Ohio History Journal

18                                                  OHIO HISTORY

Ohio party strategy was complicated by the vacillating position of the leading

Ohio Free Soiler, Salmon P. Chase of Cincinnati. His desire to further his

own political career at times prompted him to favor Free Soil union with

Ohio Democrats. Chase was frequently opposed in this effort by more dedi-

cated antislavery leaders such as Joshua Giddings and Samuel Lewis. Other

men of Whig background worked to achieve Free Soil union with their

original party. In addition, other issues such as the proposed repeal of Ohio's

Black Laws and a reapportionment law of doubtful constitutionality com-

plicated the situation.1

Chase had played a leading role in the Liberty party, the antislavery

group which had preceded the Free Soil movement in the 1840's. Following

the election of 1844, Ohio Liberty men, led by Chase, made repeated efforts

to bring their national organization into an alliance with one of the major

parties. When these attempts failed, Chase helped to form the wider-based

Free Soil party. It included not only Liberty men but also numerous northern

Whigs and Democrats who defected from their old parties because the latter

groups refused to oppose the extension of slavery. The Liberty party had

been a one-issue group concerning itself only with antislavery problems while

the Free Soil party took positions on many other problems such as the tariff,

internal improvements, and land policy. This broadened platform helped

to deepen the factionalism among Ohio antislavery men, however, since it

introduced more issues over which they could disagree.2

In the election of 1848 the new Free Soil party, led by presidential candi-

date Martin Van Buren, nationally made a disappointing showing.³ In Ohio,

most of the Free Soil support came from the antislavery and former Whig

stronghold of the Western Reserve,⁴ and this campaign proved to be the

highpoint of the Free Soil movement, but in the ensuing years the party was

unable to develop an effective organization. It continued in weakened form

for five more years, during which time the Ohioans faced agonizingly difficult

problems.

With the election of 1848 over, antislavery leaders paused to consider

their position for the coming months. Their party had successfully focused

attention on the slavery question and had helped intensify sectional conflict.

How could they best continue their agitation and maintain interest in the

antislavery movement? Should they attempt to preserve their independence

from the major parties or should they, by forming coalitions, seek to bring

Democrats and Whigs to their point of view? They realized that one of the

glaring weaknesses of the Free Soil party during the campaign had been the

lack of an established organization. Support had grown spontaneously with

the enthusiasm of electioneering, but there had been no central coordination

or direction. With the excitement over, there would be little to sustain the

movement unless someone assumed leadership and acted quickly.

In their 1848 platform, the Free Soilers had pledged to "fight on and

fight ever until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions." After the

election the Free Soil press was almost unanimous in its desire to continue.

The Cleveland True Democrat remarked, "The Campaign of 1848 is now

20                                                  OHIO HISTORY

This difference of opinion between Giddings and Chase was reflected in

the struggle within the Ohio Free Soil party that began when the campaign

of 1848 ended. It may be characterized as one between a practical politician

and a dedicated antislavery idealist. Chase, although motivated by a sincere

opposition to slavery, moved so frequently from one political group to

another in the 1840's and early 1850's that he exposed himself to constant

charges that he acted purely for political advantage and with little regard

for principle. He early abandoned faith in a separate third party antislavery

organization, feeling that the best way to accomplish antislavery ends was

through coalition with the established Democratic party. He also agreed

with the Democrats on important banking and tariff questions.7

On the other hand, the humorless but courageous Giddings, having joined

the Free Soil party in 1848 at the time of its formation, remained true to it

throughout its most difficult years, even though coalition might have brought

him higher political rewards. Having once been a Whig, Giddings had little

in common with the Democrats on most issues. Most important, coalition

with either major party meant to Giddings a compromise of the antislavery

principle. He realized that both Democratic and Whig parties had strong

Southern wings to consider and thus could never adopt a strong antislavery

stand. Giddings possessed an inflexible certainty of the worthiness of his

approach and thus reflected the dismay of many Ohio Free Soilers over

Chase's seemingly devious actions.8

The Free Soilers of Ohio were the first in the nation to have to grapple

with the problem of coalition versus continued independence. The need to

organize was further increased by the extremely complex problems caused

by an apportionment law of doubtful constitutionality that was passed in

early 1848 by the Whig legislature, by the political maneuvering associated

with the election of a United States senator by the Ohio legislature, and by

the proposed repeal of the state's discriminatory Black Laws. In 1849 the

Free Soil party held the balance of power in the legislature. In the house

there were thirty-two Democrats, thirty Whigs, and eight Free Soilers; while

in the senate there were seventeen Democrats, fourteen Whigs, and three

Free Soilers. Thus the third party was in a position to play a key role in

Ohio politics and thereby reap political benefits both for the party and for

its individual members. Unfortunately for the party's future, its members

could not agree among themselves what was the best strategy to achieve

political power. The result was a long drawn out power struggle within the

party. Even though the Free Soilers realized several of their aims, they

incurred charges that the party not only had seriously compromised its

position, but had endangered the very existence of an independent Free Soil

party in the state.⁹

Because it was common for Ohio to be closely divided between Democrats

and Whigs, each party typically resorted to gerrymandering when it was in

power. In early 1848 the Whig-controlled legislature pushed through an

apportionment law designed to insure Whig control of the next legislature

as well as the election of a Whig to the United States Senate. The bill pro-

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                           21

vided, among other things, for the division of Hamilton County, which in-

cluded Cincinnati, into two electoral districts that would elect two state

senators and five representatives (divided 2-3). Never able to carry the

county as a unit, the Whigs expected in this way to win at least two repre-

sentative seats. Democrats, however, questioned both the constitutionality

of dividing a county and the procedure in the legislature in so doing, and in

the election of 1848 refused to honor the new law.10

Since the Democrats and Whigs were so evenly divided, the Free Soilers,

holding the balance of power, could determine not only the disputed returns

from Hamilton County but also which of the major parties controlled the

legislature. Had the apportionment law been accepted as valid, there would

have been two Whigs and three Democrats from the county. However, follow-

ing a long stalemate, two Free Soilers, Norton Townshend of Elyria and

John F. Morse of Painesville voted with the Democrats, thus giving them

all five seats and control of the legislature. The remaining Free Soilers who

originally had been Whigs voted with their former party. Townshend and

Morse agreed with the Democrats on other important issues including bank-

ing and currency.11 This inability of the Ohio Free Soilers to unite on a

common policy became an unfortunate characteristic of the group throughout

its brief history.

To the antislavery party the most important issue at stake in the long

legislative deadlock was the election of a United States senator. Because of

their position, the Free Soilers knew that they might elect one of their own

members in return for voting with a major party on other issues. The prob-

lem was which party and which candidate should be chosen. Some Free

Soilers favored the Democrats and Salmon P. Chase for the senatorship,

while others preferred the Whigs and Joshua Giddings. Since the third party

members as a whole could not again agree among themselves which set of

choices would be best, both Democrats and Whigs busily negotiated with

each of them as individuals.¹²

Chase himself was an active participant in the bargaining. He appeared

in the state capital at the strategic times and did very little to hide his desire

to be senator. He wrote to his close confidant Stanley Matthews that if all

the Hamilton County Democrats were chosen, the Democrats in the legisla-

ture "will naturally prefer among Free Soilers the persons, supposed to be

democratic in sentiment. They may prefer me for Senator." He admitted that

he would be highly gratified to be elected to the Senate because he felt he

understood the "history, principles and practical workings of the Free Soil

movement as thoroughly as most men."13

Chase's Democratic leanings had been noticeable for several years, and

by 1849 he believed that the best hope for antislavery action lay in Free Soil

union with the Democrats. Albert Riddle, an ex-Whig Free Soiler from

Chardon who directed the Giddings campaign in the 1848 legislature, wrote

that Chase had favored the Democrats "to an almost dangerous extent."14

When the Ohio Free Soilers held a convention in Columbus in December

1848, the Chase faction had dominated. Chase himself wrote the platform,

22                                                  OHIO HISTORY

which endorsed many Democratic positions on economic issues not related

to slavery. The platform supported the liberal Democratic position on such

things as a ten hour law, a proportional property tax, and opposition to

development of corporations and to the Whig bank law which provided for

the expansion of banking opportunities. The Whig element in the party tried

unsuccessfully to eliminate these parts of the platform, thus revealing that

the two factions were divided on important issues related to the platform

as well as the leadership and organization.15

The Chase anti-Whig platform had naturally pleased the Democrats and

furthered talk of their support of Chase for senator. He had personally con-

vinced Townshend and Morse of the unconstitutionality of the aforemen-

tioned Whig apportionment law. When the Free Soilers met, they agreed

on Giddings, a former Whig, as their candidate for the Senate seat, but

Townshend and Morse refused to abide by their decision. Since Townshend,

and to a much lesser extent Morse, sympathized with the Democrats on

most other issues, they were easily persuaded by Chase to vote with the

Democrats. Also, they feared that the other Free Soilers were betraying

the party to the Whigs. Their price for voting with the Democrats would

be high -- the legislature must elect Chase and repeal the Black Laws.16

While Chase worked for his own election to the Senate, those Free Soilers

who had originally been Whigs continued to push Giddings' candidacy and

to seek a working agreement with their former party. Giddings himself,

remaining in Washington for the congressional session, was not personally

involved in these maneuverings, but he confided to his friend Riddle that he

would be as grateful for the election to the Senate as for any "earthly

exaltation." He indicated in his diary that he would have mixed feelings

about leaving the House where his influence was substantial, but "the moral

effect of my election would be great, and on that account I feel a desire to

succeed to that office."¹⁷ In the end it was the Whigs themselves who decided

against Giddings. A majority of the Whig caucus agreed to have him, but

the members from Cuyahoga County could not be persuaded to endorse

his "apostasy," and the attempt to negotiate his appointment had to be

given up. Giddings' break with the Whigs in 1848 was the deciding factor.

Since Giddings was the only man that Whigs and Free Soilers could agree

on, Whig negotiations with the Free Soilers were broken off. When the one

other potential candidate, Whig Supreme Court Justice John P. McLean

who had shown Free Soil leanings in 1848, telegraphed his refusal to be con-

sidered in the race, Chase's senatorial prospects improved, although the

former Whigs among the Free Soilers refused to follow Giddings' advice to

unite on Chase if his own candidacy should be rejected.18

Of the two, Chase was probably the logical choice for the Senate. Giddings

was already in Congress, and his election would mean resigning his seat in

the House. Chase had been the organizer of the Free Soil movement in Ohio

and would add an additional antislavery voice in Congress. Nevertheless, his

actions and those of his supporters made him vulnerable to charges of a

political bargain. He professed to be interested only in antislavery. He even

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                                 23

wrote to Morse, "Everything but sacrifice of principle, for the cause, and

nothing for men except as instruments of the cause." In the same letter,

however, he called for the election of a senator "acceptable to the old Liberty

men and Democratic Free Soilers." In the bargain that was finally adopted

by the Democrats and pushed through the legislature, Townshend and Morse

agreed to vote in favor of seating all five of the Democrats from Hamilton

County, thus giving the Democrats enough power to organize the House. In

return for their votes the Democrats agreed to the election of Chase and

the repeal of the Black Laws. The arrangement was completed with the elec-

tion of two Democrats as judges.19 Whigs throughout the state vehemently

denounced Townshend, Morse, and especially Chase for "selling out to the

loco focos in the legislature.^"20

Even though all Free Soilers regarded the repeal of Ohio's Black Laws

as a requirement for cooperation with any party, the methods used to achieve

repeal proved to be a major stumbling block in the way of a lasting Free

Soil coalition with either major party. The Free Soilers for their part were

fearful that the Democrats would not keep their promise and therefore

demanded they give a written pledge that they would support repeal. They

felt that since Democratic strength was concentrated in the southern part

of the state where anti-Negro resentment was strongest, the Democrats

would not have agreed to the Black Laws' repeal, had this not been a neces-

sary part of the bargain. Coalition with the Whigs for the Free Soilers was

also doubtful because of the nature of the repeal arrangements. Chase and

his supporters feared that antislavery Whigs would oppose the Free Soil-

sponsored bill in retaliation for the defeat of Giddings. These fears proved

to be unfounded, however. The bill was drawn up by Chase, introduced by

Morse and, after amendments, passed both houses with large majorities and

substantial Whig support. The bill stated, among other things, that Negroes

could enter Ohio without restriction; they could testify against whites; and

they were to be provided separate schools. They still could not vote, hold

office, sit on juries, or secure poorhouse relief. Although Free Soil agitation

had won significant reforms, it was only a beginning, and it was clear that

these gains were possible only because of political maneuvering.²¹

The bargain above, completed in 1849, reflected little credit on either

faction of the Free Soil party of Ohio. While each of the major parties was

capable of offering various "deals" for Free Soil support, the Free Soilers

were unable to transform this victory into the formation of a powerful anti-

slavery party. In fact, the Whigs, having been the immediate losers, were

vehement in their reaction and were in no mood for further deals with the

Free Soilers. Their feelings were well expressed by the Ohio State Journal:

"He [Chase] gave, by his influence, to the Locofocos the organization of the

House. . . . Every act of his was subsidiary to his own ambition. He talked

of the interests of Free Soil -- he meant HIS OWN. He harangued on the

benefits of electing a Free Soil Senator -- he intended that none but himself

should be that Senator." Even the ex-Whig Free Soilers could not reconcile

themselves to the selection of Chase. As Albert Riddle said, "I would not

24                                                  OHIO HISTORY

regard the election of Mr. Chase as a thing to be seriously depricated [sic]

if it was not to be effected by the means that will be employed to accomplish

it. . . . I never will be a party to such a transaction as this in any shape."22

Other Free Soilers, like Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, admitted they

were confused and disappointed on seeing party members split between

Giddings and Chase. But unlike some of his friends, Giddings showed no

trace of bitterness toward his rival or toward Townshend and Morse. In a

letter to Sumner, he successfully hid his unhappiness and he noted, "I felt

neither mortification nor disappointment at his success over me. On the

contrary, I regarded his election as a great victory. . . . I could not disguise

the fact that his election would carry conviction to the doubting portion of

the community that our cause was rapidly advancing, and that in the end

he might do more in that body than I could."23 Nonetheless, neither Giddings

nor most other Free Soilers looked upon Chase's course in early 1849 as a

completely honorable one. Nevertheless, two great antislavery goals had been

achieved, the repeal of some of Ohio's Black Laws and the election of a Free

Soil senator. Probably some kind of bargain was inevitable, but Chase's

self-righteousness and overeagerness for the office helped to divide the Free

Soil party.²⁴

The apparent good feelings between Chase and Giddings reflected no basic

agreement as to the future course of Ohio Free Soilers. Chase continued to

support a permanent fusion with the Democratic party, feeling that the

Democrats could be brought around to an antislavery position without the

Free Soilers compromising themselves. In June of 1849, he wrote: "I am a

Democrat unreservedly. Investigation and reflection satisfied me long since

that the leading measures and maxims of the Democracy were right. . . .

Last winter I desired to see the Democrats and Free Soilers in our Legisla-

ture act together, because I knew that many in the old Democratic line

were tired of the alliance with Slavery and felt sure that a liberal and concili-

atory course on the part of the Freesoilers towards them would do much

toward breaking up that alliance and bringing the entire party upon our

platform." He had even dropped the name Free Soil and referred to the

movement as the Free Democracy. He optimistically believed that the

defeat in 1848 of the Southern-backed presidential candidate Lewis Cass

had broken the last link binding Democrats "to the Slave Power."25

Even though Chase temporarily achieved victory through cooperation

with the Democrats in 1849, he failed in his efforts to create a permanent

coalition with that party. In a state where most Free Soil support centered

in the Western Reserve and was Whig in origin there was not likely to be

much enthusiasm for the Democratic views of Chase, a Cincinnatian. Instead,

many Free Soilers were more interested in unity within their own party than

in union with the Democrats. At a Western Reserve convention of Free

Soilers in May 1849, the members pledged themselves to support "the great

principle of Human Freedom" and to ignore insignificant questions such as

the apportionment law dividing Hamilton County. Giddings and Townshend

delivered speeches calling for a restoration of the mutual confidence of all

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                             25

Free Soilers.26 Chase, however, was of another mind. He had staked much

of his reputation on the Hamilton County issue and was eager to find common

ground with the Democrats who continued to clamor for its repeal. He

therefore wrote to Giddings that the Free Soilers must combine with the

Democrats and take the apportionment problem to the voters.²⁷

In July of the same year antislavery men made another effort to obtain

Free Soil unity when they planned a convention in Cleveland to celebrate

the passage of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. A large audience heard

addresses by Giddings and John Van Buren, among others,²⁸ and the

convention then reaffirmed the principles of the 1848 campaign. Representa-

tives of the five states preserved for freedom by the Ordinance were invited.

Temporarily, unity prevailed, and even Chase talked of refusing a Democratic

coalition which might sacrifice Free Soil principles. With Free Soil-

Democratic union becoming a reality in New York, however, the most

prominent wing of his party was leading the way toward coalition, and

Chase was eager for Ohio to be included. By fall, in his thinking, such progress

had been made in the Democratic party that there was no need for an

independent third party movement.²⁹

Chase was unable before the election to work out the complete union

with the Democrats that he desired. Democrats rejected his demands that

they accept antislavery principles, and Free Soilers refused his request that

they embrace the apportionment issue. Therefore leaders in each Ohio

district were left to form a coalition ticket if they desired. Surprisingly, agree-

ments of Free Soilers with Democrats were most frequent in northern Ohio,

including the Western Reserve, because there the latter were often willing

to accept the Free Soil position. The coalitions helped the Democrats retain

power, but the Free Soilers elected independently, state wide, four members

in the senate and six in the house. Again the party held the balance of power

in both houses and did almost as well in total votes as it had in 1848. In the

house there were now thirty-five Democrats, thirty-one Whigs and six Free

Soilers, while in the senate Whigs and Democrats both had sixteen members

compared to four Free Soilers. Nevertheless, Giddings was far from happy

with the results and told Sumner that Chase's insistence on stressing the

Hamilton County issue "came near ruining us in this state."30

The results of a year's Free Soil agitation in Ohio did not bode well for

the future of the party as a separate movement. The united, enthusiastic,

and independent Free Soil party of 1848 had lost its drive and had become

divided and dependent on others. Only the Whig background of many of its

members prevented its absorption by the Democrats in 1849.

In the nation as a whole, the Free Soil party reached its lowest point in

1850 and 1851 as Whigs and Democrats worked successfully to convince

most voters that the Compromise of 1850 was the final solution to the

troublesome slavery issues before the country. Major party politicians argued

that the Compromise settlement eliminated the need for a third party dedi-

cated to antislavery. Free Soilers in Congress led by Giddings and Chase had

worked to prevent the passage of the Compromise but to no avail. In a

26                                                 OHIO HISTORY

speech in the House on December 9, 1850, Giddings attacked the Fugitive

Slave Law on moral and legal grounds and, in the following language, pre-

dicted the impossibility of enforcing the law:

He [the President] may send his troops -- his Swiss guards of slavery;

... he may drench our free land with blood; . . . but he will never compel

them [the people of northern Ohio] to obey that law.

To Giddings and other Free Soilers the law was an affront to the repeal of

the Black Laws of Ohio. After the passage of the Compromise, however, voters

seemed to want to forget the issues that had brought the Free Soil party

into existence. True, the Fugitive Slave Law continued to provoke disputes,

and in June 1851 Uncle Tom's Cabin began appearing in serial form in the

National Era and was soon to become the most effective piece of antislavery

literature ever published. Yet, the Free Soil party remained in semi-activity

during this period as members drifted away or agreed to absorption by the

Democrats. As politicians argued that there was no need for further agitation,

nowhere did Free Soilers show the vitality and enthusiasm of 1848.31

Salmon P. Chase, undaunted, redoubled his attempts to unite his "Free

Democracy" with the regular Democrats of the state. His efforts were futile,

however, and he further weakened the third party in the process. The Demo-

crats nominated Judge Reuben Wood for governor, a Western Reserve anti-

slavery man. Refusing to endorse the Compromise, the Democrats let each

district define its own position and thus attempted to conceal the state party's

divisions. The Free Soilers first chose Daniel Tilden for governor in May,

but when he declined to run, they selected an old Liberty party leader, Rev.

Edward Smith, at a convention in Cleveland in August. The Ohio Whigs

were embarrassed by President Fillmore's endorsement of the Compromise

and attempted to avoid discussion of the issues, leaving the Free Soil party

as the only one to take a stand. However, the party did not benefit from

this confused situation because Chase, continuing to look for Democratic

union, remained neutral, while the party's leading mouthpiece, the Cleveland

True Democrat, was less than enthusiastic over Smith. Free Soil meetings

were poorly attended and displayed little of the enthusiasm of 1848. As a

result, few were surprised when Smith's showing was only about one-third

of the party's total of two years earlier. Giddings was the lone Free Soiler

from Ohio returned to Congress in 1850.³²

The following year marked a slight resurgence of Free Soil strength in

Ohio. The party continued to hold the balance of power in the state legisla-

ture and was thus in a position to influence the election of a senator as it

had done in 1849. Chase naturally hoped for an antislavery colleague to join

him in Washington and even held out the prospect of election to Giddings

if he would cooperate with the Democrats more closely. With Giddings un-

willing to change his political loyalty and Ohio Democrats refusing to endorse

anyone who continued to agitate against slavery, Free Soil-Whig agreement

for a coalition remained the only possibility. Such a prospect, however,

alarmed Chase who wrote privately that it would gravely endanger his plans

for national Free Soil-Democratic fusion. In the early balloting of the state

28                                                 OHIO HISTORY

provided the third party leadership. At a convention at Ravenna on June

25, 1851 where Senator Chase, Samuel Lewis and Joshua Giddings delivered

addresses, the delegates condemned the Compromise and the Fugitive Slave

Law and called for a national convention. At the state convention of the

Free Democracy on August 21, 1851 where Giddings presided, a united party

nominated for governor Samuel Lewis of Hamilton County, former Superin-

tendent of Public Instruction and one of the original and most dedicated

Liberty party leaders. Former Whigs and Democrats did clash over a resolu-

tion favoring a low tariff, but no mention was made of other potentially

divisive economic issues such as internal improvements and land reform. The

unity appeared genuine, and for the first time since 1848 the third party's

prospects were promising.36

Before the 1851 campaign was well under way, however, Salmon P. Chase

dealt the Free Democratic party a devastating blow. Stung by his recent set-

back (the election of Wade), he announced in August that he would support

the Democratic candidate, Judge Reuben Wood, against Lewis. Emphasizing

the antislavery record of the Democrats in Ohio, he professed to believe that

the Democratic party throughout the North was becoming an antislavery

party. By this act he indicated that Wade's election to the Senate had pre-

cluded a Democratic-Free Democratic coalition and that his own political fu-

ture was more secure as a Democrat, "whenever it involve[d] no sacrifice of

his principles," than as a coalition Free Democrat. But he also had to ignore

the strong Compromise sentiment in his new party choice in other parts

of the nation, a sentiment much stronger among Democrats than among

Whigs. Free Democrats throughout the state were shocked by Chase's deser-

tion and were naturally harsh in their criticisms. What might have been an

impressive third party showing in 1851 turned into a rout as Lewis received

only six percent of the total vote. Caught up in the Democratic sweep, the

Free Democrats no longer held the balance of power in the state legislature

that they had enjoyed so long. Nevertheless, Chase's bolt did not mean the

end for the Free Democratic party in Ohio. The great majority of the mem-

bership, under the leadership of men like Giddings, continued on and even

began to make plans for the national campaign of 1852.37

In that year the Free Democrats participated in their second and final

presidential campaign. Despite the weaknesses of the movement, the interest

generated by a national contest was sufficient to revive the party somewhat.

Nevertheless, it received only about half as many votes as in 1848. One of

the names frequently mentioned for the party's nomination was that of

Salmon P. Chase. Although Chase's position was extremely difficult because

of his defection in 1851, the Democratic platform gave him no alternative but

to return to the Free Democrats. He announced that he could not support

the "Slavery Platform" of the Democrats, but his words were not convincing:

"If we could have an Independent Democratic Rally, thoroughly Democratic

in name and fact . . . I should support it cheerfully." Even had he desired

to head the third party in 1852, Ohio Free Democrats would have rejected

him because of his earlier defection. While not interested in the presidential

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                           29

nomination himself, he explained that he would support the Free Democratic

nominee. He continued to hope, however, that the antislavery party would

be dominated by Democrats rather than former Whigs and Liberty men.38

The Free Democrats finally agreed on Senator John P. Hale of New

Hampshire as their candidate and waged an enthusiastic campaign. They

stressed the slavery issue but also took note of important economic ques-

tions.39 In Ohio their efforts were made more difficult by the continued

inconsistency of Chase. Although he had earlier urged Hale to run, his

immediate reaction to the nomination was a singular lack of enthusiasm.

He agreed to support the platform and ticket "because it is more democratic

than the old line" but noted, "I shall not sink my individuality in this organi-

zation which it seems to me, must be temporary. I propose rather to main-

tain my position as an Independent Democrat."⁴⁰ Angered by the constant

attacks on him by Western Reserve men led by the Cleveland True Democrat,

Chase seemed incapable of understanding why anyone could question his

past inconsistent course.41 Nevertheless, the Free Democratic showing in

1852 in Ohio was surprisingly good and better than in any other state.⁴²

The Free Democrats emerged from the election greatly strengthened. They

did not do as well as they had in 1848, but they greatly revived antislavery

interest from the apathy of the two preceding years. In 1853, the last full year

of the life of the party, the members continued to agitate and increase their

influence, making their best record in their brief history. They thus placed

themselves in a better position to play a leading role in the development of

a new party when the events of 1854 brought the Republican party into

existence. They felt that at last they had won a permanent place in Ohio

politics. Wasting no time, they met in January 1853 to nominate a candidate

for governor for the fall election. The members assembled in a spirit of

great enthusiasm, realizing that success could be imminent. The convention

was one of great harmony, and past differences were almost forgotten. The

delegates adopted a radical platform which included endorsement of free

trade, temperance, and Negro suffrage. They persuaded Samuel Lewis to

run again for governor and passed resolutions commending both Giddings

and Chase. The delegates clearly realized that if they could maintain party

unity, they could take full advantage of Whig apathy and become the second

strongest party of the state.43

The Free Democrats waged a strenuous campaign. Chase, Giddings, and

Lewis visited every county in the state, including many that had never

shown any interest in antislavery. Often they emphasized temperance rather

than slavery in their appeal for support. The Ohio Democrats, on the other

hand, nominated a conservative, William Medill, but by taking a strong

antislavery position they repudiated their national party's platform. The

Whigs, in a poorly attended convention, nominated Nelson Barrere and

avoided all mention of sectional issues. During the campaign there was

widespread talk of fusion of the Free Democrats and Whigs because each

realized it had no chance for victory by itself. Coalition tickets were ar-

ranged in some areas, and the Free Democratic candidate for lieutenant

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                              31

was staggering. The Whigs received only thirty percent of the vote, and

the third party was now in a position to overtake them. Chase had hoped

that his party would hold the balance of power in the new legislature in

order to give him a chance for reelection to the Senate. His hopes were to

be disappointed. Although the Free Democrats elected thirteen members to

the legislature, the Democrats won an absolute majority.46

Chase had wanted to return to the United States Senate to try "to redeem

the state" from its connections with slavery. He saw the impossibility of

reforming the state Democratic party when that party endorsed the Com-

promise in early 1854. Also, as the Pierce administration looked more and

more to the South for direction, his dreams of an antislavery national

Democratic party were further shattered. The Democratic legislature soon

chose George E. Pugh to replace him in the Senate, thus giving Chase one

more reason to look to the Whigs for aid in the antislavery movement. The

election of 1853 had provided an important first step in the combining of

Free Democrats and Whigs into a more general antislavery party. The

National Era observed, "Thousands of Liberal Whigs separated from their

party in 1848 and acted with the Independent Democrats. Thousands have

this year followed their example; thousands more are now ready to join

the new party."⁴⁷

By 1854 the Free Democratic party in Ohio and the nation had served

its usefulness. But more important, it had helped to prepare the way for

a union of all Northern antislavery elements within a larger party. With

the Whigs showing no tendency to recover their lost position, what was

needed was the proper catalyst to bring together antislavery men of all

parties. This was provided when Senator Stephen A. Douglas introduced his

Kansas-Nebraska bill repealing the territorial ban on slavery above 36^° 30'

that had been in effect since the Missouri Compromise of 1820. On the

national scene the immediate Free Democratic reaction was a call to arms.

An impassioned public letter was written by Chase, published on January

22, 1854, and entitled, "Address of the Independent Democrats in Congress

to the People of the United States: Shall Slavery be Permitted in Nebraska?"

The letter was signed by six members of Congress including three Ohioans,

Chase, Giddings, and Representative Edward Wade of Cleveland. In exag-

gerated terms it labelled the bill as "a gross violation of a sacred pledge;

as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious

plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region, immigrants from the Old

World and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary

region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves.^"48

The Kansas-Nebraska Act, as passed in May 1854, effectively ended the

third party antislavery movement for it created the need for a new and

larger movement which could better include members of all parties. The

new movement originated in the Midwest with Ohio playing a prominent role.

Fusion meetings of Free Democrats, Whigs, and anti-Nebraska Democrats

united antislavery men all over the state under the banner of the Repub-

licans,⁴⁹ and by July the Free Democratic party ceased to exist in Ohio. The

32                                                    OHIO HISTORY

fusionists experienced almost immediate success in the state with the

election of their entire slate of congressional candidates in 1854, including

Giddings, and Chase as governor in 1855. Numerous Free Soil men, led

by Chase and Giddings, would play prominent roles in the new party,

successfully overcoming the differences that had plagued them in earlier

years.⁵⁰

The Republican party almost immediately became the minority party in

Congress and the majority party in Ohio. It achieved greater success in one

year than the Free Soilers had managed in six. Yet in both Ohio and the

nation the Republicans owed much to their antislavery predecessor. They

came into prominence on the same issue that Free Soilers had been talking

about since 1848 -- the extension of slavery into the territories. Since 1848

in Ohio, as in the rest of the nation, the antislavery party had agitated,

but its words had fallen mostly on deaf ears. It had struggled with dissension,

division, and disillusionment within its own ranks and in 1850 and 1851

had almost dissolved; in 1854 it was no longer big enough to meet the

needs of the resurgent nation-wide antislavery movement. Thus the Ohio

Free Soilers had not labored in vain. They had lost their fight for political

identity, but they had retained their principles.

THE AUTHOR: Frederick J. Blue is

Assistant Professor of History at Youngs-

town State University.

90                                                          OHIO HISTORY

ological and Historical Quarterly, LVII (1948), 165-178; National Era (Washington),

November 11, 1847; Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 139-142.

3. The party won only ten percent of the national and Ohio vote. Edward Stan-

wood, A History of the Presidency from 1788 to 1897 (Boston and New York, 1898), 243.

4. A comparison of the 1844 and 1848 presidential vote reveals the Whig origin

of the Free Soil vote. 1844: Democratic, 49%; Whig, 48%; Liberty, 3%. 1848: Demo-

cratic, 47%; Whig, 42%; Free Soil, 11%. The third party vote in Ohio of 35,000

was a disappointment to antislavery leaders. Six Western Reserve counties went

to the third party, but because this area had been predominantly Whig, former

Democrat Van Buren's candidacy made the total less than it might otherwise

have been. Stanwood, A History of the Presidency, 223, 243; Cleveland True Democrat,

November 14, 1848; Edwin H. Price, "The Election of 1848 in Ohio," Ohio Archae-

ological and Historical Quarterly, XXXVI (1927), 297-309; Smith, The Liberty and

Free Soil Parties, 155-156; W. Dean Burnham, Presidential Ballots, 1836-1892 (Balti-

more, 1955), 38.

5. Kirk H. Porter and Donald Bruce Johnson, comp., National Party Platforms,

1840-1960 (Urbana, 1961), 13-14; Cleveland True Democrat, quoted in National Era,

November 23, 1848; Gamaliel Bailey to C. F. Adams, November 1, 1848. Adams

Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society.

6. Giddings to Thomas Bolton, November 14, 1848, Box 3, Giddings Papers, Ohio

Historical Society; Chase to Eli Nichols, November 9, 1848, "Selected Letters of Salmon

P. Chase, February 18, 1848, to May 1, 1861," in Annual Report of the American

Historical Association, 1902, II (Washington, 1903), 139-141; Chase to Mrs. Chase,

December 20, 25, 1848, February 20, 1849; Chase to Albert Riddle, February 24, 1849,

Chase Papers, Library of Congress.

7. See Reinhard H. Luthin, "Salmon P. Chase's Political Career Before the Civil

War," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXIX (March 1943), 520-522; Holt, "Party

Politics in Ohio," 359.

8. The most complete account of Giddings' career is found in Richard W. Solberg,

"Joshua Giddings, Politician and Idealist," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-

versity of Chicago, 1952. See also Robert P. Ludlum, "Joshua R. Giddings, Radical,"

Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXIII (June 1936), 49-60.

9. The most complete accounts of the political events in Ohio in 1849 are found in

Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 162-182; and Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio,"

332-383.

10. Ibid., 320-324; Weisenburger, The Passing of the Frontier, 470-471; Smith, The

Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 163. On the question of the law's constitutionality, see

John P. Hale to Chase, March 2, 1849, Chase Papers.

11. Ohio Standard (Columbus), December 9, 1848; Ohio State Journal (Columbus),

January 3, 1849; Weisenburger, The Passing of the Frontier, 471; Holt "Party Politics

in Ohio," 332-336.

12. Weisenburger, The Passing of the Frontier, 471; Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio,"

336-337.

13. Chase to Stanley Matthews, December 23, 1848, "Some Letters of Salmon P.

Chase, 1848-1865," American Historical Review, XXXIV (April 1929), 536-537;

Chase to Nichols, November 9, 1848, "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase," 140-141;

Chase to Mrs. Chase, December 20, 25, 1848, Chase Papers.

14. Riddle to Giddings, January 15, February 21, 1849. Box 3, Giddings Papers.

15. Chase to Mrs. Chase, December 30, 1848, Chase Papers. Economic issues

had caused difficulties among Ohio Free Soilers during the campaign of 1848 as

well. The national platform included planks appealing for labor support and en-

dorsing land reform. On the tariff issue, it agreed essentially with the Democratic

position favoring a tariff for revenue only. The Free Soil party of Ohio, however,

was careful not to assume too advanced a position on these economic matters in order

not to antagonize the more conservative Whig elements of the party. See Porter and

Johnson, National Party Platforms, 13-14; Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio," 296-297.

16. Cleveland True Democrat, January 4, 1849; Chase to Giddings, April 4, 23, 1849,

Box 3, Giddings Papers; Stanley Matthews to Chase, January 11, 20, 1849, Chase

Papers; Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio," 360-361.

17. Giddings to Riddle, November 11, 1848; Riddle to Giddings, November 18,

December 22, 1848, Box 3, Giddings Papers; See also Giddings' diary for his reactions

to the senatorial election, January 23, 1849, Box 6, Giddings Papers.

18. Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio," 358-359; George W. Julian, The Life of Joshua

R. Giddings (Chicago, 1892), 267; William Miner to McLean, February 14, 1849, McLean

Papers, Library of Congress. McLean had been prominently mentioned by Free Soilers

as a possible presidential candidate in 1848. See Francis P. Weisenburger, The Life

of John McLean, A Politician on the United States Supreme Court (Columbus, 1937),

138; Chase to McLean, August 12, 1848, August 13, 1852, McLean Papers.

19. Chase to Morse, January 19, 1849, Matthews to Chase, January 20, 1849, T.

NOTES                                                                      91

Noble to Chase, February 24, 1849, Chase Papers; Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil

Parties, 167; Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio," 360-362; John Teesdale to McLean, Feb-

ruary 22, 1849, McLean Papers; Albert J. Riddle, "The Election of S. P. Chase to

the Senate, February, 1849," The Republic, IV (1875), 179.

20. The term "locofoco" referred originally to insurgent members of the New York

Democratic party who struggled with conservative Tammany Hall Democrats for

control of the party in the 1830's. They received their name when the organization

Democrats turned out the lights at a party meeting to prevent the opposition from

seizing power. The insurgents retaliated by lighting the new friction matches popu-

larly known as locofocos. The term later was used to refer to any Democrats who

endorsed economic equality and limitations on monopolies. Many locofocos became

members of the Free Soil party. See Glyndon Van Deusen, The Jacksonian Era (New

York, 1959), 95; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston, 1945), 191-192.

21. A. G. Riddle, "Recollections of the Forty-Seventh General Assembly of Ohio,

1848-1849," Magazine of Western History, VI (August 1887), 350; N. S. Townshend,

"The Forty-Seventh General Assembly of Ohio--Comments Upon Mr. Riddle's Paper,"

Magazine of Western History, VI (October 1887), 625-626; Stanley Matthews to Chase

January 26, 1849, Chase Papers; Morse to Chase, January 24, 1849, Chase Papers,

Pennsylvania Historical Society; Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio," 367, 380; Frank U.

Quillin, The Color Line in Ohio: A History of Race Prejudice in a Typical Northern

State (Ann Arbor, 1913), 38-40; J. Reuben Scheeler, "The Struggle of the Negro in

Ohio for Freedom," Journal of Negro History, XXXI (April 1946), 208-226; Eric

Foner, "Politics and Prejudice: The Free Soil Party and the Negro, 1849-1852,"

Journal of Negro History, L (October 1965), 240-241; National Era, February 22,

1849.

22. Ohio State Journal, April 19, 1849; Riddle to Giddings, February 21, 1849.

Box 3, Giddings Papers.

23. Sumner to Chase, February 27, 1849, Chase Papers; Giddings to Sumner, Feb-

ruary, 1849, quoted in Julian, The Life of Joshua R. Giddings, 268; Solberg, "Joshua

Giddings," 317.

24. Chase to Giddings, March 6, 1849, Box 3, Giddings Papers; Chase to John

F. Morse, March 14, 1849, quoted in Jacob W. Schuckers, The Life and Public Services

of Salmon Portland Chase (New York, 1874), 95-96; Solberg, "Joshua Giddings," 316-317.

25. Chase to George Reber, June 19, 1849, Chase to Sumner, November 27, 1848,

"Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase," 178-179; Chase to Asa G. Dimmock, August

6, 1849, quoted in Robert B. Warden, An Account of the Private Life and Public

Services of Salmon Portland Chase (Cincinnati, 1874), 333-334. The expression Free

Democracy was first mentioned at the national Free Soil convention of 1848, but it

was seldom used during the campaign of that year. By 1849 it appeared more fre-

quently and by 1850 it was used more often than the name Free Soil. See Smith,

The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 178-179.

26. National Era, May 17, 1849; Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 177-178.

27. Chase wrote to Giddings: "Such harmony resulting in a triumph of the Demo-

crats and Free Democrats in the state election, would strengthen infinitely, your

position in the House and my position in the Senate, and give complete ascendency

to our principles and measures in the state. This harmonious cooperation cannot be

had, I apprehend, without a definition of its position by the Free Democracy on the

Hamilton County question, and therefore I say that it does not seem to me desirable to

avoid it." Chase to Giddings, April 4, 1849. Box 3, Giddings Papers.

28. John Van Buren was the son of the former President. He played a very active

role in the Free Soil campaign of 1848 and was instrumental in the third party's de-

cision to reunite with the Democrats in New York in 1849. See De Alva S. Alex-

ander, A Political History of the State of New York (New York, 1906), II, 128-130,

148-155; Schlesinger, The Age of Jackson, 467.

29. National Era, August 2, 1849; Chase to Benjamin F. Butler, July 26, 1849,

"Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase," 180-182; Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio," 376-377;

Chase to John G. Breslin. July 30, 1849, quoted in Schuckers, Chase, 101-103; Smith,

The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 177-178.

30. Cleveland Weekly Plain Dealer, October 24, 1849; Ohio State Journal, October

16, 1849; Giddings to Sumner, October 29, 1849, Sumner Papers, Harvard University;

Holt, "Party Politics in Ohio," 383.

31. Congressional Globe, 31 Cong., 2 Sess., 15; ibid., Appendix, 253-254; National

Era, June 5, 1851-April 1, 1852; Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 226-231.

32. Chase to E. S. Hamlin, February 20, April 16, 1850, Hamlin to Chase, May

23, July 1, 1850, B. B. Chapman to Chase, March 6, 1850, Chase Papers; Cleveland

True Democrat, July-September, 1850; Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 256-259; Smith,

The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 185-187.

33. Chase to E. S. Hamlin, December 9, 1850. Chase Papers; Chase to Giddings,

October 22, 1850, Giddings to Addison Giddings, December 16, 1850, Box 3, Giddings

92                                                        OHIO HISTORY

Papers; Chase to Sutliff, January 16, 1851, "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase," 230-

232; Ohio State Journal, March 17, 1851; H. L. Trefousse, Benjamin Franklin Wade:

Radical Republican From Ohio (New York, 1963), 67.

34. The Whig state convention resolved that, since the Compromise measures, in-

cluding the Fugitive Slave Law, were not policies of the Whig administration, each

Whig was at liberty to hold his own opinions respecting them. The Democrats in

their state convention in August did not refer to the Compromise, but reaffirmed

the slavery resolutions of their convention of 1848. These resolutions condemned

slavery "as an evil, unfavorable to the full development of the spirit and practical

benefits of free institutions"; it was a duty of the people of Ohio "to use all power

clearly given by the terms of the national compact, to prevent its increase, to miti-

gate and finally eradicate the evil." The resolutions, however, declared that each

state had a right "to regulate its own internal affairs; to hold and maintain an equal

and independent sovereignty with each and every state; and that upon these rights

the National Legislature can neither legislate nor encroach." For proceedings of

Whig convention, see National Era, August 28, 1851; for those of Democratic conven-

tion, National Era, August 14, 21, 28, 1851. Quotations are from issue of August 28.

35. Most members agreed that Free Soil was no longer an appropriate title for the

third party. Although some preferred the name Anti-Slavery, Free Democratic became

the official title from 1851 to 1854. See Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 244;

Lewis Tappan to Harriet Beecher Stowe, April 5, 1852. L. Tappan Papers, Library

of Congress.

36. Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 263-264; Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties,

237-238; National Era, July 10, August 7, 28, 1851.

37. Ibid., September 11, 1851; Cleveland True Democrat, September 8, 11, 1851;

Ohio State Journal, November 20, 1851; Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 264-265.

38. Chase to Hamlin, June 28, July 19, 1852, Chase Papers; Chase to Hale, August

5, 1852, Hale Papers, New Hampshire Historical Society.

39. The Free Democrats held their national convention in Pittsburgh on August

11, 1852 with Samuel Lewis as chairman. There the party continued to show its in-

terest in issues other than slavery as it had in 1848. Significantly, it endorsed the

homestead idea and federal assistance for internal improvements. None of the additional

issues seemed to have caused any disunity between the factions of Ohio Free Democrats.

The Ohioans continued to direct most of their attention to the slavery question. See

Porter and Johnson, National Party Platforms, 18-20; National Era, August 19, 1852;

Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 247-248, 251-253.

40. National Era, August 19, 1852; Chase to Hamlin, August 13, 1852, Chase Papers.

41. Stanwood, A History of the Presidency, 257. Chase even implied that there

had been a "conspiracy" to deprive him of the nomination--a nomination he did not

want anyway. The Chase faction at the convention had been instrumental in pre-

venting the nomination of Samuel Lewis for Vice President. Lewis was the man

that Chase had refused to support for governor in 1851. The Free Democrats chose

instead George W. Julian of Indiana for Vice President, and the rejection of Lewis

further alienated many Ohio Free Democrats from the Chase group. See Chase to

Hamlin, August 27, 1852, Chase Papers; Chase to Sumner, September 9, 1852, Sumner

Papers; Lewis to Julian, August 19, 1852, Giddings-Julian Papers, Library of Congress;

Grace Julian Clarke, George W. Julian, Indiana Biographical Series, I (Indianapolis,

1923), 131-133.

42. Hale's total of 31,682 votes in Ohio was higher than he received in any other

state. While nationally the third party received only about half as many votes as in

1848, the Ohio total declined only slightly. As in 1848, the Whig origin of the Free

Democratic vote is apparent. Hale gained more than one-third of his vote in Ohio

from the strongly Whig six Western Reserve counties. Despite the legislature's gerry-

mandering efforts, two Reserve Free Democrats, Joshua Giddings and Edward Wade,

were elected to Congress. Cleveland True Democrat, September 22, October 20, 1852;

Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 271; Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 252-253,

258-259; Whig Almanac, 1853, 57.

43. Cleveland True Democrat, November 17, 1852, January 12, 19, 26, 1853; National

Era, January 20, 27, 1853; Chase to Hamlin, February 4, 1853, Chase Papers; Roseboom,

The Civil War Era, 275.

44. William G. W. Lewis, Biography of Samuel Lewis, First Superintendent of

Common Schools for the State of Ohio (Cincinnati, 1857), 405-415; Cleveland True

Democrat, June-November, 1853; Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 268-274;

Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 276.

45. Chase to Hamlin, February 4, July 21, 1853, Chase Papers.

46. Whig Almanac, 1854, 62-63; Chase to Hamlin, December 21, 1853, Chase Papers.

47. Chase to Edward Pierce, January 17, 1854, Chase to E. S. Hamlin, January 22,

1854, "Selected Letters of Salmon P. Chase," 252-256; National Era, December 1, 1853.

48. Congressional Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., Pt. I, 175, 221-222; National Era, February

2, 1854.

NOTES                                                                      93

49. The new party did not officially call itself Republican until 1855. Until then

it was called the Anti-Nebraska or People's party.

50. Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties, 285-290; Roseboom, The Civil War

Era, 280-312.

CRAWFORD COUNTY "EZ TROOLY DIMECRATIC": A STUDY OF

MIDWESTERN COPPERHEADISM

1. Frank L. Klement, The Copperheads in the Middle West (Chicago, 1960), 1-39;

see also, for a discussion of Copperhead counties in Ohio, John L. Stipp, "Economic

and Political Aspects of Western Copperheadism" (unpublished doctoral dissertation,

The Ohio State University, 1944). For an updated survey of the reasons for Copper-

headism, see Richard O. Curry, "The Union As It Was: A Critique of Recent Inter-

pretations of the Copperheads," Civil War History, XIII (March 1967), 25-39.

2. Population of the United States in 1860: Compiled from the Original Returns

of the Eighth Census (Washington, 1864), 378.

3. John E. Hopley, History of CRAWFORD County (Chicago, 1912), 541. See also

Wilbur Henry Siebert, Mysteries of Ohio's Underground Railroads (Columbus, Ohio,

1951), 186-187.

4. CRAWFORD County Forum (Bucyrus), March 15, 1861. Hereafter cited as Forum.

5. Forum, April 27, September 21, October 26, November 30, 1860; February 15,

March 15, 1861.

6. The counties compared were Ashtabula, Champaign, Delaware, Erie, Greene,

Huron, Warren, and Morgan. See Annual Report of the Commissioners of Statistics,

Ohio, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865. See also Wood Gray, The Hidden

Civil War (New York, 1942), 16.

7. Bucyrus Weekly Journal, May 10, 1861. Hereafter cited as Journal.

8. Report of the Secretary of State, Annual Reports, 1858-1865.

9. Eugene H. Roseboom, "Southern Ohio and the Union in 1863," The Mississippi

Valley Historical Review, XXXIX (June, 1952), 29-44; Joseph Schafer, "Who Elected

Lincoln?" American Historical Review, XLVII (October 1941), 51-64.

10. Hopley, CRAWFORD County, 132-133.

11. Forum, July 13, 1860.

12. Hopley, CRAWFORD County, 132.

13. See James C. Austin, Petroleum V. Nasby (New York, 1965), 29-33. See also

David D. Anderson, "The Odyssey of Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby," Ohio History,

LXXIV (1965), 232-246.

14. Forum, May 25, 1860; January 11, 1861.

15. Ibid., November 16, 1860.

16. Ibid., December 28, 1860.

17. Journal, April 19, August 30, 1861.

18. Forum, April 19, 1861. The Forum quoted Orr as saying from the floor of the

House that "The Republican Party, so called, is responsible for it [the war] before

God, and the civilized world....I vote for this bill because...I have taken an oath

to support the Constitution of the United States."

19. Journal, April 26, 1861.

20. Ibid., April 12, 1861.

21. Forum, April 19,1861.

22. Ibid., May 17, 1861.

23. Ibid., May 10, 17, 1861.

24. Ibid., August 16, 1861.

25. Ibid., June 21, 1861.

26. Journal, July 5, 1861.

27. Ibid., August 2, 1861.

28. Forum, August 16, 1861. Also see ibid., August 2, 1861.

29. Journal, December 13, 1860; David Ross Locke, The Nasby Papers (Toledo,

Ohio, 1893), 4; Austin, Petroleum V. Nasby, 73.

30. Forum, August 16, 1861.

31. Ibid., August 23, 1861.

32. Journal, August 23, 1861.

33. Ibid.

34. Forum, September 13, 1861.

35. Journal, August 9, 1861.

36. Ibid., August 30, 1861.

37. Ibid., September 6, 1861.

38. Ibid., October 4, 1861.

39. Ibid., September 12, 1861.