PARTY POLITICS IN OHIO, 1840-1850
BY EDGAR ALLAN HOLT, B. A., M. A., PH.
D.
(Continued from the January, 1929,
Quarterly)
CHAPTER V
THE ELECTION OF 1848 IN OHIO
The clash of sectional and personal
interests in
Ohio did not end with the
pronouncements of the State
conventions. The bitter anti-southern
wing of the Whig
party, encouraged by the lavish praise
bestowed on Cor-
win by the Whig State Convention,
thought that he
might, after all, become the leader of
the Whigs of the
Nation. On the other hand, Corwin had
lost the confi-
dence of the Liberty leaders and could
not, therefore,
hope to rally all the anti-slavery
forces; nor could he
command the support of many moderate
Whigs who
favored an energetic prosecution of the
War. McLean
hoped to conciliate all these forces,
but his "Jacksonism"
and his doubts as to the rights of
Congress to abolish
slavery in the territories, prevented
what might other-
wise have been unanimous Whig support.
The friends
of Scott continued to press his
interests in Ohio hoping
to find in him the only available
candidate.
The overwhelming movement to nominate
Taylor
continued in the face of open defiance
from Ohio, a
defiance which grew with the cession of
California and
New Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, in
(260)
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 261
May, 1848.1 Stevenson, editor of the
Cincinnati Atlas,
expressed this sentiment well when he
assured J. J.
Crittenden, of Kentucky, manager of the
Taylor inter-
ests in that State, that "the
Wilmot Proviso is 'stronger
in Ohio than Whiggery, democracy and
military glory,
all combined. * * * "2 However,
he added that Tay-
lor might carry Ohio if he would assume
the "no terri-
tory" ground which Corwin regarded
as a sine qua non
of his support. Outside of Cincinnati,
where there was
considerable Taylor strength,3 the
sentiment against
Taylor seemed overwhelming. When it
became evident
that it would become difficult to
defeat the Taylor move-
ment in the country at large, Whigs of
the Ninth, Tenth,
Eleventh, Twelfth, and Twentieth Ohio
Congressional
Districts announced that they would not
support anyone
who was not pledged to oppose the
extension of slavery
or the cession of further territory, or
who was not "a
Whig, a whole Whig and nothing
but a Whig."4
Similar action was taken by the Whigs
of Trum-
bull, Lorain, Warren, Cuyahoga,
Belmont, Lake,
Geauga, Greene, Clinton, and Ashtabula
Counties.5
Anti-slavery Whigs took possession of a
Clay meeting
in Cincinnati and passed resolutions
refusing support to
any candidate who did not favor the
exclusion of slavery
from all the territories.6 By
March, almost every county
1 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp.
526-527; Erwin H. Price has treated
"The Election of 1848 in
Ohio," in Ohio Archaeological and Historical Pub-
lications, v. XXXVI, 1927, pp. 188-311.
2 Stevenson to Crittenden, September 7,
1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI.
3 N. G. Pendleton to Crittenden,
February 10, 1848, Crittenden MSS.,
v. XI; H. E. Spencer to McLean, February
24, 1848, McLean MSS., v.
XIV; Ohio State Journal, February
4, 1848.
4 Ohio State Journal, March 11,
April 9, 11, 29, May 9, 1848.
5 Cleveland True Democrat, January
4, 1848.
6 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 127.
262 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
in Ohio had declared for Corwin or
Clay; Richland and
Summit Counties had declared for Scott;
and not one
expressed a preference for Taylor. The
Lebanon Star
summarized these events "as a
pointed rebuke of the in-
sane attempt of sundry Whigs to thrust
a slave-holding
military Chieftain on the Whig
party."7 The Hamilton
Intelligencer, edited by William C. Howells, urged the
Whigs to nominate a civilian, instead
of a military chief-
tain, in order to make the Mexican War
a real issue;8
and the Dayton Journal hastened
to assure the leaders
of the State that a Taylor meeting at
that place was
poorly attended and did not represent
the Whigs of
Montgomery County.9 In
the face of a continued de-
mand by Whig leaders of Ohio that
Taylor express his
views on Whig principles,10 the
General refused to com-
mit himself, simply repeating that he
was not a party
man, that he would run even if Clay
were the choice of
the National Convention, and that,
although he would
accept the nomination of a Whig
national Convention,
he would not be bound by pledges.11
This letter writing
left the Whigs of Ohio utterly at sea.
Corwin, ready to
support Taylor on the "no
territory" issue, privately ex-
pressed the opinion that the General's
qualifications con-
sisted in "sleeping forty years in
the woods, and culti-
vating moss on the calves of his
legs."12 Ohio Whigs
were unqualifiedly opposed to Taylor's
candidacy.
7 Lebanon Star, quoted in Ohio
State Journal, March 22, 1848.
8 Hamilton
Intelligencer, quoted in Ohio State Journal, March 7, 1848,
9 Dayton
Journal, quoted in Ohio State Journal, April 5, 1848.
10 Marietta Intelligencer and
Toledo Blade, quoted in Ohio State Jour-
nal, February 7, 1848.
11 Montgomery (Alabama) Journal, quoted
in Ohio State Journal, April
1, 1848; Richmond (Virginia) Republican,
quoted in Cincinnati Daily En-
quirer, May 1, 1848.
12 Stevenson to Clay, May 22, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850
263
The movement for McLean is more
difficult to ana-
lyze. The cession of Mexican territory
by the treaty,
which ended the Mexican War, scrapped
the rather sim-
ple Whig formula of opposition to the
extension of
American territory and made it
impossible to evade the
question of slavery in the territories.
To many Whigs
of Ohio, McLean's view13 that Congress
had no right
to deal with slavery in the territories
seemed identical
with Cass's doctrine of popular sovereignty.14
Never-
theless, McLean was at least partially
successful in keep-
ing the confidence of the extreme
anti-southern men,
who hoped to use him as a figure around
which the
North might rally against the
pretensions of the South.15
The moderate and conservative elements
of the Whig
party preferred McLean's position to
the extreme prin-
ciples of Corwin. McLean's friends
tried to organize
the State. At the Franklin County Whig
Convention,
on February 26th, a secret committee
was formed, com-
posed of Samuel Galloway, Lorenzo
English, Robert
Thompson, J. Kilbourne, William Miner,
John Greiner,
C. C. Rose, Demas Adams, A. F. Perry,
and John Tees-
dale,16 and the latter
toured the State in an effort to
persuade Whig editors to support McLean,
although
most of them were already committed to
other candi-
dates.17 The failure to secure greater
newspaper sup-
port led to the proposal to establish a
McLean paper at
13 National Intelligencer, December 22, 1847.
14 McLean to Chase, February 5, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.
15 Giddings wrote Chase that "The
political atmosphere is overspread.
Great events are rapidly
transpiring.--My impression now is that Judge
McLean will be the candidate of the Whig
party . . . It is true he does
not go as far as we do but I think his
election would be a triumph of true
principles." Giddings to Chase,
March 6, 1848, Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.
16 Teesdale to Miner, February 26, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XIV.
17
Teesdale to Miner, March 31, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.
264
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Columbus, but James Wilson, of
Steubenville, a staunch
supporter of the Judge, thought that
such a paper would
not do as much good as three or four
"decidedly Whig"
papers.18 Liberty leaders,
upon whom McLean counted
for support, disapproved of the
proposal to make Tees-
dale the editor of a special McLean
paper because the
latter was unpopular among Corwin's
followers and en-
tirely too "Whiggish" to be
an instrument of reform.19
That the "Xenia Clique" and
other followers of Corwin
continued their hostility to McLean was
evidenced by
the continued attacks of the Xenia Torch-Light.20
Whig
leaders in other states assured the
friends of McLean
that if Ohio would unite on the Judge
he would become
the national leader of the party.21 McLean's friends
tried to create the impression in
Washington that Clay
could not be elected and that the only
hope of success
for the party in 1848 was to unite on
McLean.22
The supporters of Corwin, after they
perceived that
their favorite could not be nominated,
could not agree
as to the best policy to pursue. In a
Convention of
Whigs of the Tenth Congressional
District (Franklin,
Licking, and Knox), William B. Thrall,
editor of the
Ohio State Journal, John A. Lazell, of the State Central
Committee, and James Noble, all friends
of Corwin, de-
clared for Scott, although the friends
of McLean se-
cured the appointment of Samuel
Galloway as one of the
delegates to the Whig National
Convention.23 McLean's
18 Wilson to McLean, January 26, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XIV.
19 Hamlin to Chase, May 14, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.
20 --?-- to McLean, March 8, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
21 Miller to McLean, May 7, 1848, McLean
MSS., v. XV; Smith to
McLean, March 29, 1848, McLean MSS., v.
XV.
22 Moorehead to Clay, May 3, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.
23 Miner to McLean, May 20, 1848, McLean
MSS., v. XV.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 265
enemies sought to give the impression
in Washington
that Scott would be more acceptable
than the Judge, to
Corwin's supporters.24 The
enmity of Corwin toward
McLean may be explained by the fact
that the latter's
nomination in 1848 would probably defer
or make im-
possible the selection of another
candidate from Ohio
for several terms, although Greeley
claimed that it was
caused by Corwin's fear that McLean
would be hostile
to his ambitions.25 But
Corwin soon reversed his tac-
tics. On May 19, an editorial in the
Lebanon Star
promised to support McLean as a second
choice to Cor-
win. Chase regarded the editorial as
authoritative be-
cause Corwin was in Lebanon at the
time, and Corwin
verified this impression by sending a
marked copy of
the editorial to William Miner, with
the words, "This
will be the position of the Whigs
here."26 The position
of the anti-southern Whigs and of the
Liberty leaders,
with reference to the McLean movement,
must be ex-
plained further. A letter of Judge
Wilson accounts for
much of the opposition to McLean.
Wilson wrote that
"Some will have it that you
[McLean] voted for Gen-
eral Jackson and opposed the election
of Mr. Adams.
Others that you formed a portion of
Jackson's Cabinet
--others again, that you were opposed
to Clay."27 Since
McLean had been an independent, some
National Re-
publicans feared that he would be
hostile to their inter-
ests. Webster's friends wanted to know
whether Mc-
Lean had any "unfriendly feelings"
toward him,28 and
24 Caleb B. Smith to McLean, April 22,
1848, McLean MSS., v. XV,
See also J. W. Allen to ? March, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
25 Teesdale to McLean, May 10, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
26 Miner to McLean, May 20, 1848, McLean
MSS., v. XV.
27 Wilson to McLean, January 26, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV.
28 Smith to McLean, May 1, 1848, McLean
MSS., v. XV.
266 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the protestations of the Cincinnati Daily
Gazette, a Mc-
Lean organ, failed to convince the Ohio
State Journal
of his Whiggery.29
Although McLean was not anti-southern
enough to
be acceptable to Whigs like Tilden and
Root of the
Western Reserve,30 the
Liberty leaders of Ohio began to
look to him, following the Judge's
letter denouncing the
War, as a suitable candidate upon whom
all anti-slavery
men could unite, in spite of the fact
that the Liberty
party already had a candidate in the
field. It will be
remembered that the Ohio Liberty
leaders opposed the
nomination of Hale in the hope of being
able to take ad-
vantage of schisms in the older
parties. This dissolu-
tion of the old parties appeared
imminent, and Steven-
son was correct when he wrote Clay that
McLean was
trying "to detach Whigs from their
party on anti-slav-
ery grounds, and to rope in the Liberty
party * * *,
a scheme which contemplates either the
withdrawal or
the sacrifice of Hale, and I am sure
that Chase and
other leading Abolitionists, here and
elsewhere, are in
the plot."31 Hamlin,
editor of the Cleveland True Demo-
crat, supported McLean so strongly that Teesdale feared
he would endanger his chances among the
moderate
Whigs.32 Corwin, fearing the
effect of this Liberty and
Whig alliance on the southern Whigs,
urged the Lib-
erty leaders to use discretion in their
campaign for Mc-
29 Ohio State Journal, February
8, 1848.
30 Chase
to McLean, May 25, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV. The Liberty
leaders, Chase and Hamlin, tried to rid
Tilden of this impression before he
left as a delegate to the Whig National
Convention; See also Whittlesey
to McLean, May 11, 1848, McLean MSS., v.
XV.
31 Stevenson to Clay, April 8, 1818,
Clay MSS., v. XXV.
32 Teesdale to McLean, May 12, 1848, and
Hamlin to McLean, May 15,
1848, in McLean MSS., v. XV.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 267
Lean;33 and Teesdale, also aware of the
fact that the
support of the Liberty party was a
"two-edged sword,"
warned against the sharp anti-southern
articles which
Chase contributed to the Cincinnati Gazette.34 To the
time of the Whig National Convention,
Chase assured
McLean of his support, and Hamlin lent
encouragement
from northern Ohio, assuring the Judge
that reports
that northern Ohio favored Scott were
unfounded.35
Moreover, an additional weight was
thrown into the
scales for McLean when Brinkerhoff
announced his
support, an example which Chase thought
10,000 Demo-
crats of Ohio would follow.36
Encouraged by the endorsement of the
Whig State
Convention, the movement to nominate
Corwin gained
force until it became evident that he
could secure no sup-
port from other states. Angered at the
opposition of
the followers of McLean, the members of
the General
Assembly, favorable to Corwin, forced
the dismissal of
Teesdale as assistant clerk,37 and
launched an ambitious
movement in New York for Clay, in order
to neutralize
the movement for Taylor, so that Corwin
might finally
be brought forward as a compromise
condidate.38 The
Whigs of Ohio gladly would have
supported Corwin,
had there been any possibility of
securing his nomina-
tion. District and county conventions,
all over the State,
instructed their delegates for Ohio's
favorite son, with
Clay as a second choice,39 and
an Ohio correspondent
33 Miner to McLean, May 20, 1848, McLean
MSS., v. XV.
34 Teesdale to McLean, May 8, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
35 Chase to McLean, May 20, 1848, and
Hamlin to McLean, June 2,
1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.
36 Chase
to McLean, May 26, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.
37 Wilson to McLean, January 26, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XIV.
38 Mower to McLean, January 29, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XIV.
39 Ohio State Journal, March 4, 6, 11, May 4, 1848.
268 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
of the New York Herald asserted
that the demonstra-
tions for McLean and Taylor were merely
feints to draw
off the supporters of Clay in order to
allow the political
forces of the State to rally behind
Corwin.40 Although,
on May 18, the Ohio State Journal declared
for Corwin
because "a vast majority of the
Whigs of Ohio prefer
him to any other man who has been
named," his nomi-
nation was impossible and the important
question was
to whom his support should be
transferred. Teesdale
believed that the delegates from
southern Ohio favored
Clay while those from northern Ohio
would vote for
Scott.41 It was generally
felt in Washington and in
Ohio that Corwin desired McLean's defeat
in order to
improve his own chances for 1852,42 in
spite of the fact
that on May 19 he publicly announced in
the Lebanon
Star that his adherents would support McLean as a
second choice.
Scott's strength, chiefly in northern
Ohio,43 was
based on the belief that only a
military hero could de-
feat Taylor in the National
Convention. Follett de-
clared that the Whigs of northern Ohio
were willing
to accept Scott simply because he was a
northern man,44
and Tilden and Root labored to create
enthusiasm for
Scott.45 Scott was endorsed
by some district and county
conventions,46 thus making
possible his support in the
Whig National Convention.
40 New York Herald, quoted in
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, April 23,
1848.
41 Teesdale to McLean, March 6, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XIV.
42 Dowling to McLean, May 1, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
43 Teesdale to McLean, February 28,
1848, McLean MSS., v. XIV;
Whittlesey to McLean, May 11, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
44 Stevenson to Clay, May 18, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
45 Hamlin to Chase, May 20, 1848, Chase
MSS., v. VI, Pa.
46 Ohio State Journal, March 3,
April 17, 25, May 9, 29, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 269
Clay's strength in Ohio depended upon
the ability of
his friends to create the impression
that he could win,
and upon the pledges he might make
opposing the ex-
tension of slavery in the territories.
Frequent defeats
and the lack of enthusiasm for Clay
proved a tremen-
dous handicap. Chase preferred McLean, but an-
nounced he would support Clay if he
would "take some
positive anti-slavery ground."47
Chase represented the
position of an anti-slavery leader with
strong Demo-
cratic proclivities. Anti-southern
leaders among the
Whigs also could support Clay if he
opposed the exten-
sion of slavery in the territories. It
was confidently ex-
pected that Clay would take this
position--indeed, Stev-
enson and Bellamy Storer, of
Cincinnati, said as much
in a public meeting in Cincinnati.48
When anti-southern
leaders, both Whig and Liberty, in May,
signed a call
for a "People's Convention,"
in Columbus, Stevenson
urged Clay to make an explicit
declaration against the
extension of slavery.49 Clay,
sensing the gravity of the
situation, but still intent upon the
presidency, asked Cor-
win whether or not he should withdraw,
and Corwin
replied that any candidate who thought
another person
had a better chance of winning the
election should with-
draw; that Clay's Lexington resolutions
had not quieted
the Abolitionists; and that, although
he could obtain
more votes in Ohio than any other
candidate from a
slave-holding state, he could not carry
it against any
47 Chase to McLean, February 12, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XIV.
48 Stevenson to Clay, April 8, 1848,
Clay MSS., v. XXV. Stevenson
thought that Clay could command southern
support by taking the legal
position that the law of a territory
remained the same when transferred by
treaty.
49 Stevenson to Clay, May 18, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
270 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Democrat from a free state.50 That
Clay had really
lost the confidence of the anti-slavery
leaders was
shown by Hamlin's statement in the
Cleveland True
Democrat to the effect that Clay's "heart is not in the
anti-slavery enterprise--he is a
slave-holder living in a
slave state, and freedom has nothing to
hope from
him."51 Giddings, who
had campaigned ardently for
Clay in 1844, now demanded a specific
pledge from him
to oppose the further extension of
slavery.52
Only for a brief period, in the fall of
1847, did sen-
timent in Ohio seem to favor Clay. This
was occa-
sioned by the disgust of the regulars
with General Tay-
lor's non-committal letters, and
possibly if Clay had
taken strong ground against the
extension of slave ter-
ritory at that time he might have
obtained the support
of Ohio.53 But Clay refused,
and hopes for his nomi-
nation passed so rapidly that his
friends, embarrassed
by constant rumors that Clay would not
run, insisted
that he give them a statement.54 Clay,
still pathetically
interested in the presidency, sounded
out the leaders as
to his chances. McLean told him that he
should not run
unless there was the highest probability
of success.
"Your fame," he wrote Clay,
"is of too much value to
yourself and to your country to
compromise it, in any
degree, on a hazardous result."55
Desire for the office finally overcame
Clay, and, on
April 10, in a public letter, he
decided to allow his name
50 Corwin to Clay, May 3, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
51 Corwin to Clay, May 3, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.
52 Giddings to Chase, March 16, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. V, Pa.
53 Stevenson
to Crittenden, September 7, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI.
54 Stevenson to Clay, May 18, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
55 McLean to Clay, March 1, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 271
to go before the Whig National
Convention.56 Clay's
letter announcing his position was
really a revelation of
his weakness and of his gullibility,57 and it
had a bad
effect on his chances in Ohio.58 although
the Ohio State
Journal remarked that, excepting Ohio's favorite son,
Clay was the most popular man in the
State and that
his past utterances had shown that he
would resist the
extension of slavery in the
territories.59 The Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer (D) went to the heart of the whole
matter with the declaration "There
is something rich
in the idea advocated by his friends,
that the use of his
name is essential to the salvation of
the Whig party in
the free states; that he, a southern
man, and a slave-
holder, should be, of all others of his
class, alone accept-
able to the north!" The Enquirer maintained that the
really important consideration was
Clay's attitude on
slavery in the territories.60 The
Whigs of Ohio re-
mained cold and Clay's chief adviser in
Ohio was forced
to admit in May that it might be wise
to withdraw from
the race.61 The attitude of
Corwin at this juncture is
difficult to explain. After having
assured the friends
of McLean that his followers would support
the Judge
as a second choice, he virtually
repudiated that statement
and announced that he was urging the
Ohio delegates
to vote for Clay first, Webster second,
and finally, if a
56 Ohio State Journal, April 14, 1848.
57
James E. Harvey wrote that "It betrays a willingness to believe rep-
resentations that have not even
plausibility to recommend them, and a mor-
bid passion for the Presidency which
nothing but charity can extenuate.
It is evident that he plays his last card
and that desperation guides the ven-
ture." Harvey to McLean, April 27,
1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.
58 Teesdale
to McLean, April 15, 1848, and Leavitt to McLean, May 3,
1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.
59 Ohio State Journal, April 14, 1848.
60 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, April
13, 1848.
61 Stevenson to Clay, May 18, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
272 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
civilian were not available, to go for
Scott.62 John W.
Allen, editor of the Cleveland Herald,
summarizing the
situation in the Western Reserve,
maintained that "Cor-
win and McLean can (carry) this region
with a rush.
Webster would carry it strongly and so
would Scott,
unless his nativism of 1845 were
fastened on him. It
would be hard work to do anything for
Mr. Clay and
death to do anything for old Zack. The
delegates from
this region only desire to know who has
the most
strength to determine their action. * *
* As to the
free States, I think there will be no
quarreling after the
nomination. We desire to win and care
less who the
servant we employ may be, than that he be
honest and
capable and an orthodox Whig."63
In short, the pre-
convention campaign left the Ohio
delegation unpledged
on everything except the defeat of
Taylor.
Between January and May, 1848,
practically all the
Democratic organs and county
conventions in. Ohio fa-
vored Cass for president and William
Butler, of Ken-
tucky, for vice president.64 But
the political situation
was more complex than this apparent
unanimity would
indicate. A portion of the old Van
Buren-Jacksonian
Democracy was willing to accept the
nomination of Cass,
who was understood to be sympathetic
with the South.
His enemies labelled him an
"arch-dough-face." Both
Medary and Allen had been disappointed
by the Polk
Administration, the former by being
refused a cabinet
and a consular appointment,65 and
the latter by being
defeated in the conduct of relations
with England in the
62 Stevenson to Clay, May 22, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
63 Allen to --?--, May 12, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
64 Ohio Statesman, April -- to May 25, 1848.
65 Medary to Allen, January 22, 1848,
Allen MSS., v. VI.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 273
"Oregon boundary dispute,"
and both were willing to
acquiesce in the nomination of Cass.
But Medary, al-
though appointed as a delegate, did not
attend the Na-
tional Convention. He told Van Buren
that he had no
confidence in any of the new leaders,
and particularly
not in Cass's advisers, but he
explained that he liked
Cass personally and would vote for him
if nominated.
Medary claimed that the Democrats of
Ohio acquiesced
in the selection of Cass because of the
latter's defence
of the American claims in the Oregon
question, and
because it was generally believed that
the Administra-
tion was opposed to his candidacy.
Medary also ob-
jected to making an issue of the Wilmot
Proviso be-
cause "There were higher, better,
safer and less ob-
noxious grounds to take."66
A small portion of the radical
Democracy was unwil-
ling to accept the leadership of Cass,
whom they identi-
fied as an ally of the slave power.
That they were domi-
nated by a jealousy of southern
influence in the govern-
ment, rather than by any moral scruples
concerning slav-
ery, was evident from the composition
of this faction.
Brinkerhoff, one of the most important,
was grievously
disappointed with Polk, who refused to
appoint him to
the position of paymaster in the army.67
That he had
no particular sympathy with negroes,
was shown by his
desire to prevent them from coming into
Ohio, and to
force slave-holders to care for them.68
Benjamin Tap-
pan, who also opposed the nomination of
Cass and later
66 Medary to Van Buren, May 5, 1848, Van
Buren MSS., v. IV.
67
Polk's Diary, v. I, p. 466.
68 Brinkerhoff
to Chase, March 22, 1847, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.
Vol. XXXVIII--18
274 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
joined the Free Soil party,69 continually
assured Polk,
in the hope of getting political
preferment,70 that his
was the only Democratic paper in Ohio.
A third mem-
ber of the Ohio Democracy who belonged
to this anti-
southern, rather than an anti-slavery
wing, was James
W. Taylor, of the Cincinnati Signal.71
Although a Demo-
crat, Taylor had thrown his influence
to the movement
to nominate General Taylor, but he proposed
to go over
to the Barnburners, of New York, a
radical reform
group under the leadership of Van
Buren, if Taylor
should adopt any other position than
that of an umpire
on the question of slavery in the
territories or if he
should fail to appoint enough northern
men to public
office.72 Thus an element of the Democratic
party in
Ohio, dissatisfied with the domination
of the National
organization by the South, proposed to
join a similarly
dissatisfied group from New
York. They hoped to
appeal to the voters on the rather
abstract question of
slavery in the territories, but only
because the extension
of slavery meant an addition to the
political power of the
South.
The Democratic National Convention,
which met in
69 Ohio State Journal, August 10, 1848. See Tappan-Blair Letters.
70 Polk's
Diary, v. I, pp. 38-40.
71 James W. Taylor was born at Penn Yen,
Yates County, New York,
in 1818; was admitted to the bar; moved
to Ohio in 1841; delegate to the
Constitutional Convention of Ohio
1850-1851; State Librarian of Ohio
1854-1856; appointed by President Grant
U. S. Consul to Winnipeg, Can-
ada, where he died April 28, 1893. For
biographical sketch see Galbreath,
History of Ohio, vol. 2, p. 62.
72 Taylor
ended the letter in which he explained his position to John
Van Buren, a Barnburner leader of New
York and son of the ex-President,
with a rather obsequious request for a
loan in order to rescue the Signal
from financial ruin. James W. Taylor to
John Van Buren, April 18, 1848,
Van Buren MSS. v. LIV.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 275
Baltimore73 May 22, 1848,
was a stormy one. The De-
mocracy of New York, already divided
into the "Hunk-
ers," or regular Democrats, and
the "Barnburners," sent
two sets of delegates.74 The
difficulties raised by this
contest may be appreciated from an
analysis in the
Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, which
thought that the
Barnburners were
"disorganizers," who should be
pledged to accept the nominee of the
National Conven-
tion. On the other hand, the same paper
declared that
if they were excluded from the
Convention, because they
would not accept such a pledge, the
delegates from Ala-
bama, South Carolina, and Georgia
should be excluded,
also, since they were pledged not to
accept any man who
would not promise to oppose the
restriction of slavery in
the territories.75 The
Convention decided to settle the
contest by pledging each faction to
abide by the nominee
of the Convention. When the Barnburners
declined to
be pledged, the Hunkers were given
their seats in the
Convention by action of a committee. A
warm debate
followed, in which the Committee report
was tabled, and
the Convention voted to hear the claims
of each faction.
The Barnburners denied that they were Abolitionists
simply because they had supported a
resolution in the
Democratic State Convention of New York
to apply the
principles of the Ordinance of 1787 to
the new terri-
tories. On the fourth day, the
Convention decided to
seat both delegations and give every
other state a corre-
sponding increase of representation,
but both Hunkers
73 There had been a loud demand among
the Democrats of Ohio that
the National Convention should be held
in Cincinnati on July 4, but the
proposal fell upon deaf ears in the
East. Washington Daily Union, De-
cember 11, 1847, January 24, February
12, 1848.
74 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII,
pp. 544-545.
75 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, May
4, 1848.
276 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
and Barnburners declined to accept the
compromise and
withdrew from the Convention.76
On the fourth ballot, Lewis Cass was
nominated for
president. McGrane, in his biography of
William Allen,
gives Allen's account of the part he
played in the Con-
vention, as related by Allen himself in
1873. According
to this account, the forces of Cass and
Van Buren were
deadlocked, and a committee, composed
of the friends
of each, visited Allen at Washington
and offered him
the nomination for the sake of party
harmony. Allen
refused the nomination and asked the
committee to go
back to Baltimore and nominate Cass. To
accept the
nomination, according to Allen, would
have been an act
of treachery because he had been
entrusted with the
management of Cass's campaign.77 Although
this is Al-
len's own version of how an apparent
deadlock was
broken, it is difficult to understand
how Allen could have
played this role between the forces of
Cass and Van
Buren when the latter had not even been
placed in nom-
ination. McGrane explains Allen's
preference for Cass
over Van Buren by Allen's desire to
make the most
strategic political move, because Cass
had the support
of the Democratic State Convention of
Ohio, and be-
cause Allen did not sympathize with the
recent anti-
slavery tendencies of Van Buren.78
It appears that sec-
tionalism dominated the anti-southern
group in the Na-
tional Convention to a higher degree
than it did those
who accepted the choice of the party.
Moreover, as
Medary pointed out, Cass represented,
to some degree,
the ardent expansionist sentiment of
the Northwest
76 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp. 544-545.
77 McGrane,
op. cit., pp. 128-131.
78 Ibid., pp. 127-128.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 277
and a hostility to England which always
appealed to the
provincialism of the American.79 William
O. Butler, of
Kentucky, was nominated for vice
president. The usual
Democratic doctrines were endorsed and
the Convention
declared that all efforts of
Abolitionists and others to
induce Congress to interfere with
slavery were danger-
ous and should not be countenanced.80
Cass's nomination was well received in
Ohio, al-
though it encountered the opposition of
the same ele-
ments that had fought against his
endorsement in the
State Convention. Brinkerhoff was on
the verge of join-
ing the Free soil movement in Ohio, a
movement by
which Chase and the Liberty leaders
hoped to obtain the
support of all who were dissatisfied
with the actions of
the National Conventions, irrespective
of party. Brink-
erhoff wrote to Chase, "I have for
some time openly
declared and still do that I will not
vote for Cass.
Whether I shall vote at all depends on
results. Should
things take such a course as to induce
me to believe that
my approval and support of the
proceedings of the Con-
vention [People's Convention of
anti-slavery elements
at Columbus] to come off on the 20th
and 21st, would
be of any use to the Great Cause, I
will not be slow in
letting it be known."81
The Cleveland Daily Plain
Dealer greeted Cass's nomination with black type head-
79 Political strategy probably played an
even larger share, because, on
May 2, Blair wrote Van Buren that
"There is, on the part of Benton and
Allen, a willingness to fight the battle
on northern grounds boldly and un-
compromisingly." Francis P. Blair
to Van Buren, May 2, 1848, Medary
to Allen, January 22, 1845, Allen MSS.,
v. VI; Medary to Van Buren, May
5, 1848, Van Buren MSS., v. LIV.
80 McMaster, op.
cit., v. VII, p. 546.
84 Brinkerhoff to Chase, May 27, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.
82
Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, May 26, 1848.
83 Cleveland
Daily Plain Dealer, May 29, 1848.
278 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
lines "The Great West
Triumphant," and interpreted
the nomination as a victory of the
Northwest over the
South in which the two-thirds rule had
been unable
to defeat the will of the people.82
This view was even
more clearly expressed in an editorial
which declared
that "The fear of falling again
into Southern hands,
and plodding through another
administration under
Southern rule, has been gloriously
relieved. A man has
been nominated whose birth, education,
relations and
associations, are all of the Free
States."83 The regular
Democrats hoped to keep the
dissatisfied elements of the
State in line by interpreting the
nomination as a victory
over southern domination.84 The
Ohio Whigs, on the
other hand, considered Cass's selection
as a victory for
the South, the Ohio State Journal declaring
that "Any
other northern man might possibly show
some inde-
pendence, but with Cass they [the
South] felt safe."85
Thus both parties viewed the issue as
one between the
rights of the North and the domination
of the South.
The extension of slave territory was to
both parties in
Ohio a symbol of the rule of the
"Slave power" in na-
tional affairs.
The Whig National Convention met in
Philadelphia,
June 5, 1848. That Taylor was the
choice of a ma-
jority of the Convention was clear from
the beginning.86
The anti-southern wing of the Whigs was
anxious to
support McLean, since Chase had pointed
out that if a
candidate acceptable to the Liberty men
were nomi-
nated, the Whigs would secure the
support of the anti-
84
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, May 30, 1848.
85 Ohio State Journal, June 1,
1848.
86 Harlan to Chase, June 2, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 279
slavery forces of the North.87 The
Whigs of New Eng-
land and Indiana were ready to cast
their votes for Mc-
Lean if Ohio would lead the way,88
but, although seven
members of the Ohio delegation were
ready to support
him, the majority thought that he could
not be nomi-
nated, and that, in order to defeat
Taylor, it was neces-
sary to support Scott, a northern
military man.89 Fully
aware that he had small chance of success,
Samuel Gal-
loway, representing the McLean
delegates, had pre-
sented the name of the Judge to the
Convention and
had promptly withdrawn it.90 McLean's
friends in-
sisted that his defeat was due to the
division of the
Whigs of Ohio,91 but the
Judge was probably defeated
by the wide-spread distrust of his
orthodoxy on gen-
eral Whig principles and by the
lukewarmness of the
support of the anti-southern groups in
Ohio. Ohio gave
one vote to Taylor, McLean and Clay,
and twenty votes
to Scott on the first ballot, in spite
of the fact that there
was no enthusiasm for the latter in the
delegation.92
Ohio continued to support Scott until
after the nomi-
nation of Taylor, when ex-Governor
Joseph Vance
seconded the motion to make Taylor's selection
unani-
mous, and made a plea for unity. Vance
acknowledged
that he had opposed the nomination of
Taylor largely
because of the fear that his nomination
would disor-
87 Chase
to McLean, May 25, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV.
88 Thompson to Corwin, May 15, 1848,
Clay MSS., v. XXV.
89 Whittlesey to McLean, June 12, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
90 Galloway
to McLean, July 14, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XV; this
occurrence later led to a
misunderstanding between Chase and the Ohio
State Journal, the
former maintaining that McLean was not bound by the
decision of the Convention, while the
latter asserted the contrary and pub-
lished a letter from Galloway to show
that his name was presented. Ohio
State Journal, July 31, 1848.
91 Smith to McLean, June 13, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
92 Stevenson to Clay, August 10, 1848,
Clay MSS., v. XXVI.
280
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ganize the Whig party in Ohio.93 The
unwillingness of
the Whigs of Ohio to support Clay
bitterly disappointed
Horace Greeley who had labored hard to
procure the
nomination of the Kentuckian.94 In
order to sow the
seeds of discord in the Whig ranks, the
Ohio Democrats
sought to prove that Crittenden,
apparently an ally
of Clay, was in reality working for
Taylor95 and that he
was responsible for Clay's defeat.96
The Convention also brought Corwin's
duplicity to
light. It appeared that, although he
had assured the
workers of Clay during the
pre-convention period that
Ohio was for Clay, he really had used
Clay's name to
neutralize the Taylor movement. After
that had been
accomplished, Corwin organized a
movement in favor
of Scott in order to produce a hopeless
confusion in the
political situation in Ohio. His
friends on the Western
Reserve planned a meeting of the Whigs
in Columbus
to ratify the nomination of the Whig
National Conven-
tion if it should be any other person
than Taylor. Should
Taylor be the nominee, Corwin's friends
hoped that
Corwin would be the choice of the
proposed Columbus
Convention. As matters turned out, the
Whigs, who
were dissatisfied by the action of the
Philadelphia Con-
vention, finally went into the Free
Soil movement and
Corwin was left stranded, as far as his
own ambitions
were concerned.97
No platform was adopted by the Whigs in
1848; but
93 Ohio Slate Journal, June 14,
1848.
94 Greeley to Clay, June 21, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
95 See letters of Vance and Stevenson to
Crittenden in Crittenden MSS.
v. XI.
96 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, July
28, 1848.
97 For
this very interesting situation see George M. Botts to Clay,
August 23, 1848, and Stevenson to Clay,
August 10, 1848, in Clay MSS.,
v. XXVI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 281
it was understood that the party
endorsed the principles
of Taylor's letter to J. S. Allison, to
the effect that
he was a Whig but not an ultra-Whig;
that the veto
should never be used except in cases of
violations of
the Constitution or hasty action by
Congress; and that
the will of the people on such issues
as the tariff, the
currency, and internal improvements
should be carried
out by the President.98
The reaction of the Whigs in Ohio to
Taylor's nom-
ination was not unexpected. On June 17,
in an address
urging support of the nominee of the
Convention, the
Whig State Central Committee stressed
Taylor's ad-
herence to Whig principles and quoted
from his letters
to prove that because he opposed the
use of the veto,
he would not defeat an act of Congress
extending the
Wilmot Proviso to the new
territories."99 The Ohio
State Journal announced that, though it would have pre-
ferred a civilian to a soldier, and a
citizen of the North
to a citizen of the South, Taylor was
far better than
Cass, who was servile to the slave
interests.100 But
Taylor's nomination awakened little
enthusiasm among
the "staid, discreet, and ardent
Whigs."101 Anti-south-
ern papers all over the State openly
repudiated the nom-
ination, the Ashtabula Sentinel, Giddings'
organ, as-
serting that "They [the Whigs]
will not be likely to
surrender their honor nor their
principles for the pur-
pose of sustaining a man whose hands
are red with the
blood of innocence and who is in favor
of extending the
98 For events of Convention see Ohio
State Journal, June 12-13, 1848;
Niles' Register, July 5, 1848.
99 Ohio State Journal, June 17, 1848.
100 Ohio State Journal, June 10,
1848.
101 Ohio State Journal, June 17, 1848.
282
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
cause of slavery upon territory now
free and of erecting
new slave markets on soil that is now
consecrated to
the rights of man."102 The Elyria Courier denounced
the Whig Central Committee for
attempting to "seduce
the Whigs of the State from their
principles."103 By
June 21, the following papers refused
to support Tay-
lor: the Warren Chronicle, Massillon
Telegraph, Ohio
Star, Ashtabula Sentinel, Cleveland True Democrat,
Medina Whig, Painesville Telegraph,
Lorain Courier,
and Butler County Whig. The Mt.
Vernon Times, Ohio
Repository, Conneaut Reporter, New Lisbon Palladium,
and the Akron Beacon awaited
Taylor's statement con-
cerning his attitude on the Wilmot
Proviso.104 On the
Western Reserve, where the defection
was greatest, the
Whigs of Trumbull and Geauga Counties,
refused to
ratify Taylor's nomination.105 The
Cleveland True
Democrat repudiated the nomination in violent terms--
"And this is the cup offered by
slaveholders for us to
drink. We loathe the sight. We will
neither touch,
taste nor handle the unclean thing. We
ask the Whigs
of Cuyahoga County to live up to the
pledges they have
made."106 Lewis D.
Campbell, a Whig member of Con-
gress and a delegate to the National
Convention, pub-
licly renounced Taylor at a meeting of
Whigs in Ham-
ilton.107
For a time it appeared that the whole
Whig party
of Ohio would repudiate the nomination,
but as time
102
Ashtabula Sentinel quoted in
Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, June
12, 1848.
103 Elyria Courier quoted in Ohio
State Journal, July 7, 1848.
104 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, June 21. 1848.
105 Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, July 7, 1848.
106 Cleveland True Democrat, June
10, 1848.
107 Ohio State Journal, July 26, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 283
elapsed and it became more evident that
the Free Soilers
would endorse Van Buren, the ancient
enemy of the
Whigs, for the presidency, the Whigs
began to fall in
line behind the party candidate. From
the first, a few
papers like the Maumee River Times had
hailed the
nomination as the best which could have
been made un-
der the circumstances and ended an
editorial with the
exclamation, "All hail, then,
General Taylor! the Peo-
ple's Candidate, and the People's
President."108 "Rough
and Ready Clubs" were formed in
Ohio by the Old
Guard of the Whig party, in an effort
to exploit Taylor's
well-known traits,109 but
the people refused to respond
with the enthusiasm they had shown in
1840. The re-
action of William L. Perkins, a
prominent Whig of the
Western Reserve and a delegate to the
National Con-
vention, was typical. For two days
after the nomina-
tion, he indignantly rejected Taylor
and wrote a letter
to that effect to the Ashtabula Sentinel. After closer
examination of Taylor's Allison letter,
he changed his
mind and urged the regular Whigs of
Ohio to support
Taylor because he was the lesser of two
evils. Taylor
had been fairly nominated in a
Convention, in which
the Whigs of Ohio had participated, and
now, by the
Allison letter he had promised to abide
by the wishes
of the representatives of the people.
Perkins frankly
admitted that Taylor was the only man
who could beat
Cass and that he had been selected
because the Whigs
were tired of being beaten. The chief
Whig organ of
the State welcomed Perkins's letter as
the "dictate of
sound patriotism, enlightened policy,
and true philan-
108 Maumee River Times, quoted in Ohio State Journal, June
14, 1848.
109 Ohio State Journal, June 15, 16, 1848.
284 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
thropy."110 Nevertheless, as Perkins explained
to Ew-
ing, it was difficult for Whigs who had
announced their
opposition, to come to the support of
Taylor. Perkins
assured Ewing that if Hale received the
Free Soil nomi-
nation, the Whigs would lose Ohio but
that if Van
Buren were nominated, it might be
possible, with strong
support from southern Ohio, to carry
the State for Tay-
lor."111 Corwin,
nonplussed at the miscarriage of his
plans for a defection movement headed
by the Whigs of
Ohio under his leadership, admitted to
William Greene
that if he "could see any future
beyond '52 he would
not vote for Taylor," but, as
Chase wrote to Sumner,
"Corwin * * * has bent the knee
and received the
yoke and goes for Taylor."112
On July 20, Corwin wrote
from Washington urging the support of
Taylor on the
ground that he had been fairly
nominated and that the
interests of the North were safe in his
hands since he
would not veto acts of Congress.113
Although some of
Corwin's followers emphasized the
safety to the North
which would result from Taylor's
doctrine of Congres-
sional supremacy,"114 others
were defiant. In fact Co-
110 Ohio State Journal, July 6,
1848; Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer,
July 19, 1848.
111 Perkins to Ewing,
July 24, 1848, Ewing MSS., v. VII.
112 Corwin to Greene, June 15, 1848,
quoted in "Selections from the
William Greene Papers, I," in Quarterly
Publications of the Historical and
Philosophical Society of Ohio, 1918, v. XIII, No. 1, p. 28; Chase to Sum-
ner, June 20, 1848, quoted in
"Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, Feb-
ruary 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861," in
loc. cit., v. II, p. 138.
113 Ohio State
Journal, August 8, 1848.
114 Ohio State Journal, August 9,
1848; The Ohio State Journal an-
nounced that "We are still, as
ever, in favor of applying the principle of
the Ordinance of '87, whenever it may be
applicable; and herein, if General
Taylor be not with us, he can not be
more full against us than his com-
petitor--and we have the assurance that
should that principle be applied
by the representatives of the people, it
would not meet with a regal 'I forbid'
of General Taylor, as we have the pledge
that it will from his competitor."
Ohio State Journal, June 12, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 285
lumbus Delano actively canvassed the
State for Van
Buren until after the State elections
in October. He
then publicly declared that he could
not support Van
Buren because a vote for him was a vote
for Cass, and
that Taylor had given sufficient
assurance in the Allison
letters that he would not veto an act
of Congress em-
bodying the principles of the Wilmot
Proviso, while
Cass had stated that he would veto such
an act.115 Peter
Odlin, a delegate to the National Convention,
shared
this view.116
Clay's friends could do little except
acquiesce in the
nomination, although Peter Van Trump,
of Columbus,
was very indignant, asserting that the
Ohio delegation
had betrayed Clay chiefly through the
machinations of
Vance."117 But Clay's supporters
insisted on more satis-
factory evidence of Taylor's attachment
to Whig princi-
ples before they would endorse the
General. The reac-
tion of Stevenson was perhaps more
typical. He ac-
curately summarized the situation in the
declaration that
"Though I have a weak stomach for
the fight, on two
grounds I must go for Taylor: first,
because having
gone into the Convention, honor binds
me to the result;
and second, in any aspect, Taylor is
preferable to Cass,
and I can see no means so likely to be
effective to destroy
Cass as running Taylor, though I
confess I do not feel
intensely confident this will be
effective * * *."118
Other Whigs, like Greeley, who fought
hard for the
nomination of Clay, felt a delicacy in
hoisting the stand-
115 Ohio State Journal, October 27, 28, 1848.
116 Ohio
Statesman, August 31, 1848.
117 Van Trump to Clay, July 26, 1848,
Clay MSS., v. XXVI.
118 Stevenson to Clay, June 19, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXV.
286
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ard of Taylor at once but later began
to support the
nominee of the Convention.119
With the exception of the Liberty
portion of Mc-
Lean's strength, his supporters
reluctantly ratified the
Whig nomination. Although Galloway
abhorred "the
spirit, manner, and motives by which
General Taylor
was brought before the public," he
thought Cass was
incomparably worse,120 while Teesdale, who had just
bought the Summit County Beacon, agreed
to support
Taylor if McLean did not accept the
nomination, which,
it was expected, the Free Soilers would
offer him.121
McLean dallied with the Free Soilers
just long enough
to ascertain that he had no chance of
election. He re-
fused to come out openly for either candidate,
although
he privately assured an anti-slavery
leader that he was
opposed to the extension of slavery and
wished that he
might believe "that all who
express the same views were
sincere."122 Teesdale
then announced his support of
Taylor in the Summit County Beacon on
the ground
that he had been honestly
nominated.123 William Miner,
another supporter of McLean, favored
Taylor because
he wanted to see some removals from
office.l24
Although a schism in the Whig party had
been re-
vealed in December, 1847, when Giddings
and three or
four other Whig members of Congress
refused to sup-
port Robert C. Winthrop, the caucus
nominee of the
Whigs for the Speakership of the House,
because he
119 Greeley to Clay, June 21, 1848, Clay
MSS., v. XXV.
120 Galloway to McLean, July 14, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
121 Teesdale to McLean, June ?, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV.
122 McLean to Morse, October 26, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XVI.
123 Ohio State Journal, August 5,
1848.
124 Miner to McLean, October 27, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XVI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 287
was an adherent of the "Slave
Power,"125 the anti-south-
ern elements of the major parties were
unwilling to join
the third party until after their own
national conven-
tions. Until Taylor was nominated,
Giddings still had
faith in the anti-slavery character of
the Whig party
and refused to join Chase in a call for
an anti-slavery
meeting in Columbus in case neither of
the old parties
nominated an anti-southern candidate because
he felt
that such an action would
"impugn" his motives.126 The
same attitude was taken by Brinkerhoff,
who refused to
join the third party movement until
after the Democratic
National Convention. His position was
accurately
stated in his assurance to Chase that
he was "willing to
do and sacrifice anything, if the
result be certain and
important," but that he was not
willing to take part in
a "movement likely to effect
nothing but the destruction
of what little influence" he then
had.127 In a similar let-
ter Tappan advised Chase not to call a
convention of
the people until after the Democratic
National Conven-
tion.128
The nomination of Cass and Taylor
completely
alienated the anti-southern elements of
both parties, and,
while the anti-slavery Van Buren
Democrats of New
York were forming plans which resulted
in the nomi-
nation of the ex-President on June 22
at Utica, New
York, by the New York Barnburners,129
a group of
Whigs, dissatisfied by the nomination
of Taylor, issued
125 Giddings, Joshua A., History of the Rebellion; Its
Authors and
Causes, p. 262.
126 Giddings to Chase, April 7, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.
127 Brinkerhoff
to Chase, March 28, 1848, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.
128 Tappan to Chase, April
7, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XII, Pa.; Hamlin
advised Chase to the same effect. Hamlin
to Chase, March 18, 1848, Chase
MSS., v. VI, Pa.
129 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII,
p. 548.
288
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
a call for a Free Soil National
Convention at Buffalo.130
A week before the convention which
nominated Taylor,
an appeal had appeared in the
Cincinnati Gazette, signed
by three thousand voters, and calling
for a Free Terri-
tory Mass Convention at Columbus on
June 21. The
call, from the pen of Chase, invited
all who opposed the
extension of slavery.131 Tappan,
with his Democratic
sympathy for the Barnburners of New
York, thought
that the Columbus Convention should be
postponed until
after the meeting of the New York
Barnburners, in
the hope of strengthening the Free Soil
movement by a
coalition with the Barnburners, in case
the latter nomi-
nated the proper person.132 Stanley
Matthews, a pro-
tege of Chase and a Liberty leader with
Democratic
proclivities, also opposed a nomination
by the Columbus
People's Convention, and favored the
adoption of strong
anti-slavery resolutions, the selection
of delegates to the
Free Soil Convention at Buffalo, and an
invitation to the
anti-slavery forces in other states to
join the move-
ment.133 Hale, the Liberty candidate
for president, did
not attend the Columbus Convention for
fear of embar-
rassing its operations, but he announced
his willingness
to withdraw as a candidate in case
there was a chance
to unite all the anti-slavery forces
under another
leader.134 The defection
movement spread so rapidly
that, six days before the assembling of
the People's Con-
vention in Columbus, Chase predicted
that if a popular
man were named on the Free Soil ticket
he would carry
130 Wilson, Henry, The Slave Power, v.
II, p. 142.
131 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p.
129; Ohio State Journal, April 28, 1848.
132 Tappan to Chase, May 29, 1848, Chase
MSS., v. XII, Pa.
133 Matthews to Chase, June 12, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. XIV.
134 Hale to Chase, June 8, 14, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 289
Ohio.135 Conventions of
Liberty men met over the State.
endorsed Hale for president and
announced their sup-
port of the People's Convention,136
and Chase labored
unceasingly to obtain a large
attendance. His efforts
called forth the favorable comment from
the Ohio State
Journal that "He is distinguished for his energy and
ambition. As a speaker, he stands at
the head of the
Free Territory interests in Ohio, and
is looked upon as
the champion of its reason, and the
leader of its argu-
ment."137
The People's Convention met at
Columbus, June 21,
with more than a thousand delegates
present. Signifi-
cant of the willingness of the Liberty
leaders to defer
to anti-southern Whigs and Democrats
was the fact that
the president, Nicholas Sawyer, of
Cincinnati, was a
Democrat, and the chief officers were
either Whigs or
Democrats. At the suggestion of John C.
Vaughan,
(Whig Free Soiler) the meeting
recommended the hold-
ing of a Free Soil National Convention,
at Buffalo, in
August. After addresses by Chase, Lewis
and Birney
and the reading of a sympathetic letter
from Giddings,
the Convention adopted strong
anti-slavery resolu-
tions.138 Many of the
leaders in the Free Soil movement
also were aware of the great popular
demand for other
reforms along economic and political
lines. Hamlin
wrote to Chase urging that, although
the Free Soil
movement should not adopt free trade
and direct taxa-
135 Chase to Hale, June 15, 1848,
quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon
P. Chase, III, February 18, 1846 to May
1, 1861," in loc. cit., v. II, p.
135. (House Documents, v 104.)
136
Matthews, Garretson and others to Liberty
Convention of Columbus,
June 17, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XIV.
137 Ohio State Journal, July 25, 1848.
138 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p.
130.
Vol. XXXVIII--19
290 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
tion at once for fear of giving too
much of a "shock" to
the established order, it should
endorse a tariff for reve-
nue so graduated as to protect all
interests, and "hold
out the right hand of fellowship to all
nations of the
earth for entering into a liberal
system of free trade."
Hamlin also advocated such democratic
principles as a
state convention to form a new
constitution,"139 the elimi-
nation of small notes from circulation
and the infusion
of a specie currency, legal reform,
exemption of home-
steads from taxation, the advancement
and improve-
ment of free schools, repeal of the
Black Laws, and a
limitation of the extent to which the
State could go into
debt.140 Although these
principles were not incorporated
in the platform of the Columbus
Convention, they were
approved in a perfunctory manner by
another state con-
vention of the Free Soil party in
December, 1848.141
The new movement spread so rapidly that
by July
the National Era declared that
it did not have room to
publish even brief notices of Free Soil
meetings in Ohio
and that it seemed as if the old party
organizations were
disintegrating.142 On the day following
the Columbus
Convention, the Barnburners met at
Utica with dele-
gates present from Ohio, Illinois,
Connecticut, Wiscon-
sin and New York, and nominated Van
Buren for presi-
dent. J. W. Taylor, of Cincinnati Signal
fame, was
present to lend encouragement from the
Democratic
bolters of Ohio.143
Van Buren's letter of acceptance
astounded the regu-
139
See Chapter VII.
140 Hamlin to
Chase, May 14, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.
141 See Chapter VII.
142 T.
C. Smith, op. cit., p. 130,
143 Ibid., p. 125.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 291
lar Democrats of Ohio, the Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer
declaring that "Mr. Van Buren has
wedded himself to
the one idea and wrecked his great
reputation as a com-
prehensive statesman in the whirling
vortex of a paltry
faction";144 while the Plain Dealer thought that "Ambi-
tion, either for himself, his son, or
his family name; evil
counsels listened to in his retirement,
from that whis-
pering gallery where envy holds her
court; the poig-
nancy that invariably results from
political defeat;
either one or all these causes tell the
true interpretation
of this estrangement."145 Although
Edward M. Shep-
ard, Van Buren's biographer, acquits
his subject of un-
due desire for revenge, he admits that
the use of Polk's
administration of the patronage to
defeat the Barnburn-
ers in state politics may have
influenced Van Buren's
decision to lead a defection movement
in the Democratic
party, in spite of a former pledge that
he would never
head such a movement.146 Although the regular Demo-
crats of Ohio professed sympathy with
the principles of
the Barnburners, they asserted that
this local quarrel
should not be allowed to extend beyond
New York.147
The attitude of the regular Democrats
of Ohio in oppos-
ing Van Buren was dictated by their
appreciation of the
growing power of the West and by their
belief that the
success of Cass would bring an end to
southern dictation
in national affairs. The Plain
Dealer (Cleveland) de-
clared that southern influence had been
predominant
even in the North. "The prominent
politicians of both
144 Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, June 29, 1848.
145 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, June 27, 1848.
146 Edward M. Shepard, Martin Van
Buren, (American Statesman
Series, ed. by John T. Morse), pp.
340-370.
147 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, June 2, 1848; See
also Washington Daily
Union, June 7, 1848; Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, July
12, 1848.
292 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
parties," this Democratic paper
asserted, "to even be
trusted by their constituents of the
slave states--had
to proscribe anything like anti-slavery
sentiments in
their bosoms, as well as utterly to
profess, utterly to ab-
hor any political doctrine that had the
least kinship to
the unclean thing. That southern
influence was in fact
a despotism."148 The regular Democrats thus appealed
to the voters to support a man from the
free states who
had a chance of election and who would
have their in-
terests in view rather than a
slaveholder from a slave
state.149
The question now arose as to whether
the Liberty
men would cooperate with the more
powerful Free Soil
movement to the extent of deserting
Hale. Many of
them felt that such a union would
endanger their aboli-
tion doctrines,150 but a
powerful impetus toward concilia-
tion was given by the National Era and
the Cincinnati
Herald. A Liberty Convention, held at Columbus on the
same day as the People's Convention,
endorsed the Buf-
falo meeting but resolved not to
support any one who
would not favor Liberty principles.151
From June to
August, "Free Territory" and
Liberty conventions co-
operated in the union movement to the
extent of electing
delegates to the Buffalo meeting.152
The strategy of the
148 Cleveland Daily
Plain Dealer, July 18, 1848.
149 Ohio State Journal, June 29,
1848; Ohio Statesman, June to October,
1848.
150
George Bradburn, of Cleveland, who thought the Liberty Convention
of 1847 "Taylorized" by
nominating Hale, declared that McLean was the
"judicial lyncher" of Van
Zandt. Bradburn to Chase, June 25, 1848, Chase
MSS., v. XIV.
151 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 132-134.
152 Ohio State Journal, July 8, 1848; The disaffected Whigs of
Massa-
chusetts held a convention on June 28,
to protest against the nomination of
Taylor. Lewis D. Campbell and Giddings
represented Ohio in this meeting
where Charles Sumner and Charles Francis
Adams renounced the Whig
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 293
anti-southern leaders was to merge the
Barnburners
with the Liberty men, and the
discontented elements of
the two major parties. The anti-slavery
leaders of Ohio
were anxious to have McLean chosen by
the Free Soil
party at its Buffalo Convention and to
that end negotia-
tions were carried on between him and
the Free Soil
leaders.153 But the Judge
doubted the expediency of al-
lowing his name to be used. To all proposals
to use his
name as a vice presidential candidate he
returned a de-
cided negative,154 although
it was hinted that he would
be given the nomination for president in
1852.155 On
August 2, McLean informed Chase that in
order to pre-
serve his "judicial character from
reproach of any kind"
he should not accept the nomination, but
two days later
he disclosed that he "might not
refuse the nomination"
if there should be a "general
upheaving" in his favor.156
Promises from Washington that he would
be made the
standard-bearer of the Whig party in
1852, if he main-
tained his position of neutrality,157
probably did more
party. It was purposely held after the
Columbus Convention in order to
take advantage of any move which the
Ohio malcontents might make.
Sumner was anxious that McLean should be
made the leader of the new
movement since they had lost faith in
Corwin. Sumner denounced the
nomination of Taylor as the consummation
of a conspiracy between the
"lords of the lash and the lords of
the loom," and appealed to the dis-
contented of both parties to join the
new movement declaring that the
issues of the tariff, internal
improvements, and banks were "obsolete ideas."
Giddings announced his support of Van
Buren with the declaration that he
could carry Ohio by a majority of
20,000. Sumner's Works, v. II, pp.
226-240; Sumner to Chase, June 12, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. XIV; Ohio State
Journal, July 6, 1848.
153 Giddings to McLean, July 13, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XV; Thomas
Bolton, Edward Wade, E. S. Hamlin and
others to McLean, July 12,
1848, McLean MSS., v. XV; Sumner to
McLean, July 31, 1848, McLean
MSS., v. XVI.
154 McLean to Denny, July 31, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XVI.
155 Sumner to Chase, July 7, 1848, Chase
MSS., v. XIV.
156 McLean to Chase, August 2, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.
157 Whittlesey to McLean, July 24, 1848
and J. W. Allen to McLean,
June 24, 1848, in McLean MSS., v. XV.
294
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
than anything else to prevent McLean
from actively can-
vassing for the Free Soil nomination.
Although Chase
would support McLean for president and
John Van
Buren for vice president, he thought
that the father of
the latter should be made the
presidential candidate with
the Judge occupying second place on the
ticket, because
of the moral effect of having
representatives of the two
major political parties standing
together on the slavery
question.158 As a matter of
fact, McLean had no chance
to secure the nomination because the
Barnburners, by far
the largest element in the new
movement, insisted on the
primacy of Van Buren, and some of the
Liberty leaders
were suspicious of McLean's adherence
to Liberty prin-
ciples. No "general
upheaving" took place and in
August McLean virtually allied himself
with Taylor by
publishing a letter to a Whig committee
announcing his
refusal of the Free Soil nomination,
and asserting that,
without the sanction of law, slavery
could not exist in
the territories and that the
territorial legislature of a
territory could exercise no power not
conferred on it by
act of Congress.159
The Free Soil National Convention was
composed of
anti-southern Whigs, Free Soil
Democrats, Liberty Men
and the New York Barnburners, the last
two elements
being the largest. It was understood
from the begin-
ning that the struggle for the
nomination would come
Whigs. By a compromise, the Barnburners secured
though Giddings had the support of the
anti-southern
158 Chase to McLean, August 2, 1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI;
Samuel
J. Tilden assured Chase that the
Barnburners of New York were favor-
able to McLean's candidacy for vice
president; Tilden to Chase, July 29,
1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.
159 Ohio
State Journal, August 21, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 295
Whigs. By a compromise, the
Barnsburners secured
the nomination of Van Buren while they
accepted the
anti-slavery principles of the Liberty
party. The liberal
nature of other features of the
platform showed a desire
to appeal to a variety of elements
demanding economic
and political reform. This part of the
party program
formed no part of Liberty principles,
although a few
men like Hamlin and Chase favored them.
The Free
Soil party demanded cheap postage,
retrenchment in
governmental expenses and the abolition
of unnecessary
offices, the election of public
officers by popular vote, a
system of internal improvements, a
Homestead Law,
early payment of the public debt, and a
tariff for reve-
nue. In a comprehensive and catching
phrase, the new
party advocated "Free Soil, Free
Speech, Free Labor,
and Free Men." The Convention then
selected Charles
Frances Adams, of Massachusetts, as Van
Buren's run-
ning mate.160 Van Buren was
denounced by the regular
Democrats of Ohio as a traitor to the
party and he was
sharply reminded of a former statement
that he would
never lead a defection movement.
Moreover, it was
pointed out that the platform was
silent about slavery
in the District of Columbia, possibly
because Van Buren
had declared in 1836 that he would veto
such a bill.161
The Ohio State Journal, in an
effort to detach the Lib-
erty party and the anti-southern Whigs
from the new
movement declared Van Buren's selection
was a victory
for the Barnburners, who merely adopted
Free Soil prin-
160 For details of the Convention, see T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp.
138-143;
Chase described the Convention as an
enthusiastic gathering of 20,000 dele-
gates and asserted that McLean could
have had the nomination. Chase
to McLean, August 12, 1848, Chase MSS.,
v. XVI.
161 Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, August 20, 1848.
296 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ciples for convenience,162 and
concluded that "We cannot
forsake our long-tried and cherished
party associations
to mingle with the ringed, streaked,
and speckled of the
Jacobs of Buffalo. *
* *"163
The Free Soil movement, as a practical
party in
Ohio, was composed largely of
anti-southern Whigs
with conservative tendencies. But the
addition of more
liberal-minded Whigs, like Hamlin, and
radical Demo-
crats, like Norton S. Townshend of
Lorain County, pro-
vided a leadership for the party which
impelled it to ac-
cept more democratic principles.
Moreover, the conserv-
ative anti-southern Whigs, finding
themselves abused by
the regular Whigs, were inclined to
accept the doctrine
of their new allies more readily. That
the Free Soil
party of Ohio also attracted the
support of the poorer
classes, interested in political and
economic reform, was
evidenced by the character of the
audiences which lis-
tened to Whig and Free Soil orators.164
Moreover, many
Free Soil leaders of northern Ohio
belonged to the
"Land Reform Association," of
Cleveland, a branch of
the National Reform Association, which
opposed all spe-
cial privileges and particularly land
monopolies.165
George W. Allen, a candidate of the
Free Soil party for
Congress from the Tenth Congressional
District, is-
sued an address to the people which was
wholly de-
voted to plans for the distribution of
government land
among the poor. Allen's address,
breathing a spirit of
162 Ohio State Journal, August 12, 1848.
163 Ibid., August 9, 1848.
164 Briggs to
Chase, September 15, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.
165 Cleveland
Daily Plain Dealer, May 16, 1848. This branch numbered
such members as B. Mahan of Oberlin,
Joel Tiffany of Elyria, Norton S.
Townshend of Elyria, Darius Lyman of
Ravenna, Enos P. Brainerd of
Ravenna, J. L. Ranney of Ravenna, and
George S. Marshall of Cleveland.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 297
social revolt, directed the attention
of the new party
to the danger of land monopolies rather
than to the
wrongs of negro slavery.166
This tendency of the Free Soil party
toward radi-
calism compelled the Democratic party
to become more
liberal in its pretensions, in order to
hold the believers
in Jacksonian democracy. Weller, the
Democratic can-
didate for governor, approved the
policy of the Na-
tional Reform Association for the distribution
of land,
but Ford, the Whig, refused to reply to
their interro-
gations.167 A Democratic
candidate for the General
Assembly, from Cuyahoga County, found
it advisable
to make strong appeals for the labor
vote, declaring
his opposition to "exclusive moneyed
monopolies," and
claiming membership with the
"workers."168 In order
to counteract the new radicalism, the
Whigs became
more conservative and appealed for
support as the de-
fenders of the Constitution, the
established institutions
and the traditions of society. After
all, this was the
logical role for them to assume since
the more liberal
portion of the Whig party as well as
its anti-southern
wing were now in the ranks of the third
party which
supported the "radical"
doctrines of the Van Buren
democracy. It should be said, however,
that the Free
Soil party, as a party, was careful not
to assume too
advanced a position on these matters of
reform, in
order not to antagonize those
anti-southern Whigs and
Democrats who had joined the new
movement.
It was evident from the beginning of
the campaign
line against the inducements of the
Free Soilers. Prac-
166 Ohio State Journal, July 29, 1848.
167 Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, October 7, 10, 1848.
168 Cleveland Daily
Plain Dealer, September 19, 1848.
298 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
tically all political observers agreed
that the Whigs
would lose far more votes by the
nomination of Taylor,
that the fortunes of Cass and Taylor in
Ohio depended
on the ability of the party leaders to
hold the voters in
who was a southerner and had not been
approved by
the Whig State Convention, than the
Democrats would
lose by the nomination of Cass, who was
a northern
man and had been approved by the
Democratic State
Convention. Open defiance of Taylor
marked the at-
titude of many Ohio Whigs even after
the nomination.
The support of Cass by the masses of
the voters of his
party was secured by the strong stand
of Medary, Val-
landigham and Allen, who were able to rally
most of
the old Jacksonian Democrats to his
support. But there
was little enthusiasm behind their
efforts, and some
Democrats joined the Free Soil
movement, partly as a
result of natural interests and
personal jealousies; partly
because of their opposition to the
further extension of
slavery; and partly because of the
influence of the
nomination of Van Buren, their former
leader.
Among those Democrats who supported the
third
party were the ubiquitous James W.
Taylor, of the Cin-
cinnati Signal;169
George M. Swan, of Columbus;170
sev-
eral Democratic leaders of Dayton;171 Jacob Brinker-
hoff, of Richland County, still
suspicious of his newly-
found allies;172 Charles Cist, of
Cincinnati;173 and ex-
169 James W. Taylor came from New York
to Ohio in 1841; edited the
Cincinnati Signal; moved to
Sandusky, Ohio and edited the Democratic
Mirror.
170 Ewing
to Van Buren; October 17, 1848, Van Buren MSS., v. LVI.
171 Jewett to Chase, October 6, 1848,
Van Buren MSS., v. XV.
172 Brinkerhoff to Chase, October 18, 1848, and Hamlin to
Chase, August
1, 1848, in Chase MSS., Vols. II, VI,
Pa. Hamlin wrote Chase in regard
to Brinkerhoff: "Strange
combination! It is only a little while since I
was making poetry on him for speaking
one way and voting another. But
he is fully straight now and will
practice what he preaches."
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 299
United States Senator Benjamin Tappan.
The latter's
course was determined to a large extent
by personal con-
siderations. Replacing Thomas Morris in
the United
States Senate, in 1839, because the
latter was too zealous
in the defense of abolition petitions,
Tappan had de-
clared in the Senate that "Whether
slavery shall be abol-
ished in the District of Columbia or
not, belongs not to
them to say; much less does it belong
to the women of
Ohio to agitate questions of public
policy, which their
own State Government has often declared
it wrong in
her citizens to meddle with."174
In 1844, the Whigs con-
trolled the General Assembly and Thomas
Corwin had
replaced Tappan in the United States
Senate, but not
until the latter had voted in favor of
the annexation of
Texas. Three and one-half years after
the passage of
the resolutions to annex Texas, during
which time he
not only supported the Polk
administration175 but urged
Polk to run again in 1848,176 Tappan,
in July, 1848, pub-
lished a letter in the New York Evening
Post explain-
ing his vote on Texas annexation and
questioning the
good faith of the President in that
incident. Tappan
now joined the movement to nominate Van
Buren on
the Free Soil ticket. He explained his
apparent incon-
sistency by asserting that he and three
other senators
had supported the joint resolution for
the annexation
of Texas, permitting the President to
negotiate with
Mexico, only after they had received
assurance from
Polk through Senator Haywood, of North
Carolina, that
he would choose the method of
negotiation with Mex-
173 Flamen Ball to Chase, August 18,
1848, Chase MSS., v. I, Pa.
174 Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 1st Sess., v. VIII, No. II, pp. 161-162.
175 Johnson
to Polk, October 6, 1848, Polk MSS., v. LXXVII.
176 Polk's Diary, v. IV, pp. 38-40.
300 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ico. A letter from Francis P. Blair to
Tappan, also
published in the Post, corroborated
Tappan's state-
ment.177 Benton seemed to have been under the same
impression.178 Polk and all
his Cabinet denied the ex-
istence of such a promise,179 and
Blair's story loses force
when it is remembered that he and Polk
were bitterly
hostile at the time over the control of
the Administration
organ.180 After three years
of the closest friendship
with the Administration, Tappan
proposed to join the
Free Soil party and to strike a blow at
the "slave power"
which had "plotted" the
annexation of Texas.
The Democratic leaders in Ohio made
strenuous
efforts to prevent a defection from
their ranks in 1848.
They found the voters absolutely
opposed to the ex-
tension of slavery. While local
Democratic conventions
adopted resolutions repeating the
slavery clause of the
platform drawn up by the last
Democratic State Con-
vention, and opposing the further
extension of slavery,
they discouraged joining a
"bolting movement" based on
this principle alone.181 In
order to convince the Demo-
crats that the election of Cass would
not mean the fur-
ther extension of slavery, Senator
Allen, whose seat in
the Senate was at stake, brought his
great influence to
bear in an effort to secure support for
the man whom
he and his supporters had formerly
opposed.182 Allen
emphasized that the campaign between
Taylor and Cass
177 Tappan and Blair letters in Ohio
State Journal, August 10, 1848.
178
Benton, Thomas H., Thirty Years' View, v. II, pp. 635-638.
179 Polk's
Diary, v. IV, pp. 46-47; Buchanan to Polk, November 9, 1848;
Johnson to Polk, October 6, 1848; Walker
to Polk, November 6, 1848;
Bancroft to Polk, October 13, 1848; all
in Polk MSS., v. LXXVII.
l80 Polk's
Diary, v. I, pp. 87-357.
181 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, September
14, 18, 1848; Ohio States-
man, August 17, 21, 1848.
182 Washington Dailv Union. June
22, 1848; McGrane, William Allen,
p. 130.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 301
was a contest of the masses against the
classes;183 a
strategic move in view of the fact that
the Van Buren
movement drew largely from the poorer
classes.184 The
Plain Dealer considered Cass, who favored popular sov-
ereignty, in comparison with Van Buren,
as the "most
unswervingly consistent Anti-slavery
man of the two."185
Rallies of the Democracy of Cuyahoga
County were
described as "Democratic Cass and
Butler Free Soil
Meetings."186 Weller
labored to prove that, by a cor-
rect interpretation of Cass's Nicholson
letter, the people
of the territories were free to make
their choice and
that slavery could not be extended into
those regions
because of their geography.187 Cass's
residence in the
North helped him among anti-slavery
Democrats.188 The
Plain Dealer declared that "It is by southern adminis-
trations, sectionally speaking, and
almost an unbroken
series of them since the foundation of
the government,
that has [been] produced this
high-wrought, frantic
and dangerous sectionalism. Should the South now
succeed in adding still another
southern executive--
not a statesman, not even a civilian,
but a princely slave-
holder--well may we fear northern rebellion
and a vio-
lent dissolution of the Union."189
Ohio Democrats
pointed out that members of their party
in the South
were deserting Cass for Taylor because
the former was
from an abolitionist state and
associated with Aboli-
tionists.190 At a Democratic
rally in Portage County,
183 Cleveland
Daily Plain Dealer, October 4, 5, 1848.
184 See
letters of Ohio Free Soil leaders to Chase in Chase MSS.
185 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, October
25, 1848.
186 Ibid., October
3, 1848.
187
Ibid., June 20, 1848.
188 T.
C. Smith, op. cit., p. 148.
189 Cleveland
Daily Plain Dealer, August 21, 1848.
190 Ibid., October 31, 1848.
302
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Reuben Wood, afterwards governor of
Ohio, appealed
for the support of the anti-slavery
elements by pointing
out that Cass, by association, sympathy
and interest was
opposed to slavery.191
Medary was not willing to go as
far as his fellow-editors, in
conciliating anti-southern
Democrats. Although admitting that
Taylor owned
slaves, the editor of the Statesman declared
that the
Democracy of the North and West held
the "Union
above all price"; that they would
not endanger its safety
by advocating "unjust
doctrines"; and that they would
leave the question of slavery to the
people of the terri-
tories where it rightfully belonged.192
Late in the Congressional session of
1847-1848, the
Clayton Compromise Bill, providing for
a government
for Oregon, California, and New Mexico,
was passed.
By its provisions Oregon was to receive
the usual type
of territorial government with a
delegate in Congress;
but New Mexico and California were
given no delegates
and the legislative power was vested in
a governor, sec-
retary and judges of the Supreme Court.
Oregon could
choose between free soil and slavery,
while the legisla-
tive powers of California and New Mexico
were for-
bidden to enact any laws concerning
slavery. The bill
passed the Senate but failed in the
House.193 The Dem-
ocrats argued, in Ohio, that Cass,
judging from his
Nicholson letter, would veto such an
enactment of Con-
gress; while Taylor, by the terms of
his Allison letters,
was pledged to sign it. Since the
geography and soil
conditions of the territories in
question would effectively
prevent the spread of slavery unless
Congress estab-
191 Ohio Statesman, July
7, 1848.
192
Ohio Statesman, July 19, 1848.
193 McMaster, op.
cit., v. VIII, pp. 527-532.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 303
lished it by law, the position of the
Democratic candi-
dates seemed to represent true free
soil doctrine.194
The dissatisfaction among the Ohio
Whigs, over the
nomination of Taylor, far exceeded the
Democratic dis-
content over the work of their National
Convention.
But Van Buren's attraction for the
Democrats, of
course, was much greater than his
appeal to Whigs, who
had learned in previous campaigns to
dislike the Little
Magician. Giddings thought Van Buren
would be sup-
ported less readily by the Whigs than
any other possible
candidate.195 Harrison G.
Blake, Whig Free Soiler of
Medina County, typical of those
anti-southern Whigs
who were more anti-southern than Whig,
had favored
the nomination of Hale, but finally
supported Van
Buren whom he had opposed ever since he
had come
on the "political stage of
action," because he thought he
was the only man before the people who
was "right" on
the slavery question.196 The Medina Whig, a Free Soil
paper, declared that "The masses
of the people opposed
to the extension and perpetuation of
slavery * * *
will learn, with chagrin and
mortification" that the Buf-
falo Convention sacrificed principle
for availability, by
nominating Van Buren.197
Chase found, however, that
194
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, August
27, November 4, 1948; Frederick
Grimke, an able Democratic ex-judge of
the Supreme Court of Ohio,
regretted that the Compromise Hill did not pass. He
asserted that "It
would not only produce more harmony
between the two sections of the
country; it would produce more repose at
the north; for I have observed
that the class of considerate, and
highly intelligent men at the north feel
themselves exceedingly annoyed by the
presence of Abolitionists, whose
manners and cultivation are in general
so alien to their own." Grimke to
Greene, August 7, 1848, Greene MSS.
195 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 147.
196 Blake to Chase, September 22,
1848, Chase MSS., v. XV; Hamlin
to McLean, September 16, 1848, McLean
MSS., v. XVI.
197 Medina Whig quoted in
Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, August 18,
1848.
Vol. XXXVIII--20
304 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the Abolitionists of the Western
Reserve were coming
to the support of Van Buren in spite of
their political
opposition to him in earlier campaigns,
and despite a
lingering doubt as to his attitude on
slavery in the Dis-
trict of Columbia.198 When
such men as Joseph M. Root,
Representative in Congress from the
Huron District,199
and Giddings200 entered the
campaign in behalf of their
former enemy, the Whig leaders of the
Western Reserve
were really alarmed.201
The position of the Whigs was further
complicated
by the gubernatorial situation.
Constant appeals were
made by the party press to the voters
not to allow de-
fection on National politics to
endanger the success of
the party in the State.202 Since Ford was the official
leader of the Whigs in Ohio, his
attitude on the nomi-
nation of Taylor seemed crucial, but
Ford kept dis-
creetly silent, in the hope of retaining
the Free Soil vote
as well as that of the regular Whigs.203
He explained
his dilemma in a letter to Chase. After
naively admit-
ting that he wanted to defeat Weller
because the latter
was a pro-slavery candidate, Ford
explained that an
avowal of his attitude toward Taylor
would make de-
feat certain; and that, therefore, it
was his duty to the
State and Nation to remain silent.204
The Democrats
198 Chase to Van Buren, August 21,
1848, Van Buren MSS., v. LVI.
199
Ohio Statesman, October 31, 1848.
200 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, September 27,
1848.
201 J. Durbin Ward
to Crittenden, September 2, 1848, Crittenden MSS.,
v. II.
202 Ohio State Journal, June 12, 17, 20, 24, 26, 1848.
203 Stevenson wrote that the Whigs were
passing resolutions in their
county conventions to the effect that
voting for or against Taylor was not
a test of Whiggery and that "Our candidate for Gov
. . . is playing Gen.
Mum as to Taylor, thinking thereby he
may whit into the Executive chair
of the State . . . even though Taylor
loses the State." Stevenson to Clay,
July 26, 1848, Clay MSS., v. XXVI.
204 Ford to Chase, July 29, 1848, Chase
MSS., v. XV.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 305
taunted Ford for his attempt to
straddle the issue,205
and composed the following parody on
the difficulties of
the Whig candidate:
To bolt or not to bolt, that is the
question;
Whether it is nobler in the mind, to
suffer
The stings and arrows of outrageous
locos
Or to take arms against the Taylor
bloodhounds,
And by opposing, end myself? To bolt--to
dodge;
No more,--'and by a dodge to say we
choke
Our conscience,-'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To bolt; to
dodge.
Aye, there's the rub!206
But Ford continued his silence on
Taylor's candidacy
to the end of the campaign. The
Democrats charged
that the Whig Central Committee had
destroyed a let-
ter defining his position,207 and
had ordered him to re-
main silent until after the State
election in order to
gain the Abolition vote.208 Ford's
policy gained some
votes among the Free Soilers who
regarded him as an
opponent of Taylor.209
With the embarrassment of Ford's
non-committal
position hanging over them, the Whigs
strove valiantly
to stem the tide of defeat in Ohio.
Giddings and his
supporters were in open revolt. Appeals
were sent to
Governor William H. Seward, of New
York, and to
Horace Greeley, of the New York Tribune,
to aid Cor-
win in a whirlwind campaign in behalf
of General Tay-
205 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, July
7, 1848; Cincinnati Daily En-
quirer, July 6, 1848.
206 Western Empire quoted in Ohio
Statesman, August 1, 1848.
207 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 4, 1848; Ohio Statesman, July
25, 1848.
208 Cleveland
Daily Plain Dealer, September 22, 1848.
209 Chase to Briggs, September 27, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. XV.
306 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
lor on the Western Reserve.210 On the Reserve, Seward
found things "infinitely"
worse than he had expected.211
The regular Whigs, in a bitter war on
the deserter,
Giddings, nominated an independent for
Congress after
Giddings had been selected by the Whigs
in a district
convention.212 In a long address to the "Free
Soil Men
of Ohio," Greeley appealed for
support of Taylor as
the best way to realize their principles
because a vote
for Van Buren would be a vote for Cass.
Probably the most effective weapon used
by the Ohio
Whigs in 1848, was the Allison letter
which they inter-
preted to mean that if the opponents of
slavery exten-
sion would elect a Whig Congress, the
interests of the
North would be safe because Taylor was
pledged not
to use the veto. Greeley developed this
argument and
it was used with great effect by all
Whig campaigners
and particularly by Corwin, who even
intimated that
Taylor favored the Wilmot Proviso.213
Ewing advised
Taylor not to write any more letters on
the slavery
question, since the Whigs of Ohio were
willing to accept
him on the basis of the Allison letter.214
But Ewing was
too optimistic. The defection of the
Whigs went on so
rapidly that, in September, Taylor
wrote another letter
210 Stevenson to Clay, September 9,
October 2, 1848, Clay MSS., v.
XXVI; Whittlesey appealed to Follett to
save the Western Reserve from
the "vandals." Whittlesey to
Follett, October 11, 1848, quoted in "Selec-
tions from the Follett Papers, IV,"
in loc. cit., 1916, v. XI, No. 1, pp.
30-31; Crittenden to Ewing, September 1, 1848, Ewing
MSS., v. VII.
211 Seward to Follett, November 9, 1848, quoted in
"Selections from the
Follett Papers, IV," in loc.
cit., 1916, v. XI, No. 1, p. 33; See also J. W.
Allen to Crittenden, September 9, 1848, Crittenden
MSS., v. XI.
212 Elisha Whittlesey, a former law
instructor of Giddings, charged his
pupil with having secured undue mileage
allowances. T. C. Smith, op. cit.,
pp. 151-152.
213 Hamlin to Chase, September 14, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. VI; Washing-
ton Daily Union, October 1, 1848.
214 Ewing to Taylor, July 22, 1848,
Ewing MSS., v. VII, (Letter marked
"Copy").
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 307
to Allison to strengthen the impression
that he would
not use the veto to defeat the
anti-slavery opinions of
the majority. In spite of this second
letter, Van Buren
continued to gain in Ohio.215 It would be difficult to over-
emphasize the use made in Ohio of this
doctrine of
Congressional supremacy. For the Free
Soilers, it
proved very embarrassing.216 By August, Ohio Whigs
no longer urged the choice of Taylor as
the lesser of
two
evils;217 but gave
the positive assurance that he
would not only allow a territorial bill
to pass embodying
the principles of the Wilmot Proviso,
but that he posi-
tively favored that method of settling
the question.
Of course the Democrats denounced this
argument
as pure sophistry. Was it reasonable
that Taylor, a
southern slaveholder who used
bloodhounds to catch his
runaway slaves, would neglect the
welfare of his sec-
tion, and prevent the extension of its
"peculiar insti-
tution"? Southern Whig papers were
quoted to prove
that quite the opposite interpretation
of Taylor's atti-
tude on slavery in the territories
prevailed in the
South.218 The Democrats
pointed out the ambiguity of
215 Stevenson to Clay, October 2, 1848,
Clay MSS., v. XXVI.
216 Jewett to Chase, September 1, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV;
in regard to
Corwin's labors to that end, George M.
Swan wrote Van Buren that "Thim-
blerigging is less reputable business
compared to his labors in cajoling the
people of Ohio into the belief that
General Taylor is a Wilmot Provisoist,
by intimations that he had in his
possession a private letter to that effect.
Thomas Ewing so declares and Mr. Corwin
does not deny it." Swan to
Van Buren, October 17, 1848, Van Buren
MSS., v. LVI; Ohio Statesman
September 21, 1848; Wilmot Proviso, (Massillon,
Ohio), quoted in Cin-
cinnati Daily Enquirer, September
23, 1848; The Whig State Central Com-
mittee issued a secret circular in which
they emphasized their belief that
Taylor would not veto any measure
prohibiting slavery in the territories.
Ohio Statesman, September 22, 1848.
217 Ohio Statesman, June 22, 1848.
218 Natchez (Mississippi) Courier, quoted in Ohio
Statesman, August 22,
1848; The Statesman declared that
"while thus in the North Whiggery
claims General Taylor as the opponent of
slavery, in the South he is claimed
as its friend, and his southern birth and his southern
property as all cited
308 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Taylor's statements,219 and
the Enquirer called atten-
tion to a pamphlet issued by the
"Rough and Ready
Club," of New Orleans, arguing
that the election of
Taylor would afford the greatest
possible protection to
the South and West, and that these
sections had noth-
ing to fear from the Wilmot Proviso if
Taylor were
president, because he was a
slaveholder, a native of Vir-
ginia, and a citizen of Louisiana with
every feeling and
interest identified with the southern
Whigs.220
In the energetic campaign carried on by
the Whigs
in order to meet the double attacks of
their enemies,
Thomas Corwin, who had occupied the
most advanced
ground in opposition to the Mexican
War, was the out-
standing figure. The Democrats pointed
out the incon-
sistency of Corwin's new position;221
and the anti-south-
ern leaders in Ohio, who had only
recently thought of
him as a possible candidate for the presidency,
be-
moaned his lack of principle.222 Corwin
confined his at-
tention largely to the Western Reserve,
where Whig
fortunes were at lowest ebb. According
to Whig ac-
counts his campaign was very effective.223
The Free
Soilers thought that he was received
very coldly.224 Wil-
liam Dennison, Thomas Ewing, Joseph
Vance, William
as evidence, which cannot be gainsaid,
to show that in feeling he is arrayed
against the party that supports him in
other sections." Ohio Statesman,
August 11, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, July
15, 1848.
219 Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, September 10, 1848; Washington Daily
Union, May 5, 1848.
220
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 10, 1848.
221 Ibid., August 23, 1848;
Washington Daily Union, September 14, 1848.
222 Giddings to
Chase, September 20, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.
223 Ewing
to Crittenden, September 24, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI;
Vance to Crittenden, September 21, 1848,
v. XI; Ohio State Journal, Sep-
tember 23, 1848.
224 Bolton
to Chase, September 18, 1848, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.; Corwin
was burned in effigy at Cleveland, and
no remonstrance was made although
he was making an address at the time.
Hamlin to McLean, September 16,
1848, McLean MSS., v. XVI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 309
H. Seward, Governor Metcalfe of
Kentucky, and in the
latter part of the campaign, Columbus
Delano,225 were
other Whig orators who joined Corwin in
a desperate
attempt to save the party from
dissolution; but the fail-
ure of McLean and Clay to interest
themselves vigor-
ously in behalf of Taylor greatly
injured the party in
Ohio.226 This flying
squadron of Whig orators was kept
busy denying minor charges calculated
to prejudice
northern votes against Taylor. The
Democrats claimed
that Taylor used bloodhounds to catch
his runaway
slaves, and Corwin hastened to explain
that they were
only used in tracking the slaves.227
The charge that
Taylor had sworn at the Third Ohio
Volunteers and
described them as cowards and thieves,
during the Mex-
ican
War, brought a categorical denial from the
Whigs.228 Another fact which
the Democrats kept be-
fore the public was that Taylor was a
man of wealth,
and that he owned more than two hundred
and eighty
slaves, valued at $150,000.00.229
Weller, the Democratic candidate for
governor, was
loyally supported by the Democratic
organization and
consequently the margin of his defeat
was very small,
in spite of the fact of the Free Soil
support of Ford.
Weller was attacked by the Whigs as a
"hard-money,
sub-treasury free trade, pro-slavery,
annexation Loco-
foco, of the straightest sect" and
a "pitiful toady of the
Southern Slavocracy."230 He was one of the two mem-
225 Ohio State Journal, July 22, August
8, 1848; Ohio Statesman, No-
vember 3, 1848.
226 Vance to Crittenden, September 21,
1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XI.
227 Ohio Statesman, September
19, 1848.
228 Ohio Statesman, August
4, 5, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, No-
vember 1, 1848.
229 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, July
8, 1848.
230 Ohio State Journal, January
25, 1848.
310 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
bers of Congress from Ohio who had
voted for the
"gag" rule,231 and
his participation in the Mexican War
was conclusive proof that he was a
supporter of south-
ern expansion. His resolution to
censure Giddings for
his conduct in the Creole case
completed the proof of
his abject servility to the South.232
The Whigs added
that Weller had acted the coward during
a military en-
gagement, and that, as one of the commissioners
of the
Surplus Revenue Fund, he had loaned
money without
requiring proper securities.233
The Ohio Black Laws again became an
issue during
the gubernatorial campaign, Ford
unreservedly favor-
ing their repeal apparently because of
pressure from
the Free Soilers.234 The
Democrats of the Western
Reserve avoided the issue but their
brothers in the
southern part of the State opposed
repeal, the Enquirer
drawing a gloomy picture of what would
happen to
southern Ohio if repeal, an open
invitation to negroes
to come to Ohio, were carried out. That
organ ap-
pealed to all the latest race
prejudices of whites who
were forced into economic competition
with the incom-
ing blacks. The Democrats denied that
the Black Laws
were cruel, and argued that they were
measures to pre-
serve the State from the offal of
slavery.235 The En-
quirer declared that "Ford, and his Abolition neighbors
on the Reserve, may well grow large and
liberal-minded,
and soar above all petty and vulgar
prejudices on ac-
231 Niles' Register, v. XVI, p. 15.
232 Ohio State Journal, August 22, 1848.
233 Ohio Statesman, May 2, 1848; Ohio State Journal, July 10,
October
24, 1848.
234 Chase to Ford, July 11, 1848,
quoted in "Selected Letters of Salmon
P. Chase, February 18, 1848, to May 1,
1861," in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, pp.
138-139.
235 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 14, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 311
count of color. They have easy times in
the way of
paying the piper. It is not their
poorhouses that are
filled--nor their criminal courts that
are burdened-
their white laborers are not subjected
to such a competi-
tion, nor their properties subject to
be plundered by
such a people. The southern portion of
the State takes
all that. Hamilton County has heaped
upon her shoul-
ders a back-breaking load, by way of
foretaste to the
delightful burden she may prepare for, when
the Re-
serve has it all her own way--at our
expense."236 The
issue was far more clearly drawn in
1848 than in
1846.237
The Whigs also emphasized what they
termed Cass's
lack of enthusiasm for internal
improvements, a good
campaign argument in Ohio where the
people favored
internal improvements by the Federal
Government, al-
though the Democratic organization had
always ren-
dered a perfunctory obeisance to the
traditional Demo-
cratic principle of strict
construction. In July, 1847, a
Convention was held in Chicago in the
interest of in-
ternal improvements, and Cass, among
others, was in-
vited. When "circumstances"
prevented his attend-
ance238 the Whigs
interpreted his action as opposition
to western interests. The Democrats, in
answer, pointed
to Cass's vote in the last Congress in
favor of a River
and Harbor Bill.239 The Plain
Dealer maintained that
Cass had always favored internal
improvements in op-
position to certain "crack-brained
and hair-splitting
politicians" of the party, and
that he had refused to
236
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September
26, 1848.
237 Geauga Whig, (Ford's organ),
quoted in Ohio Statesman, November
30, 1848; See also Ohio Statesman, January
31, 1848.
238 Ohio State Journal, July 3, 1848.
312 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
attend the Chicago Convention because
he knew that
it was arranged by the Whigs for
political purposes.240
Both parties endeavored to make
political capital out
of Cass's efforts, while Minister to
France in 1841, to
defeat the British proposal to allow
her men-of-war to
search suspicious vessels off the Coast
of Africa in order
to suppress the slave-trade. Cass had
defeated French
ratification of the British treaty and,
therefore, was
roundly abused by the anti-slavery
interests on the
charge of being pro-slavery. But his
position, that only
a belligerent can exercise the right of
search, was cor-
rect from the standpoint of American
and international
law.241 The Whig papers
condemned Cass as an apol-
ogist of the slave-trade; while the
Democrats lauded
him as a patriotic defender of the old
American doctrine
of resistance to the right of search.242 The Enquirer
appealed to the anti-British complex of
its readers by
assuring them that the aristocracy of
England hoped for
the election of Taylor because of their
hatred of Cass.243
The importance of the ever-increasing
foreign vote,
due to a large immigration of Irish and
Germans in the
'forties, cannot be overlooked in the
election of 1848.
The Democrats not only pointed out that
the Whigs
were the traditional enemies of the
newcomers, having
inherited this nativist attitude from
the Federalists, but
that their candidate was endorsed by
every native Amer-
239 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, June
7, November 3, 1848.
240 Cleveland Daily Plain
Dealer, May 27, June 12, 1848.
241 J. S. Reeves, American Diplomacy
Under Tyler and Polk, pp. 33-38.
242 Ohio Statesman, June 28, July
6, 1848; the Enquirer declared that if
it had not been for Cass "The decks
of a vessel, above which floated the
glorious stars and stripes, could be polluted by the
tread of some upstart
minion of England's navy with
impunity..." Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,
June 21, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Gazette,
June 26, 1848; Cleveland Daily
Plain Dealer, November
6, 1848.
243
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 27, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 313
ican paper in the East.244 The
Enquirer asked the for-
eigners if they would join the
"motley throng which
enrolls in its members the
church-burning Nativists of
Philadelphia?"245. That
the Democrats were clearly
alive to the necessity of retaining
their already formid-
able hold on this class of voters is
seen from the follow-
ing announcement of a political meeting
in Cleveland:
"1000 Laborers Wanted! Irishmen,
Germans and La-
boring Men" to be addressed by a
Cleveland me-
chanic."246 Although the Whigs made energetic
efforts
to reach the Germans and Irish with
campaign ma-
terial,247 the Democrats
were successful in retaining their
allegiance,248 an enthusiastic Democrat
writing that
"The Irish Catholics are right to
a man. The Germans
are fired with unappeasable resentment
against the Na-
tives and their well-known
allies."249
Some effort was made by the Democrats
to turn the
election of 1848, like that of 1847,
into a patriotic refer-
endum on the Mexican War. In their gubernatorial
candidate, the Democrats had the
incarnation of patriot-
ism. The Ohio Statesman declared
that the oft-quoted
statement that Ohio had been in the
"forefront of oppo-
sition to the War" would be
verified if Ford were
elected;250 while the Enquirer argued
that Weller's de-
244 Ohio Statesman, June 16-30,
1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, June
23, 1848.
245 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October
25, 1848.
246 Cleveland Daily Plain
Dealer, October 31, 1849.
247 Whittlesey to Follett, October 19,
21, 1848, quoted in "Whittlesey Se-
lections from the Follett Papers,
IV," in loc. cit. 1916, v. XI, No. 1, pp.
31-32.
248 Jacob Reinhard, editor of the Westbote,
made particular efforts to
retain all the Germans in the Democratic ranks, Ohio
Statesman, October
28, 1848.
249 Humphrey to Allen, April 17, 1848,
Allen MSS., v. XVI.
250 Ohio Statesman, September 23, 1848.
314
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
feat would be interpreted as a
condemnation of the War
with Mexico: "The struggles and
sacrifices and brilliant
triumphs of our brave troops, as having
been put forth
in a war against God * * * * Yes, the
bloody hands
of Tom Corwin may then well be raised
in tri-
umph * * * *"251 However, the
excitement over
slavery in the territories almost
completely absorbed the
interest of the voters.
Ford was chosen by a narrow margin in
an election
which was not finally determined until
after the votes
were officially canvassed by the
General Assembly.252
The Free Soilers held the balance of
power, both in the
House and on joint ballot of the
Legislature. Most of
the Free Soil members came from the
Western Reserve,
the old Whig stronghold.253
If two Free Soilers should
join the Democrats in the House, the
Whigs would be
outvoted. A bitter legislative fight
followed, aggra-
vated by a dispute over the seating of
two Hamilton
County Democrats.254 Taylor
Whigs explained Ford's
small majority on the ground that
"he lost many Whig
votes that stood too over plumb to vote
for a man the
least bit tinctured with
abolition" and because he failed
to endorse Taylor.255 The Plain
Dealer maintained that
"Old fashioned federalism, new
light Van Burenism,
fanatical Abolitionism, National
Reformism, par excel-
lence Free Soilism, and every other ism
known in this
wizard age, have joined, or rather
conspired, to elect
Ford," and that only a nonentity
like the Whig candi-
251 Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, August 30, 1848; See also Washington
Daily Union, December 27, 1848; Ohio Statesman, September 25,
1848.
252 Ohio Statesman, January 20, 1849.
253 Ibid., October
23, 1848.
254 See Chapter VI.
255 Vance to Crittenden, October
24, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XII.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 315
date could have combined all those
elements.256 The
Enquirer concluded that the Democrats had virtually
won a victory, since Ford's election
had been conceded
by a large majority in September, and
because the Dem-
ocrats won a majority of seats in the
next Congress.257
The Enquirer explained these
results on the ground that
the progressive and liberal tendencies
of the Democratic
party attracted the younger voters;
that the Whigs were
disgusted with the nomination of
Taylor; and that nine-
tenths of the foreign voters were in
the Democratic
party.258 In
some cases the
election of Free
Soil
members to the General Assembly had
occurred in the
face of bitter opposition from both
major parties. In
Summit County, the Free Soilers
coalesced with the
Democrats to elect an anti-slavery
Democrat (Lucien
Swift), while in other counties the
third party threw
its strength to the Whig candidate.259
In many cases,
the Whig party was badly demoralized,
having lost its
hold on the Western Reserve for the
first time since
the organization of the party in Ohio.
The narrow margin of victory in the
State election
convinced the Whigs that Ohio would
cast its votes for
Cass unless vigorous steps were taken
immediately. On
256 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, October
11, 1848.
257 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October
22, 1848; The Daily Union judged
the close vote to be a victory for the
Democrats and declared the result to
be largely due to the speaking of Allen
and Weller and to the sterling work
of Medary. Washington Daily Union, October
15, 18, 1848; There were
eleven Democrats elected to Congress, among whom were
David T. Disney,
Edson B. Olds, Charles Sweetser, Moses
Hoagland, and Joseph Cable; five
Taylor Whigs, Robert C. Schenck, Moses
B. Corwin, John L. Taylor,
Samuel F. Vinton and Nathan Evans; two
Whigs who were not Taylor
Whigs, William F. Hunter and Lewis D.
Campbell; and three Free Soilers,
John Cromwell, Joshua R. Giddings and Joseph M. Root. Ohio
Statesman,
October 21, 1848.
258 Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, October 15, 1848.
259 Ohio State Journal, October 25, 1848.
316
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the day of the State election, Ewing
wrote that if Ford
carried the state by 12,000, Taylor
would win; but that
if the Whig gubernatorial candidate had
a majority of
only 6,000, Ohio was lost for the
national candidate. At
the same time, Ewing pointed out that
if support of Ford
were represented as a test vote in the
presidential elec-
tion, the Whigs would lose 5,000 votes
which would
otherwise be cast for Ford.260 Cass
carried Ohio by
a plurality: 154,769 for Cass, 138,349
for Taylor, and
35,344 for Van Buren--the latter
obtaining most of his
support from the counties of the
Western Reserve, and
carrying only Ashiabula, Cuyahoga,
Geauga, Lake, Lo-
rain, and Trumbull.261
It was evident that the Free Soil
movement had al-
most wrecked the Whig party in Ohio.
Vance believed
the refusal of McLean and Clay to
endorse Taylor and
the enmity of the farmers in the
sugar-maple region of
Ohio, against the competition of slave
labor in the sugar
districts of Louisiana, had injured the
party in Ohio.262
Chase concluded that Cass carried Ohio
because it was
generally believed that Taylor would
not veto the Pro-
viso. The Cleveland True Democrat thought
the small
Free Soil vote was due to the inherent
prejudice of the
Whigs of the Western Reserve to Van
Buren.263
The reaction of the major parties to
Taylor's elec-
tion is interesting. To the Democrats
it appeared to
be a Southern triumph and an indication
that the South
had deserted Cass because Taylor would
preserve the
interests of slavery more securely.264
The Ohio States-
260 Ewing to Crittenden, October 6, 1848, Crittenden MSS.,
v. XII.
261 Ohio Statesman, November 22,
25, 1848.
262 Vance to Critenden, November 13,
1848, Crittenden MSS., v. XII.
263 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p.
155.
264 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, November 23, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 317
man and the Enquirer maintained that it was a vote
of the East against the West, and that
it was "time
the West had set up for itself, if
selfishness is the pre-
dominant and ruling idea in the East
and South."265
The reaction of the Plain Dealer also
revealed the grow-
ing dislike of the voters of both
parties in Ohio to
the influence of the South in the
government. For
"Forty-eight years the South, with
less than one-third
population have had the administration
of this Govern-
ment," so ran the comment of the Plain
Dealer, "and
they have used its patronage and power
to strengthen,
extend, and perpetuate the dominion of
slavery * * * *
The people of the North have decided to
continue this
power in the hands of slaveholders
another four years
* * * * It was a crisis at which the
Free States, if
ever, should have had the management of
the govern-
ment, and settled all sectional
questions in favor of free-
dom."266
1848 witnessed the birth of a
formidable third party,
dominated by a protest against southern
dictation, and,
on the surface, the extension of
slavery. The Whig
party in Ohio had been torn asunder by
the nationaliz-
ing influence of party organization, on
the one hand;
and the insistent demands of the
sectionalism of the
Northwest, on the other. The Democratic
party, al-
though it felt the strain to a
considerable extent, was
able to avoid a breach as an older
organization with
strong traditions of party loyalty. The
election of 1848
265 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, November 17, 1848;
the Union protested
against this interpretation declaring
that if they, in the East, had failed to
sweep the country, it was not from any
Democratic opposition to the can-
didate from the West. Washington Daily
Union, November 14, 1848.
266 Cleveland Daily Plain
Dealer, November 10, 1848.
318
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
began the disintegration of political
parties which culmi-
nated in the formation of the
Republican party in 1854.
The struggle between the economic and
political interests
of the Northwest and those of the
Nation as a whole
continued and formed the basis for the
rivalry of the
parties in Ohio for the remainder of
the decade.
CHAPTER VI
THE APPORTIONMENT BILL OF FEBRUARY, 1848
From its admission into the Union to
1840, Ohio
had, for the most part, been under the
control of the
followers of Jefferson. A number of
causes combined
to break this control and make of Ohio
during the 'for-
ties a bitterly contested battle-field.
The most important
was the transformation of the Whig
party from an or-
ganization somewhat "tainted"
with Federalism into
one which deigned to engage in the saturnalia
of a
"Hard Cider" campaign and
trumpet through the state
its pretensions to Jeffersonianism. The
Whig party pa-
raded as the "poor man's
friend" and its leaders talked
much of the homely virtues. Another
cause was the
failure of the national Democratic
organization to re-
alize the power of the growing
Northwest and the conse-
quent neglect to reward its followers
in that section with
patronage in proportion to their
importance. Other im-
portant reasons were the recurrent
financial depressions
growing out of the panic of 1837 and
the stringency of
specie during the early 'forties.
Financial intimidation
of debtors by the holders of wealth
added followers to
the Whig ranks--followers who accepted
the prosperity
arguments of the Whig orators with a
facility which an-
ticipated the success of the "full
dinner pail" appeal of
later years. These forces resulted in a
close political
division of the State. Perhaps as a
consequence, gerry-
(319)
320 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
mandering, a device which lent itself
to the schemes of
wily politicians, was frequently used
in Ohio to defeat
the will of the majority of the voters
and to insure po-
litical control to the party which
happened to have a
majority in the Assembly.
Both in aim and in methods of
resistance to its exe-
cution, the Whig Apportionment Bill of
February, 1848,
resembled the earlier attempt of the
Democrats in 1842
to divide the State into congressional
districts in order
to secure control of the congressional
delegation. This
attempt had been defeated, as has
already been pointed
out, by the resignation of the Whig
members of the
House, which left the Assembly without
a quorum.1
The first Ohio State Constitution
provided that the
General Assembly should apportion
representation
among the several counties in
proportion to population.2
The controversy over the
constitutionality of the act
passed by the Whig Legislature on
February 18, 1848,3
in accordance with this provision of
the State Constitu-
tion, became so bitter that it
convulsed the State for
two years; interrupted legislative
procedure for weeks;
led to a realignment of parties and to
the election of
Salmon P. Chase to the United States
Senate.4
Before the State elections were held in
October,
1847, attention had been called by Whig
papers to the
need of a fair districting of the
State, on the ground
that the Democrats had been able to
control the General
1 Ohio Senate Journals, v. XI,
Part 2, pp. 340, 348, 353, 354, 395-396
Vote for passage stood 18-17; See also
Chapter II. McMaster, op. cit., v.
VII, p. 71. Ibid., p. 67. Ohio
Senate Journals, v. XL, Part 2, p. 400.;
Niles' Register, August 27, 1842, p. 403-404.
2 Article I, Sections 2 and 6.
3 Laws of Ohio. v. XLVI, pp. 57-64.
4 See Chapter VII.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 321
Assembly, previously, by
gerrymandering.5 The issue
assumed additional importance because
upon the 1848-
1849 Legislature depended the election
of a successor to
William Allen to the United States
Senate. The Ham-
ilton Intelligencer favored
dividing the State into single
member districts; and the Clermont Courier
recalled
how the Democrats in 1839-1840 had
united Clermont,
Brown, and Clinton Counties in order to
overcome Whig
majorities.6
Reapportionment had not figured in the
campaign
of 1847, and the Democratic leaders,
therefore, were
all the more surprised, when on January
12, 1848, an
apportionment measure was introduced by
the Whigs
in the Senate, providing among other
things, for the
division of Hamilton County into two
electoral districts
and assigning two senators and five
representatives to
the whole County as before.7 This
measure the Demo-
crats denounced as unfair, unjust and unconstitutional,8
and centered their fire on the proposed
division of Ham-
ilton County. The Whigs, of course,
defended the act,
the Cincinnati Chronicle declaring
that it provided for
representation of the business and
commercial classes
5 Carroll Free Press, quoted in Ohio
State Journal, September 7, 1847.
6 Hamilton
Intelligencer, quoted in Ohio State Journal, November 13,
1847.
7 Laws of Ohio, v. XLVI, pp. 57-64. As finally passed, the Law
pro-
vided that the General Assembly of Ohio
should be composed of thirty-six
senators and seventy-two
representatives, to be apportioned as follows--"To
the County of Hamilton, two senators and
five representatives, to be elected
as follows: So much of said County of
Hamilton, as is comprised within the
limits of the district now constituted
by the First, Second, Third, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Wards
of the City of Cincinnati, shall
compose the First District, and shall be
entitled to one senator and two
representatives; . . . So much of said
County of Hamilton, as is not in-
cluded in the First District, shall
compose the Second District, and shall be
entitled to one senator and three representatives . .
."
8 Ohio Statesman, February 19, May 10, 1848.
Vol. XXXVIII--21
322 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
of the city which hitherto had been
outvoted by the
suburban and rural population.9
The Democratic press of the State was
united in the
assault on the Apportionment Bill of
1848. The Mount
Vernon Banner described it under
the caption, "Revo-
lution at the Capitol"; the
Guernsey Jeffersonian re-
ferred to "High-handed Federal
Villainy"; and the Lan-
caster, (Ohio), Eagle considered
the measure "Revolu-
tionary in the extreme."10 Samuel Medary's attacks,
as editor of the Ohio Statesman, afford
a typical ex-
ample of the violent journalism of the
'forties. Med-
ary spared neither the Bill nor its
authors.11 Democratic
leaders and Democratic newspapers
followed his lead-
ership, although some papers, like the
Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, adopted a milder and more conservative
tone.12
The Bill passed the Senate,13 was
amended slightly
9 Cincinnati Daily Chronicle, quoted
in Ohio State Journal, February 1,
1848. It became clear in the campaigns
of 1848 and 1849 that the division
of Hamilton County had been proposed as
early as 1843, but that the "older"
and "wiser" Whigs had opposed the scheme on
the ground of constitutionality
and expediency. Nevertheless, zealous and partisan
Whigs determined to
press the matter; and, in the 1844
session of the Legislature, R. F. Payne
(W), at the instance of the Hamilton
County Whigs, had brought the pro-
posal before the Judiciary Committee
only to have that committee, which
was composed of three Whigs and two
Democrats, again reject the plan as
unconstitutional. The Senate then requested an opinion
from the attorney-
general, Henry Stanbery, and the latter
reported, on January 17, that the
General Assembly had the power to divide
Hamilton County for purposes
of representation. J. J. Coombs, B. F.
Cowen, and R. F. Payne were the
Whig members of the committee; Edward
Archbold and James H. Ewing,
the Democrats; Senate Journals, v.
XLVI, p. 245. Cincinnati Daily En-
quirer, January 26, 1848.
10 Editorials from these papers
quoted in Ohio Statesman, February 26,
1848.
11 Ohio Statesman, January 17, May 10, 1848.
12
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer for this entire period. There had been
friction between the Broughs, John and
Charles (editors of the Enquirer),
and Medary, since the campaigns of 1844 and 1846, when
Medary supported
Van Buren and "Hard Money,"
while the Broughs sided with Cass and
"Constitutional Currency."
13 Ohio Senate
Journals, v. XLVI, pp. 339-340,
January 28, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 323
by the House and returned to the Senate
on February
14. Seeing that its passage was
certain, the Demo-
cratic senators vacated their seats in
order to prevent
a quorum.14 In a paper
submitted to the Speaker of
the Senate, setting forth the reasons
for their with-
drawal,15 the Democratic
Senators declared the Bill was
a "daring infraction of the
Constitution and a violation
of all established usage," and
argued that, "To divide a
county for representatives and senators,
and to appor-
tion one part of the county to one
legislative district and
a part of it to another is a plain act
of revolution on the
part of the majority who attempt it; it
is a fundamental
change of our political organization
plainly forbidden by
the Constitution."16 The
Democrats consented to return
only if the bill were purged of its
objectionable feature
or if the Senate should consider other
measures.
The seceding Democratic senators also
drew up an
address to the people, notable as a
document of social
protest. After referring again to the
unconstitution-
ality and injustice of the
Apportionment Bill and the in-
ability of the minority to get redress
from the courts,
they concluded, "The remedy is now
in the hands of the
people. The Democrats have struggled
valiantly but
hopelessly for four years against
invasions of every de-
scription upon the rights of the
people. Law upon law
went upon your statute-books * * * all
having one
tendency to destroy that political
equality upon which
alone rests the fabric of our
democratic government.
Rights were granted to wealth and
denied to labor,
14 Ohio Senate Journals, v. XLVI, p. 560.
15 Ohio Statesman, February
15, 1848; Ohio Senate Journal, v. XLVI,
pp. 562-563.
16 Letter printed in Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, February 15, 1848.
324
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
burthens were placed upon labor and
wealth was ex-
empted from them. Link after link was
added to the
chain and the helpless would have stood
before mocking
Whiggery, this giant growing rapidly in
the favor of
the people of Ohio."17 The issue was joined for a real
political battle and Medary eagerly
accepted the Whig
challenge. His paper gave high praise
to the decamp-
ing Democratic senators,18 whom
Whig papers, like the
Ohio State Journal,19 denounced as "absquatulators",
accusing Medary of instigating the
withdrawal of the
Democratic senators.20 To
the reply of the Democrats
that they were only exercising the same
right claimed
by the Whigs in 1842, the latter
replied that the situa-
tions were not analogous, because in
1842 the Whigs had
resigned during a special session of
the Legislature con-
vened for a specific purpose.21 To
discredit the Demo-
crats with the voters, the withdrawal
was denounced by
the Whig press as a revolutionary and
treasonable con-
spiracy to prevent all legislation of
which the Democrats
did not approve. "People of Ohio!
You are now
threatened with civil revolution * * *
equal repre-
sentation is no cardinal principle with
the anarchy, the
overthrow of all your state
institutions they have in
contemplation,"22 -- so ran one
protest.
The Democrats sought a possible
compromise, but
the Whigs refused to discuss such
proposals and ad-
journed the Senate on February 16 and
17, for lack of
17 Ohio Statesman, February 15, 1848.
18 Ibid., February 15, 1848.
19 Ohio
State Journal, February 15, 1848.
20 Ibid., February 26, 1848.
21 Ibid., February 19, 1948.
22 Ibid., February 16, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 325
a quorum.23 On February 18,
while the Bill was still
before the Senate, the House receded
from its amend-
ments which were of little practical
significance anyway,
and notified the Senate of its action.
Thereupon, the
presiding officers of the Senate and
House signed the
Bill, and it was declared law.24 This action was de-
nounced by the Cincinnati Enquirer as
a "mockery of
all form, a transgression of all rules,
a violation of all
the laws which ever governed
legislation in Ohio, an
outrage upon all principle, and all
common-sense."25 On
February 25, forty-one Democratic
members of the
General Assembly issued an address to
the people of
Ohio intended as a battle-cry for the
coming campaign.26
The Whigs promptly issued a
counter-blast, upholding
the constitutionality and fundamental
justice of the Ap-
portionment Law.27
Democratic meetings all over the State
protested
against the measure as a deliberate and
unconstitutional
attempt by the Whigs to thwart the will
of the people.28
At Dayton, the Resolutions Committee,
with C. L. Val-
landigham as chairman, produced a
strong indictment
of the Whigs, charging that the Apportionment
Bill not
only was unconstitutional and unjust
but that it was not
law; and argued that if the Governor
did not call a spe-
cial session of the General Assembly to
pass a new ap-
portionment measure the State would be
without a legal
23 Ohio Statesman, February 17, 1848; Ohio Senate Journals, v.
XLVI,
pp. 561-564.
24 Ohio Statesman, February 19, 1848; Ohio Senate Journals, v.
XLVI,
pp. 566-567.
25 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February
21, 1848.
26 Ohio Statesman, February 25, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,
March
1, 1848.
27 Ohio State Journal, February 26, 1848.
28 Ohio Statesman, March 15,
1848.
326 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
government.29 In the columns of the Western
Empire,
(Dayton), Vallandigham declared that
the Bill had not
been passed according to parliamentary
procedure.30
The Dayton gathering also urged the
Democratic State
Central Committee to call a State
Convention at an early
date in order to devise "a uniform
course of action for
the Democratic party throughout the
State. * * *"31
On March 3, the Democratic State Central
Committee
complied and called a State Convention
"to determine
upon such measures as may be deemed
advisable to meet
the exigencies of the time."32 The date selected was
April 20, but this was later changed to
May 10.
The Whigs, taking their cue from the
Dorr Rebellion
in Rhode Island, pronounced the
proposals of their op-
ponents as revolutionary. The Ohio
State Journal be-
moaned the fate of the State: "One
week, only one
week, and this fabric of government
under which we
have dwelt * * * will be swept away,
and all those
institutions which have been organized
in the hope to
secure to the citizen the possession of
life, liberty, and
property, will be gone as the baseless
fabric of a vision
--gone, gone, forever."33 Nearly
every Whig county
convention adopted resolutions
upholding the Apportion-
ment Law and condemning the Democratic
members
for withdrawing from the Senate.34
The conservative
portion of the Democracy unquestionably
feared the
29 Ibid., March 1, 1848.
30 The Ohio State Journal pointed
out that David T. Disney (D) had
once signed an appropriation bill after
his term expired and if that law
were valid, by the same token this law
was legal. This the Enquirer ad-
mitted, but claimed that Disney had said
that if the law had been contested
it would have been thrown aside. Ohio
State Journal, March 20, 1848.
31 Ohio Statesman, March 1, 1848.
32 Ohio Statesman, March
3, 4, 1848.
33 Ohio State Journal, May 3, 1848.
34 Ibid., March 1, April 5, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 327
effect of these charges, and endeavored
to reassure the
voters on the one hand, and to restrain
the more radical
members of their own party on the
other. The Cincin-
nati Daily Enquirer favored
settling the matter in the
courts,35 and, although not
rejecting the proposed Dem-
ocratic State Convention, regarded the
latter only as
means to take counsel with the party
membership.36
While this party warfare was going on
in the news-
papers, the Democrats, in county
conventions, adopted
resolutions condemning the
Apportionment Bill; ap-
proving the course of the fifteen
seceding Democratic
senators; and appointing delegates to
the State Conven-
tion of May 10.37 The Richland County Democrats
resolved, "That it becomes the
freemen of Ohio, who
are determined to maintain their
liberties, to resist and
oppose this high-handed usurpation and
tyranny by all
means within their power and to defeat
it peaceably if
they can, but forcibly if they must."38
The Ashland
County Democratic Convention took
equally strong
grounds resolving to "stand by the
people of the other
counties of the State, even to the last
resort of vio-
lence."39
With feeling running high, the leaders
of the Demo-
cratic party met in Columbus, May 10,
1848,40 elected
Rufus P. Spalding chairman of the
Convention, and
appointed a committee on resolutions
headed by David
T. Disney. The importance attached to
the Conven-
tion may be seen from the presence of
such outstanding
35 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, March 21, 1848.
36 bid., March 4, 1848.
37 Ohio Statesman, March 21, May 10, 1848.
38 Ibid., April 21, 1848.
39 Ibid., May 1,
1848.
40 Full proceedings of this Convention
are given in the Ohio Statesman,
May 10, 11, 1848.
328
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
leaders of the party as Samuel Medary,
A. F. Edger-
ton, John Brough, David T. Disney, C.
L. Vallandig-
ham, Edson B. Olds, T. W. Bartley, E.
B. Flood, and
H. C. Whitman. The Convention met at a
time when
the Democratic party in Ohio found
itself jockeyed out
of a favorable position on the question
of slavery in the
territories,41 and therefore
the Apportionment Law was
seized upon as a new issue in the hope
of rehabilitating
the political fortunes of the Democracy.
Since there
were signs that the Whigs also were
divided on the ap-
portionment question, conservative
Democrats felt that
a radical move on their part would
discredit them in
the eyes of the people at the moment
when fortune was
playing into their hands. In the
Convention, Brough,
a leader of the more conservative wing
of the party,
attempted to tone down the sharp
resolutions presented
for adoption. Resolutions finally were
adopted to the
effect that there was no law by which
the General As-
sembly could be formed after the second
Tuesday in
October; that the Governor should call
an extra session
to pass an apportionment law; and that
if the Governor
failed to call such a session,
Democrats should abide by
the Apportionment Law to the extent of
voting in full
force at the next election, "with
a view to ulterior
measures for the preservation of their
past political
rights." These "ulterior
measures," an ominous threat
according to Whig critics, were the
refusal of Demo-
cratic senators and representatives to
take their seats
in the Legislature. By such tactics,
the Democrats
hoped to force a call for a
constitutional convention by
the Whigs. Another resolution provided
that if the
41 See Chapter V.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 329
Governor did not call an extra session
of the Legisla-
ture, a Democratic State Convention
should assemble on
the first Monday in December "to
devise the necessary
measures for securing the action of the
whole people
on the subject of a new
Constitution."42 Another revo-
lutionary act was the appointment of a
Committee of
Public Safety consisting of twenty-one
members, one
from each congressional district, to
meet at the call of
the chairman "to confer for the
public good."43 A com-
mittee of five was appointed to draft
an address to the
people of Ohio, and eight days later a
document of ten
thousand words appeared, repeating all
the old argu-
ments against the Whig Apportionment
Law,44 and con-
cluding with an appeal to the people,
but assuring them
at the same time, that the remedy was
"peaceable,
natural, and constitutional."45
The Whigs dubbed the Democratic
Convention a
"Dorr Convention" and a
"Jacobin Revolt."46 The main
Whig organ of the State warned its
followers "that
measures to revolutionize the State and
subvert the
Constitution are still in
progress--that not one item
of the infamous plots and plans of May
10 has been
abandoned or neglected--that the machinery
of treason
and anarchy has been silently,
but constantly at work--
42 Ohio Statesman, May
10-11, 1848.
43 Years afterward, with an ironical
flourish, Medary, a member from
the Tenth Congressional District,
resigned from the Committee of Public
Safety. The appointment of a Committee
of Public Safety was a step
which the Hamilton County Democratic
Convention had not taken, chiefly
because of the opposition of John
Brough. The failure to do this brought
protests from the Hamilton County
Democrats. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,
April 17, 18, 19, 1848. Brough probably
did this in order to nip in the bud
an "independent" movement
among some of the Democrats who were in-
clined to seek Whig support, especially
in 1849, by agreeing to the legality
of the Apportionment Law.
44 Ohio Statesman, May 18, 1848.
45 Ibid., May 19, 1848.
46 Ohio State
Journal, July 1, August 8, 1848.
330 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
and that every threat, even to that of
force, bloodshed
and murder, will most assuredly be
carried out and ful-
filled to the letter, if the result of
the election shall fur-
nish the means by which it may be
done."47 The Whig
emphasis on law and order was probably
partly in-
duced by the unfavorable position of
their party in the
State on national issues.48 Many Whigs were bolting
the Taylor ticket49 in 1848,
and state leaders hoped, by
stressing the "revolutionary"
tactics of the Democrats,
to keep insurgent Whigs in line.50
By July, the Paines-
ville Telegraph (W) was
convinced that state issues
were far more important than national
questions, and
declared, with the approval of the Ohio
State Journal,
that the question was "Whether we
shall maintain law
and order in the State, and preserve
the Constitution
and government in its present useful
and reliable form,
or cast it at loose ends to the
management of such cor-
rupt demogogues as Sam Medary, Dr.
Olds, and John
B. Weller."51
The first reaction of the Democratic
press52 and
Democratic county conventions53 was
to applaud the
work of the State Convention of May 10.
At the same
time, there was evidence of a desire to
avoid the charges
of revolutionary tactics.54 The Dayton Western Em-
pire, for example, declared, "We contemplate no vio-
47 Ibid., September 18, 1848.
48 Chase to Sumner, November 27, 1848,
quoted in "Selected Letters of
Salmon P. Chase," in loc. cit., v.
II, pp. 142-143.
49 E.
S. Hamlin to McLean, September 16, 1848. McLean MSS., v. XVI.
50 Ohio State Journal, August 24, 1848.
51 Ibid., July 10, 1848.
52 Approval was voiced by such papers as
the Akron Democrat, Coshoc-
ton Democrat, Wayne County Democrat, Hillsboro
Gazette, Georgetown
Standard, Knox County Democratic
Banner, Guernsey County Jeffersonian,
Ohio Sun, Western Empire, quoted in Ohio Statesman, May 20, 1848.
53 Ohio Statesman, May
20-September 4, 1848.
54 Ohio Statesman, September 4, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 331
lence. It is folly to talk of bayonets
and bloodshed. We
propose simply to fold our arms, stand
by and see if the
Whig party can carry on this government
without our
cooperation."55 The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer vig-
orously refuted the charges of the
Cincinnati Daily Ga-
zette (W) that the plans of the Democrats were revo-
lutionary and claimed for the Democrats
the right to
vote for all the representatives from
Hamilton County;
and in case that right were denied, to
contest the election
in a peaceable manner.56 The Enquirer advised every
Democratic voter to cast his ballot for
the senator and
the five representatives to be elected
from Hamilton
County.57 This was in direct
contravention to the Ap-
portionment Law and would, if carried
out, force the
issue upon the Clerk of the Hamilton
County Court
of Common Pleas, whose duty it was to
issue certificates
of election to the properly qualified
representatives.
Moreover, this would force the judges
of election in the
several wards to accept or reject
voters according to
their interpretation of the
Apportionment Law and the
State Constitution. The General
Assembly, of course,
was the judge of the qualifications of
its own members.
but the practice had arisen to accept
the certificates of
election as prima facie evidence
of a right to a seat in
that body. Thus, a crucial issue was
referred to the
Hamilton County Clerk. The plans was
endorsed by the
Hamilton County Democratic Central
Committee58 and
the battle was on.
The election in Hamilton County turned
out as ex-
55 Ibid., May 20, 1848.
56 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September
29, 1848.
57 Ibid., September 3, 1848.
58 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September
8, 1848.
332
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
pected. According to the Apportionment
Law of Feb-
ruary, 1848, two Whigs were elected
from the first elec-
toral district, but according to the
Democratic interpre-
tation, all five of the Democratic
representatives were
returned. On October 16, E. C. Roll,
clerk of the Ham-
ilton County Court of Common Pleas,
gave certificates
of election to the Democratic senator
and to the five
Democratic representatives.59 The
seats of two of them,
George E. Pugh and A. N. Pierce, were
claimed by O.
M. Spencer and George W. Runyan. Thus
the issue
came squarely before the House of
Representatives.
As pointed out earlier, the State
election of 1848 was
bitterly contested between the Whigs,
Democrats, and
Free Soilers,60 and resulted
in the Democrats and Demo-
cratic Free Soilers obtaining control
of the House, pro-
vided the two members from Hamilton
County, whose
election was disputed by the Whigs,
were given their
seats. Control of the Senate was in
doubt, and the pros-
pects for a peaceful legislative
session were not bright;
for, in addition to this controversy,
there were doubts
as to the eligibility of George D.
Hendricks, senator-
elect from Preble and Montgomery
Counties; and the
seat of Alanson Jones,
representative-elect from Clin-
ton County, was in question because he
was sheriff of
Clinton County at the time of the
election and thus was
barred by the Constitution from holding
a seat in the
Legislature.61
The first attempt to organize the House
ended in
confusion.62 On the first
day of the session, the Demo-
59 Ohio State Journal, October 20, 1848.
60 See Chapter V.
61 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December
3, 1848.
62 Ohio House Journals, v. XLVII, pp. 3-4.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 333
crats went to the Capitol two hours
earlier than the time
for organization and were called to
order by B. F. Lei-
ter, of Stark County, as acting
chairman.63 They claimed
they were merely forestalling the
Whigs, who, it was
said, were contemplating a similar
course.64 The Demo-
crats feared that if the Whigs
controlled the temporary
organization of the House, the Whig
chairman and
clerk would refuse to seat the
Democratic claimants
from Hamilton County. Since the House
was elected
every year the ordinary course of
procedure was for
the clerk of the former House to
receive the certificates
of election which had formerly been
accepted as prima
facie evidence of right to a seat. When the Whigs ar-
rived, they rejected the Democratic
plan of organiza-
tion, and set up one of their own with
A. T. Holcomb
as chairman.65 The Whigs seated
themselves in a group
on one side of the House, with the
Democrats on the
other. Each side then attempted to
drown out the other
by shouts and hisses, and, to add to
the confusion, a
crowd of spectators expressed their
sympathies with
the warring factions.
In the role of a peacemaker, Norton S.
Townshend,
(Free Soiler), offered a resolution
asking Pugh, Pierce,
Spencer and Runyan from Hamilton County
not to take
their seats until after the
organization of the House
had. been completed and their
respective claims settled.66
Spencer offered to accept this proposal
provided the
others would also; but as this
procedure would have dis-
63 Ohio Statesman, December 4, 1848; Ohio State Journal, December
4,
5, 1848.
64 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December
7, 1848.
65 Ohio Statesman, December 4,
1848; Ohio House Journals, v. XLVII,
p. 5.
66 Ohio Statesman, December 5,
1848.
334
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
carded the chief Democratic argument,
namely, that
certificates of election were prima
facie evidence of
rights to seats in the Assembly, the
proposal failed. Al-
though the Whigs insisted that the
certificate of Alan-
son Jones, the Whig representative from
Clinton
County, be accepted as evidence of his
right to a seat,
they would not accord the same
privileges to the Demo-
cratic holders of such certificates
from Hamilton
County. On Friday, December 8, Riddle,
on behalf
of the Free Soil members, presented a
proposition to the
effect that the four disputing Hamilton
County claim-
ants leave the House until after the
organization had
been carried out, the Free Soil members
pledging that
no business would be carried on until
their claims were
settled;67 but this proposal
also failed.
On the following day a committee,
appointed by the
Democratic organization in the House to
investigate
the Hamilton County dispute, reported
in favor of seat-
ing Pugh and Pierce.68 C. H. Brough defended the
Democrats in an article printed in the Ohio
Standard
(Free Soil) and reprinted in the Ohio
Statesman of De-
cember 9, 1848, pointing out that the
Assembly, in the
disputed election case of Chandler
vs. Betts in the ses-
sion of 1845-1846, had held that a
representative district
could not be less than a county.69
The position taken
by the Ohio Standard foreshadowed
a Democratic and
Free Soil coalition. By January, 1849,
the Ohio Stand-
ard, a Chase organ, was wholeheartedly in favor of the
repeal of the Apportionment Law.70 As
one of the
67 Ibid., December 8, 1848.
68 Ohio Statesman, December 9, 1848.
69 Ohio
Statesman, January 19, 1849.
70 Ohio Standard, quoted
in Ohio Statesman, January 19, 1849.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 335
chief organizers of the Free Soil
party, he was busily
engaged at Columbus in promoting his
own election to
the United States Senate.71
On December 14, Townshend again tried
to bring
the warring factions together by
introducing resolutions
to the effect that the certificates of
membership which
had been given to Lucien Swift (Free
Soil), who had
been recognized by some of the Whigs as
clerk of the
House, should be passed to the clerk's
desk and filed
with the others; that Leiter should be
recognized as
chairman for the purpose of organizing
the House; and
that the first business to be
considered should be the
resolution: "That Messrs. Pugh and
Pierce, are, by
their certificates, prima facie entitled
to seats until their
claims shall be finally decided upon
their merits. On
which resolution the said Pugh and
Pierce shall not be
entitled to vote, but the same shall be
finally decided by
the remaining seventy members. The vote
on said reso-
lution shall be decisive of the prima
facie right of the
said Pugh and Pierce to seats; but
nothing in the afore-
said proceedings shall be construed to
interfere with the
right of either Messrs. Spencer and
Runyan, or Pugh
and Pierce, of contest for such seats
after the organiza-
tion."72 Both Whigs and Democrats agreed to
make
these resolutions a special order for
the following day
in their own separate organizations;
but again the peace-
makers failed, because the Whigs feared
this proposi-
tion gave the Democrats too great an
advantage.73 A
week later, Townshend, on behalf of the
Free Soilers,
71 See
Chase correspondence in Chase MSS.; See also "Some letters of
Salmon P. Chase, 1848-1865," The
American Historical Review, XXXIV,
536-556.
72 Ohio Statesman, December 14, 1848.
73 Ibid., December 15, 1848.
336
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
offered another plan similar to the
previous one except
that it provided for a vote by the
seventy members, about
whose qualifications no question was
raised, on alternate
sets of resolutions. The first resolution was on the
seating of Spencer and Runyan and the
second on the
seating of Pugh and Pierce.74 If
both resolutions were
negatived, both sets of contestants
were to withdraw,
and present claims for their rights to
seats after the
organization of the House. Two days
later the House
organized on this basis with Leiter, as
chairman, and
McClure (Free Soil), as clerk,75 and
a date was set to
hear the Hamilton County case.
From that time until the final decision
of the case,
the arguments in the House revealed,
with increasing
clarity, the unity of the Whig Free
Soilers with the Tay-
lor Whigs on the Hamilton County
question. This
union of Whigs and Whig Free Soilers
drove Town-
shend and Morse, who sympathized with
the Democratic
position on banking and currency, into
the arms of the
Democrats, because they feared that the
Whig Free
Soilers were attempting to betray the
Free Soil party to
the regular Whigs.76 Chase
had convinced both Morse
and Townshend of the
unconstitutionality of the Appor-
tionment Law. When, on January 2, the
vote was taken
on the seating of Pugh and Pierce,
there was still a
deadlock, Townshend and Morse voting
with the Demo-
crats and the remainder of the Free
Soilers voting with
the Whigs.77 The vote stood:
38-32 against seating
74 Ohio Statesman, December 21, 1848.
75 Ibid., December 23, 1848.
76 This influence is accurately shown in
a letter of Norton S. Town-
shend to the editor of the Cleveland True
Democrat. Reprinted in Ohio
Statesman, January
22, 1849.
77 Ohio Statesman, January 3, 1849; Ohio State Journal, January 3
1849; Ohio House Journals, v.
XLVII, p. 12.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 337
Spencer and Runyan, some of the Whig
Free Soilers
joining the two Independent Free
Soilers because they
thought that the election should go
back to the voters of
Hamilton County.
A few days before Townshend reported a
set of reso-
lutions78 that finally
resulted in the seating of Pugh and
Pierce, A. G. Riddle brought in a bill
to repeal that por-
tion of the Apportionment Law of
February, 1848, di-
viding Hamilton County into two electoral
districts, with
the proviso that nothing in his bill
should be so construed
as to affect any rights acquired under
the Apportion-
ment Law 79--a proyiso which the Enquirer
denounced
as a "legal absurdity."80 In the House, Smith (D)
warned the Whigs that unless they
repealed the division
of Hamilton County, "you may look
again for the fright-
ful scenes of the fourth, fifth, and
sixth of December--
all springing from your Senate Bill,
number seventy.
Go not home to your constituency, as
you have done, and
with cool impudency say to them with
the blood-brother
Danton, 'I looked my crime in the face
and I did it.' Do
so, and I solemnly believe your
government ends. You
will have held the last session of the
General As-
sembly, till we get by violence, that
civil reformation
which you deny us by peaceful
legislation."81 The House
acted favorably on the Riddle Bill, the
Independent Free
Soilers, Townshend and Morse voting
with the Demo-
78 Ohio Statesman, January 27, 1849.
79 Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, January 25, 1849.
80 Ibid., January
25, 1849.
81 H. C. Whitman (D)
declared that in the beginning of the session, a
Whig Senator had agreed to vote with the
Democrats to repeal the division
of Hamilton County if they would not
push an investigation into the method
of its passage. Ohio Statesman, March 8, 21,
1849.
Vol. XXXVIII--22
338
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
crats;82 but the Senate failed to
concur and so the issue
was projected into the fall elections
of 1849. The main
burden of defense of the Riddle Bill
had fallen upon
Pugh, who declared that the
Apportionment Law "was
a vain and sharp-sighted attempt to
secure a present
representation to those bankers and
money-lords" of
Cincinnati, who were doing everything
they could to
fasten their iniquitous banking system
on the State so
that even a revision of the
Constitution could not affect
them.83 Riddle (Whig Free
Soiler) denounced the Ap-
portionment Law as a "most
unwarrantable measure,
carried by most unwarrantable means,
and for still more
unwarrantable and unworthy purposes * *
* *"84 In
spite of the warnings of the Democrats
and the en-
treaties of a few Free Soil leaders
like Chase and Town-
shend, most of the Whig Free Soilers
voted with the
Whigs to retain this troublesome
enactment on the stat-
ute-books.
The machinery of government was at a
standstill.
Each party blamed the other for the
dire results which'
each predicted were sure to follow.
Seabury Ford, who
had been elected governor after a
canvass of the votes
by the Legislature, was awaiting his
inauguration.85 Ap-
propriations were endangered. Some of
the Whigs sug-
gested that in case there was no
settlement of the ques-
tion, according to the Constitution
(Article II, Section
2) the old Governor would hold office
until the new Gov-
ernor was qualified, and that the State
Auditor could
82 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February
20, 1849; Ohio Statesman, March
16, 1849.
83 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February
10, 1849.
84 Ohio Statesman, February 14, 1849.
85 Ohio State Journal, December
11, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 339
levy and collect taxes equal to the
amount of interest
on the public debt.86 This
proposal attracted wide at-
tention, and the Democrats, by way of
protest against
such powers claimed for the State
Auditor, introduced a
resolution in the Senate instructing
the Judiciary Com-
mittee to inquire into the
constitutionality of the laws
authorizing the State Auditor to levy
taxes to pay inter-
est on the state debt.87 The Whigs, interpreting this
proposal as a thrust at the state
credit, and at the banks,
defeated the resolution.
Meanwhile the status of the State
Government be-
came the topic of political discussion
all over Ohio. The
Whig papers denounced the Democrats as
revolution-
aries and the Ohio State Journal insisted
that "No party
question ever involved interests so
vital--consequences
so vast. It is not some insignificant
question of policy
between parties, both of whom recognize
and appeal to
fundamental law in existence and in
force; but it is--
shall that fundamental law be destroyed
at a blow, leav-
ing the State to all the perils of
anarchy"?88 Whig pro-
test meetings denounced Townshend and
Morse for not
voting with the Whigs, and Muskingum
County Whigs
concluded that the Democrats were
animated with a ma-
licious and fixed determination to
overthrow the Consti-
tution of the State.* * *"89
The Democratic papers and county
conventions were
86 Cincinnati Atlas, quoted in Ohio
State Journal, December 11, 1848.
87 Ohio Statesman, December 19, 1848; Ohio Senate Journals, v.
XLVII,
p. 51.
88 Such Whig papers as the Highland News, Sandusky Clarion,
Clinton
Republican, Eaton Register, Cincinnati Daily Chronicle, and
Richland Jef
fersonian applauded the Whigs. The Cleveland True Democrat (Whig
Free
Soil) was mild in its comments of
approval. Reprints of editorials con-
tained in the above papers in the Ohio
State Journal, December 15, 1848.
89 Ohio State Journal, December 15, 1848.
340 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
even more violent. Medary sounded the
battle-cry when
he declared in the Statesman that
"The days of Crom-
well are being revived and
conscienceless Whiggery is
converting the State of Ohio into the
worst, the most
detestable and dangerous monarchy. Let
the people
awake to these dangers before it is too
late."90 In the
eyes of the Enquirer the
Apportionment Law was a
"sheer party measure. It was a
scheme of party politi-
cians, concocted to secure place and
power to partisans,
reckless of the consequences to the
State and the rights
of freemen * * * and now, that party
recklessness
which prompted the outrage in the
Apportionment Bill,
is more fully developing the desperation
of its leaders,
in their violent refusal to organize a
Legislature they
cannot control."91 On the
Reserve, the chief organ
of the Democracy joined the hue and
cry, condemned
the apportionment and praised the
Democrats in the
Legislature.92 In a
two-thousand-word address to the
public, the twenty-three Democratic
electors, who met at
Columbus in December to cast the vote
of the State for
Cass, also condemned the Whigs for
refusing to organ-
ize the House;93 and similar action was
taken by many
mass meetings at various times in the
State.94
Persons of authority and reputation
added their
opinions. Frederick Grimke, a retired
Democratic
judge residing in Chillicothe, thought
that certificates of
election should be accepted as prima
facie evidence of
right to a seat.95 William Greene, in an article
in the
95 Grimke to William Greene,
January 9, 1849, Greene MSS.
90 Ohio
Statesman, January 1, 1849.
91 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 13, 1848.
92 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, January
3, 1849.
93 Ohio Statesman, December 7,
1848.
94 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December
14, 1848; Ohio Statesman, De-
cember 10, 1848.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 341
Ohio State Journal under the signature of Charles Ham-
mond, set forth the opposite view.96
Greene urged that
if the Apportionment Law were
unconstitutional, neither
set of claimants had a right to seats
in the House and
that if it were constitutional both
could not have legal
claims. The House alone, he concluded,
had the right
to pass upon the question of
constitutionality, and until
such action were taken the law must be
accepted as con-
stitutional. From an examination of the
Constitution
dealing with the issuance of
certificates of election by
clerks, he concluded that the Hamilton
County Clerk had
failed to perform his duty, and that
the granting of cer-
tificates to Pugh and Pierce was
invalid, because they
certified an election from a locality
not known to the law
under which the election was held.
Edwin M. Stanton,
a young lawyer of growing reputation,
was asked by
the Pittsburgh Daily Morning Post for
an opinion, and
in a long and able review he found the
Apportionment
Law of February, 1848,
unconstitutional, arguing that
the certificates held by the Whig
claimants stated that
they were representatives of only a
portion of the county
and hence were invalid on their face.97
By the end of
January, 1849, it became clear that
public opinion was
generally opposed to the division of
Hamilton County.
Thereupon the Whigs became more willing
to settle an
embarrassing question. Chase felt that
the Whigs, out-
side of Columbus, had abandoned hope of
excluding
Pugh and Pierce, and that few lawyers
cared to defend
the constitutionality of the law.98
96 Ohio State Journal, December 21, 1848.
97 Pittsburgh Daily Morning Post, quoted
in Ohio Statesman, December
26, 1848.
98 Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Cincinnati,
January 26, 1848, quoted in Se-
lected Letters of Salmon P. Chase,"
loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 160.
342
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
On January 18, 1849, the majority of
the Joint Select
Committee on Privileges and Elections
had decided in
favor of Ford, the Whig candidate for
governor.99 Nine
days earlier, the minority of the
Committee had reported
in favor of Weller, throwing out the
votes of Defiance
County because the returns did not name
the person for
whom the votes were cast for governor.
The minority
also rejected the votes of Lorain County
because the
returns were not certified under the
official seal of the
clerk of that county, and refused to
count eighty-four
votes cast in Crawford County for
"Seabury."100 The
Democrats were able to secure the
election of Breslin
as Speaker of the House through the
support of Town-
shend and Morse. Whig leaders had
offered to support
Townshend, the regular free Soil
nominee for Speaker,
if the latter would promise to resign
after the settlement
of the Hamilton County contests.101
Townshend re-
garded this offer not only as a
personal insult but as
further evidence that the Whigs were
attempting to ab-
sorb the Free Soil party. Accordingly,
he and Morse
voted with the Democrats. This union
brought about
the seating of Pugh and Pierce, the
noted election of
Salmon P. Chase to the United States
Senate, and the
repeal of the Black Laws.
In the campaign of 1849, attempts were
made by
the Democratic Free Soilers to secure
the support of the
Free Soil organization on the basis of
a repeal of the
Apportionment Law; but since this would
have divided
the Free Soil party, the latter wisely
refrained from
99 Ohio Statesman, January 20, 1849.
100 Ohio Statesman, January
9, 1849.
101 Townshend to Briggs, printed in
Cleveland True Democrat and re-
printed in the Ohio Statesman, January
22, 1849.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 343
taking any action, and the result was
that both Demo-
crats and Whigs adhered to their
position on the Ham-
ilton County question. In those
counties where the Free
Soil party was powerful and composed
largely of Dem-
ocrats, the tendency was for the
regular Democrats to
support the Free Soil nominee with the
more or less
open understanding that he would favor
a repeal of the
Apportionment Law insofar as it related
to Hamilton
County.102 The reverse was true
in counties where the
Free Soil party was powerful and
composed largely of
Whigs. In Hamilton County, most of the
Free Soilers
supported Pugh, Herman Roedter, and
William Long,
but many refused to support the
remainder of the
ticket.103
The political situation in Hamilton
County, in 1849,
was complicated by an independent
movement among
the Democrats. John C. Thorp announced
himself as an
"Independent" candidate for
the office of county treas-
urer, contrary to the action of the
County Democratic
Convention; and Thomas Heckwelder, a
candidate for
the office of recorder, did likewise.104
Their action seems
to have been instigated by the Whigs
who were anxious
to take advantage of jealousies in the
dominant party.
The "Independent" movement spread
to the aspirants
for the General Assembly and the Whig
Central Com-
mittee announced that the Whigs would
support the "In-
dependent" Democratic candidates,
Richard A. Morton,
James Huston, and Richard D. Markland,105
who had
102 William Dennison, Jr., to Ewing,
July 10, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. X;
Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, September
12, 1849.
103 Hoadly, Jr., to Chase, August
30, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX.
104 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,
September 1-6, 1849.
105 Ibid., October
3, 1849.
344 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
bolted the regular Democratic
nominating convention
and announced themselves as candidates
for the House
of Representatives from the Second
District of Hamil-
ton County, thus signifying their
acceptance of the Ap-
portionment Law, in order to obtain
Whig support. The
Democrats met this attack from within
by new assaults
on the Apportionment Law. From
September 26 to
October 2 the Enquirer ran a
series of strong articles
under the caption of "Veto,"
in which the perniciousness
of the Whig apportionment scheme was
pointed out.
The regular Democrats of Hamilton
County felt safe in
taking a dogmatic position against the
insurgents within
their own ranks, because the Free
Soilers of Hamilton
County also were opposed to the
Apportionment Law.106
In Summit County, the Free Soilers
nominated H. B.
Spelman, a former Liberty man, who took
the Demo-
cratic position on such issues as the
Apportionment Law,
banking and currency, and taxation, and
received the
support of the Democratic
organization.107 The Whigs
nominated McClure (Whig Free Soiler)
who was en-
dorsed by the Whig portion of the Free
Soil party in
Summit County which objected to the
radical tendencies
of Spelman. McClure was strongly
supported by Tees-
dale as editor of the Summit County
Beacon.
As in 1848, the controversy over the
representation
of Hamilton County came to a head when,
in September,
106 In a long article in the Enquirer,
Stanley Matthews, one of the most
prominent of the Free Soil leaders of
Cincinnati, argued that the terms
apportioning and districting were identical, and hence
that part of the Ap-
portionment Law which apportioned five representatives
and two senators
to Hamilton County was inconsistent with that part
which divided the county
into electoral districts. Consequently,
only the first part, which was con-
stitutional, should be regarded as law.
Matthews also argued that the Gen-
eral Assembly had the right to determine
the constitutionality of its enact-
ments. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 20,
1849.
107 Hoadly to Chase, August 11, 1849,
Chase MSS. v. XIX.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 345
1849, the sheriff of Hamilton County,
in accordance
with his constitutional duties, issued
a proclamation of
election notifying the qualified
electors of Hamilton
County to meet in their usual
voting-places "for the
purpose of electing one senator and two
representatives
to the General Assembly, in and for the
First District;
and the three representatives for the
Second District
of said County. * * *"109 The Whig press of Cin-
cinnati considered the proclamation of
the sheriff, an
"Independent Democrat," as a
recognition of the va-
lidity of the Apportionment Law.110
The Enquirer, (D)
objecting to this interpretation,
pointed out that the
proclamation was directed to all the
voters of Hamilton
County and that it had nothing to do
with the manner
of holding the election. The Ohio
Statesman urged
the Democrats of Hamilton County to
disregard the
Sheriff's proclamation and to vote for
all the representa-
tives to be chosen from that county.111
The Democrats of Hamilton County
refused to abide
by the Sheriff's proclamation; and the
election of Octo-
ber, 1849, led to a dispute as to who
was the properly
elected senator to the General Assembly
from Hamilton
County. If the votes from all parts of
the county were
counted, the Democratic candidate,
William Johnson,
was elected to the Senate; if only the
votes of wards in
the First District, provided for by the
Apportionment
Law, were counted, the Whig candidate,
Lewis Broad-
well, was elected. Acting according to
the same princi-
108 Cleveland
Weekly Plain Dealer, October 17, 1849.
109 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September
18, 1849.
110 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, quoted in Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, Sep-
tember 18, 1849.
111 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September
15, 1849; Ohio State Journal,
September 18, 1849; Ohio Statesman, September
14, 1849.
346 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ples which induced him to return Pugh
and Pierce in the
previous year, E. C. Roll, Clerk of the
Hamilton County
Court of Common Pleas, issued a
certificate of election
to Johnson."112
The Whigs made numerous efforts to
remove Roll.
Upon the death of Charles H. Brough,
(D), president
judge of the Cincinnati Circuit, it was
rumored that
Governor Ford (W) would appoint a
successor who
would remove Roll from his position.113
Nothing re-
sulted from this rumor and the Whigs
then determined
upon impeachment. The attempted
impeachment in the
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
attracted
wide-spread interest. In November,
1849, the Court
decided that it had not been shown that
Roll was cor-
rupt or dishonest and that his action
was a mere mistake
in judgment for which no officer under
the Constitution
of the State of Ohio could be removed.114
The State elections of October, 1849,
resulted in a de-
cided reverse for the Whigs, only one
Taylor Whig being
returned from the Western Reserve. The
Democrats
secured thirty-six seats in the House;
the other thirty-six
members being divided between Whigs and
Free Soilers.
In the Senate there would be a tie if
Johnson, Democratic
claimant from Hamilton County, were
seated, and if
Swift, Democratic Free Soiler, should
vote with the
112 Ohio State Journal, December, 1849; Ohio Statesman, December,
1849.
113 Ohio Statesman, May 17, 1849.
114 Judge Saffin (W) dissented from the decision of the
Court, declaring
that Roll deliberately refused to obey
the law in order to promote the po-
litical supremacy of his party. The
Democrats applauded the decision of
Judge Hart, a Whig, as a victory for justice,
but the Whigs claimed thai
Hart had shown Democratic proclivities
since his appointment, and sug-
gested that his relation to Pugh as a brother-in-law
might have affected his
decision. Ohio Statesman, May 17,
1849; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, Octo-
ber 24, November 11, 12, 1849; Ohio
State Journal, November 15, 1849; New
York Tribune, quoted in
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December 19, 1849.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 347
Democrats.115 Since Swift
was elected by the Democrats
and Democratic Free Soilers in
opposition to the Whig
Free Soilers and Whigs, it was
generally believed he
would act with the Democrats on all
matters of State
policy. No one single issue can be said
to have been set-
tled by this election. Some considered
the outcome a
verdict in favor of the
"bargains" which sent Chase to
the United States Senate, divided the
State offices be-
tween the Democrats and Free Soilers,
and seated the
Hamilton County claimants.116 To
others the result was
a plain rebuke to the Whigs for
resisting constitutional
reform; while radical Democrats
interpreted it as a con-
demnation of the State banking
system.117
In the organization of the House, an
arrangement
was made between Democrats and Free
Soilers, whereby
the Free Soilers agreed to support the
Democratic candi-
didate for speaker and sergeant-at-arms
in return for
Democratic support of Stanley Matthews,
Free Soil, for
clerk.118
Benjamin F. Leiter (D) was elected
speaker of the
House in accordance with this
agreement. This so en-
raged the Whigs that they voted for
Blair, the Demo-
cratic candidate for clerk, in order to
defeat the coalition
of Democrats and Free Soilers. The
Democrats had in-
tended to give a formal vote or two to
Blair and then
turn their strength to Matthews; but
they were deter-
mined not to allow the disappointment
of the Free Soil-
115 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, December
19, 1849.
116 See Chapter VII for further
discussion of this interesting senatorial
election.
117 Ohio State Journal, October, November, 1849; Ohio Statesman, Octo-
ber, November, 1849.
118 Bargain explained in a letter of Plain
Dealer correspondent at Co-
lumbus. Cleveland Weekly Plain
Dealer, December 7, 1849.
348 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ers over the election of Blair to
prevent further harmon-
ious cooperation with the third party.
In order to con-
ciliate the Free Soilers, a project was
set on foot to elect
Matthews (Free Soiler) secretary of
state and John G.
Breslin (D), treasurer.119
Organization of the Senate was more
difficult because
Johnson and Broadwell both claimed the
right to repre-
sent Hamilton County.120 The
Senate was organized
temporarily on the first day of the
session by the election
of Myers (D) as temporary chairman. Due
to the
Johnson-Broadwell dispute, it was
agreed that only those
senators who were elected in 1848
should vote before the
organization of the Senate, and the
Democrats, having a
majority of old members, recognized the
right of John-
son to a seat in the Senate. In the
vote for speaker there
was a tie, brought about by allowing
Johnson's but dis-
allowing Broadwell's vote.121
At the opening of the session, the
Whigs would have
succeeded at once in the election of a
Whig Free Soil
speaker of the Senate, had not Lucien
Swift (Demo-
cratic Free Soiler) refused to vote for
Brewster Randall
(Whig Free Soiler) unless that gentleman would first
119 This interesting exposition of Ohio legislative
politics is given in a
letter of Stanley Matthews to Chase,
December 3, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XX.
See also Chase to Stanley, December 5,
1849, in "Some Letters of Salmon
P. Chase 1848-1865", loc. cit., XXXVIV,
549-550.
120 The Washington Daily Union declared
that "The difficulty proceeds
from the revolutionary conduct of the
federal party, who hope to throw
the control of the State government
permanently into the hands of the fed-
eral party by districting the State, in
drect volation of the Constitution."
December 29, 1849.
121 Ohio State Journal, December
22, 1848; Matthews to Chase, December
3, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XX. The
Democrats of the House were led by the
fiery H. C. Whitman, senator from
Fairfield County and a Jacksonian Demo-
crat. He was described by a Whig as the
"master spirit of the Locofocc
whirlwind. His hair is longer and
shaggier than usual and his looks and
tones more terrific--and yet with all
his bravado and blustering he is as
harmless as a Quaker." Galloway to
McLean, December 5, 1849, McLean
MSS., v. XVI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 349
pledge himself to vote for a repeal of
the Hamilton
County division.122 The
Democrats found that, as an or-
ganization, the Free Soilers were not
only more amena-
ble to manipulation by the Whigs than
in the previous
year, but that they did not cooperate
so easily with the
Democrats, possibly because there were
not so many
offices to divide. The Whigs were
determined not to per-
mit a Democratic and Free Soil
coalition to organize the
Senate, as in the previous year.123
After numerous unsuccessful attempts to
settle the
question by a bargain, Myers, temporary
chairman of the
Senate, tiring of the prolonged Senate
session without
organization, produced by a tie vote as
indicated above,
directed the members of that body to
prepare their bal-
lots for the election of speaker. The
Whigs claimed that
a speaker could not be chosen until
Broadwell's right to
vote was recognized.124 After
numerous futile ballot-
ings, in which Swift (Democratic Free
Soil) was sup-
ported by the Democrats and Democratic
Free Soilers,
Brewster Randall (Whig Free Soiler) was
given the
votes of the Whigs and Whig Free
Soilers. Swift de-
clined to be a candidate any longer,
explaining that this
action was taken with the object of
hastening the organ-
ization of the Senate. Swift promised
to vote for any-
one for speaker who would recognize
Johnson's right to a
seat in the Senate. The Whigs
apparently had offered to
support Swift for the office if he
would promise to vote
for a rule to exclude Johnson from
voting on any motion
touching his own case. The Whigs had
promised to
recognize the right of Johnson to a
seat in the Senate
122 Matthews to Chase, December 2, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. XX.
123 Breslin to Chase, February 12, 1850,
Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.
124 Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, December 15, 1849.
350 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
until the case should be finally
decided. Swift refused
the Whig proposition because he felt
that Johnson's right
should not depend on any pledges which
he (Swift)
might make.125 The battle of
ballots continued while the
issues of the case were freely
discussed in the press.126
The Hamilton County question again
became the subject
of resolutions in numerous local
conventions over the
State.127
On December 30, on the three-hundred-and-first
bal-
lot, Harrison G. Blake, Whig Free
Soiler of Medina
County, was elected speaker and John R.
Knapp,128 rad-
ical Democrat, was chosen clerk of the
Senate.129 Swift
had transferred his vote to Blake upon
the latter's prom-
ise to recognize Johnson's right to a
seat in the Senate
until final action could be taken by
that body.130 Blake
recognized Johnson's motion that the
Senate should pro-
125 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December
21, 1849.
126 The Ohio State Journal declared
"It is a vital question going to our
whole system of government. It is
nothing short of the question whether
the laws of the State are sufficient for the protection
of the citizen, or
whether we are resolved into a state of
anarchy and given over to the
caprice of a mob." Horace Greeley,
in the columns of the New York
Tribune, stated in a succinct manner the argument of the Whigs.
"The
certificate of Clerk Roll, on which Mr.
Johnson and his party rely, shows
on its face that Johnson is not legally
elected, not elected at all. It certi-
fies that he has been chosen by Hamilton
County when there is no such
Senatorial district known to the law. .
. . There is a First District and
a Second District of Hamilton County, neither of which
has elected Mr.
Johnson, nor does his certificate say it has; but the
First District has
elected Mr. Broadwell, and he has a
certified transcript of the votes, show-
ing that such is a fact." Ohio
State Journal, quoted in Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, November 14, 1849; New York Tribune, quoted in
Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, December 19, 1849.
127 The Cincinnati Daily Enquirer reported
a rumor that the banking
powers were behind the refusal of the
Whigs to organize the Senate, be-
cause a number of Whigs were
dissatisfied with the arbitrary actions of
the Board of Control and the bankers
feared a curtailment of their powers.
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, December
20, 1849.
128 Editor
of the Marion Democratic Mirror.
129
Ohio Statesman, December 30, 1849; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,
January 1, 1850.
130 Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, January 4, 1850.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 351
ceed to the election of clerk and
allowed Johnson to vote
for clerk and sergeant-at-arms. But the
legislative
troubles of the session were not yet
over. Byers (D)
moved that the Committee on Privileges
and Elections
and the Committee on the New
Constitution be elected by
the Senate instead of being appointed
by the Speaker, as
was the usual custom.131 The
motive behind this action
was to prevent Blake from appointing a
committee unfa-
vorable to the seating of Johnson. The
Whigs decided
upon a counter-move, and on January 2,
1850, Broadwell
demanded and received from Blake
recognition as sena-
tor from Hamilton County. The Senate
again was in an
uproar and Swift openly charged Blake
with a treacher-
ous violation of his pledge.132 Blake
denied that he had
promised to recognize the right of
Johnson to a seat in
the Senate but Swift's charges were
supported by open
letters by E. S. Hamlin and H. B.
Payne.133
The affairs was finally settled with
another bargain.
Blake, after being condemned as
dishonest for not ad-
hering to his part of the first
agreement, resigned from
the speakership; whereupon Swift agreed
to support
Converse (Free Soil) for speaker, if
the Whig Free
Soilers would vote for a repeal of the
Hamilton County
division. In February, 1850, this
acrimonious and pro-
tracted contest was closed by the
repeal of that part of
the Apportionment Law of 1848, dividing
Hamilton
County, and the seating of Lewis
Broadwell (W) in the
place of William F. Johnson, (I) who
had held the seat
131 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 3, 1850.
132 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January 4, 1850.
133 Ohio Statesman, January 3,
1850.
352
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
through most of the session.134 The
Democrats had won
a signal victory through the division
in the Whig ranks.
The Democrats obtained a majority of
the delegates
to the State Convention for the
revision of the Constitu-
tion in 1850, and proceeded to write
into the Constitution
the principles of apportionment for
which they had con-
tended in the 1848 and 1849 sessions of
the Legislature,
namely, that the county is the unit of
State representa-
tion.135
The struggle over the division of
Hamilton County
brought out two important
characteristics of Ohio poli-
tics during the 'forties. In the first
place, it exhibited
the bitterly partisan character of
political contests and
the willingness of both parties to
gerrymander a repre-
sentative district in an unjust and
unconstitutional man-
ner. In the second place, it revealed a
breakdown of the
two-party system, qualified by the
tendency of Whig
and Democratic Free Soilers to return
to their old al-
legiance. The sectional contest arising
over the question
of slavery in the territories brought
the Free Soil party
into existence as a protest against the
subservience of the
major parties to southern influence.
Holding a balance
of power in the Legislatures of 1848
and 1849, the Free
Soil party was able to exert a marked
influence on the
policies of the old political
organizations by combining
with that party which offered the
greatest inducements.
The Independent Free Soilers, convinced
at an early date
of the unconstitutionality of the
Apportionment Law,
used their influence to secure the
admission of the Demo-
134 Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, February 3, 1850.
135
Okey, George B., and Morton, John J., The Constitutions of 1803 and
1851, pp. 98-101.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 353
cratic claimants from Hamilton County
to the Legisla-
ture and the repeal of the
Apportionment Law in return
for concessions to Free Soil
principles. It was a remark-
able example of the influence of a
third party on the poli-
cies of older and more powerful
political organizations.
Vol. XXXVIII--23
CHAPTER VII
THE END OF A DECADE
The Whig victory in the national
campaign of 1848
brought new raids on the federal
patronage. But the
Whigs of Ohio could expect little in
the way of appoint-
ments because the loss of the State
greatly lessened their
influence in the councils of the
party.1 President Taylor
showed his appreciation of the support
given his candi-
dacy by the old-line Whigs of the
Northwest in the ap-
pointment of Thomas Ewing to the
Cabinet as secretary
of the interior.2 Ewing's appointment had been urged
on the ground that someone be selected
from the West
in order to save the party from total
dissolution in that
section.3 Ewing was besieged
immediately by western
office-seekers, and he proved so pliant
in their hands,
making so many removals, that he soon
earned the sobri-
quet of "Butcher Ewing."4
Ewing adopted the policy of
giving appointments in Ohio only to
those who had sup-
ported Taylor from the first.5 This
resulted in great
1 Corwin wrote Crittenden that there
were many things he wanted to
say touching politics but the memory of
"free soil Ohio" made him
"dumb." Corwin to Crittenden,
November 25, 1848, Crittenden MSS., v.
XII; see also Corwin to Greene, April
26, 1849, Greene MSS.
2 McMaster, op. cit., v. VIII, p.
7; Blair declared that the appoint-
ment of Ewing was the best the Whigs had made in their
"filthy bargain"
and that he was looked upon as the "wheel-horse of
the team." Blair to
Van Buren, June, 1849, Van Buren MSS.,
v. LVI; see also Bebb to Crit-
tenden, November 24, 1849, Crittenden MSS., v. XIII.
3 Wright to Crittenden, January 19,
1849, Crittenden MSS., v. XII.
4 Hardin to Crittenden, May 14, 1849,
Crittenden MSS., v. XIII;
Washington Daily Union, September 8, 1849.
5 Odlin to Ewing, March 14, 1849, Ewing
MSS., v. VIII.
(354)
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 355
dissatisfaction among some of the
old-line Whigs who
had been slow in accepting the party
candidate.6 Among
those early supporters who were favored
by the Taylor
administration was E. G. Squier, former
editor of the
Chillicothe Gazette, who was
appointed as charge d' af-
faires to Nicaragua.7 Daniel Duncan,
defeated Whig
congressman from the Tenth District,
asked Ewing for
an appointment as charge to New
Granada, alleging that
he could not endure the "taunts
and jeers" of the Demo-
crats; that he was financially
embarrassed; and that his
bad health required a change of
climate.8 There was
some disposition among the supporters
of McLean to
criticize the Administration for not
making enough re-
movals.9
The Democrats set up the cry of
proscription, and de-
clared that Taylor had forgotten his
pledge to be the
President of all the people.10 The
Ohio Statesman la-
mented that "In Ohio nearly every
Postmaster has felt
the axe, and so it is in other
states."11 As a matter of
fact, Ewing secured so many
appointments for Ohio and
distributed them so judiciously, that
the Whig Free Soil-
ers looked upon the new Administration
with much
favor, anticipating a complete rapprochement
between
Free Soilers and the Whig
administration, provided
Taylor would sign a bill extending the
Ordinance of
1787 over the new territories.12 Many
leaders who had
6 Follett to Whittlesey, June 4, 1849,
Follett MSS.
7 Squier signalized his appointment and
characterized himself as an
imperialist by making a flamboyant
utterance to the effect that the United
States would not permit any nation of
the world to invade the rights of any
of the American states. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October
23, 1849.
8 Duncan to Ewing, March 10, 1849, Ewing
MSS., v. VIII.
9 Miner to McLean, April 6, 1849, McLean
MSS., v. XVI.
10 Ohio Statesman, June 8, July 9, 1849.
11 Ohio Statesman, May 18, 1849.
12 Blake to Ewing, July 16, 1849, Ewing
MSS., v. X.
356 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
doubted Taylor's "Whiggery"
were most agreeably sur-
prised by the opening events of his
presidency;13 and
the Whig press of Ohio joined in a
chorus of praise for
Taylor's inaugural address in which he
took occasion to
reiterate his former statements on the
use of the veto.14
Hope of appointment to federal office
led the Whigs
of Ohio to ignore those elements which
had recently de-
serted their ranks to join the Free
Soil movement. The
scurrilous abuse which the regular
Whigs heaped upon
Free Soil leaders, as well as the
friendly overtures of the
Democrats, seemed to pave the way for
Democratic-Free
Soil coalition. This was made still
easier by the fact
that the Ohio Democrats were, for the
moment, cut off
from the National party without hope
for the emolu-
ments of office. In an editorial on the
organization of
the General Assembly, in November,
1848, the Cleveland
Plain Dealer predicted a coalition of Democrats and
Free Soilers, in common opposition to
the administration
of Taylor and in order to keep
supporters of the Admin-
istration from holding state office in
Ohio.15 The Free
Soilers, conscious of holding the
balance of power in
Ohio, resolved to make the Democrats
pay a respectable
price for their aid.16
This political situation, obviously,
was dangerous for
the integrity of the new party, since
the Democratic and
Whig Free Soilers were already
suspicious of each
other.17 There was danger
that the party might dissolve
13 Van Trump to Ewing, May 31, 1849,
Ewing MSS., v. IV.
14 Ohio State Journal, March 6, 1849.
15 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, November
24, 1848.
16 See correspondence of Free Soil
leaders of Ohio with Chase in
1849, Chase MSS., in Library of Congress
and in Pennsylvania Historical
Society Library; see also "Some
Letters of Salmon P. Chase 1848-1865",
The American Historical Review, XXXIV, 436-556.
17 Vaughan to Chase, May 26, 1849, Wade
to Chase, April 23, 1849,
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 357
into its former elements, or definitely
amalgamate with
either of the old parties.18 Hamlin,
understanding this
situation perfectly, urged all the
newly-elected Free Soil
members of the General Assembly to form
a Free Soil
organization in order to carry out
their decisions, irre-
spective of either of the old party
organizations.19
Accordingly, when the Assembly met in
December,
a Free Soil caucus prepared decisions
and nominations.20
However, in the Free Soil State
Convention which met
at Columbus in the heat of the
struggles over the seating
of Pugh and Pierce, resolutions were
adopted favoring
the Democratic position on matters like
a proportional
property tax, exemption of homesteads,
a ten-hour law,
opposition to corporations and the Whig
bank law, and
a convention to amend the
Constitution.21 Chase con-
fided to his wife that he wrote the
platform, and that it
was his effort that defeated proposals
for a union of
Free Soilers and other parties with
which the former
agreed on the single question of
slavery. Ex-Whigs
tried to eliminate parts of the
platform which revealed
Democratic principles, but their
efforts were defeated by
the Chase faction led by men like
Matthews and Ham-
lin. So pleasing was this result to the
Democrats that
many of the leading members of that
party assured
Chase that they were ready to adopt the
entire Free Soil
platform including the repeal of the
Black Laws.22 As
Chase predicted, the Democrats were
ready to coalesce
Gray to Chase, October 1, 1849, Chase
MSS., vols. VI, XII, XIII, Pa.
18 Bolton to Chase, November 25, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.
19 Hamlin to Chase, October 22, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.
20 Townshend to Briggs, January 15,
1849, quoted in Ohio Statesman,
January 22, 1849.
21 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 167.
22 Chase to Mrs. Chase, December 30,
1848, Chase MSS., v. XV.
358 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
on the basis of the new platform, which
the Enquirer
praised as "essentially
Democratic."23
The seating of Pugh and Pierce,
referred to in the
preceding chapter, was not the only
question which
hinged upon which party would get
control of the lower
house of the Legislature. Many state
offices were to be
filled, and there was a vacancy in the
United States
Senate created by the expiration of
Senator Allen's
term. The hero of the Democrats was not
averse to an-
other term, but a number of factors
worked against his
success. In the first place, the Free
Soilers rejected him
because he was not an anti-slavery man;24 and in the
second place, many regular Democrats
were dissatisfied
with Allen because he had not been able
to secure suffi-
cient appointments for his political
henchmen in the
State.25 As a matter of
fact, Allen's influence with the
Polk administration had suffered
severely because the
President suspected the Ohio Senator of
presidential as-
pirations.26 Giddings, a
senatorial candidate, would have
been acceptable to the Free Soil party,
but he encoun-
tered strong opposition among Whigs who
thought he
had betrayed their party by joining the
Free Soilers in
1848.27 Before the election it had been
intimated to Mc-
Lean, also prominently mentioned for
the office, that the
Whigs would support him for the Senate
if he would
publicly support Taylor for the
presidency.28 The Ohio
23 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, January
2, 1849.
24 McGrane, op. cit., pp.
133-134.
25 James R. Morris to Morris, January
29, 1849, Allen MSS., v. XVI.
26 Polk's Diary, v. I, pp.
246, 265, 280.
27 Ohio State Journal, February 15, 1849; Chase to Stanley, January
29, 1849, "Some Letters of Salmon
P. Chase 1848-1865", loc. cit., XXXIV,
547.
28 Vaughan to McLean, no date, 1848,
McLean MSS., v. XVI. See also
Miner to McLean, February 14, 1849, McLean MSS., v.
XVI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 359
State Journal favored McLean, declaring that support
of his candidacy would be a test of the
honesty of the
Free Soil members;29 but the
Circleville Herald (W)
concluded that McLean's selection would
look "too much
like truckling to the infamous demands
of free soilism."30
The Plain Dealer (D) concluded
that "If we cannot get
a Democrat, we know of no better free
soil Whig to fill
that place than Judge McLean."31
But McLean declined
the offer of the Whig caucus to support
him,32 possibly
because he knew that his election was
impossible without
the support of the Democratic Free
Soilers, who objected
to him because of his conservatism on
political and
economic questions.33
Probably Chase was the most logical
candidate for
the senatorship because of his position
as the organizer
of the Free Soil movement in Ohio, and
because of his
known leanings toward Democratic
policies on banking
and tariff questions. Chase actively
aided the forces
working for his election. He spurned
the suggestion
that he was destined for the Supreme
Bench; but admit-
ted that he would be "highly
gratified" if he should be
elected to the Senate, because he believed
that he under-
stood "the history, principles,
and practical workings of
the Free Soil movement as thoroughly as
most men
*
* * ."34 Moreover, it was Chase who had actively
29 Ohio State Journal, February 15, 1849.
30 Circleville Herald quoted in Ohio Statesman, February
26, 1849.
31 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, February
17, 1849.
32 Ohio Statesman, February 15, 1849.
33 See letters of Edwin M. Stanton to
Chase in Chase MSS., Pa.
34 Chase to Nichols, November 9, 1848,
quoted in "Selected Letters of
Salmon P. Chase, February 18, 1846, to
May 1, 1861," in 1902, loc. cit., v.
II, pp. 140-141. Although ready to
acquiesce in the selection of Giddings to
the Senate, Chase wrote Hamlin that "I think,
also, as I said to him that he
being in Congress, and I not, that the interests of the
cause require my elec-
tion or that of some reliable man not in
Congress rather than his. I may be
360 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
collaborated with Democratic leaders,
by causing the
Free Soil leaders to adopt many
Democratic principles
in their State Convention of December,
1848.
The Black Laws were also involved in
this complex
situation. During the campaign of 1848,
the Whigs
called for their repeal and this demand
had been reiter-
ated by the Free Soilers in their
Columbus Convention.
Indeed, repeal was regarded by the Free
Soilers as a
sine qua non of cooperation with any other party, and it
was this alone which proved a
stumbling-block for a
coalition with the Democrats, who
otherwise had every-
thing to gain by cooperation with the
new party.
Organization of the House in 1848 was
delayed more
than three weeks because of the
difficulties explained in
the preceding chapter, resulting in the
lack of a quorum.35
The Democrats and Free Soilers took
advantage of the
situation in order to make a political
bargain. The Whig
Free Soilers proposed that the Whigs
support Giddings
for the United States Senate, but the
regular Whigs,
disgusted with Giddings' recent
actions, rejected the of-
fer.36 The Democrats were in
a better position for a bar-
gain; moreover, they wanted to secure
the admission of
Pugh and Pierce to the House. Consequently Town-
shend, after consultation with Morse
and Chase, sup-
wrong in this-misled, perhaps, by the
'Ambition' so freely ascribed to me.
If so, let Giddings be chosen; I shall
not complain. I cannot help thinking,
however, that the election of one who
has been longer convinced of the
necessity and is more thoroughly
identified with the policy of a distinct and
permanent Free Democratic organization,
will do the cause and the friends
of the cause more good." Chase to
Hamlin, January 27, 1849, quoted in
"Selected Letters of Salmon P.
Chase, February 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861,"
loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 161.
35 This situation is well explained in a
letter of Chase to Mrs. Chase,
December 20, 1848, Chase MSS., v. XVI.
36 Townshend to Briggs, January 15, 1849, in Ohio Statesman, January
22, 1849.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 361
ported Pugh and Pierce for their seats
in the House,
with the secret agreement that the
Democrats would
vote for Chase for the United States
Senate and for the
repeal of the Black Laws.37 Chase
was in Columbus at
the time and in close touch with both
Democratic and
Free Soil leaders. It was he who drew
up the proposal
to seat Pugh and Pierce as well as the
bill to repeal the
Black Laws;38 but a perusal of the manuscripts of Chase,
Ewing, McLean, Crittenden, Van Buren
and others fails
to solve the question as to whether he
proposed his own
election as payment for Free Soil
support for Pugh and
Pierce. The Free Soilers secured a
written agreement
from the Democrats to repeal the Black
Laws.39 During
the election of a speaker, Townshend
was the choice of
the Free Soilers, but he received no
votes outside of the
Free Soil organization. The Whig
proposal to vote for
Townshend, if he would promise to
resign as soon as the
contested seats were settled, was
considered a personal
insult and Townshend promptly withdrew
his name from
further consideration for the
speakership. The same
37 The atmosphere of a political
"bargain" was graphically portrayed
in a letter of Stanley Matthews to
Chase. "I had a conversation last evening
with Capt. Roedter (Herman Roedter,
German representative in the House
from Cincinnati) on the subject of
future operations. It was in substance
this: that it was very important that
the reliable Free-Soil members and the
Democrats should cooperate together;
that to that end, Pugh and Pierce
should be admitted to seats in the
contest; to justify which the Democrats
will assist in your election to the U.
S. Senate, provided that in other matters
of office the Democrats shall have the
two Supreme Judges, the President
Judgeship in Hamilton County, and other
Democratic counties--the Free
Soil men to have their own selection in
the other counties." The only diffi-
culty in the way of the bargain was that
the Democrats were insisting
on Judge Reed, a man who was very
distasteful to the Free Soilers, for the
Hamilton County judgeship. But Roedter
thought the Democrats would
suggest Caldwell who was agreeable to
the Free Soilers. Matthews to
Chase, January 11, 1849, Chase MSS., v.
XVI.
38 Hamlin to Chase, January 19,
1849, Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa. Chase to
Mrs. Chase, December 22, 1848; Chase
MSS., v. XVI.
39 Matthews to Chase, January 20,
1849, Chase MSS., v. XVI.
362 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
offer was also refused by A. G. Riddle.
Thereupon the
Whigs turned to Leverett Johnson, a??
Whig Free Soiler,
but Morse and Townshend, regarding this
maneuver as
another attempt of the Whigs to absorb
the Free Soil
party, defeated his election. The two
Independent Free
Soilers then helped the Democrats to
elect John G. Bres-
lin (D) as speaker of the House, in
order to defeat any
further attempt of the Whigs to coalesce
with the Free
Soilers.40 The Whigs and
Whig Free Soilers declared the
act was the result of a
"bargain" with the Democrats in
return for patronage,41
while the Democratic papers lav-
ishly praised the honesty and tenacity
of Townshend and
Morse.42
On January 22, 1849, the long party
struggle in the
Ohio Legislature ended in the election
of Chase to the
United States Senate through the
combined vote of the
Democrats, the Democratic Free Soilers,
and the two
Independent Free Soilers, Morse and
Townshend. Chase
did not receive a single vote from the
Whig Free Soil-
ers, who were now completely estranged from Morse
and Townshend.43 Chase's
success was a bitter disap-
pointment to the Whigs, who had even
proposed a com-
bination with the regular Democrats in
order to defeat
40 Townshend to Briggs, January 15,
1849, in Ohio Statesman, January
22, 1849.
41 Noble to Chase, February 24, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. XVI.
42 Ohio Statesman, January 25,
1849; Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer,
January 19, 1849.
For a fairly accurate account of the
whole proceedings see letter of
Chase to Sumner in Hart, Chase, pp.
106-109. See also McGrane, op. cit.,
pp. 131-134. For thirty-five years
Townshend had been an intimate ac-
quaintance of Chase. While a young
medical student at the Cincinnati
Medical College, he heard Chase argue a
fugitive slave case and was so
impressed that he resolved to vote for
him if he ever had a chance. He met
Chase again in an Anti-slavery
Convention at Columbus in December, 1847,
and again at the Free Soil Convention of
August, 1848. N. S. Townshend,
"Salmon P. Chase" in Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Society Publica-
tions, v. I, pp. 112-117. See also Schuckers, op. cit., pp.
42-43.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 363
the election of a Free Soil senator.44
At the last moment
the Whigs frantically offered Morse
assurances that they
would support Giddings for the Senate
if the two Inde-
pendents would aid in seating Spencer
and Runyan,
the Whig claimants from Hamilton
County,45 but the
"bargain" had already been
agreed upon with the Demo-
crats, Morse and Townshend having been
convinced by
Chase of the unconstitutionality of the
Apportionment
Law.46
Apparently the Democrats gave only
half-hearted
support to Allen, although protesting
that they were sin-
cerely interested in his reelection.
They explained that
since no one could be elected without
the aid of the Free
Soilers, they were forced to accept the
best man who had
any
chance of success.
Moreover, the Democrats
claimed that the support of Chase was
necessary to pre-
vent the selection of Giddings by a
combination of Free
Soilers and Whigs.47 Stanton,
who had rejoiced at the
election of Allen to the Senate six
years previously, now
felt no regret over his defeat.48 Tappan,
Medary's bitter
enemy and a Free Soiler, assured Allen
that leaders of
the party like Medary, Olds, Disney,
and Spalding were
working against his reelection.49 H.
C. Whitman, who
44 Hamlin to Chase, January 18, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa. Chaffee
objected to Chase because he inclined
too far toward the Democracy. Gid-
dings attempted to change this opinion but without
giving the impression that
his own pretensions to the Senate were not to be urged
as long as there was
a chance. Giddings to Chase, January 27, 1849, Chase
MSS., v. V, Pa.
This impression is borne out in McLean to Chase, May
26, 1848, Chase
MSS., v. VIII, Pa. Giddings accepted Chase's elevation
to the Senate very
loyally, refusing to believe the rumors of a political
bargain. Giddings to
Chase, January 27, 1849, Chase MSS., v.
V. Pa.
45 Hamlin to Chose, January 26, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. VI, Pa.
46 Hart, Chase, p. 110.
47 Ohio Statesman, January 27,
1849.
48 Stanton to Chase, May 27, 1849, Chase
MSS., v. XI.
49 Tappan to Allen, December 25, 1848,
Allen MSS., v. XVI.
364
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
led the fight to reelect Allen, claimed
that the organiza-
tion of the House could have been
secured without a bar-
gain with the Free Soilers, had not H.
B. Payne, of the
Western Reserve, and D. T. Disney (D),
of Cincinnati,
sold their votes in return for State
offices. Whitman
opposed, to the last, the understanding
between the Dem-
ocrats and Free Soilers.50 It is hardly
reasonable to sup-
pose that the Democratic Free Soilers
opposed Allen's
reelection solely because he did not
sympathize with their
anti-slavery views, because he had
given assurances that
he would oppose the further extension
of slavery.51 The
more reasonable explanation would be
that a division in
the party defeated the election of
Allen. This conclu-
sion is borne out by the following
important and inter-
esting letter from Tappan to Allen:
"I was at Columbus
during the session and until some days
after the elec-
tion. After you were nominated in
caucus as the can-
didate of the Democratic party, by
authority of the True
Democracy, I proposed to the so-called
Democrats--
those who had nominated you in
caucus--that if they
would vote for you their entire
strength you should be
reelected on the first ballot by ten
free soil votes--and
the reason why they gave you but 27
votes on the first
ballot, was the fear that you would be
elected--during
the balloting Medary reporters
distributing tickets for
Chase to the Convention * * * You would
have
been elected had they wished
it."52 Tappan's statement,
however, must be discounted in view of
his tricky deal-
ings with the Polk administration53 and
his bitter feud
50 Whitman to Medill, January 30, 1849,
Allen MSS., v. XVI.
51 Johnson to Alien and reply of Allen,
January 30, February 6, 1849,
Allen MSS., v. XVI.
52 Tappan to Allen, March 19, 1849,
Allen MSS., v. XVI.
53 See Chapter V.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 365
with Medary over the leadership of the
Democrats of
Ohio. Medary hastened to explain to
Allen that Chase's
election was the best thing the party
could have done in
view of the impossibility of his own
reelection, and to
assure him that Chase would not be
hostile to the Sen-
ator.54
The election of Chase produced various
reactions
among the Ohio Democrats. In the Statesman,
Medary
explained that since Chase's views on
the tariff, banks,
the Independent Treasury, and the
Apportionment Law
were identical with those of the most
radical Democrats,
it was thought best by party leaders to
promote his elec-
tion when it became evident that they
could not secure
the election of their own candidate.55
Although the Plain
Dealer had supported Judge Reuben Wood for the Sen-
ate, it approved of Chase because of
his Democratic
views on the banks and the tariff and
because "He is the
very man to thorn the incoming administration."56
The
Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed the
selection, declaring
that it was a choice between such
Federalists as Giddings
or Hitchcock, and Chase who was a
radical Democrat on
all the important issues of the day.57
The Lima Argus
(D) and the Sandusky Mirror (D)
enthusiastically ap-
proved the election of Chase.58 On
the other hand,
papers like the Mount Vernon Banner and
the Chilli-
cothe Sentinel, characterized
the outcome as a "misstep
in the Democracy" and "foul
wrong" to Allen.59
54 Medary
to Allen, February 23, 1849, Allen MSS., v. XVI.
55 Ohio Statesman, February 22,
1849.
56 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, February
23, 1849; Ibid., quoted in
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February
28, 1849.
57 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February
23, 1849.
58
Lima Argus, quoted in Ohio Statesman, March 10, 1849;
Sandusky
Mirror, quoted in Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, February
28, 1849.
59 Quoted in Ohio State Journal, February
28, March 2, 6, 10, 1849. In
366 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
The Whigs considered the whole
proceeding a "cor-
rupt political bargain." With reference to Chase the
Ohio State Journal, with much truth, declared, "He not
only secured his own election, but he
dictated, one by one,
and provided by his own management all
the means of
accomplishing each preliminary step by
which the diffi-
culties of his path were swept away. He
gave by his
influence, to the Locofocos, the organization
of the
House. * * * Every act of his was
subsidiary to
his own ambition. He talked of the
interests of Free
Soil, he meant his own. He harangued on
the benefits of
electing a Free Soil senator, he
intended that none but
himself should be that Senator."60
Teesdale (W)
charged that there had never been
"so much base cor-
ruption, such wanton disregard of
public sentiment, right
and honor, as has been witnessed there
[at Columbus]
this winter," while McClure (Whig
Free Soiler) ac-
cused Chase and Townshend of
sacrificing the Whig
party for their own
"aggrandizement."61
A very important part of the bargain,
so far as Town-
defending his actions, Chase wrote
George Reber that "I will not say that
in the counsel I gave last winter I was
not uninfluenced by personal con-
siderations; but I can say that I do
believe that I was not influenced by such
considerations in any extraordinary
degree." Chase to Reber, June 19, 1849,
quoted in "Selected Letters of
Salmon P. Chase, February 18, 1846, to
May 1, 1861," in loc. cit., 1902,
v. II, p. 175.
60 Ohio State
Journal, April 19, 1849. That part of
the accusation of the
Ohio State Journal, which refers to Chase's efforts in giving his influence
to the Democrats, was apparently true.
It is also true that he practically
asked Giddings to withdraw and he
constantly urged upon the Free Soil
leaders his own "superior"
qualifications for the office. Chase was ac-
cused of changing his policy on the
Mexican War in order to make his can-
didacy agreeable to the Free Soilers but
he denied the charge asserting that
although he condemned the War he favored its
prosecution. He declared
that not more than a dozen members of the Assembly knew
his opinions on
the War. Chase to Kephart, June 19,
1849, and Chase to Smith, May 8,
1848, in "Selected Letters of
Salmon P. Chase, February 18, 1846, to May 1,
1861," in loc. cit., 1902,
v. II, pp. 172-173, 175; see also Chase's defense, in
Chase to Riddle, February 24, 1848,
Chase MSS., v. XIII; see editorial of
Ohio State Journal, February 22, 1849.
61 Teesdale to McLean, February 23,
1849, McLean MSS., v. XVI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 367
shend and Morse were concerned, was the
repeal of a
portion of the Black Laws. Democratic
support for
their repeal was secured only by the
"most determined
and rigid application of party
discipline,"62 and those
Whigs, who had once been anxious to
secure repeal, now
either discouraged or openly opposed
the move;63 yet at
the same time some of the Whig Free
Soilers opposed
repeal because it was being carried out
by the Demo-
crats.64 Democratic meetings
in Northern Ohio adopted
resolutions approving repeal, at the
same time that sim-
ilar conventions in Southern Ohio
condemned "Free
Soilism, Abolitionism, Demogoguism, and
Negroism."65
This famous political agreement between
the Democrats
and Free Soilers was completed by the
election of R. P.
Spalding and W. B. Caldwell, Democrats,
to the State
Supreme Court; and by the choice of
Democratic judges
in judicial districts, recognized as
Democratic, and Free
Soil Judges in all other districts.66
Perhaps the most dis-
tasteful feature of the whole affair,
to the Whigs, was
the awarding of the Senate printing
contract, granted to
the Ohio State Journal the
previous year, to Medary in
return for the election of Stanley
Matthews (Free Soil)
as clerk of the House.67 Legislative
struggles in the
62 Matthews to Chase, January 26, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. XVI.
63 Matthews to Chase, January 24, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. XVI.
64 Morse to Chase, January 24, 1849, Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa. The bill
as drawn up by Chase and introduced by
Chase repealed all laws making
distinctions on the basis of color but
it was so amended in the Senate as
to exempt all those laws which prevented
colored persons from sitting on
juries and from securing poorhouse relief.
J. W. Schuckers, op. cit., pp.
96-98.
65 Ohio State Journal, February 26, May 12, 1849.
66 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp.
96-98.
67 Ohio State Journal, January 17, 22, 1849.
The Ohio State Journal declared
that the election of Edward Stowe
Hamlin to the presidency of the Board of
Public Works was the worst item
in the whole bargain. Ohio State
Journal, July 12, 1849. Hamlin wrote
Chase that "The Democrats say they
are willing to give me any desired
368 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
1849 session still further accentuated
the rift between
the Democrats and Whig Free Soilers.68
Immediately after the inauguration in
1849, Presi-
dent Taylor was confronted with the
problem of pro-
viding a civil government for California
and New
Mexico. The question as to whether the new territories
should be free or slave had agitated the
country ever
since the treaty of peace with
Mexico. In a speech at
Warren, Ohio, Giddings accused Taylor of
betraying
his promise not to interfere in
legislation, by using his
influence in favor of the Walker
amendment to an ap-
propriation bill to the effect that the
Constitution and
the revenue laws of the United States
should be ex-
tended to the new territories.69 The Whigs called upon
Giddings to prove his charges. Giddings
asked Lynn
Boyd, of Kentucky, and Crowell, a Free
Soil representa-
tive in Congress from Ohio, to
substantiate his charges,
place. The president of the Board of
Public Works only gets $2.50 for
time in actual employ[ment]--a rather
poor compensation." Hamlin to
Chase, January 27, 1849, Chase MSS., v.
VI, Pa. The Free Soilers carried
out the agreement to the letter and gave
the judgeship of the Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas to Charles
Brough (Democrat) instead of
to their own caucus nominee James W.
Taylor of Signal fame. Matthews
to Chase, February 23, 1849; Taylor to
Chase, February 21, 1849, in Chase
MSS., v. XVI.
68 An incident occurred in the House, in
January, 1849, which revealed
the completeness of the schism in the
Free Soilers. Alanson Jones, Whig
representative from Clinton County, was
rejected by the House because he
was not constitutionally eligible for
membership, being the sheriff of that
county. In the new election to return a
successor, the Whig Free Soilers
of the House, Beaver, Chaffee, Blake,
and McClure, issued an appeal to the
Free Soilers urging them not to put up a
candidate of their own but to
support Jones, who had now resigned as
sheriff. But the Free Soilers placed
a candidate in the field in spite of the
opposition of the Whig portion of the
party. This incident produced sharp
recriminations in the ranks of the new
party and tended to cause the two wings
to go back to their old loyalties.
Cleveland Plain Dealer, January
23, 1849; Ohio Statesman, January 26,
February 5, 1849; Hamlin to Chase,
January 18, 1848, Chase MSS., v. VI,
Pa.; Hibben to Chase, January 22, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. XVI; Chase to
Hamlin, January 24, 1849, quoted in
"Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase,
February 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861,"
in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 157.
69 Ohio State Journal, March 31,
1849; Cleveland True Democrat, quoted
in Ohio Statesman, March 21,
1849.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 369
but Boyd refused and Crowell denounced
the "base and
wilful fabrication, got up on the part
of Mr. Giddings,
for partisan effect, and with a view to
prejudice the Ad-
ministration with the people."70
Seward also defended
Taylor, asserting that the latter had
only expressed a
wish that civil government should
replace military rule.71
The upshot of the incident was to
increase the enmity be-
tween the Whigs and Free Soilers. The
Democrats
stressed Giddings' charges in the hope
of encouraging
a Democratic-Free Soil alliance.72
The Democratic press of Ohio joined in
the chorus
of denunciation of Taylor obviously for
the same politi-
cal reasons. The President was charged
with betraying
his "no party" pledges by
suspending many government
employees merely for differences of
opinion; and when
Taylor permitted his cabinet officers
to take care of ap-
pointments and removals, he was accused
of aloofness
and of distrusting the people.73 Very
effective with the
Free Soilers was the constant
reiteration by the Demo-
crats that Whig papers in the South
believed that Taylor
would veto any bill containing the
principles of the Wil-
mot Proviso.74 When an expedition was sent against
the Indians in Florida, the Ohio
Statesman declared that
70 Cincinnati Chronicle, quoted
in Ohio State Journal, May 5, 1849; Ohio
State Journal, May 30, 1849; Ohio Stateman, May 1, 1849.
71 Washington Daily Union, March
31, 1849. In August, when Taylor
passed through Pennsylvania, he assured
a Whig delegation from Warren
that Giddings' charges were untrue. Ohio
State Journal, September 3, 1849.
72 The Ohio State Journal characterized
Giddings as a "political leper"
who disgraced his Congressional
district. Ohio State Journal, April 30,
1849. See also Ohio State Journal, April
14, September 10, 1849; Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, April
14, June 26, 1849; Ohio Statesman, May 9, 1849.
73 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, April
15, 24, June 22, July 4, 1849; Ohio
Statesman, September 10, December 17, 29, 1849.
74 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, September 13, 1849.
Vol. XXXVIII--24
370 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
its real purpose was to clear that
territory for the slave-
driver.75
The Democrats, like the Free Soilers,
opposed specu-
lation in the public lands, properly
belonging to the
"landless," and supported a
plan to exempt homesteads
from sale on execution for debt.76
Although no state
convention of the Democrats was held in
1849, prac-
tically every county convention adopted
resolutions to
this effect.77 The two
groups also united to demand a
new constitution and this agitation
culminated in 1849 in
a popular referendum on the question.
Throughout the
decade there had been an increasing
demand for amend-
ments to the first Constitution of
Ohio; or else a con-
vention to draft a new instrument of
government. The
Whigs revealed their conservatism by
generally dis-
couraging the movement or by
out-and-out resistance,
while the Democrats strongly favored
revision.
Most of the dissatisfaction with the
original Constitu-
tion arose from the inadequacy of the
judicial system to
handle the volume of cases coming
before it.78 In 1840,
Thomas L. Hamer, a conservative
Democrat, declared
that "Its inefficiency is daily
becoming more and more
manifest, and at the present time its
operation is such as
to almost amount to a denial of
justice."79 Attempts to
remedy this situation in the General
Assembly of 1841-
1842 were opposed by the judges and
ended in failure.80
In December, 1843, Governor Shannon (D)
had urged
75 Ohio Statesman, August 29,
1849.
76 Ohio Statesman, July 3, 1849.
77 Ohio Statesman, July 9, 1849.
78 Letter of
John C. Wright in Cincinnati Daily Gazette, January 5, 1841.
79 Letter of Thomas L. Hamer in Ohio
Statesman, June 15, 1841, over
signature of "A Democrat." See
also Ohio Statesman, May 12, 1849.
80 Ohio Statesman, December 28,
1841; January 11, 1842. Ohio Senate
Journals, 1841-1842,
v. XL, Part 1, pp. 127-133.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 371
the General Assembly to call a
constitutional conven-
tion,81 but the Whigs, in control of
the House, had re-
jected the proposal, apparently fearful
of entrusting a
constitutional question to the people
during a political
contest.82 The demand for a new constitution grew
rapidly during the decade. With the
success of the
Whigs on the banking and currency issue
in 1845, the
Democratic demands for a revision of
the Constitution
widened to include the prohibition of
all chartered and
exclusive privileges, limitation of the
power of the Gen-
eral Assembly to create a state debt,
and the popular
election of all public officers.83
In January, 1846, the
Democrats tried to get the General
Assembly to permit
the people to vote on the question of a
constitutional con-
vention. The Whigs were able to defeat
their proposal
because the first Constitution required
a two-thirds vote
of the Legislature for such a popular
referendum. The
Whigs considered it dangerous to submit
that "sacred"
document to the people during a period
of so much "ul-
traism." Moreover, "Bank Destructive" Democrats
were unfit to remodel the Constitution
anyway.84 The
attitude of the parties remained the
same throughout
the decade.
In the 1847-1848 session of the General
Assembly,
the Whigs of the House twice defeated a
Senate pro-
posal to allow the people to vote on
the calling of a con-
stitutional convention.85
The Democrats, furious at the
81 Ohio Executive Documents, 1843-1844, v. VIII,
No. 1
82 Ohio State Journal, February 7,
1844.
83 See
letter of Tod to the Democratic State Convention of January 8,
1846, in Ohio Statesman, January
9, 1846.
84 See
House Debates on bill in Ohio Statesman, January 27, 1846;
Ohio State Journal, January 27, 1846.
85 Ohio Statesman, February 7, 1847.
372 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
stubborn opposition of the Whigs and
smarting under
the Apportionment Law of 1848, now
centered their fire
on the inadequacy of the old
Constitution. The more
radical Democrats proposed to repeat
the experience of
Rhode Island by having local
conventions call a consti-
tuent assembly without complying with
the legal forms
prescribed by the Constitution, but
this suggestion was
discouraged by the more conservative
members of the
party.86 In January, 1848,
the Democratic State Con-
vention approved the calling of a
constituent Assembly,87
and in December of the same year, the
Free Soil State
Convention also demanded a change in
the fundamental
law to provide for the reform of the
judiciary; an "ade-
quate" public school system;
prohibition of the state
debt beyond a limited amount; the
prohibition of bank-
ing corporations except by the special
consent of a ma-
jority of the people; the division of
the State into single
member districts for purposes of state
representation;
and the election of all state and
county officers by the peo-
ple.88 How closely the Free
Soil and Democratic views
harmonized can readily be seen. In
February, 1849, A.
G. Riddle, a Whig Free Soiler,
denounced the Whigs
for their resistance to the popular
demand for a new
Constitution, declaring that "It
[the Whig party] be-
longs essentially to the past, and with
the past must per-
ish. * * * Progress never came from an
old politician
or an old organization."89 In
the face of the combined
attacks of Free Soilers and Democrats,
the Whigs finally
86 Ohio Statesman, April 12, May 3, 1848; Cincinnati Daily Enquirer,
April 29, 1848.
87 Ohio Statesman, January
11, 1848.
88 Ohio Statesman, December
30, 1848.
89 Ohio Statesman, February 27,
1849.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 373
consented to a popular referendum.90
Their action prob-
ably was precipitated by the threat of
Randall (Whig
Free Soiler) to vote with the Democrats
to repeal that
part of the Apportionment Law dividing
Hamilton
County.91
Although the question was now before
the people,
some of the Whigs continued their
opposition,92 while
others insisted that the question of a
new Constitution
was a non-partisan matter.93 The
Whigs of Champaign
County opposed a convention because
they feared "to
run the risk of having an exclusive
gold and silver cur-
rency and unqualified Negro Suffrage
entailed upon us
by the swapping propensities of the
Locofoco and the
'balance of power' parties."94
Medary wholeheartedly
favored a new constitution, and issued
a special cam-
paign paper, The New Constitution, to
urge a constitu-
tion providing for a "total"
reform of the judiciary; the
election of all officers by the people;
vote of the people on
any increase of the State debt; a
public school system;
and the right of the Assembly to alter,
amend or repeal
acts of its predecessors. Medary
declared "there is a
progressing, reforming radical spirit
spreading over the
civilized world, and let not Ohio be
the last to partake
of the regenerating spirit."95
The Democratic party fol-
lowed Medary's lead, reiterating his
principles and add-
ing others like the prohibition of the
issue of bank notes
90 Ohio Statesman, March 14, 23, 1849.
91 Morse to Chase, April 9, 1849, Chase
MSS., v. IX, Pa.
92 The Chillicothe Gazette (W)
opposed the call, declaring that the
Democrats might prohibit banks; that
chartered rights would be endan-
gered; and that there was no public
demand. Quoted in Ohio State Jour-
nal, September 4, 1849.
93 Zanesville Courier, quoted in Ohio
State Journal, September 3,
1849.
94 Ohio State Journal, August 18, 1849.
95 Ohio Statesman, March 23, 1849.
374 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
and the popular election of judges.96
The Free Soilers
endorsed these demands in nearly all of
their county and
district conventions.97 When
it became evident that sen-
timent was overwhelmingly in favor of
the convention,
the conservatives in some instances
resorted to various
tricks to defeat revision, such as
asserting that the
new Constitution would give the negroes
the right to
vote, or trying to mislead the voters by
issuing the wrong
kind of ballots.98
In October, 1849, the people of Ohio
expressed them-
selves in favor of a constitutional
convention by a vote
of nearly three to one.99 The Lower
Sandusky Demo-
crat declared that the staunch supporters of Taylor were
the only group who dared oppose the
convention.100 The
opposition of the Ohio State Journal
to a new constitu-
tion suddenly changed in November,
1849, when W. T.
Bascom replaced William Thrall as its
editor. Bascom
announced that he would follow a policy
midway between
veneration for an instrument of
government because of
its age and radical desire for
innovation.101 Although
the General Assembly was again
embarrassed and de-
layed by a struggle in the Senate over
the rival claims to
seats in that chamber,102 it
managed, in February, 1850,
to issue the call for a Constitutional
Convention for May
of that year.103 It is not
within the province of this study
96 Ohio Statesman, April 3, 4, 5, July 3, 12, August 21, 24, 25, 1849.
97 Ohio Statesman July 24, 1849.
98 Ohio Statesman, October 19,
25, 1849.
99 Ohio Statesman, October 27, 1849.
100 Lower Sandusky Democrat, quoted in Ohio Statesman, October
22,
1849.
101 Ohio State Journal, November
3, 1849.
102 See Chapter VI.
103
Composition of Senate: 17 Democrats
(counting Johnson) and
15 Whigs, (Broadwell not counted);
House, 35 Democrats, 31 Whigs, and
6 Free Soilers. Ohio State Journal, October
16, 1849.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 375
to discuss, in detail, the work of this
Second Constitu-
tional Convention in Ohio which is
being done in another
monograph.104
In the election of 1849, as in the
legislative session
of 1848, the Free Soil party, as has
been shown, was
being wooed by both major parties. The
Democrats,
having tasted the sweets of office in
Ohio, were anxious
to maintain cordial relations with the
new party. The
Free Soilers frankly sympathized with
many Demo-
cratic principles, but they were
indifferent on the Ham-
ilton County question. Many Whig Free
Soilers, en-
couraged by Taylor's course on the
territories and by
positive assurances that he would sign
a bill embodying
the principles of the Wilmot Proviso,
were ready to de-
liver the new party into the hands of
the Whigs. Men
like Beaver, McClure, Lee and Chaffee,
enraged by the
coalition which sent Chase to the
Senate, were anxious
to cooperate with the Whigs.105 The Free
Soilers, with-
out an independent course of their own,
pursued the
policy of fusing with the party which
would nominate
the most satisfactory anti-slavery
candidate.106
In July, 1849, a union of the Free
Soilers, or Free
Democracy as Chase denominated the
third party, and
the Cass Democrats was proposed; but
Chase, as the
leader of the new party in Ohio,
rejected such a proposal
because it foreshadowed the sacrifice
of the Buffalo plat-
form.107 According to Chase,
the Free Soilers could
agree to nothing short of the
prohibition, by Congress,
104 Roseboom, Eugene H., "Ohio
Politics in the 1850's," a doctoral dis-
sertation in the course of preparation at Harvard
University.
105 See Chase Correspondence during
1849.
106 T. C.
Smith, op. cit., p. 162.
107 Chase to Butler, July 26, 1849, in
"Selected Letters of Salmon P.
Chase, February 18, 1846, to May 1,
1861," loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 161.
376 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
of slavery in the territories.108 Democratic
Free Soilers
looked to the Free Soil Convention, to
be held at Cleve-
land in July, 1849, to celebrate the
passage of the Ordi-
nance of 1787, to cement the union
between the two par-
ties which Chase's election had
forecast.109 The Plain
Dealer led the movement to unite the two groups, but a
satisfactory division of the spoils of
office could not be
agreed upon.110
At the Cleveland Convention, in July,
1849, to cele-
brate the Northwest Ordinance,
resolutions were
adopted affirming the Buffalo Platform.
Some of the
more prominent leaders at this meeting
were Chase,
Vaughan, Giddings, Taylor, of
Cincinnati, Benjamin
Tappan, and John Van Buren, of New
York. Charles
Sumner sent a letter expressing the
hope that the Ordi-
nance of 1787 would be extended to all
the territories,
but Clay refused to attend, fearing the
effects of slavery
agitation on the Union.111 Despite rumors
that the Con-
vention would deliver the Free Soilers
into the hands
of the major parties,112 harmony
reigned. The new
party would not take a stand either for
or against the
Apportionment Law which was exercising
both major
parties at that time. It was equally
clear that the Dem-
108 Chase to Breslin, July 30, 1849, in
Schuckers, op. cit., p. 102.
109 Hutchins to
Chase, May 10, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVII.
110 Edward
Wade to Chase, May 6, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIII, Pa.
111 T. C. Smith, op. cit., p.
178; Sumner's Works, v. III, pp. 2-3;
Chase to Mrs. Chase, July 13, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. XVIII; Washington
Daily Union, July 25, 1849. Chase kept in constant touch with Sumner
for whom he had a sort of fawn-like
admiration. In September, 1849, he
wrote Sumner, "I never feel my
poverty so much as when I am among
you affluent scholars of Boston and its
environment." Three days later he.
confessed that "I find no man so
congenial to me as yourself; though I
do not pretend to be up to your theories
in all respects." Chase to Sum-
ner, September 2, 5, 1849, in
"Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, Feb-
ruary 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861," in
loc. cit., 1902, v II, p. 183.
112 Briggs to Ewing, June 18, 1849, and
King to Ewing, July 6, 1849,
Ewing MSS., v. X.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 377
ocrats would support no one for office
who would not
pledge himself to vote for the repeal
of this obnoxious
law. Consequently, the political
situation was allowed
to work itself out according to
peculiar local conditions.
In the senatorial district comprising
Morgan and Wash-
ington Counties, the Democrats and Free
Soilers united
in support of Lemon Fouts who was
pledged to oppose
Thomas Corwin for United States senator
in 1850, and
who expressed doubts as to the
constitutionality of the
division of Hamilton County.113 In Lorain County,
Townshend was renominated by Free
Soilers at the in-
stigation of Democrats and Free Soilers
all over the
State, but the Lorain Argus (D)
began a campaign of
abuse against him on the ground that he
had sacrificed
Allen and the Democratic party. The
regular Demo-
crats of Lorain County, dissatisfied
with some local ap-
pointments, and encouraged by the
Whigs, nominated
Joseph L. Whiton in opposition to
Townshend. The
Whigs and Whig Free Soilers also named
a candidate,
and Townshend was left with only the
support of the
Liberty leaders, Barnburners and those
Democrats who
sympathized with his choice of Chase
for the Senate.114
The True Democrat, controlled by
James A. Briggs, op-
posed Townshend and Morse.115 As
a result of this
strategy of the two major parties,
Townshend was de-
feated and his retirement was
interpreted as the verdict
of the voters on the
"bargain" of the last legislative ses-
113 Ohio Statesman, September 17,
1849; Ohio State Journal, September
22, 1849.
114 Chapman to Chase, August 11, October
3, 1849, Chase MSS., v.
XIX; Chapman to the editor of Cleveland Daily
Plain Dealer, October 15,
1849 in Weekly Plain Dealer, October
17, 1849; see also Townshend to
Chase, May 10, April 18, August 14,
1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX, Pa.
115 Chapman to Chase, October 24, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. XIX.
378 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
sion.116 Townshend, himself, explained
his defeat by the
number of Whigs who voted for his
Democratic op-
ponent.117
The actions of the Free Soilers on the
Western Re-
serve were determined by the desire to
secure a balance
of power in the Assembly. Where the
party was strong
enough to elect a candidate without a
union with the
Democrats, it made its own nominations;
where the Free
Soilers needed the assistance of the Democrats,
they
were ready to bargain. In Ashtabula, a
Whig Free
Soiler was nominated for the Senate and
a Democrat
for the House, the only demand that the
Democrats made
on the Free Soiler being that he favor
a repeal of that
part of the Apportionment Law of 1848
which divided
Hamilton County. The same policy was
pursued in
Cuyahoga, Summit, Geauga, and Trumbull
Counties
largely as a result of the labors of
Hamlin and Giddings,
the latter of whom had, at last,
thoroughly isolated him-
self from the Whig party.118 In
Geauga, the Free Soil
representative in the General Assembly
courted the
Whigs by publicly commending Taylor's
administration
and by advising the discontinuance of
the Free Soil or-
ganization.119 In Hamilton
County, the Free Soilers
supported Pugh, Roedter, and William
Long on the
Democratic ticket, because they had
voted for Chase
and for the repeal of the Black Laws.120
In Summit
County, the Democrats and Free Soilers
supported H. B.
116 Dayton Journal, quoted in Ohio
State Journal, October 13, 1849.
117 Townshend to Chase, October 16,
1849, Chase MSS., v. XII, Pa.
118
This situation is well explained in letter of William Dennison, Jr., to
Ewing, August 22, 1849, Ewing MSS., v.
X.
119 Dennison to Ewing, July 10, 1849, Ewing MSS., v. X; a
very re-
vealing letter. Dennison had just toured
the Western Reserve in the in-
terest of the Whig party.
120 Hoadly to Chase, August 30, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 379
Spelman, a former Liberty man who held
the Demo-
cratic view on the Hamilton County
question, banks,
and taxation.121 In
the coalition movements on the
Western Reserve, Giddings hoped a union
with the
Democrats would result in disbanding
the Democratic
organization. Since he had completely
alienated himself
from the Whigs this was his only hope
of political suc-
cess. Nevertheless, he refused the plea
of the Demo-
crats to make the repeal of the Apportionment
Law a
test of union, although Chase urged such action.122
Chase, fearful that the regular
Democrats would omit
the slavery question as an issue,
warned them that a con-
tinued cooperation between them and the
Free De-
mocracy would be contingent upon their
acceptance of
true anti-slavery principles."123
The Whigs endeavored to make an issue
of the "cor-
rupt bargain" of 1849 by
denouncing it in their county
conventions124 and
by encouraging the Whig Free Soilers
to defeat the Independent and
Democratic Free Soilers
who had aided in carrying it out.125
In fact, Beaver and
Chaffee, Whig Free Soilers, contributed
articles to the
Cleveland Herald (W) under the
caption of "Cavaig-
nac," attacking Townshend and
Morse for their actions
121 Hoadly to Chase, August 11, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XIX; Ohio
State
Journal, September 27, 1849.
122 Thomas Bolton to Chase, July 30, 1849, Chase MSS., v.
II, Pa.;
Dennison to Ewing, July 10, August 22,
1849, Ewing MSS., v. X. Gid-
dings made a vigorous campaign for the
fall elections, assailing the Whigs
at every opportunity and asserting that
the Hamilton County question was
merely one of power between the old
parties and one on which the Free
Soilers should vote so as to serve the
interest of their party. Ohio State
Journal, October, 1849.
123 Chase to Breslin, ? 1849, in
Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, Octo-
ber 24, 1849; see also F. D. Parrish to Chase, October
31, 1849, Chase MSS.,
v. X, Pa.
124 Ohio State
Journal, September 19, 1849.
125 Ohio State Journal, May 29,
July 23, 1849; Morse to Chase, April 9,
1849, Chase MSS., v. IX, Pa.
380 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
in the Assembly.126 To the
Whig taunt that the election
of Chase was the result of a bargain,
Townshend and
Morse replied that it had first been
suggested by the
Whigs.127 The emphasis placed by the Whigs on the
"bargain" compelled the Free
Soilers to avoid the issue
except in Morse's and Townshend's
counties where it
was not possible to escape the
accusation.128 Giddings, as
the leader of the Free Soilers of the
Reserve, finally in-
duced Morse not to run for reelection,
in order to de-
prive the Whigs of their issue.129
The Whigs argued
that the issue was one of "Law and
Order," between
those who would abide by the
Apportionment Law and
those who would revolutionize the State
government by
refusing to accept its laws.130
The repeal of a portion of the Black
Laws in 1849
reacted very unfavorably against the
Democrats in some
parts of the State.131 In Seneca
County, Democrats, dis-
satisfied with their representative,
John G. Breslin, be-
cause he had voted for repeal, adopted
resolutions call-
ing for the nomination of a
"Democrat in whose integ-
126 Morse to Chase, August 20, 1849, Chase MSS., v. IX, Pa. See also
Giddings to Chase, August 10, 1849,
Chase MSS., v, Pa.; Parrish to
Chase, April 20, 1849, Chase MSS., v. X,
Pa.
127 Matthews to Chase, March 1, 1849. Chase MSS., v. XVI.
128 Bolton to Chase, April 23, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.
129 Morse to Chase, August 12, 1849, Chase MSS., v. IX.
130 The Ohio State Journal declared
that "There is a force party in the
State, and there is a law and order
party. The one is pledged by illegal
means to annul a law of the State; the
other is bound to its defense." The
Cincinnati Chronicle thought that
the Western Reserve would rebuke the
Free Soilers for conniving at the
evasion of the Apportionment Law. The
Slyria Courier (Whig Free Soil)
declared that Townshend was elected by
Whig Free Soilers with the understanding
that he would support the Whig
position on the Apportionment Law. Ohio
State Journal, October 1, 1849;
Cincinnati Chronicle, quoted in Ohio
State Journal, September 19, 1849;
Elyria Courier, quoted in Ohio
State Journal, September 17, 1849.
131 Ohio State Journal, March 8, September 7, 1849.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 381
rity all can place reliance."132 So intense was the reac-
tion in Hamilton County, that Pugh
declared that his
"political hopes for the present
were dead."133 The
Whigs, sensing the situation, adopted
resolutions de-
ploring the tendency of the Assembly to
encourage the
immigration of negroes to Ohio to glut
the labor market
and fill the jails and almshouses.134
The Whigs of Mus-
kingum County appealed to the people to
vote a "white
man's ticket," declaring that the
next purpose of the
"bargain" was to give the
negroes the right to vote.135
Although the Democrats of Ohio were
ready to com-
promise with the Free Soilers in order
to elect a Free
Soil Senator with Democratic
proclivities and share the
spoils of office, and even to repeal
the Black Laws, with
a few exceptions,136 they
were unwilling to abandon their
old position on slavery in the
territories. The resolu-
tions of most Democratic county
conventions either
omitted any mention of the question of
slavery in the
territories or reiterated Cass's
doctrine of popular
sovereignty.137
The Democrats, in northern Ohio, who
were willing
to take a more advanced position on the
slavery question,
deplored the timidity of their allies
from the southern
part of the State.138 The Plain Dealer, anxious to
pla-
132 Ohio State Journal, September 12, 1849; Breslin to Chase, October 19,
1849, Chase MSS., v. II, Pa.; Breslin
was reelected in spite of their opposi-
tion.
133 Pugh to Chase, February 3, 1849,
Chase MSS., v. X, Pa. Chase to
Smith, May 8, 1849, quoted in
"Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase, III,
February 18, 1846, to May 1, 1861,"
in loc. cit., 1902, v. II, p. 121.
134 Tuscarawas Advocate, quoted
in Ohio State Journal, September 5,
1849.
135 Ohio Statesman, October 17,
1849.
136 See resolutions of Democrats of
Morgan County and Jefferson
County in Ohio Statesman, July 3,
September 10, 1849.
137 Ohio Statesman, July 9, August 24, December 17, 19, 29, 1849.
138 C.
R. Miller to Chase, June 26, 1849, Chase MSS., v. XVIII.
382 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
cate Free Soil sentiment and at the
same time resentful
against Southern domination, demanded
the immediate
abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, and de-
clared that the southern
representatives controlled pub-
lic opinion through their control of
Washington so-
ciety.139
There was a decided tendency on the
part of the
Democrats to revive the old issues of
the tariff and the
interests of the masses against the
classes. The Plain
Dealer saw signs everywhere of a reunion of the Dem-
ocrats upon the old principles of the
supremacy of the
people over incorporations and special
privileges.140 The
Democrats of the Western Reserve
pictured a struggle
between, popular government and
aristocracy and
charged that the Whig party was
composed of "the rich,
the proud and privileged--of those, who
if our govern-
ment were converted into an
aristocracy, would become
our Dukes, Marquises and
Baronets."141 The Demo-
cratic Central Committee of Hamilton
County flayed the
profligacy of the Whigs in the State
Government;142 and
the party press as a whole united in
praising the Walker
Tariff of 1846.143 The Democrats of the
Western Re-
serve claimed that theirs was the true
land-reform party
and that the needs of the people
demanded the abolition
of banks of issue.144
139
Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, November
27, 1848. The Plain Dealer
declared "The South voted against
our candidate at the last election; we
will vote against theirs at the
next." Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, Feb-
ruary 1, 1849.
140 Cleveland
Daily Plain Dealer, March 26, 1849.
141 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, September
5, 1849. See Chapter II
for revival of interest on banking and
currency.
142 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, October 5, 1849.
143 Cleveland Daily Plain Dealer, February 19, 1849;
Cincinnati Daily
Enquirer, November
22, 1849.
144 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, July
25, October 10, 1849.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 383
After the election of 1849, the Free
Soilers again held
the balance of power, having four
members in the Sen-
ate and six in the House; while the
Democrats controlled
seventeen seats in the Senate,
excluding the disputed
claims from Hamilton County;145 at the
same time the
Whigs obtained fifteen. In the House there were
thirty-five Democrats, thirty-one Whigs
and six Free
Soilers.146 The Free Soilers
were thus in a position to
control the Legislature, provided the
regulars of the
major parties did not unite to oppose
the pretensions of
the third party. Probably the most
significant feature
of the state election was that only one
Taylor Whig was
returned to the General Assembly from
the Western Re-
serve,147 the former
stronghold of Whiggery.
The elections of 1848 and 1849 marked
the close of
a political era in which problems like
the tariff, internal
improvements, and banking and currency
were settled,
so far as Ohio was concerned, according
to Democratic
principles. This was due to the partial
dissolution of
the Whig party. In spite of a strong
tendency for the
Whig factions to go back to their
former allegiance in
1849, the influence of Giddings was enough
to give the
Free Soil party a degree of permanence
on the Western
Reserve. This threw the power in the
Legislature into
the hands of third party leaders who
were inclined to act
with the Democratic party because of
sympathy with its
program on political and economic
issues. Moreover,
the Democrats, out of power in the
national government,
were angling for new support in the
State. The political
parties of Ohio, as in other northern
states, were torn
145 See
Chapter VI for a detailed discussion of this matter.
146 Ohio State Journal, October 16, 1849.
147 Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, October
24, 1849.
384
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
asunder by the sectional struggle over
southern domina-
tion, as symbolized by a demand for the
further exten-
sion of slavery.
Among the more prominent Whig
politicians of Ohio
during this period were Thomas Corwin,
Judge John
McLean, Joshua R. Giddings, Seabury
Ford, and Alfred
Kelley. Corwin experienced a rapid rise
to fame by his
brilliant defense, in Congress, of
General Harrison's
military reputation; by his election as
governor of Ohio
in 1840; and by his choice as United
States Senator in
1843. In the Senate, Corwin's
oratorical powers were
highly appreciated and his opposition
to the Mexican War
placed him among the contenders for the
presidency. But
Corwin was only an ambitious and adroit
politician en-
dowed with a genial nature which
endeared him to many
people. Finding his own nomination
impossible in 1848,
Corwin vacillated between supporting
Scott, Taylor, and
McLean to such an extent that he was
freely accused
of treachery. It was clear to the
political observers of
his day that he desired the defeat of
McLean in order to
better his own chances in 1852. It was
the irony of fate
that Corwin finally campaigned for the
man whose poli-
tical fortunes were made by the Mexican
War. The
course of Giddings, a typical Western
Reserve product,
was remarkably consistent throughout
the decade. Al-
though he was a strong party man.
refusing to join the
third party in 1840 and 1844, he
finally threw his great
popularity into the Free Soil movement
in 1848, hoping
to find in Van Buren a man who would
resist the further
extension of slavery, thereby curbing
the power of the
hated Southern Slavocracy. Giddings was
not a politi-
cal liberal on economic policies, but
he was a product
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 385
of the sectional spirit which grew up
in Ohio during
these years to demand a proper voice in
the National
Government. Giddings was possessed with
a hatred,
which amounted almost to an obsession,
of the dictation
of the "Slave Power," and his
most ardent hope was to
secure the "constitutional
rights" of the North. Judge
John McLean, a former Jacksonian, hoped
to secure
popular support for the presidency but
the regular
Whigs suspected his orthodoxy, and his
conservatism
prevented the cordial support of the
anti-southern and
Free Soil elements. A cold analyst, the
Judge at no time
felt that he could be elected and he,
therefore, refused to
allow some of his admirers to place his
name before the
voters. Seabury Ford was prominent in
Whig circles
throughout the decade, and although
from northern
Ohio, he endeavored to secure the
support of the Whigs
of southern Ohio by a moderate course
on sectional is-
sues. The apotheosis of this
middle-of-the-road policy
occurred in 1848, when Ford, candidate
for governor,
refused to commit himself on Taylor's
candidacy, hoping
to retain the support of both Whigs and
Free Soilers.
Alfred Kelley, of Franklin County, is
chiefly known for
his consistent and conservative Whiggery
in all policies.
His fame rests, also, in the general
banking law of 1845
which bore his name. Kelley was an able
executive and
a conservative business man who found
his natural niche
in the Whig party.
Among the more prominent Democratic
leaders of
Ohio during this decade were Wilson
Shannon, David
Tod, John B. Weller, John and Charles
Brough, Thomas
W. Bartley, and Samuel Medary. Shannon,
governor of
Vol. XXXVIII--25
386
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Ohio at the beginning of the decade,
was really a con-
servative Democrat who obtained the
support of the rad-
ical Jacksonians by his advocacy of
bank reform. Al-
though the candidate of his party for
governor in 1840
and 1842, being reelected in the latter
year, Shannon de-
nounced the radical policies of some of
his party, lost
caste thereby, and was thrown into the
ranks of Tyler
who was casting about for discontented
Democrats and
Whigs. As a result, the Democrats
turned to David
Tod, of Trumbull County, to carry on
the anti-bank
principles of the party in 1844 and
1846. Tod lost both
elections chiefly as the result of
divisions between the
conservative and radical Democrats.
Tod, himself, was
not consistent, changing his policies
from time to time to
suit the wishes of that portion of his
party which hap-
pened to be in control. John Brough,
who, together with
his brother Charles, edited the
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer
throughout most of the 'forties,
achieved an enviable
record as State Auditor in the
beginning of the decade.
The Broughs showed themselves fairly
consistently re-
sponsive to the wishes of the Democracy
of Cincinnati,
a radical stronghold throughout this
period. At times
their willingness to dispute the
leadership of the Ohio
Democracy with Medary made them appear
conserva-
tive. Thomas W. Bartley was a
consistent Jacksonian
Democrat, imbued with hatred of special
privileges and
banking corporations, and like most of
the Jackson Dem-
ocrats, he refused to join the Free
Soil movement in
1848. Probably Samuel Medary, editor of
the Ohio
Statesman, the state organ of the Democracy, was the
most colorful and consistent Jackson
Democrat of Ohio
in the 'forties. Throughout the period
he exerted a pow-
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 387
erful influence on his party, and made
himself feared and
hated by his political opponents.
Salmon P. Chase was probably the ablest
of this list
of Ohio politicians. On general
policies his sympathies
were with the Democracy, although after
1840, he be-
came the organizer of the Liberty
party. In the cam-
paign of 1848, he exerted a powerful
influence to bring
about a coalition between the Liberty
party of Ohio and
the New York Barnburners. Chase was anxious
at all
times to secure the application of what
he considered
Democratic principles to the question
of slavery in the
territories. On the other hand, he was
willing to cooper-
ate with the Whig party if the latter
would make oppo-
sition to the question of slavery its
primary duty.
Chase's political acumen and ambition
prepared the way
for that cooperation of Democrats and
Free Soilers
which repealed the Black Laws, seated
the Democratic
claimants from Hamilton County in the
State Legisla-
ture, and elected Chase, himself, to
the United States
Senate.
The political history of Ohio in the
'forties had been
marked by a bitter contest between the
major parties on
the banking and currency issue.
Although Ohio had
lost some of the characteristics of a
frontier state by
1840, distrust of corporations and
special privileges still
dominated the average voter. This
distrust was sharp-
ened by a succession of bank failures
and by continued
"hard times," following the
panic of 1837. Accepting
the rational attitude, which their
position as men of
wealth and social position seemed to
require, the Whigs
became the defenders of the banks and
condemned the
assaults of the Democrats on those
institutions as revo-
388
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
lutionary designs of levelling
agrarians. In the first
half of the decade, the Democrats
successfully appealed
to the electorate on a program of
radical bank reform
and enacted severe banking laws which
contained such
principles as individual liability of
stock-holders and
directors for losses to noteholders,
penal regulations for
violations of the banking laws by
stockholders and direc-
tors, and specie payment. By a
conspiracy, or other-
wise, the banking interests refused to
incorporate under
the Democratic laws and the resulting
invasion of Ohio
by worthless paper from other states
produced a reac-
tion which placed the Whigs in power.
The conserv-
ative Whigs then enacted a rather
elaborate banking law
which represented a compromise between
the radical
program of the Democrats and the Whig
demand for an
unregulated system of banking.
Overshadowed for a
time by an outburst of sectionalism
growing out of the
issue of slavery in the territories
acquired from Mexico,
the issue of the masses versus the
privileged classes arose
again in 1848 and 1849, and this became
the link between
old-line Democracy and the new Free
Soilism. Pro-
tests against excessive privileges for
bankers became a
prominent factor in the demand for a
new constitution.
Forces, representing a tendency toward
a greater democ-
ratization of the State's government
and a protest
against the privileged classes, won a
signal victory in
1849 through the partial break-up of
the conservative
Whig party. The result was a
convergence of all the
liberal political forces in the State
in the Constitutional
Convention of 1850-1851, where, with
the exception of
the "hard money" proposal of
the extreme left wing of
the Democracy, most of the Democratic
ideas on banking
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 389
and currency, corporations, popular
elections, and state
debts, were engrafted on the new
Constitution.
The political history of Ohio during
the 'forties re-
vealed some very marked sectional
alignments, which in
the main, corresponded with the racial
origins and eco-
nomic interests of each section. The
influence of Vir-
ginia and Kentucky settlers in southern
Ohio was evi-
denced throughout the decade by the
opposition of that
section to the repeal of the Black Laws
and by the fact
that the southern Ohioans formed the
core of the Dem-
ocratic party. It was natural that the
Kentucky and
Virginia settlers should become
Democrats, since most
of them came from the poorer
non-slaveholding classes
of the South. Moreover, racial
antipathy, induced by
fear of economic competition from the
free negro,
caused the people of southern Ohio to
favor barriers
against the immigration of negroes into
the State. The
wealthier people of southern Ohio were
inclined to sym-
pathize with the southern slaveholder
and to decry agi-
tation of sectional questions because
they wished to pre-
serve the efficiency of their business
connections in the
South. These economic and racial
factors did not
operate on the people of northern Ohio
who emigrated
from New York, Pennsylvania, and New
England.
They favored the repeal of the Black
Laws and protested
vigorously against the enforcement of
the Fugitive Slave
Law. Throughout the decade the press of
northern
Ohio was more active than that of
southern Ohio in
defying the South. Most of the
foreigners who entered
the state during this decade joined the
Democratic party;
partly because the party name denoted
an association
with the political philosophy of
Jefferson, which appealed
390 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
to them; partly because of their
sympathy with the Dem-
ocratic opposition to the privileged
classes; and partly
because of the efficiency of the
Democratic foreign lan-
guage press and the Nativist tendencies
of the Whigs.
The immigrants, city laborers, and
frontiersmen of
northwestern Ohio caused the Democratic
party of the
State to favor a radical political and
economic program
throughout the decade.
The most prominent political
development of this
period in Ohio was the contest between
the nationalizing
influence of political parties and the
economic and sec-
tional demands of the State, as a part
of the larger
northwest. One of the most important,
although least
mentioned, aspects of this contest was
involved in the
distribution of federal patronage. Political awards,
when judiciously placed, have been
among the strongest
bonds which have united divergent
elements of Amer-
ican political parties. The converse of
this statement is
equally true. Both major parties showed
a surprising
ignorance of the growing political
importance of Ohio
and the northwest in the distribution
of federal patron-
age. Throughout the decade, hope of
political reward
and resentment of party workers against
what they con-
sidered the treasonable neglect of the
national party
rather than great matters of policy,
were the forces
which, to a surprising degree,
determined the results of
elections and the existence or
dissolution of political
parties in Ohio. The resentment of
leaders of both
parties against the control of federal
offices by the South,
perhaps quite as much as religious or
moral scruples of
the voters against the wrongs of
slavery, was the basis
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 391
of the third party when it became of
practical political
importance.
Sectionalism in Ohio also was a protest
movement
by leaders of both parties against
political domination
of the national government by the
unified South. In
Ohio, the feeling was widespread that
the Mexican War
was the result of a slaveholders'
conspiracy which in-
tended the addition of a large number
of slave states to
enable the South to control the policies
of the National
Government.148 This
sentiment was expressed by the
press of both parties, although the
Democrats attempted
some apology for the Mexican War and
the addition of
territory. In order to avoid the
embarrassing question
of slavery in the territories, the
Democrats emphasized
the theory of Manifest Destiny and
appealed to the Dem-
ocratic pre-disposition of western
voters by adopting
Cass's doctrine of popular sovereignty.
This policy, the
effect of the nationalizing influence
of party, was ex-
changed for one of protest against the
domination of
the "Southern Slavocracy"
when the Whigs obtained
control of the National Government in
1848. The Dem-
ocrats then joined wholeheartedly with
the Free Soilers
in condemning "Southern
Dictation." That this resent-
ment against southern influence in the
National Govern-
ment was among the most potent
political forces of the
decade, was shown by the attempts of
each party to place
upon the other the stigma of being
servile to the interests
of the South. Both parties attempted to
secure the sup-
port of labor by asserting that the
other had conspired
148 The
reaction against this theory, which has been ercognized only
recently, is expressed in C. S. Boucher,
"In Re That Aggressive Slavocracy,"
in The Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, v. VIII, pp. 13-80.
392 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
to elevate the interests of slave labor
at the expense of
the free labor of the North. Ohio
sectionalism was best
represented in the continued demands of
men like Gid-
dings for a political party which would
defend the "con-
stitutional rights" of the North
against the "criminal
usurpation" of the "Slave
Power." Although the "white
flame" of humanitarianism animated
many of the Liberty
leaders, the third party movement failed
to become a
practical political party until the
anti-southern elements
of the major parties were convinced
that it was neces-
sary to unite in order to protect the
interests of their
own section. The Northwest, like the
South, was de-
veloping a sectionalism which
culminated in civil war.
CHAPTER VII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. PRIMARY SOURCES-
A. UNPUBLISHED CORRESPONDENCE1
Allen MSS. An examination of the correspondence of
William Allen is essential to an
understanding of the
forces at work in the Democratic party
of Ohio dur-
ing this period.
Chase MSS. Extensive use has been made
of the Chase
correspondence which is located at the
Pennsylvania
Historical Society Library and at the
Library of Con-
gress. It is invaluable for a correct
understanding
of the Liberty and Free Soil parties
since it contains
the letters of the Ohio Liberty and Free
Soil leaders
to Chase, who was the organizer of the
party.
Clay MSS. Contains several letters from
the conserva-
tive Whig leaders of southern Ohio.
Corwin MSS. The Library of Congress collection
contains only one volume of Corwin's
correspondence
which is of any value for this study.
Crittenden MSS. Contains a few letters
from the Whig
1 Unless
otherwise stated, these collections of unpublished manuscripts
are to be found in the Manuscripts
Division of the Library of Congress.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 393
leaders of southern Ohio, which throw
some light on
sectionalism within the State.
Ewing MSS. There are some letters of
great value in
the Thomas Ewing MSS, but the collection
is some-
what disappointing.
Follett MSS. To be found in the Library
of the His-
torical and Philosophical Society of
Ohio. Most of
the letters of any real political value
have been pub-
lished by the Society.
Greene MSS. In the Library of the
Historical and
Philosophical Society of Ohio. Most of
the letters
of any value have been published by the
Society.
McLean MSS. Valuable for an estimate of
Ohio po-
litical forces. Reveals McLean's
aspirations for the
presidency and his connection with the
Free Soil move-
ment as well as the personal ambitions
of Corwin.
Polk MSS. Contains a few letters from
the Democratic
leaders of Ohio.
Stanton MSS. Only one volume of the
Stanton papers
applied to this period but it contains
some very valu-
able letters on the factional fights
within the Demo-
cratic party as well as on the attitude
of the anti-
southern Democrats.
Van Buren MSS. Important for any study
of Ohio
political history. Reveals the
attachment of the Ohio
Democracy to Jackson's protege
B. PUBLISHED CORRESPONDENCE, DIARIES,
SPEECHES, ME-
MOIRS, AND REMINISCENCES.
Benton, Thomas Hart, Thirty Years'
View, or a History
of the Workings of the American
Government for
Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850, 2 vols., New
York,
1854. A source of much value for the
entire period.
Bixby, W. K., Letters of Zachary
Taylor from the Bat-
tlcfields of the Mexican War, Rochester, 1908. Of
some value for the election of 1848.
Chase, Salmon P., "Diary and
Correspondence of Salmon
P. Chase," in the Annual Report
of the American
Historical Association, 1902, v. II. The citations in
this study are taken from the reprint in
the House
Documents, 57th Cong., 2nd Sess., 461, in vol. CIV,
serial number 4543. This correspondence is very
valuable.
"Some Letters of Salmon P. Chase
1848-1865," The
American Historical Review, XXXIV, 536-556.
394 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Colton, Mrs. Chapman, The Life of
John J. Crittenden
with
Selections from his
Correspondence and
Speeches, 2 vols.,
Philadelphia, 1871.
Dyer, Oliver, Great Senators, New
York, 1889. The
reminiscences of a journalist written
long after the
events which he described. To be used
with care.
"Selections from the Follett
Papers," in Quarterly Pub-
lications of the Historical and
Philosophical Society
of Ohio, Cincinnati, vols. V, IX, X, XI. Contains a
number of letters of great value for
this study.
Greeley, Horace, Recollections of a
Busy Life, New York,
1868.
"Selections from the William Greene
Papers," in Quar-
terly Publications of the Historical
and Philosophical
Society of Ohio, Cincinnati, vols. XIII, XIV.
Howells, William C., Recollections of
Life in Ohio, 1813-
1840, Cincinnati, 1895.
Julian, George W., Political
Recollections, 1840-1872,
Chicago, 1884. Relates to the
anti-slavery movement
and the part played in it by the writer.
McGrane, Reginald C., (editor), The
Correspondence of
Nicholas Biddle Dealing with National
Affairs, 1807-
1844, New York, 1919.
Moore, John Bassett, Works of James
Buchanan, 12
vols., Philadelphia, 1909.
Morrow, Josiah, Life and Speeches of
Thomas Corwin,
Cincinnati, 1896. The sketch of Corwin's
life is un-
satisfactory but the collection of his
speeches has been
of some value for this study.
Phillips, Ulrich B., (editor)
"Toombs, Stephens, Cobb
Correspondence," in the Annual
Report of the
American Historical Association, 2 vols., Washing-
ton, 1913.
Quaife, Milo M., (editor) The Diary
of James K. Polk,
4 vols., Chicago, 1910. Invaluable for a
understand-
ing of party politics during Polk's
administration.
Richardson, James D., A Compilation
of the Messages
and Papers of the Presidents, II vols., Washington,
1906.
Riddle, Albert G., "Recollections
of the Forty-Seventh
General Assembly of Ohio,
1847-1848," in the Maga-
zine of Western History, v. VI, pp. 341-352.
Riddle, Albert G., "Rise of the
Anti-Slavery Sentiment
on the Western Reserve," in Magazine
of Western
History, v. VI, pp. 145-156.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 395
Riddle, Albert G., "The Election of
S. P. Chase to the
Senate, February 1849," in Republic,
v. IV, p. 179.
Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, "Salmon
Portland Chase,"
in Ohio Archacological and Historical
Publications,
Columbus, 1919, v. XXVIII, pp. 119-161.
Contains
many early Chase letters.
Schuckers, Jacob W., The Life and
Public Services of
Salmon Portland Chase, New York, 1874. Valuable
for the excerpts of Chase letters which
it contains.
Complete Works of Charles Sumner, (Statesman Edi-
tion), 2 vols., Boston, 1900.
Townshend, Norton S., "The
Forty-Seventh General
Assembly of Ohio," in Magazine
of Western History,
v. VI, pp. 623-628. Compare the versions
of Riddle
and Townshend.
Tyler, Lyon G., Letters and Times of
the Tylers, 3 vols.,
Richmond and Williamsburg, 1884-1896. An
inter-
esting and able defense of Tyler from
Whig attacks.
Contains some valuable letters.
"Autobiography of Martin Van
Buren," in Annual Re-
port of the American Historical
Association, 1918,
v. II.
Warden, Robert B., An Account of the
Private Life and
Public Services of Salmon Portland
Chase, Cincin-
nati, 1874. Contains many excerpts from
the Chase
letters.
C. STATE AND FEDERAL DOCUMENTS.
Congressional Globe, 1839, 1850.
Report of the Debates and Proceedings
of the Conven-
tion for the Revision of the
Constitution of the State
of Ohio, 1850-1851, 2 vols., J. V.
Smith, Reporter,
Columbus, 1851. Contains a copy of the
second Ohio
State Constitution as adopted.
Laws of Ohio, 1838-1849.
Ohio Executive Documents, 1839-1850.
Ohio House Journals, 1840-1850.
Ohio Senate Journals, 1840-1850.
Okey, George B. and Morton, John H., The
Constitutions
of Ohio of 1803 and
1850.
D. NEWSPAPERS.
National and state newspapers, along
with published
and unpublished manuscripts, have been
the main
sources for this study. A very careful
examination
396 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
has been made of the files of the two
chief party organs
in the State, the Ohio Statesman (D)
and the Ohio
State Journal (W.). The newspapers of the 'forties
were literally filled with accounts of
political events,
each paper attempting to mirror the
political sentiments
of its patrons. Moreover, each party
paper acted as a
check upon the papers of the opposite
faith, chron-
icling any defection in the ranks of its
opponents. The
custom which both parties had of
printing practically
all local happenings in their state
organ makes a
careful perusal of the latter a very
sound basis for
the formation of conclusions. These
papers are to be
found in the Library of the Ohio State
Archaeological
and Historical Society unless otherwise
specified.
Belmont Chronicle (W), 1840-1848.
Cincinnati Daily Chronicle (W),
1840-1850.
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer (D),
1841-1850.
Cincinnati Daily Gazette (W),
1839-1850.
Eaton Register (W), 1840-1847.
Eaton Democrat (D), 1840-1847.
Scattering.
Harrison Flag (Whig campaign paper), April 25, 1840-
October 26, 1840.
National Intelligencer (Whig National organ), 1840-
1848. Scattering. The Whig Press of Ohio
followed
their national organ very closely.
Niles' Register, 1840-1846.
Contains many items on
Ohio.
New
Constitution, 1849. This was
Samuel Medary's
campaign paper in behalf of a
constitutional conven-
tion.
Ohio Confederate and Old School
Republican (State
Rights organ), 1840-1842.
Ohio State Bulletin (Conservative Democratic), 1839-
1841'.
Ohio Press (Radical Democrat), 1846-1848.
Ohio State Journal (W), 1839-1850.
Ohio Statesman (D), 1839-1850.
Daily Political Tornado (Whig campaign sheet), 1840.
Washington Daily Globe (D),
1840-1844. The central
organ of the national Democratic party
until displaced
by Polk. Library of Congress.
Washington Daily Union (D),
1845-1850. Successor
to the Globe. Edited by Thomas
Ritchie. Library
of Congress.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 397
Wayne County Standard (D), 1840-1848. Scattering.
Xenia Torch-Light (W), 1840-
1847.
II. SECONDARY SOURCES.
A. BIOGRAPHIES.
Ambler, Charles H., Thomas Ritchie, a
Study in Virginia
Politics, Richmond, 1913. Of some value for this
study as an exposition of national
politics during
Polk's administration.
Bassett, John S., The Life of Andrew
Jackson, 2 vols.,
New York, 1916.
Bates, James L., Alfred Kelley, His
Life and Work,
Columbus, 1888. Unsatisfactory. Consists of ex-
tensive excerpts from committee reports
of which
Kelley was a member.
Colton, Calvin, The Life and Times of
Henry Clay, 2
vols., New York, 1846. Has some of the
value of a
primary source because of Colton's
intimate associa-
tion with Clay.
Hart, Albert Bushnell, Life of Salmon
P. Chase (Amer-
ican Statesman Series), Boston, 1899.
Julian, George W., Life of Joshua
Reed Giddings, Chi-
cago, 1897. Has some of the value of a
primary
source. Giddings deserves a more
complete study.
Lewis, William G. W., Biography of Samuel Lewis,
First Superintendent of Common
Schools, Cincin-
nati, 1859. Highly eulogistic. An
unsatisfactory ac-
count of this Puritanical but able
figure.
McCormac, Eugene I., James K. Polk, A
Political Bi-
ography, Berkeley, 1922. An excellent piece of schol-
arship which corrects many former false
impressions
of Polk.
McGrane, Reginald C., William Allen,
A Study in West-
ern Democracy, Columbus, 1925. A very satisfactory
account of a real Democrat.
McLaughlin, Andrew C., Life of Lewis
Cass (American
Statesman Series), New York, 1899.
Riddle, Albert G., The Life of
Benjamin F. Wade, Cleve-
land, 1886. Filled with moralizations,
but it is of
some value because it came from the pen
of a con-
temporary Ohioan.
Roosevelt, Theodore, Life of Thomas
Hart B'enton,
(American Statesman Series), Boston,
1899. Written
in typically Rooseveltian style.
398 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Russell, Addison P., Thomas Corwin, Cincinnati,
1881.
A collection of gossip concerning the
personal qualities
of Corwin.
Schurz, Carl, Henry Clay (American
Statesman Series),
2 vols., Boston, 1887.
Shepard, Edward M., Life of Martin
Van Buren (Amer-
ican Statesman Series), Boston, 1899.
Vallandigham, James L., Life of C. L.
Vallandigham,
Baltimore, 1872. Entirely
unsatisfactory. His career
deserves a detailed investigation.
Wilson, James Grant, (editor) The
Presidents of the
United States, 1789-1914, New York, 1914.
B. ARTICLES.
Boucher, Chauncey S., "In Re That
Aggressive Slavoc-
racy," in The Mississippi Valley
Historical Review,
v. VIII, pp. 13-80. A very
enlightening article which
effectively counteracts the old theory
of a slaveholders'
conspiracy.
Buell, Walter, "Joshua R.
Giddings," in Magazine of
Western History, v. I, pp. 96-109.
Cochran, William C., "The Western
Reserve and the
Fugitive Slave Law," in Publications
of the Western
Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, no. 101.
Dahlgren, Madeline Vinton, "Samuel
Finley Vinton," in
Ohio Archaeological and Historical
Society Publica-
tions, Columbus, v. IV, pp. 231-263.
Downes, Randolph Chandler,
"Evolution of Ohio County
Boundaries," in Ohio Archaeological
and Historical
Society Publications, v. XXXVI, p. 340-477.
Ellis, Alston. "Samuel Lewis,
Progressive Educator in
the early History of Ohio," in Ohio
Archeological
and Historical Society Publications,
Columbus, v. XV,
P. 71-87.
Galbreath, Charles Burleigh,
"Anti-Slavery Movement in
Columbiana County," in Ohio
Archaeological and His-
torical Society Publications,
Columbus, v. XXX, pp.
355-395.
Galbreath, Charles Burleigh,
"Ohio's Fugitive Slave
Law," in Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Society
Publications, Columbus, v. XXXIV, pp. 216-240.
Gladden, Washington, "Samuel
Galloway," in Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Society
Publications, Co-
lumbus, v. IV, pp. 263-279.
Hutchins, John, "The Underground
Railroad," in Maga-
zine of Western History, v. V, pp. 672-682.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 399
Janney, J. J., "The State Bank of
Ohio," in Ohio Arch??-
ological and Historical Society
Publications, Colum-
bus, v. I, pp. 96-99.
Kennedy, James H., "Alfred
Kelley," in Magazine of
Western History, v. III, pp. 550-557.
Lynch, William O., "Anti-Slavery
Tendencies of the
Democratic Party in the Northwest,
1848-1850," in
The Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, v. XI, pp.
319-331.
Persinger, Clark E., "The Bargain
of 1844 as the Origin
of the Wilmot Proviso," in Annual
Report of the
American Historical Association, 1911, 2 vols., Wash-
ington, 1913.
Schafer, Joseph, "Oregon Pioneers
in American Di-
plomacy," in Turner Essays in
American History,
1910.
Shilling, David Carl, "Relation of
Southern Ohio to the
South During the Decade Preceding the
Civil War," in
Quarterly Publications of the
Historical and Philo-
sophical Society of Ohio, Cincinnati, 1913, v. VIII,
p. 3-19.
C. SPECIAL WORKS.
Bogart, Ernest L., Internal Improvements
and the
State Debt in Ohio, New York, 1924. A very able
treatment of the subject.
Bogart, Ernest L., "Financial
History of Ohio," in Uni-
versity of Illinois Studies in the
School Sciences, Ur-
bana, 1912. An excellent study which has
been ex-
tensively used in this work.
Bowers, C. K., The Party Battles of
the Jackson Period,
Boston, 1922.
Chaddock, Robert E., "Ohio Before
1850," in Columbia
University Studies in History,
Economics and Public
Law, New York, 1908, v. XXXI. Valuable for an
estimate of the economic and social
forces at work in
Ohio.
Cole, A. C., The Whig Party in the
South, Washington,
1913. Justin Winsor prize in American History,
1912. A penetrating study of the
economic, social,
and sectional forces involved in the
history of the
southern Whigs. Valuable for the
purposes of this
study because it shows cooperation
between northern
and southern Whigs.
400 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Fiske, John, "Harrison, Tyler and
the Whig Coalition,"
in Essays Historical and Literary, v.
I, New York,
1902.
Garrison, George P., Westward
Extension, (American
Nation Series, (edited by A. B. Hart),
v. XVII, New
York, 1906.
Hart, Albert B., Slavery and
Abolition, (American Na-
tion Series, v. XVI) New York, 1906.
Hockett, Homer C., Western Influences
on Political Par-
ties to 1825, Columbus, 1917.
Huntington, Charles C., A History of
Banking and Cur-
rency in Ohio Before the Civil War, Columbus, 1915.
Very valuable for the purposes of this
study.
Macy, Jesse, Political Parties in the
United States, 1846-
1861, New York, 1900.
Ogg, Frederic A., The Old Northwest, (Chronicles
of
American Series, v. XIX), New Haven,
1919. The
spirit of the western democracy is well
shown in this
interesting exposition.
Peck, Charles H., The Jacksonian
Epoch, New York,
1899.
Powell, Thomas E., History of the
Democratic Party in
Ohio, 2 vols., Columbus,
1913. Not
very reliable.
Price, Erwin H., "The Election of
1848 in Ohio," in
Ohio Arch??ological and Historical
Society Publica-
tions, Columbus, v. XXXVI, pp. 188-311.
Reeves, Jesse S., American Diplomacy
under Tyler and
Polk, Baltimore, 1907. An excellent study of Amer-
ican foreign relations during the
'forties.
Roseboom, Eugene H., "Ohio in the
Presidential Election
of 1824," in Ohio Arch??ological
and Historical So-
ciety Publications, Columbus, v. XXVI, pp. 157-224.
Roseboom, Eugene H., "Ohio Politics
in the 1850's," a
doctoral dissertation in the course of
preparation at
Harvard University. Mr. Roseboom was
kind enough
to allow the writer to use his
conclusions which have
been of great value in the preparation
of this study.
Siebert, Wilbur Henry, The
Underground Railway from
Slavery to Freedom, New York, 1899.
Smith, J. H., The War With Mexico, 2
vols., New York,
1920. A thorough treatment of the Mexican War.
Smith, J. H., The Annexation of
Texas, New York,
1911.
Smith, Theodore C., The Liberty and
Free Soil Parties
in the Northwest, (Harvard Historical Studies), New
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 401
York, 1897. A reliable account of the
Liberty and
Free Soil parties but the author gave
little attention
to the economic and sectional forces
involved.
Stanwood, Edward, A History of the
Presidency, Bos-
ton, 1906.
Wilson, Henry, The Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power
in America, 3 vols., Boston, 1874. Suffers from the
old conception of a slaveholder's
conspiracy.
D. LOCAL HISTORIES.
This is not an exhaustive list of local
histories of Ohio, but it repre-
sents an attempt to name those from
which some appreciable information
has been gleaned.
Abbott, John S. C., History of the
State of Ohio, De-
troit, 1875.
Evans, Lyle S., A Standard History of
Ross County,
Ohio, Chicago, 1917.
Finley, Isaac J. and Putnam, Rufus, Pioneer
Record and
Reminiscences of the Early Settlers
and Settlements
of Ross County, Cincinnati, 1871.
Galbreath, Charles Burleigh, History
of Ohio, 5 vols.,
Chicago and New York, 1925.
Greve, Charles T., Centennial History
of Cincinnati, 2
vols., Chicago, 1904.
Howe, Henry, Historical Collections
of Ohio, 3 vols.,
Columbus, 1889-1891. Contains some
valuable in-
formation but should be used with
caution.
Knapp, Horace S., History of the
Maumee Valley, To-
ledo, 1872.
Lee, Alfred E., History of the City
of Columbus, Capital
of Ohio, 2 vols., New York
and Chicago, 1892.
Randall, Emilius 0., and Ryan, Daniel
J., History of
Ohio, 5 vols., New York, 1912.
Riddle, Albert G., History of Geauga
and Lake Coun-
ties, 1878.
Taylor, William A., Ohio Statesmen
and Hundred Year
Book, Columbus, 1892. Very valuable for purposes
of ready reference as to names of
legislators, loca-
tions, etc.
Walker, Charles M., History of Athens
County, Ohio,
Cincinnati, 1869.
Williams, William W., History of
Ashtabula County,
Philadelphia, 1879.
Vol. XXXVIII--26
402 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
E. GENERAL WORKS.
Channing, Edward, History of the
United States, 5 vols.,
New York, 1921.
McMaster, John Bach, History of the
People of the
United States, 8 vols., New York, 1914. These vol-
umes have been used very extensively in
correlating
political events of Ohio with those of
the Nation.
Schouler, James, History of the
United States under the
Constitution, vols., III, IV, Washington, 1880, New
York, 1880-1891.
Wilson, Woodrow, Division and
Reunion, 1829-1889,
New York, 1893.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I, Edgar Allan Holt, was born in Tazewell, Ten-
nessee, October 12, 1900. I received
all of my secondary
education from the Claiborne County
High School,
Tazewell, Tennessee. My undergraduate
education was
obtained at Lincoln Memorial University
from which I
received the degree of Bachelor of Arts
in 1921. I have
pursued graduate studies in History and
Political
Science at the State University of
Iowa, where I re-
ceived the degree of Master of Arts in
1925, and from
the Ohio State University. At the
latter university I
was a Fellow in 1926-1927 and a
graduate assistant in
1927-1928, receiving the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in 1928.