did not mean a Free Soil resurgence or increased opposition to the Compromise. In fact, declining Free Soil strength through- out the country in 1851 indicated that the Compromise was still acceptable to most voters. But Ohioans of all parties did have many reservations, and neither Whigs nor Democrats were willing to endorse the finality of the Compromise. Neither were they willing to attack the settlement openly and directly, however. They apparently feared the potential divisiveness of the issue too much to make a major issue of it.34 On the other hand, the Free Democrats, as the Free Soilers now called themselves,35 hoped to capitalize on the potential antislavery sentiment in Ohio and prepared for an active campaign for the governorship. Once again the Western Reserve |
28 OHIO HISTORY
provided the third party leadership. At
a convention at Ravenna on June
25, 1851 where Senator Chase, Samuel
Lewis and Joshua Giddings delivered
addresses, the delegates condemned the
Compromise and the Fugitive Slave
Law and called for a national
convention. At the state convention of the
Free Democracy on August 21, 1851 where
Giddings presided, a united party
nominated for governor Samuel Lewis of
Hamilton County, former Superin-
tendent of Public Instruction and one of
the original and most dedicated
Liberty party leaders. Former Whigs and
Democrats did clash over a resolu-
tion favoring a low tariff, but no
mention was made of other potentially
divisive economic issues such as
internal improvements and land reform. The
unity appeared genuine, and for the
first time since 1848 the third party's
prospects were promising.36
Before the 1851 campaign was well under
way, however, Salmon P. Chase
dealt the Free Democratic party a
devastating blow. Stung by his recent set-
back (the election of Wade), he
announced in August that he would support
the Democratic candidate, Judge Reuben
Wood, against Lewis. Emphasizing
the antislavery record of the Democrats
in Ohio, he professed to believe that
the Democratic party throughout the
North was becoming an antislavery
party. By this act he indicated that
Wade's election to the Senate had pre-
cluded a Democratic-Free Democratic
coalition and that his own political fu-
ture was more secure as a Democrat,
"whenever it involve[d] no sacrifice of
his principles," than as a
coalition Free Democrat. But he also had to ignore
the strong Compromise sentiment in his
new party choice in other parts
of the nation, a sentiment much stronger
among Democrats than among
Whigs. Free Democrats throughout the
state were shocked by Chase's deser-
tion and were naturally harsh in their
criticisms. What might have been an
impressive third party showing in 1851
turned into a rout as Lewis received
only six percent of the total vote.
Caught up in the Democratic sweep, the
Free Democrats no longer held the
balance of power in the state legislature
that they had enjoyed so long.
Nevertheless, Chase's bolt did not mean the
end for the Free Democratic party in
Ohio. The great majority of the mem-
bership, under the leadership of men
like Giddings, continued on and even
began to make plans for the national
campaign of 1852.37
In that year the Free Democrats
participated in their second and final
presidential campaign. Despite the
weaknesses of the movement, the interest
generated by a national contest was
sufficient to revive the party somewhat.
Nevertheless, it received only about
half as many votes as in 1848. One of
the names frequently mentioned for the
party's nomination was that of
Salmon P. Chase. Although Chase's
position was extremely difficult because
of his defection in 1851, the Democratic
platform gave him no alternative but
to return to the Free Democrats. He
announced that he could not support
the "Slavery Platform" of the
Democrats, but his words were not convincing:
"If we could have an Independent
Democratic Rally, thoroughly Democratic
in name and fact . . . I should support
it cheerfully." Even had he desired
to head the third party in 1852, Ohio
Free Democrats would have rejected
him because of his earlier defection.
While not interested in the presidential
THE OHIO FREE SOILERS 29
nomination himself, he explained that he
would support the Free Democratic
nominee. He continued to hope, however,
that the antislavery party would
be dominated by Democrats rather than
former Whigs and Liberty men.38
The Free Democrats finally agreed on
Senator John P. Hale of New
Hampshire as their candidate and waged
an enthusiastic campaign. They
stressed the slavery issue but also took
note of important economic ques-
tions.39 In Ohio their efforts were made
more difficult by the continued
inconsistency of Chase. Although he had
earlier urged Hale to run, his
immediate reaction to the nomination was
a singular lack of enthusiasm.
He agreed to support the platform and
ticket "because it is more democratic
than the old line" but noted,
"I shall not sink my individuality in this organi-
zation which it seems to me, must be
temporary. I propose rather to main-
tain my position as an Independent
Democrat."40 Angered by the constant
attacks on him by Western Reserve men
led by the Cleveland True Democrat,
Chase seemed incapable of understanding
why anyone could question his
past inconsistent course.41 Nevertheless,
the Free Democratic showing in
1852 in Ohio was surprisingly good and
better than in any other state.42
The Free Democrats emerged from the
election greatly strengthened. They
did not do as well as they had in 1848,
but they greatly revived antislavery
interest from the apathy of the two
preceding years. In 1853, the last full year
of the life of the party, the members
continued to agitate and increase their
influence, making their best record in
their brief history. They thus placed
themselves in a better position to play
a leading role in the development of
a new party when the events of 1854
brought the Republican party into
existence. They felt that at last they
had won a permanent place in Ohio
politics. Wasting no time, they met in
January 1853 to nominate a candidate
for governor for the fall election. The
members assembled in a spirit of
great enthusiasm, realizing that success
could be imminent. The convention
was one of great harmony, and past
differences were almost forgotten. The
delegates adopted a radical platform
which included endorsement of free
trade, temperance, and Negro suffrage.
They persuaded Samuel Lewis to
run again for governor and passed
resolutions commending both Giddings
and Chase. The delegates clearly
realized that if they could maintain party
unity, they could take full advantage of
Whig apathy and become the second
strongest party of the state.43
The Free Democrats waged a strenuous
campaign. Chase, Giddings, and
Lewis visited every county in the state,
including many that had never
shown any interest in antislavery. Often
they emphasized temperance rather
than slavery in their appeal for
support. The Ohio Democrats, on the other
hand, nominated a conservative, William
Medill, but by taking a strong
antislavery position they repudiated
their national party's platform. The
Whigs, in a poorly attended convention,
nominated Nelson Barrere and
avoided all mention of sectional issues.
During the campaign there was
widespread talk of fusion of the Free
Democrats and Whigs because each
realized it had no chance for victory by
itself. Coalition tickets were ar-
ranged in some areas, and the Free
Democratic candidate for lieutenant
|
governor withdrew in favor of the Whig. But the Whigs were not yet ready to surrender their old party ties or to endorse fully the Free Democratic views on antislavery and temperance. In addition, some Free Democrats such as Chase were less than enthusiastic over the proposed union, and the idea proceeded no further.44 To Chase, the future now lay in winning over both Democrats and Whigs to the third party point of view rather than in fusion with either party. He wrote: "I am myself well satisfied that an Independent Democracy, thor- oughly organized and appealing alike to Liberal Whigs and liberal Demo- crats to unite in its action . . . could do our work best." Even Chase was beginning to see that future cooperation with the Whigs was more prom- ising than ever before. By 1853 he had given up switching parties and trying to change the Democrats and sought instead to persuade both Whigs and Democrats to join the Free Democrats.45 The election returns in 1853 gave the Free Democrats the best showing an antislavery party had ever made in Ohio. Lewis carried six counties and received more than 50,000 votes or about eighteen percent of the total; the Democrats swept to an easy victory as expected, but the Whig decline |
THE OHIO FREE SOILERS
31
was staggering. The Whigs received only
thirty percent of the vote, and
the third party was now in a position to
overtake them. Chase had hoped
that his party would hold the balance of
power in the new legislature in
order to give him a chance for
reelection to the Senate. His hopes were to
be disappointed. Although the Free
Democrats elected thirteen members to
the legislature, the Democrats won an
absolute majority.46
Chase had wanted to return to the United
States Senate to try "to redeem
the state" from its connections
with slavery. He saw the impossibility of
reforming the state Democratic party
when that party endorsed the Com-
promise in early 1854. Also, as the
Pierce administration looked more and
more to the South for direction, his
dreams of an antislavery national
Democratic party were further shattered.
The Democratic legislature soon
chose George E. Pugh to replace him in
the Senate, thus giving Chase one
more reason to look to the Whigs for aid
in the antislavery movement. The
election of 1853 had provided an
important first step in the combining of
Free Democrats and Whigs into a more
general antislavery party. The
National Era observed, "Thousands of Liberal Whigs separated
from their
party in 1848 and acted with the
Independent Democrats. Thousands have
this year followed their example;
thousands more are now ready to join
the new party."47
By 1854 the Free Democratic party in
Ohio and the nation had served
its usefulness. But more important, it
had helped to prepare the way for
a union of all Northern antislavery
elements within a larger party. With
the Whigs showing no tendency to recover
their lost position, what was
needed was the proper catalyst to bring
together antislavery men of all
parties. This was provided when Senator
Stephen A. Douglas introduced his
Kansas-Nebraska bill repealing the
territorial ban on slavery above 36° 30'
that had been in effect since the
Missouri Compromise of 1820. On the
national scene the immediate Free
Democratic reaction was a call to arms.
An impassioned public letter was written
by Chase, published on January
22, 1854, and entitled, "Address of
the Independent Democrats in Congress
to the People of the United States: Shall
Slavery be Permitted in Nebraska?"
The letter was signed by six members of
Congress including three Ohioans,
Chase, Giddings, and Representative
Edward Wade of Cleveland. In exag-
gerated terms it labelled the bill as
"a gross violation of a sacred pledge;
as a criminal betrayal of precious
rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious
plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied
region, immigrants from the Old
World and free laborers from our own
States, and convert it into a dreary
region of despotism, inhabited by
masters and slaves."48
The Kansas-Nebraska Act, as passed in
May 1854, effectively ended the
third party antislavery movement for it
created the need for a new and
larger movement which could better
include members of all parties. The
new movement originated in the Midwest
with Ohio playing a prominent role.
Fusion meetings of Free Democrats, Whigs,
and anti-Nebraska Democrats
united antislavery men all over the
state under the banner of the Repub-
licans,49 and by July the
Free Democratic party ceased to exist in Ohio. The
32 OHIO HISTORY
fusionists experienced almost immediate
success in the state with the
election of their entire slate of
congressional candidates in 1854, including
Giddings, and Chase as governor in 1855.
Numerous Free Soil men, led
by Chase and Giddings, would play
prominent roles in the new party,
successfully overcoming the differences
that had plagued them in earlier
years.50
The Republican party almost immediately
became the minority party in
Congress and the majority party in Ohio.
It achieved greater success in one
year than the Free Soilers had managed
in six. Yet in both Ohio and the
nation the Republicans owed much to
their antislavery predecessor. They
came into prominence on the same issue
that Free Soilers had been talking
about since 1848 -- the extension of
slavery into the territories. Since 1848
in Ohio, as in the rest of the nation,
the antislavery party had agitated,
but its words had fallen mostly on deaf
ears. It had struggled with dissension,
division, and disillusionment within its
own ranks and in 1850 and 1851
had almost dissolved; in 1854 it was no
longer big enough to meet the
needs of the resurgent nation-wide
antislavery movement. Thus the Ohio
Free Soilers had not labored in vain.
They had lost their fight for political
identity, but they had retained their
principles.
THE AUTHOR: Frederick J. Blue is
Assistant Professor of History at
Youngs-
town State University.
THE OHIO FREE SOILERS AND PROBLEMS OF FACTIONALISM
by FREDERICK J. BLUE
The history of the Free Soil party in Ohio from 1849 until it was dissolved in 1854 was one of incessant factional conflict. One source of controversy was the question whether the party should form a coalition with one of the major parties or should continue as a separate party. This controversy over the organization of the party was finally successfully resolved when Free Soil leaders helped form the new Republican party and thus eliminated the need for them to maintain a third party dedicated to antislavery. The
NOTES ARE ON PAGES 89-93 |