PARTY POLITICS IN OHIO, 1840-1850
BY EDGAR ALLAN HOLT, B. A., M. A., PH.
D.
(Continued from July, 1928,
QUARTERLY.)
CHAPTER III
NATIONAL ISSUES IN OHIO POLITICS,
1840-1845
The Whigs were surprised by the
completeness of
their victory in the national election
of 1840. Their
first impulse was to interpret the
result as a verdict for
reform, but they deferred developing a
positive program
for reasons of political strategy. In
Ohio, the Na-
tionalist Whigs were in complete
control. There were,
however, a large number of Democrats
who had voted
for Harrison in the heat of the Hard
Cider Campaign,
but in the reaction, which the Whigs
felt might follow
such a campaign, these voters could
very easily be lost.
The Ohio State Journal thought
that under the circum-
stances prevailing when the Whigs came
into power,
with a deranged currency, a national
debt and an empty
treasury, their first duty was to
institute measures of
economy by dispensing with sinecure
offices and stop-
ping various leaks in the Treasury. To
raise the reve-
nue, the Journal advocated an
import duty, but in order
not to arouse the southern Whigs
unduly, in those days
of sectional controversy over the
tariff, that paper added
that Congress could not
constitutionally levy duties on
imports solely for purposes of
protection, but that it did
have the power to levy import duties to
meet the ordinary
expenses of the Government, with
incidental protection
(47)
48 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
for certain sections of the country.1
Other Ohio Whigs,
less considerate of the difficulties
facing the national
party in its hour of triumph, agreed
with the Cincinnati
Chronicle in boldly advising an addition of twenty per
cent on import duties and the
establishment of a National
bank to provide a uniform currency.2
These Whigs were
quite willing to accept the losses to
the party in the South,
which such a policy would entail, for
they argued that
the election was a victory of the
Trans-Alleghany
Country over the South and East. The
West, "with one
united voice," had cried,
"for the old, good and wise
policy of Washington, a sound National
Currency, and
a Tariff sufficiently strong to protect
the American la-
borer from the rivalry of those who can
live without
meat."3 However, most
Whigs in Ohio were content to
await the announcement of the
administration program,
taking comfort in the meantime, from
Clay's attempts
in Congress to secure the repeal of the
Independent
Treasury Act4 and to obtain
a law distributing the pro-
ceeds from the sale of public lands.5
The Democratic
press of Ohio condemned Clay's plan as
a bribe to the
states which amounted to an assumption
of state debts,
and praised Benton's Log Cabin Bill
providing for a
"permanent prospective preemption
system" to dispose
of the public lands.6
1 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), November 25, 1840.
2 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, December 25, 1841.
3 Ibid., February 23, 1841.
4 McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, p. 594.
5 Ibid., v. VI, p. 596; Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly),
February 6,
1841; Only the Cincinnati Chronicle disagreed
with the Clay plan, declaring
that it was "nothing less than
paying the debts of the States indirectly, and
this the General Government has no right
to do." Daily Cincinnati Chronicle,
January 14, 1841.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850
It soon became apparent that the
selection of Presi-
dent Harrison's Cabinet might wreck
Whig prospects.
Immediately after the election, the
Cincinnati Gazette
advised a cabinet selected from men
outside of Congress
who were not aspirants for the
presidency.7 It will be
remembered that, previous to the
nomination of Harri-
son and in order to get the vote of the
Webster support-
ers, Greene gave definite assurance
that Webster would
be offered a place in the Cabinet. But
Wright, the editor
of the Gazette, thought that
Clay and Webster could be
of far greater service to the party by
remaining in the
Senate,8 although he later
on approved of the selection
of Webster as secretary of state. The
Lebanon Star,
Corwin's mouthpiece, objected to the
discrimination
against members of Congress.9 Many
Ohio Whigs de-
manded that John McLean, of their
State, should re-
ceive a Cabinet position in recognition
of his past serv-
ices and of the importance of the
Jackson element in the
party.10 Nothing came of this demand so
far as Harri-
son's Cabinet was concerned, but in the
realignment,
following the quarrel of Tyler with the
Whig leaders,
McLean's supporters again demanded a
Cabinet ap-
pointment.11 McLean was
offered the position of secre-
tary of war,12 but he chose
to decline.13 By December,
1840, it was evident that another
Ohioan, Thomas
Ewing, would be offered a Cabinet
position, as a recog-
6 McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, 596.
7 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, November
13, 1840.
8 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, November
26, 1840.
9 Ibid., November
23, 1840.
10 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, December
30, 1840.
11 S. Stokely to McLean, September 13,
1841, McLean MSS., v. X
12 Tyler to McLean, September 11, 1841.
McLean MSS., v. X.
13 McLean
to Tyler, September 17, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.
Vol. XXXVIII--4
50
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
nition of the fact that the Ohio Whigs
were conserva-
tive, although Ewing's appointment
would disappoint
such Jacksonians as Caleb Atwater, who
had promised
that Ewing would not be a member of the
Cabinet. Na-
tional considerations, however,
determined the choice,
apparently on the ground that, as John
W. Allen, a
prominent Whig leader of Cleveland,
wrote, there could
be no bank or anti-bank, no tariff or
anti-tariff objec-
tions raised to his selection,14 and
the appointment would
have the additional advantage of
conciliating the West,
which was beginning to resent the
domination of other
sections in the awards of office. It
was clear, in De-
cember, 1840, that Ewing would be
offered the port-
folio of postmaster-general, but Ewing
preferred the
treasury and his wishes eventually were
gratified.15 The
announcement of Harrison's Cabinet, in
February 1841,
were favorably received by papers like
the Cincinnati
Chronicle, because all sections of the country were rep-
resented and it showed a
"wholesome regard" for the
old Whigs who for twelve years
"had borne the brunt
and heat of war against the vindictive
and merciless
spirit of Jacksonism."16
Washington was besieged with Whig
office-seekers
when the new Administration took
office, a phenomenon
which augured ill for Harrison's
promise to abide by
the Jeffersonian formula for
appointment to public of-
fice. Although the spoils system had
been denounced
by Whig newspapers in Ohio,17 the
victors began to
14 John W. Allen to Ewing, December 27,
1840. Thomas Ewing MSS.,
v. V.
15 Ewing to Alien, January 4, 1841.
Ewing MSS., v. V.
16 Daily Cincinnati
Chronicle, February 18, 1841.
17 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, December 2, 1840.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 51
demand recognition for their services.
A Whig mem-
ber of the Ohio Legislature, who saw
the crowds of
office-seekers passing through Columbus
on their way
to Washington, declared that the rush
for office was
twice as bad as under Jackson.18
Yielding to the tre-
mendous pressure, the Administration
found it neces-
sary to remove many government
officials. This was
quite in harmony with what the Whigs
meant by re-
forming the National Government,
namely, the replace-
ment of "defaulting"
Democrats by "honest" Whigs.
The Administration's policy of removals
from office was
defended by the Ohio State Journal on
the ground that
it was only a modest beginning in the
task of cleansing
its government offices.19
Ohio Whigs saw in Harrison's
inauguration the
dawning of a new era in which the
Constitution would be
restored to the people, and honesty
re-established in the
Government.20 In his
inaugural, President Harrison re-
vealed a leaning toward the Nationalist
Whigs by men-
tioning a National Bank in connection
with a condemna-
tion of an exclusively metallic
currency,21 and the
Chronicle eagerly jumped to the conclusion that the
President would not veto a National
Bank proposal, and
that the Administration would not be an
enemy of
credit.22 But many friends of a
National Bank, who
clearly realized the utter lack of a
Whig program,
feared the effects of a bank bill on
the party. Biddle
and Webster, for example, disapproved
of the Presi-
18 John Reeves to McLean, February 23,
1841. McLean MSS., v. X.
19 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), April 21, 1841.
20 Ohio
State Journal (Weekly), March 6, 1841.
21 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 14.
22 Daily
Cincinnati Chronicle, March 9, 1841.
52
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
dent's message on grounds of
expediency, fearing that
"it might rally at once the
opposition on topics that
might be turned to mischief against the
new adminis-
tration before it had time to
strengthen itself."23
In
his inaugural, Harrison also took
cognizance of the
Whig principle of legislative supremacy
by deploring
the too ready use of the veto which he
thought should
be used only to protect the
Constitution from violation,
to prevent the passage of hasty
legislation, and to pre-
vent legislation which was the result
of combinations
harmful to minorities.24 The
tone of this section of
the address, rather than the exceptions
made, was care-
fully noted by the Whigs of Ohio.
In the Congressional Session of
1840-1841, the
Whigs had blocked measures to provide
revenue for the
Government and, therefore, an extra
session of Con-
gress seemed necessary. On the advice
of Clay,25 Presi-
dent Harrison issued a call for a
special session of Con-
gress to convene on May 31 to consider
"sundry im-
portant and weighty matters principally
growing out of
the condition of the revenues and the
finances of the
country."26
Shortly thereafter, death snatched from
the Whigs
their pliant leader, and brought to the
presidency John
Tyler, a representative of the State
Rights school. The
latter was devoted to State Rights
principles with a
tenacity that should have warned the Nationalist Whigs
23 Biddle to Webster, February 2, 1841, in Reginald C. McGrane, The
Correspondence of Nicholas Biddle
Dealing With National Affairs, 1807-
1844, p. 341.
24 Richardson, Messages, v. IV,
p. 11.
25 A. C. Cole, op. cit., p. 65.
26 Richardson, Messages, v. IV,
p. 21.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 53
that he could not be bent to their
will. Indeed, during
Harrison's short tenure, there were
signs that Clay
considered himself the real leader of
his party;27 and
with Clay as the acknowledged leader of
the Whigs, and
Tyler as the official representative of
the party in the
Executive office, the future boded ill
for the Adminis-
tration. Whig leaders in Ohio viewed
Harrison's death
as an irreparable loss to the party and
predicted that
if Tyler did not follow the Harrison
program the party
would be "rent asunder."28
The Ohio Whigs attempted
to appear cheerful,29 the Ohio
State Journal asserting
that to doubt that Tyler would carry
out the views of
his political brethren would be a great
injustice,30 and
characterized his inaugural address as
a "clear, con-
cise, and truly Whig document."31
What program would the Whigs evolve in
the extra
session? What element of the party
would seize con-
trol? How would the people of Ohio
react to National
considerations? Ohio Whigs approved the call for an
extra session and pleaded that
legislation be left to Con-
gress, without specifying the program
to be followed.32
Some, however, agreed with the more
aggressive Daily
Cincinnati Chronicle and demanded that the extra ses-
sion of Congress should revise the
tariff, establish a
National Bank, repeal at once all the
acts of its prede-
cessors, and reject all "half-way
measures."33 Ohio
Whigs rather generally favored a
National Bank in
27 Garrison, Westward Extension, p.
53-55.
28 Reasin Beall to Thomas
Ewing, April 13, 1841. Ewing MSS., v. V.
29 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, April 15, 1841.
30 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), April 15, 1841.
31 Ibid., April 21, 1841.
32 Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), March 24, 1841.
33 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, March 18, 1841.
54
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
order to insure a uniform national
currency which
would follow the channels of commerce
and not simply
remain in the East.34 Western
editors pointed out the
growing population of their section and
demanded more
political influence. One Ohio editor
anticipated the
happy day when the center of power
would be removed
to the Ohio Valley, the nation's most
healthy and truly
American section.35
With some anxiety the Whigs of Ohio
awaited Ty-
ler's message to Congress in June,
1841. That part of
the President's message relating to the
tariff argued
that the Compromise Tariff of 1833
should not be
changed except under urgent necessities
which were
declared not to exist at that time.36
However, President
Tyler, although admitting that the
people had condemned
the Independent Treasury, expressed
uncertainty as to
what kind of a "fiscal agent"
should be adopted in its
place, adding ominously that he reserved
the right to re-
ject any measure which he thought
violated the Consti-
tution or jeopardized the prosperity of
the country.37
The position taken by the President was
clearly opposed
to the wishes of the Nationalist Whigs
of Ohio who
damned the message with faint praise.38
Some were so
disappointed that they condemned the
message as lacking
in strong and statesmanlike views,
especially on the
tariff, apparently still under the
impression that Tyler, in
spite of his vagueness, would not veto
an act establishing
a National Bank.39
34 Ibid., March 19, 1841.
35 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 3, 1841.
36 Richardson, Messages, v. IV,
p. 43.
37 Richardson, Messages, v. IV,
p. 46.
38 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly), June 9, 1841.
39 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 5, 1841.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 55
Clay marshalled his forces in Congress,
and on June
7, 1841, presented the program of the
Nationalist Whigs.
It consisted of the repeal of the
Independent Treasury
Law, the establishment of a National
Bank, the fixing of
duties so as to provide an adequate
revenue, and the
distribution of the proceeds from the
sale of public
lands.40 Within a remarkably
short time the Independ-
ent Treasury Law was repealed over the protests
of the
Democrats.41 Its defense by Benton and his vigorous
condemnation of a national bank, were
wildly applauded
by the Democrats of Ohio.42 The
second item of the
Whig program came to grief at the hands
of the Presi-
dent. Drawn up by Secretary Ewing,43
with the hope of
avoiding the constitutional scruples of
Tyler, the plan
finally provided for a Fiscal Bank
located in Washington
with a capital of thirty million
dollars, and with power
to establish branches throughout the
country, indepen-
dent of the consent of the states. The
Cincinnati Chron-
icle doubted the wisdom of the plan because it provided
for the participation of states as
stock-holders and be-
cause branch banks could issue no notes
of circulation
above fifty dollars. Moreover, the same
newspaper de-
clared that the plan neglected the
West, since most of the
new bank notes would be absorbed on the
Atlantic sea-
board.44 Much to the
satisfaction of the Democrats of
40 Garrison,
op. cit., pp. 57-58.
41 McMaster,
op. cit., v. VI, p. 630.
42 Ohio Statesman, June 15-July 20, 1841. Benton declared
that the
national bank which was proposed by the
Whigs was "some monstrous com-
pound, born of hell and chaos, more
odious, dangerous, and terrible than
any simple bank could be."
"Posterity," he said, "is to be manacled, and
delivered up in chains to this deformed
monster . . ." Benton, Thomas H.,
Thirty Years' View, v. II, p. 228.
43 Copy of plan dated June 12, 1841, in
Thomas Ewing MSS., v. VI.
44 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 18, 19, 1841.
56 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Ohio, Tyler vetoed the Bill. In their
exasperation, the
Whigs quickly prepared another
financial measure
which, it was hoped, would meet the
demands of the
President. Again the Whigs were
defeated by the veto
of Tyler, the Constitutionalist,45
and the war was on
between Tyler and the Whigs in
Congress. All mem-
bers of the Cabinet, except Webster,
resigned and pub-
lished the reasons for their
resignation. Ewing, in a
long letter, insinuated that the
President had refused
to approve, in the form of the Bill,
what he had already
assented to in conferences with leaders
of Congress.46
The Whigs of Ohio approved the Clay
program, but
they were disappointed with its
results.47 When June
had passed without any of the major
items in the Whig
program being carried out, the Whigs of
Ohio became
restive, and demanded that something
other than "milk
and water alterations" be made.48
The Cincinnati
Chronicle demanded the expulsion of those "nonde-
scripts" who would not support the
party's program.49
By July, Whig leaders like H. H.
Hunter, of Lancaster,
announced that Tyler had lost the
confidence of the
party in Ohio.50 After the
presidential veto of the sec-
ond bank bill, an indignation meeting
was held by the
Whigs in Congress in which Jeremiah
Morrow and
Samson Mason from Ohio played active
roles. An ad-
45 Richardson, Messages, v. IV,
pp. 68-72.
46 McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, p.
636.
47 From Tyler's accession there was
uneasiness on the matter of Fed-
eral appointments, for there were signs
that old line Whigs were not receiv-
ing the preference of the new executive;
Oran Follett to Frances Granger,
May, 1841, Follett MSS.
48 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 25, 1841.
49 Ibid., June 28, 1841.
50 H. H. Hunter to Ewing, July 10, 1841.
Ewing MSS., v. VI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 57
dress to the people of the United
States was drawn up
declaring that the program of the party
had been de-
feated by the use of the veto power
against which Whigs
had long protested. The President was
accused of dis-
honesty in his profession of
constitutional scruples, of
a desire to bring about new political
combinations, and
of betrayal of the party by seeking
counsel from its
enemies. The voters were urged to elect
only those per-
sons to Congress who favored the program
as outlined
in the extra session.51 Ohio
Whigs were thoroughly in
sympathy with the protesting members of
Congress.
The Columbiana County Whigs condemned
Tyler's use
of the veto as "contrary to the
simplicity and spirit of
the government of the people and at war
with the princi-
ple recognized by all true Democrats. *
* *"52 Only the
original State Rights men supported
Tyler. At a meet-
ing of pro-Tyler men in Columbus,
resolutions were
adopted approving the use of the veto,53
and the Presi-
dent was ardently defended in the
columns of the Ohio
Confederate and Old School
Republican.54
The Ohio Democrats had protested
steadily against
the calling of an extra session of
Congress and had pre-
dicted that its purpose was to allow
the Clay Whigs to
work out their hated bank and tariff
programs, and to
repeal the Independent Treasury which
Democrats re-
garded as a declaration of independence
by the people
against the insidious power of
monopolies. On July 21,
1841, Senator Allen introduced into the
Senate a remon-
51 Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), September, 22, 1841.
52 Ibid., September 15, 1841 (Weekly).
53 Ibid., September 8, 1841 (Weekly).
54 Ibid., November 3, 1841 (Weekly).
58
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
strance from citizens of Belmont County
against the
United States Bank; a protective
tariff; the distribution
of the proceeds from the sale of public
lands; and "all
manner of fiscalities."55 Senator
Tappan attempted to
delay the progress of the Fiscal Bank
Measure by mov-
ing an amendment that no part of the
act should be so
construed as to imply that Congress had
not the power
to "alter, modify, or repeal the
charter."56 His position
was strictly in line with the policy of
the Ohio De-
mocracy, which stood for the right of
the legislative
power to alter, amend or repeal acts of
incorporation,
principles which they finally succeeded
in engrafting in
the Ohio Constitution of 1851.57
Senator Tappan also
opposed the proposed bank on
constitutional grounds,
arguing that the National Government
was one "of
strictly limited and wholly delegated
powers, and that
all powers not delegated to it are
expressly reserved to
the States and the people."58
Democratic county and
district conventions in Ohio condemned
the proposed
measures of the extra session and
praised Tyler for his
vetoes.59 The Democratic
State Convention of January
8, 1842, adopted resolutions
disapproving the repeal of
the Independent Treasury, and
denouncing the distri-
bution of the proceeds from the sale of
public lands
among the States.60 Thus,
Henry Clay's program be-
came the issue in Ohio so far as
national questions were
concerned. The only exception to a
complete acquies-
55 Congressional Globe, 27th Cong., 1st. Sess., v. X, p. 233.
56 bid., 27th Cong., 1st Sess., v. X, p. 197.
57 See Chapter II.
58 Cong. Globe, 27th Cong. 1st Session, v. X, p. 278.
59 Ohio Statesman, December 20, 24, 1842.
60 Ohio
Statesman, January 8, 9, 1842.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 59
cence in Clay's program by all Whigs in
Ohio was the
support given to the President by a few
State Rights
men, notably John G. Miller, in the Ohio
Confederate
and Old School Republican. Miller defended Tyler from
the increasingly vehement attacks of
the Whig press.
In the reorganization of the Cabinet,
in 1841, John
McLean, of Ohio, was offered the post
of Secretary of
War.61 Duff Green, a
Calhounite, urged McLean to
accept the position lest it be offered
to Corwin. Green
explained that it was the purpose of
the President to
build up an entirely new party out of
large portions of
each of the major parties, so that the
next campaign
might be between Clay and Tyler.62
Samuel Stokely, an
Ohio Whig member of Congress, urged
McLean to ac-
cept the offer in order to save the
country in this crisis.63
The Ohio State Journal, however,
regarded the offer of
a secondary post in the Cabinet as an
insult to McLean
and to his State.64 McLean
declined the offer,65 possibly
because certain wishes of his had been
disregarded at
Washington,66 but more
probably because he felt that his
own presidential aspirations would have
been embar-
rassed by entering the Cabinet.
The results of the extra session of Congress
thus
favored the Democratic party in Ohio.
The death of
Harrison and the ensuing struggle
between Tyler and
the Clay Whigs tended to demoralize the
Whig opposi-
tion. The more important items in
Clay's ambitious pro-
61 Tyler to McLean, September 11, 1841.
McLean MSS., v. X.
62 Duff Green to McLean, August 26,
1841. McLean MSS., v. X.
63 Stokely to McLean, September 13,
1841. McLean MSS., v. X.
64 Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), September 22, 1841.
65 McLean to Tyler, September 17, 1841. McLean MSS., v. X.
66 Miller to McLean, August 25, 1841.
McLean MSS., v. X.
60
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
gram were not realized, and Tyler had
approved only of
the Congressional plan for the
distribution of the pro-
ceeds from the sale of the public
lands, a matter which
did not generate much enthusiasm in
Ohio.67 With the
exception of the small State Rights
element, the Whigs
of Ohio also condemned Webster for
remaining in the
Cabinet, arguing that the protest
against Tylerism
should have been unanimous. Ambitions
and improper
motives were ascribed to Webster and he
was warned
that he would lose in Ohio because of
his actions. Even
the Ohio State Journal regarded
Webster's stated rea-
sons for remaining in the Cabinet as
insufficient and
concluded that "In the West, John
Tyler's duplicity and
Arnoldism meet with universal
reprobation. No man
can be associated with him, and escape
the taint of that
scorn and contempt which must forever
blast his
name."68
Although local county conventions took
notice of na-
tional affairs, the fall elections of
1841 were fought out
largely on the regulation of banking
and currency in
Ohio.69 Nevertheless, the
failure of the Whig National
program and the disappointment of
Nationalist Whigs
with the Tyler appointments greatly jeopardized
the or-
ganization of the party in Ohio. To
these disadvantages
must be added the failure of the Whigs
to carry out any
constructive program in Ohio, largely
because the Sen-
ate was controlled by the opposite
party. Bank failures
and the suspension of specie payments
continued, and
the prosperity which Whig orators had promised in
67 Daily Cincinnati Chronicle, June 2, 1841.
68 Ohio State Journal (Semi-Weekly), September 22, 1841.
69 Moses Dawson to Van Buren, September
22, 1841. Van Buren
MSS., v. XLIII.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 61
1840 did not materialize. Finally, a
reaction had set in
against the excessive emotionalism of
1840. The fall
elections of 1841 gave the Democrats
control of both
branches of the State Legislature.70 The Whig Ohio
State Journal attributed the results to "apathy and dis-
content."71 Senator
Allen, a Democrat, declared that
"the sober second thought" of
the people had asserted
itself, and that the election was a
vindication of the Van
Buren administration and a tribute to
the personal popu-
larity of the ex-President among Ohio
Democrats.72
The Whigs lost ground, not only in
Ohio, but all over
the country in 1841. Fifteen states
carried by them, in
1840, swung back into the Democratic
column. The
Democrats explained this political
upheaval as a rebuke
of the orgies of the Hard Cider
Campaign and as a re-
pudiation of the dictatorship of Clay
in the extra session
and saw in the results a mandate to
reform the banks,
to compel specie payments, and to
repeal the act provid-
ing for the distribution of the
proceeds from the sale of
public lands.73
These results, in 1841, naturally
favored the move-
ment to renominate Van Buren.
Immediately after the
election of 1840, the venerable
anti-bank Democrat.
Moses Dawson, of Cincinnati, had
hoisted the Van
Buren flag over the editorial columns
of the Cincinnati
70 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly),
October 20, 1841.
71 Ibid., October 20, 1841.
72 "John Hastings, a Democratic leader, of Salem, saw in it
not only a
vindication of the Democratic position
on the banks, but a tribute to Van
Buren and Van Buren policies. Allen to
Van Buren, October 27, 1841, Van
Buren MSS., v. XLIII; Hastings to Van
Buren, October 23, 1841, Van
Buren MSS., v. XLIII.
73 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII,
pp. 1-4.
62 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Advertiser.74 Two days after the inauguration of Har-
rison, Van Buren, in reply to a pledge
of support from
the Missouri State Legislature, had
written that he
would not attempt to further his cause,
but that he would
not refuse the nomination if offered.75
The left wing of
the Democratic party in Ohio was in
control and it was
apparent, at an early date, that it
favored Van Buren
for 1844.76 The only opposition to the
Van Buren move-
ment came from the conservative wing of
the Demo-
crats, a minority of the party which
espoused the candi-
dacy of Cass.77 The movement
for Van Buren's renom-
ination received an added impetus from
the victory of
the Democrats in the fall of 1841 and
from the passage
of the severe Latham Banking Law.78
The latter pre-
cipitated a bitter fight in the party
in which the radicals
emerged as victors. In the summer of
1842, Van Buren
visited certain Ohio cities on a
western trip.79 At Cin-
cinnati, he made an address to the
Germans. So en-
thusiastic were his receptions, that
Benton rejoiced over
an appreciable quickening of Van Buren
enthusiasm,80
and Medary attributed the Democratic
success in the
fall elections of 1842, at least
partly, to the enthusiasm
engendered by Van Buren's visit.81
74 Ohio State Journal, (Semi-weekly), January 16, 1841.
75 Ibid., (Weekly),
April 7, 1841.
76 Elijah Hayward to Van Buren, Van
Buren MSS., v. XLII; Moses
Dawson to Van Buren, November 15, 18-?-,
Van Buren MSS., v. XLIV.
77 Dawson to Van Buren, February
4, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v.
XLV.
78 See Chapter II.
79 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, June
3, 1842.
80 Benton to Van Buren, June 8, 1842.
Van Buren MSS., v. XLIV.
81 Medary to Van Buren, November 16,
1842. Van Buren MSS.,
v. XLIV.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 63
With the victory82 of
Shannon over Corwin in Ohio,
in 1842, on the banking and currency
issue, the conserva-
tive forces of the Democrats, who
favored a modified
form of the existing banking system,
were encouraged to
believe that Shannon had a large
popular following. But
the strategy of the two elements of the
party was di-
rected toward the control of the
Democratic State Con-
vention of January, 1843, in order to
name and instruct
delegates to the National Convention.
The leaders of
the Cass forces in the State were Rufus
P. Spalding;
Edson B. Olds, who had started the True
Democrat, of
Chillicothe, as a protest against the
radical tendencies of
the Ohio Statesman; Samuel Lahm,
a director of the
German Bank of Wooster; and Wilson
Shannon, who
courted both factions of the party but
was secretly aid-
ing the conservatives in their attempt
to dislodge Med-
ary from his powerful position.83 Shannon,
as leader of
the Cass forces, at the same time was
intriguing with
the Tyler administration which was
angling for the sup-
port of the dissatisfied element of the
Democrats.84 The
Van Buren leaders were fully alive to
the situation. In
the county conventions of 1842 and
1844, they suc-
ceeded for the most part, in the
selection of Van Buren
delegates to the Democratic State
Convention of Janu-
ary 8, 1844. The radicals also
controlled the Jackson
Day celebration in January, 1843, chose
Medary as
chairman, and secured the passage of
resolutions prais-
ing Van Buren, condemning a national
bank, and ap-
proving free trade. Great attention was
paid to the Ger-
82 Shannon won by a majority of 3,443
and the Democrats won both
branches of the Assembly. Ohio
Statesman, March 8, 1842.
83 Stanton
to Tappan, February 8, March 7, 1841. Stanton MSS., v. I;
84 Breese to Van Buren, March 21, 1843.
Van Buren MSS., v. XLVI.
64 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
mans on this occasion, and Charles
Reemelin, a German
leader of Cincinnati, returned the
compliments by offer-
ing a toast to "The Ohio
Statesman--The mighty sledge
hammer of Ohio Democracy; arrayed on
the side of
the people, and by them nobly
sustained."85 The choice
of William Medill, a Van Buren
Democrat, as chair-
man of the Convention, was another
triumph of the
radical wing. The Cass men held that
the Convention
should name only the senatorial
delegates to the Na-
tional Convention, leaving to the
congressional districts
the selection of congressional
representatives to the Bal-
timore Convention. Their plan,
evidently based on the
knowledge that the radicals were in
control, was sup-
ported by Shannon, Manypenny, William
Sawyer, and
Samuel Lahm. "After a fierce contest," the Van
Burenites, led by Dawson, Stanton, and
Medary, suc-
ceeded in getting the Convention to
name congressional
delegates and to instruct them for
their favorite. To
complete the victory of the more
radical Democrats,
Medary, and James J. Faran of
Cincinnati, both Van
Buren supporters, were chosen as
senatorial delegates
in opposition to Shannon. The
conservatives, however,
pledged their support to the
nominations.86 The first
official trial of public sentiment in
the Ohio Democracy
thus ended in favor of Van Buren.
85 Ohio Statesman, January 10, 1843. At a similar celebration pre-
sided over by Moses Dawson, in Cincinnati,
a few days later, Reemelin
offered the sentiment "Tariffs,
Banks of Issue, Public Debts--They are
nothing else than schemes to enable the
few to live at the expense of the
many." Ohio Statesman, January
17, 1843.
86 An excellent description of this
important Convention is contained in
a letter of Stanton to Tappan, Columbus,
Ohio, January 8, 1843. Stanton
MSS., v. I.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 65
But the Cass party in Ohio did not
accept this de-
feat as final. Soon after the State Convention ad-
journed, Cass passed through the State
and was enter-
tained at Cincinnati by a group of bank
Democrats,
chief among whom was David T. Disney.
At this meet-
ing, a semi-popular affair, resolutions
approving the
candidacy of Cass were adopted.87 The
Cincinnati
Daily Enquirer, a Cass organ, had advocated a continu-
ance of the paper money system, and, as
a result, the
Cincinnati Mercury was started
in order to counteract
the "Softism" of the Enquirer.88 Curiously enough, the
Cincinnati Daily Enquirer was
the leading exponent of
the Cass candidacy in Ohio, even though
the Hamilton
County Democrats, with the Democrats of
the frontier
Northwest, were the most radical in the
State on eco-
nomic questions.89 Shannon
endeavored to convert the
leaders of his party to the support of
Cass. It was Ed-
win M. Stanton, a keen young lawyer,
who, misleading
Shannon as to his true political
preferences, discovered
the latter's plans. Apparently the friends of Cass
counted upon the Van Buren and Calhoun
candidacies
exhausting and neutralizing each other,
and for that
reason, were encouraging the rather
negligible Calhoun
forces in Ohio.90 Shannon
was very anxious to get for
Cass the support of Medary, whose power
as a presi-
dent-maker he valued very highly, but
Stanton assured
Van Buren that Medary would remain
loyal.91
87 Dawson to Van Buren, February 4, 1843.
Van Buren MSS., v.
XLV.
88 Dawson to Van Buren, August 2, 1843.
Van Buren MSS., v. XLVII.
89 Parry to Van Buren, June 1, 1843. Van
Buren MSS., v. XLVI.
90 The Whigs busily emphasized
the factional differences between Cal-
houn and the Van Buren forces. Ohio
State Journal, April 24-27, 1843.
91 Stanton to Tappan, February 8, 1843.
Stanton MSS., v. I.
Vol. XXXVIII--5
66
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Although Cass had given the bank men
some en-
couragement to believe that he favored
banks of issue,
he privately assured Medary that he was
a hard money
man, in order to gain support among the
radical Demo-
crats of Ohio. The maneuver failed
completely. Med-
ary continued to use the columns of the
Ohio Statesman
to oppose the Cass forces, and to
attack those Demo-
crats in the Ohio General Assembly who
favored a com-
promise with the banks. As a result, no
man in Ohio
was more cordially hated by the
conservative Demo-
crats. In May, a secret circular,
requesting informa-
tion on the advisability of holding a
State Convention
of the friends of Cass, at Columbus,
was sent to the
chief supporters of the Michigan
candidate. It was ar-
gued in Cass's behalf that Van Buren
could not carry
Ohio, Indiana, or Pennsylvania; that
only Cass could
win these states; and that Cass had a
special advantage
here in being an object of hatred for
the "aristocracy
of England" because he had
prevented the consumma-
tion of the Quintuple Treaty.92
The latter was a pro-
posed treaty between five nations,
including England
and France, whereby each nation was to
allow naval
vessels of the others to search vessels
suspected of car-
rying on the slave-trade. Cass, as
Minister to France,
had defeated French ratification of the
Treaty. All the
plans of the Cass leaders were wrecked,
according to a
Democratic leader of Cleveland, by
"Our Capt. Sam
Madeira," of the Ohio
Statesman, who stood like the
"Rock of Gibraltar" against
the Cass movement.93 Pub-
92 Printed circular dated in
Cincinnati, May 22, 1843. Van Buren
MSS., v. XLVI.
93 Starkweather to Van Buren, May 30,
1843. Van Buren MSS., v.
XLVI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 67
lie meetings continued to be held in
the interest of Cass's
candidacy at Cincinnati and Zanesville.94
At the latter,
Thomas L. Hamer played a leading role,
along with
Manypenny.95 When the Cass forces in Ohio,
although
obtaining a semblance of a compromise
on banking mat-
ters in the General Assembly, were
unable to change the
essential features of the Latham
Law,"96 a measure dear
to the hearts of the radical Democrats,
the conservative
Democratic papers fell upon Medary with
bitter denun-
ciations. But they were unable to shake
his support of
Van Buren or his advocacy of radical
bank policies.97
The Cass movement in Ohio was fully
discredited, by
April, 1843, as a result of the odium
attached to the Cass
forces as the friends of the banks. The
only disaffec-
tion in the ranks of the radical
Democrats occurred
among the Cincinnati Germans, who felt
that the na-
tive-born Democrats had kept too many
offices.98 Any
opposition to Van Buren, on the ground
that he was
unpopular in his own state, was
silenced by the Demo-
cratic success in New York in the April elections, and
by his endorsement by the Democratic
caucus of the
New York Legislature.99 To counteract the activities
of the Cincinnati conservatives, a
large and enthusiastic
94 Weekly Ohio State Journal, November 8, 1843.
95 Medary insinuated that Hamer's
objection to Van Buren arose from
a dispute with Amos Kendall over a mail
contract. Medary to Van Buren,
November 19, 1843, Van Buren MSS., v.
XLVIII.
96 See
Chapter II.
97 Stanton to Tappan, February 8, 1843.
Stanton MSS., v. I. The Cin-
cinnati Daily Enquirer and the
Zanesville Aurora, Cass papers, attacked
Medary as a hard money Democrat. Medary
replied that he had never op-
posed the rechartering of any of the
sound banks but he simply doubted
whether there were any sound ones. Ohio
Statesman, February 3, 1843.
98 Medary to Van Buren, April 27, 1843.
Van Buren MSS., v. XLVI.
99 Medary to Van Buren, April 27, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v. XLVI.
68
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Van Buren mass meeting was held in
Cincinnati, in
July,100 and by the end of
the year the sentiment for Van
Buren among Democrats in the
neighborhood seems to
have become unanimous.
The political situation of the Whigs in
Ohio was
closely bound up with the conduct of
their party on na-
tional affairs. At the end of the extra
session, as has
been shown, the Whig party of Ohio,
with the excep-
tion of the Tylerites led by John G.
Miller, had en-
thusiastically adopted the Clay
program. The result
was a steady growth in the demand for
the nomination
of Clay as the standard-bearer in 1844.
Whig county
conventions, evidently in the hands of
the Nationalists,
advocated Clay's American system and
internal im-
provements.101
The session of Congress, in December,
1841, brought
about a renewal of the quarrel between
the Whigs and
Tyler, whom the party by this time had
cast out of its
councils. In his annual message, the
President appealed
for a conciliatory attitude on the
matter of the tariff
and added that "So long as the
duties shall be laid with
distinct reference to the wants of the
Treasury, no well-
founded objection can exist against
them."102 In an
effort to solve the mooted question of
the bank, Tyler
submitted a plan for a government
fiscal agent, provid-
ing for a board of control at
Washington with agencies
at prominent commercial points to keep
and disburse
the public money. It provided for the
issue of treasury
notes, instead of gold and silver, and
authorized the re-
100 Dawson to Van Buren, July 28, 1843. Van Buren MSS., v.
XLVI.
101 Ohio State Journal, February 22, 23, 1842 and July 20, 1843.
102 Richardson, Messages, v. IV, p. 82.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 69
ceipt of individual deposits of gold
and silver to a lim-
ited amount, and the granting of
certificates of deposit.
Under certain limitations the fiscal
agent was allowed
to buy and sell bills and drafts with
the consent of the
states in which the branch banks
operated.103 The Whig
press of Ohio condemned Tyler's
proposals unsparingly,
and professed to see in them only
another Independent
Treasury which would be a powerful and
"plastic" en-
gine wielded for political purposes.104
After weeks of un-
seemly wrangling, the Whig Tariff Law
of 1842 was
passed with the aid of four Democratic
votes and signed
by the President. The Law raised the
duties above the
twenty per cent rate and put an end to
the distribution
of the proceeds from the sale of public
lands.105 No
action was taken on the President's
proposal for a fiscal
agent.
The endorsement of Clay by the Ohio
Whigs, after
the quarrel in Congress, was made
easier by the Whig
discontent with Tyler's distribution of
Federal appoint-
ments. The federal patronage of Ohio
was being dis-
pensed according to the recommendations
of John G.
Miller, postmaster of Columbus, who had
been ap-
pointed over the protest of the old
line Whigs.106 Dur-
ing July, August, and September, 1842,
Whig county
conventions adopted resolutions
endorsing Clay for
president and John Davis, of
Massachusetts, for vice
president, and declaring in favor of a
high protective
tariff. They also condemned the effort
of the Demo-
103 Richardson,
Messages, v. IV, p. 85.
104 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly),
December 22, 1841.
105 McMaster, op. cit, v. VII,
pp. 63-64.
106 Kelley to Follett, Columbus, Ohio,
March 17, 1841, in "Selections
from the Follett Papers, IV," in Loc.
cit., 1916, v. XI, no 1, p. 25.
70 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
cratic General Assembly, in the session
of 1842, to pass
a law gerrymandering the State for
congressional rep-
resentation.107 The Ohio
State Journal declared that
the Whigs wished to restore a sound and
uniform cur-
rency for the whole Union, to provide
for an effective
and permanent protection of home labour
against for-
eign competition, and to distribute the
proceeds from
the sale of public lands among the
states,108--the pro-
gram of Henry Clay.
In 1841, Winfield Scott fished for the
Whig nomi-
nation, by the publication of a
circular announcing that
he had never been a Federalist, a
"Jacobin" or an "ab-
stractionist"; that he had great
reverence for the Su-
preme Court; and that he favored a
constitutional
amendment to allow a majority vote of
Congress to
override the president's veto.109 The
sudden publication
of this campaign manifesto elicited the
comment from
the Ohio State Journal that the
statements were "pretty
substantially Whig," although that
organ refused to
express an opinion on their expediency.110
Another con-
tender was Webster. The leaders of the
party in Ohio,
as well as the masses of the voters,
seem to have re-
ceived Webster's candidacy in 1844 very
coldly. Web-
ster had continued in Tyler's Cabinet
until it became
evident that even the Whigs of
Massachusetts were
turning to Clay. Moreover, he had
defended Tyler and
had vouched for his Whiggery so
vigorously that some
questioned the genuineness of Webster's
own Whig-
107 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May
25, October 5, 1842.
108 Ibid., October 26, 1842.
109 Manuscript copy in Ewing MSS., v. VI.
110 Ohio State Journal, (Weekly),
November 17, 1841.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 71
gery.111 When Webster finally resigned
from the Cab-
ine, his friends made overtures to
Ewing and Clay to
place Webster in nomination for the
vice presidency.
Ewing, however, doubted Webster's
availability and de-
manded that he give public evidence of
a higher regard
for Clay. Ewing pointed out that the
people consid-
ered Webster not only an intemperate
but a grossly im-
moral man, and argued that the Germans
and Irish
would not support him because they felt
that all Boston
was concerned in the burning of a
convent at Charles-
ton.112 This incident
occurred as the result of Nativist
agitation against foreigners, and in
Ohio it was gen-
erally felt that the Whigs of the East
were allied with
the Nativists.
The force of the anti-slavery objection
to Clay was
broken by the argument that Clay really
was working
for gradual emancipation. Therefore,
men like Gid-
dings found it very easy to join the
supporters of Clay.
The Whigs argued that Clay's tariff
program would
inure to the benefit of the masses,
and, during January,
1842, "Home Leagues" were
formed all over the State
to create public opinion in favor of
economic self-suffi-
ciency.113 Tyler's veto of
the first Whig tariff measure,
in 1842, met with a storm of denunciation
in Ohio, the
Ohio State Journal declaring the President to be "nearer
the model of an imbecile, vicious and
capricious public
ruler than any other man who has ever
occupied his sta-
tion in modern times, in this or any
other country."114
The success of the Whigs in finally
passing a tariff
111 McMaster, op. cit., vol. V, pp. 284-285.
112 Ewing to Clay, November 1, 1843,
Clay MSS., v. XXIII.
113 Weekly Ohio State Journal, January
19, 1842.
114 Ibid., July 6, 1842.
72 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
measure in the same session was
attributed to Clay, and
the partial recovery in 1842 from a
financial depression,
which had existed since 1837, was
hailed by Whig ora-
tors and editors as a direct result of
the Tariff of 1842.115
A loud demand went up for more
protection, and when
the next session of Congress ended
without an increase
in the tariff rates the Belmont Chronicle
asked "Shall
English policy and English rule still
bear us down?
What means that rejoicing that is heard
in Old Eng-
land, on the triumph of Toryism in
America? What,
but that the interests of the locofoco
tories of America
and those of their kindred in England
are in unison."116
The Northwest seemed to be in the crest
of a wave of
Nationalism, and the Whig press
endeavored to take
advantage of this spirit by identifying
protectionism
with patriotism.117 In an
appeal for a higher tariff, a
Whig editor declared that "The man
who does not feel
that he is under strong obligations to
promote the in-
terests of his fellow-citizens above
that of all other
people, is a heartless cosmopolite,
unworthy the protec-
tion of any government whatever,"118
The Whigs re-
vealed a great sympathy for the factory
workers, in
danger of being reduced to the level of
English pauper
labour if the "horrible
anti-protective doctrine" should
prevail.119 The flow of
specie to the United States, in
1843-1844, also was ascribed to the
workings of the
Tariff of 1842, and the Ohio State
Journal declared that
if the voices of Senators Tappan and
Allen, Ohio's
115 Weekly Ohio State Journal, November
16, 1842.
116 Belmont Chronicle, March 10, 1843.
117 Weekly Ohio State Journal, July 5, 1843.
118 Ibid., August 2, 1843.
119 Ibid., May 31, 1843.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 73
Democratic Senators, had prevailed, the
United States
would have been left where it was
"with horizontal du-
ties, prostrated industry, and a
perpetual efflux instead
of an influx of the precious
metals."120 A recent
rise in
the price of Ohio state stocks from 68
1/2 to 86 1/2 was
also ascribed by partisan Whigs to the
Tariff of 1842.121
The Democrats, of course, explained the
same revival
of prosperity by the forced resumption
of specie pay-
ments by the Ohio banks.122 So completely had Ohio
Whiggery been won over to Clay and his
"American
System," that Webster's public
recommendation of a
change in the tariff to conform to
treaty proposals was
denounced as "pernicious and
injurious," the Ohio State
Journal declaring that the purpose of the speech was
to increase the claims of "some
one" to the presidency
in opposition to Clay.123
By July, 1842, Clay sentiment, even on
the Western
Reserve, which was becoming
anti-slavery, was over-
whelming,124 and the Whig organ of the State believed
that Clay's nomination was practically
settled.125 "Clay
Clubs" were formed all over the
State in an attempt to
repeat the tactics of the campaign of
1840.126 During
the State campaign of 1842, ex-Governor
Morehead, of
Kentucky, and Henry Clay entered Ohio
to speak in
behalf of Corwin's candidacy for
governor. Both
stressed the importance of the Tariff.127
In September,
120 Weekly Ohio State Journal, March
8, 1843.
121 Weekly Ohio
State Journal, May 24, 1843.
122 See Chapter II.
123 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 31, 1843.
124 Ibid., August
4, 1842.
125 Weekly Ohio State Journal, July 27, 1842.
126 Weekly
Ohio State Journal, August 4, 1842;
May 11, 1842.
127 Weekly Ohio State Journal, September 21, October 5, 1842.
74 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
a gathering of 100,000 people, at
Dayton, was ad-
dressed by Corwin, and Clay, J. . J.
Crittenden, and
Leslie Combs, of Kentucky. The
enthusiasm and the
size of the gathering rivaled the
campaign of 1840.128
At Lebanon, the home of Corwin,
resolutions favoring
a protective tariff, a national bank,
the distribution of
the proceeds from the sale of the
public lands among
the States, and a single presidential
term were adopted.
Tyler's vetoes were condemned on the
ground that the
constitutionality of such questions had
long ago been
settled by the Supreme Court.129 The
Whig Young
Men's State Convention, held at Newark,
in August, to
respond to the nomination of Corwin,
named Clay and
Davis for the National ticket.130
In the meantime, the Clay movement had
developed
rapidly outside the State. Pennsylvania Whigs, in a
meeting at Harrisburg, in February,
1843, adopted res-
olutions favoring the nomination of
Clay and recom-
mending a Whig National Convention at
Baltimore, on
May 3, 1844. In the same month Virginia
Whigs took
similar action.131 Professor
A. C. Cole, in his study of
The Whig Party in the South, has shown that most of
the southern Whigs had come to support
the Clay pro-
gram in Congress, often contrary to
their earlier
views.132 Accordingly, southern Whigs
joined in the
nation-wide movement for the nomination
of Clay, in
1844.
There were a few proposals to
substitute McLean
128 Weekly Ohio State Journal, October
5, 1842.
129 Weekly Ohio State Journal, June
29, 1842.
130 Weekly Ohio State Journal, August
31, 1842.
131 Ibid., March 8, 1843.
132
Cole, A. C., The Whig Party in the
South, pp. 64-104.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 75
for Clay as the Whig nominee. McLean's
refusal to
become a member of the Cabinet was
actuated partly
by his appreciation of the unpopularity
which such a
course would bring him in Ohio, among
the Whigs.
McLean also felt that membership in the
Cabinet might
destroy his availability for the Whigs.
He explained
his refusal to join the Cabinet on the
ground of Tyler's
fear of a "competitor," but
when it was rumored, in
1842, that he would be offered the post
of secretary of
the treasury, his friends urged him to
accept because
Tyler would do anything to aid a man
who, from his
location, had a chance to
"head" Clay.133 But McLean
guarded his presidential aspirations
carefully, even re-
fusing to press upon the Administration
the claims for
appointment of his friends.134 In
November, certain
Ohio Whig members of Congress--S.
Stokely, Joshua
R. Giddings, Benjamin F. Cowen, Patrick
G. Goode and
Calvary Morris--started a movement to
swing the nom-
ination to McLean.135 Morris
wrote that there was a
strong movement among Whig leaders of
Northern
Ohio for McLean, since Clay could
command only the
support of the National Republicans,136
and Morris
wanted the support of State Rights
Whigs who favored
cooperation with the Administration as
well. In May,
1842, he published a letter condemning
the factional
bickerings in Congress and calling upon
Whig members
to work in harmony with the President.
His action was
hailed with delight by the Ohio
Confederate and Old
133
S. Stokely to McLean, July 4, 1842. McLean
MSS., v. XI.
134 H. H. Leavitt to McLean,
March 9, 1842. McLean MSS., v. X.
135 Thomas Sewall to McLean, November
25, 1842. McLean MSS., v.
XI.
136 Morris to McLean, December 19, 1842.
McLean MSS., v. XI.
76 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
School Republican, a State Rights paper, and by the
Steubenville Herald which had
recently received some
contracts for federal printing. The Ohio
State Journal,
on the other hand, condemned the
publication of the
letter.137 Joshua R.
Giddings, an ardent anti-slavery
man and pro-northern apologist, but
still a strict party
man who resisted the efforts of the
Liberty party to
obtain his support, still felt that the
anti-slavery move-
ment would be more effective if it took
place within the
ranks of the Whig party.138 Giddings,
boring from
within, had supported Harrison in 1840,
and now stood
ready to support McLean, a northerner
and non-slave-
holder, rather than Clay, a southerner
and a slaveholder.
The McLean candidacy, however, never
attained real
strength, although it was discussed, as
late as April,
1843, by men who believed that he could
secure the sup-
port of the followers of Tyler and
Calhoun, as well as
that of the National Republicans.
Clay's followers pro-
posed that McLean be given the vice
presidency with the
assurance that he would be supported
for president in
1848,139 but McLean, who seemed to have
a perfect
genius for procrastination, ignored the
suggestion. It
was soon apparent to the friends of
McLean and Web-
ster, in Washington, that neither of
them had a chance
to dispute the leadership of the party
with Clay.140
Into the midst of the party struggles
over such issues
137 Letter of Morris and the comments of
Ohio Confederate and Old
School Republican and Steubenville Herald in Weekly Ohio State
Journal,
June 22, 1842; Weekly Ohio State
Journal, July 6, 1842.
138
Western Reserve Chronicle, quoted in Weekly Ohio State Journal,
October 5, 1842.
139 Leslie Combs to McLean, October 14,
1843. McLean MSS., v. XI.
140 Whittlesey
to McLean, October 6, 1843. McLean MSS., v. XI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 77
as the tariff, national bank, and the
distribution of the
proceeds from the sale of public lands,
was hurled the
slavery question. It threatened to set
the calculations
of the politicians at naught and to
derange all plans for
what promised, in 1843, to be an
orthodox political cam-
paign for the following year. The
annexation of Texas
precipitated the issue, although there
had been earlier
evidence of the diverging interests of
the North and
South. The Free States had manifested
an increasing
sensitiveness over the reception of
abolition petitions in
Congress and, as has been pointed out,
the agitation of
this question had led to the formation
of a third party,
in 1840, with Birney as its candidate.
In Ohio, the Lib-
erty party was inconsequential in 1840,
because most
anti-slavery men still found it
possible to vote for Har-
rison. But the annexation of Texas
raised the issue in
a new and more violent form. Texas was
a slave State
which might be divided into two or
three other states,
thus threatening the political
supremacy of the Free
States and furthering the domination of
the Govern-
ment by the "Slave Power."
In 1837, Texan independence had been
officially rec-
ognized by the government of the United
States,141 and
a Charge d'Affaires had been sent to
the Republic of
Texas. Jackson, however, had refused
formally to en-
tertain a Texan proposal for
annexation, probably be-
cause he feared its effect on the
election of Van
Buren.142 Very little
interest was aroused until 1842,
when new Texan difficulties with Mexico
aroused public
feeling in the West and South.143 In
the Congressional
141
McMaster, op. cit., v. VI, p. 379.
142
Garrison, op. cit., p. 91.
143 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII,
pp. 306-307.
78 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Session of 1842-1843, John Quincy Adams
attacked the
Government for what he termed
violations of its neu-
trality, and the invasion of Mexico by
a United States
naval officer.144 At the end of the
session a protest
against the American policy toward
Texas was signed
by Adams and a dozen other congressmen
and published
in the National Intelligencer. The
address described a
slaveholders' conspiracy to secure the
annexation of
Texas by fair means or foul.145 Although
Tyler had
always been an ardent annexationist,
conditions had pre-
vented him from carrying out his aims,146
and the Texan
proposals for annexation met with no
encouragement
from the American Government until the
summer of
1843. At that time the United States
became alarmed
by the trend of British and French
negotiations with
Texas and the fear of foreign
intervention was in-
creased by the report, probably
attributable to Duff
Green, that England was making efforts,
by means of a
loan, to secure compensated
emancipation in Texas. A
treaty of annexation was drawn up but
was defeated in
the United States Senate on June 8,
1844.147
The Liberty party naturally opposed the
annexation
of Texas on anti-slavery grounds.
Launched in the
frenzied Log Cabin Campaign, this minor
party had
been able to make little headway in
Ohio. Many ardent
anti-slavery men in 1840 voted for
Harrison, whom they
felt to be a "good enough
anti-slavery man." In 1841,
144 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII,
p. 311.
145 Ibid., v. VII, pp. 311-312. See
C. S. Boucher "In Re that Aggressive
Slavocracy," in The Mississippi
Valley Historical Review, v. VIII, pp.
13-80, for a complete refutation of this
charge.
146 Reeves, Jesse, American Diplomacy
under Tyler and Polk, pp.
114-122.
147 Garrison,
op. cit., pp. 109-122.
Party Politics in, Ohio,
1840-1850 79
the Liberty party enjoyed a brief
revival due to the con-
fusion in Whig ranks over the
Clay-Tyler Wrangle.148
In January, 1841, the Ohio Liberty men
definitely de-
cided to abandon the policy of
questioning candidates of
other parties and resolved upon
independent political
action in all cases where neither of
the candidates of the
old parties was satisfactory.149
The key-note of the Lib-
erty party address of 1841, written by
Salmon P. Chase,
was the statement that "The honor,
the welfare, the
safety of our country imperiously
require the absolute
and unqualified divorce of the
government from slav-
ery."150 The party nominated Leicester King, a
member
of the State Judiciary and for two
terms a State Sena-
tor, for governor in 1842.151
148 There was a distinct tendency
among certain of the liberty leaders
to favor the interests of labor. In
advising Chase on an address to the
Liberty Party, Samuel Lewis wrote:
"I think you should dwell on the im-
portance of protecting the labor of free
men so as to increase the privileges
and influence of the free laborers. The
various improvements for manu-
facturing, etc., promises a still further
reduction of the demand for manual
labor. Shall these improvements operate
to ameliorate the condition of the
laborer by reducing the quantity of
labor required and augmenting the
compensation? or shall it go on as, at
present, merely adding wealth to
the capitalist and affording no possible
aid to the poor man? of what serv-
ice is the facilities of canals,
railroads, etc.? or the improvements, miscalled
labor-saving machines, to the great body
of laborers, so long as they are
required to work the same number of
hours and at no increased compensa-
tion?" (Lewis to Chase, December
23, 1841, Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.)
However, the plea of such men as Lewis
failed to induce the Liberty Party
to take strong ground in favor of the
interests of the laboring classes.
This was possibly due to the desire of
the party to recruit its membership
from the conservative Whigs of the
Western Reserve who would listen to
complaints about the dominance of the
South, but who did not seem to be
particularly interested in the welfare
of the laboring man at home.
149 T.C. Smith, op. cit., pp.
50-51.
150
A. B. Hart, Salmon P. Chase, pp. 91-92.
151 In August, J. W. Piatt, a radical
Democrat, of Cincinnati, addressed
the following questions to King: first,
"By styling yourself the Liberty
Party, do you propose to place all men,
negroes included, upon an equality
80 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
King, Morris and other Liberty party
leaders con-
ducted intensive campaigns in 1842 and
1843 and suc-
ceeded in raising the Liberty vote in
Ohio from 2,000,
in 1841, to 6,550, in 1843. The slow
growth of the Lib-
erty party was probably due to the
feeling that the na-
tional political situation did not
warrant a break with
the older parties. Nevertheless, the
party gained such
notable adherents as Salmon P. Chase,
Samuel Lewis,
the first State superintendent of
schools, and Edward
Wade.152
The organization of the Liberty party
was accom-
plished in the face of bitter
opposition from the Whigs,
who correctly concluded that it would
take more voters
from their ranks than from the
Democrats. Many
strong anti-slavery men among the
Whigs, like Gid-
dings, strongly condemned the third
party movement
on the ground that it weakened the only
party which
could be expected to resist the demands
of the slave
as to political, civil (and) social
rights?"; second, "are you in favor of the
emigration of negroes to (and)
settlement in this State?"; third, "Are you
disposed to extend common school
privileges to the negro population of this
State?"; fourth, "Are you in
favor of the immediate emancipation of the
negroes of the South?"; fifth,
"would you return a runaway negro to his
master who had escaped to this
State?" On the same day, King answered
that he was in favor of securing to
every person, without distinction as to
color, all political, civil and social
rights guaranteed to him by the Con-
stitution; that he would prefer an
exclusively white population in the State,
but that he would not take steps to
prevent the emigration of negroes; that
the negroes of the State had a right to
a fair proportion of the school funds;
that the question of emancipation in the
southern States was a matter for
them to decide; and that he would never
lend his personal aid in returning
a slave to bondage. (Questions and
answers in Chase MSS., v. VII, Pa.)
The type of appeal represented in the
Piatt questions was particularly
effective in the southern portion of the
State where the people came to
have a first-hand experience with the
escaped negroes.
152 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 59-61.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 81
power.153 Other Whigs
thoroughly detested the Liberty
party movement because it endangered
their control of
the State. After 1841, the condemnation
of the Whig
press became increasingly bitter. In
the campaign of
1842, the Ohio State Journal declared
that Medary of
the Statesman, and King, the
Liberty candidate for gov-
ernor, were "sworn allies in a
desperate effort to de-
feat Governor Corwin's reelection, and to
preserve the
means in the General Assembly to return
'Petticoat' Al-
len to the Senate, and to gerrymander
the State so as to
send a majority to Congress, who, when
there, will sup-
port John C. Calhoun's free trade
doctrines, and vote
for the admission of Texas into the
Union."154 This
extract describes fairly accurately the
Whig position
toward the Liberty party throughout the
history of that
organization. However, no appreciable
element of the
Whigs joined the third party movement
until 1848, when
153 Giddings' position was immeasurably
strengthened by his connection
with the Creole affair. In
October, 1841, the Creole, carrying five pas-
sengers and one hundred and thirty-eight
slaves, en route from Hampton
Roads to New Orleans, was seized by the
negroes, and the crew was forced
to take the ship into Nassau, where the
British authorities held nineteen
negroes for murder and set the others
free. The pro-slavery interests re-
garded the proceedings as an attack on
slavery and Webster demanded the
return of the negroes. At this juncture
Giddings offered a set of resolutions
to the effect that slavery was a state
institution and that when the Creole
went beyond the waters of Virginia the
persons on board ceased to be
bound by the laws of Virginia and could
therefore resume their natural
rights. Resolutions censuring Giddings
were presented by John B. Weller,
of Ohio. Giddings resigned and was at
once re-elected to Congress. The
Geauga Freeman explained that the
movement to re-elect him was not an en-
dorsement of his anti-slavery views, but
that it was a defense of the right
of free speech, and that Giddings'
district was not anti-slavery, but Whig.
It was as a Whig that Giddings
had been elected to Congress. Giddings
to Chase, January 4, 1842. Chase MSS.,
v. V, Pa.; Weekly Ohio State
Journal, April 13, 1842; McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp.
54-55; Geauga Free-
man, quoted in Weekly Ohio State Journal, April 20,
1842.
154 Weekly Ohio State Journal, September 28, 1842.
Vol. XXXVIII--6
82 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
Taylor's nomination drew many into the
Free Soil
ranks. The Democrats, on the other
hand, were inclined
to speak courteously of the new
movement, until 1848,
when it threatened their own success.
Rumors that Tyler planned to annex
Texas aroused
instant opposition from the Whigs of
Ohio, for annexa-
tion endangered the political supremacy
of the free
states by adding a vast slaveholding
area. There were
suggestions that the annexation might
mean the disso-
lution of the Union by the North.155
Although profess-
ing sympathy for the Texans in their
movement for in-
dependence, the Ohio State Journal declared
"We do not
want Texas, nor do we want to extend
the Union in any
direction. The ultimate admission of
the States of Flor-
ida, Iowa, and Wisconsin, is looked for
as a matter of
course, but when they have taken their
rank, it will be
time to shut down the gate. The Union
is sufficiently
extended and cumbrous without
purchasing or accepting
any more territory."156 In
September, 1842, the same
organ characterized the annexation of
Texas as a "dar-
ling object" of the southern
Democrats, supported by a
subservient northern Democracy.157
The opposition of
the Whigs of Ohio to the annexation of
Texas was con-
siderably strengthened by the attitude
of some southern
Whigs, who were beginning to see the
necessity of meet-
ing the northern branch of the party
half-way on the
Texas question. The Whig press of Ohio
noted, with
approval, an editorial of the Richmond Whig
to the
effect that it hoped that the
"extravagant scheme" for
155
Weekly Ohio State Journal, November 9, 1842.
156 Weekly Ohio State Journal, March
16, 1842.
157 Weekly Ohio State Journal, September
14, 1842.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 83
the annexation of Texas would be
frowned upon by the
people because it would endanger the
peace and even the
very existence of the Union.158 Three
months later, the
Richmond Whig was firmly
convinced of the necessity
of opposing the annexation of Texas on
the plea of
safety for the Union.159 If
those who sympathized with
the Liberty movement could be made to
believe that Clay
was honestly opposed to the existence
of slavery and to
the annexation of Texas, the position
of the Ohio Whigs
would be greatly strengthened.
Realizing this situation,
the Whigs neglected no opportunities to
emphasize
Clay's interest in gradual
emancipation.160
The position of the Ohio Democrats on
Texas an-
nexation was not so clearly defined.
The left wing of
the party in the southern portion of
the State, where
the southern stock was large, was
inclined to favor an-
nexation, although efforts to stimulate
sentiment for
Texas were rather coolly received.161
There was no
formidable opposition to the project in
the party. The
efforts of the party press were, for a
time, devoted to
minimizing its importance.162
On the other hand, there was
undoubtedly a genuine
158 Richmond
Whig, quoted in Weekly Ohio State Journal, March 8,
1843.
159 Weekly Ohio State Journal, June 14, 1843.
160 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May 24, 1843; Cincinnati Daily Ga-
zette quoted in Weekly Ohio State
Journal, November 15, 1843.
161 David Quinn to Van Buren, April 9,
1844. Van Buren MSS., v.
XLIX.
162 The position of Ohio Democrats on
the annexation of Texas was
probably well expressed by William
Parry, of Cincinnati, who wrote Allen
that the people of Ohio were in favor of
the annexation of Texas if it were
not made the means of thwarting
Democratic policies on the tariff, internal
improvements, and the Independent
Treasury. Parry to Allen, May 16, 1844,
Allen MSS., v. IV.
84
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
sentiment to expand the frontier in
another direction
before the election of 1844. A great
stream of immi-
grants was pouring into Oregon to found
homes and to
claim that disputed region for the
United States. From
all over Ohio, men and women gathered
in companies to
join the overland migrations at
Independence or St. Jo-
seph, Missouri. Both Democrats and
Whigs in Ohio
demanded the termination of the joint
occupation agree-
ment with Great Britain and the
assertion of American
claims to Oregon to the Russian line.
The Ohio States-
man declared that "To give up such a territory as
this
to the British would be madness. It
belongs to the United
States by the right of discovery * * *
if by no
other title. But who has for a moment
doubted our
right to this Territory? * * * A sort
of passive
and crouching spirit to British
dominion has lately
sprung up in our midst, totally at war
with our former
high character."163 The
simultaneous expansionist
movements into Texas and Oregon gave
the Democrats
an opportunity shrewdly to combine the
two and to play
upon the nationalistic and
imperialistic spirit of the
West. They declared it was the duty of
the American
Government to insure the benefits of a
democratic
regime to the whole Northwest and
probably even to
Canada. Since Texas had been settled by
Americans
and was contiguous territory, it was
manifestly destined
that it should fall into the American
Union also. This
strategy of the Democrats was destined
to be extremely
effective.
A summary of political conditions in
Ohio thus re-
veals, on the one hand, the dominance
of the radical
163 Ohio
Statesman, February 8, 1843.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850
anti-bank Democrats, determined to
nominate Van
Buren,164 and on the other,
general acceptance among
the Whigs of the nomination of Clay. In
1842, Shan-
non defeated Corwin on the currency
issue, and the
Democrats obtained control of both
houses of the Gen-
eral Assembly, and Allen, whose term
expired in 1843,
was reelected to the United States
Senate over Thomas
Ewing, his Whig opponent, by a vote of
63-44.165 In
1843, the Democrats retained control of
the Senate by
a majority of four, but lost control of
the House by a
margin of six votes.166 In
the same year, Congressional
elections were held under the State
Apportionment Law
passed at the end of the 1842-1843
session in accordance
with the Federal Apportionment Law
which made single-
member districts mandatory. The
Democrats won
twelve and the Whigs nine seats in the
1843-1844 ses-
sion of Congress. Among the more
prominent mem-
bers were Alexander Duncan, a Democrat
of Hamilton
County; John B. Weller, Democratic
candidate for gov-
ernor in 1848; Joseph Vance, an old
Whig and a for-
mer governor of the State; Jacob
Brinkerhoff, a radical
German Democrat, and reputed author of
the Wilmot
Proviso; and Joshua R. Giddings, Whig,
the implacable
foe of the "Slave Power" but
a powerful opponent of
the Liberty party.167
The sectional issue raised by the
agitation of the
Texas question had a determining
influence on the
course of both major parties. In 1843
and 1844, Clay
164 Parry to Allen, May 16, 1844.
Allen MSS., v. IV.
165 The Globe
attributed Allen's reelection to his anti-bank attitude. Mc-
Grane, William Allen, p. 91.
166 Weekly Ohio State Journal, October 18, 1843.
167 bid., October 18, 1843.
86 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
made a political tour of the country,
proceeding through
Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, and
North Carolina.
From these contacts with the voters, he
probably learned
that the Whig party of the North was
strongly opposed
to the annexation of Texas; and that
southern Whigs
could be brought to accept the position
that Texas should
not be annexed, because it would lead
to a war with
Mexico and endanger the existence of
the Union. Con-
servative Whigs of the South believed
that a large ad-
dition of territory would not be to the
best interests of
their class. Accordingly, in April,
1844, Clay explained
his opposition to the annexation of
Texas in his famous
Raleigh letter, published in Whig and
Democratic pa-
pers all over the country.168 Clay
wanted to unite the
Whig party. Possibly by an agreement
with Clay and
much to the dismay of his supporters
all over the coun-
try, Van Buren published a similar
letter on the same
day, also opposing the annexation of
Texas.169 In Ohio,
168 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May
1, 1844. In this famous letter,
Clay explained that he had not given his
views before because of the strong
improbability that such a question would
be brought before the people, but
now that the treaty of annexation was
before the country he was ready
to give his opinions. He declared that
"If, without the loss of national
character, without the hazard of foreign
war, with the general concurrence
of the Nation, without any danger to the
integrity of the Union, and with-
out giving unreasonable price for Texas,
the question of annexation were
presented it would appear in quite a
different light" from that in which it
was then regarded. Clay then stated that
he did not think Texas ought to
be admitted to the Union against
"the wishes of a considerable and re-
spectable portion of the
Confederacy." There was no need, he said, for
further territory, and the argument that
territory should be added to the
Union to strengthen one portion of the
country against another was dan-
gerous in the extreme.
169 Garrison, op. cit., p. 124.
Garrison suggests that Van Buren and
Clay held a conference over the matter
and that they decided on the move
in order to damage the Tyler movement
and keep the matter out of the
canvass.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 87
the effect of these letters was to
secure for Clay the
support of those Whigs who were about
to join the
Liberty party, and to place a powerful
weapon in the
hands of Joshua R. Giddings, who set
out to destroy
the Liberty party of the Western
Reserve. Van Buren's
pronouncement did not effect, to any
great extent, his
support in Ohio, although some Ohio
Democrats, who
understood its disastrous effects on
his chances in the
South, urged a modification of his
position.170
With rosy prospects of success, the
Whig National
Convention, in May, 1844, ratified the
choice of the
people by naming Clay as the
standard-bearer of the
party. Ohio supported John Davis for
the vice presi-
dency but the Convention named Theodore
Freling-
huysen of New Jersey. For the first
time in the history
of the party, it adopted a platform.
This pledged the
party to "a well regulated
National Currency"; to a
tariff for revenue which should
discriminate in favor of
the domestic labor of the country; to a
single term for
the president; and to a reform of
executive usurpa-
tion.171
In order to succeed in Ohio, the Whigs
had to pre-
vent the growth of the Liberty party,
under the guiding
hands of Bailey, Chase, and John Duffy.
The latter
conducted the Freeman, a
struggling newspaper in the
interests of the new party, at the
Capital.172 Bailey ob-
tained a large subscription for the Philanthropist,
and
accessions to the Liberty ranks
increased in 1843.
Thomas Ewing found the Liberty party
"increasingly
170 Dawson to Van Buren, May 16, 1844.
Van Buren MSS., v. L.
171 Weekly Ohio State Journal, May
8, 1844.
172 Duffy to
Chase, January 29, 1842. Chase MSS., v. VI.
88 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
troublesome," and advised that the
only way to defeat
these "fanatics" was to
divide them into "moral" and
"political" abolitionists.173
Follett denounced them as
"a gang of mercenary, corrupt
scamps, whose only ob-
ject is office," and thought that
the best way to combat
them was to accept a part of their
creed as good Whig
doctrine in order to win over the rank
and file.174 It
was this strategy which prompted the Whigs
of the
Western Reserve to name Giddings for
Congress, in
1843. As James A. Briggs, editor of the
Cleveland
Herald explained, the nomination of Giddings would
give the Whigs the abolition vote of
the district, without
sacrifice, because Giddings was a Clay
Whig.175 The
Ohio State Journal also appealed for support for Joseph
Ridgway, Whig candidate for Congress in
the Tenth
Congressional District (Franklin, Knox,
and Licking)
on the ground that the Whig party was
the anti-slavery
party of the Nation. Since the Liberty
party intended
to oppose the southern slave power, why
not, asked the
Journal, unite with the party which was pledged to op-
pose it?176
The National Liberty Convention at
Buffalo, in
1843, was dominated by such Ohio leaders
as Leicester
King, who became its chairman; Samuel
Lewis, vice
president; and Salmon P. Chase, who
drew up the reso-
lutions. After declaring their
hostility to the further
extension of slavery, the Convention
named Birney and
173 Ewing to Clay, November 1, 1843.
Clay MSS., v. XXIII.
174 V.W. Smith to Follett, July 22, 1843
in "Selections from the Follett
Papers, III," in loc. cit., 1915,
v. X, no. 1.
175 James A. Briggs to Follett, July 25,
1843, quoted in "Selections from
the Follett Papers, III," in loc.
cit., 1915, v. X, no. 1, p. 9.
176 Weekly Ohio State Journal, July 19, 1843.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 89
Morris for president and vice
president, respectively.
Since the Texas question had not yet
formally been
placed before Congress, it was not
mentioned by the
platform.177
Ohio Democrats were not displeased by
Van Buren's
position on Texas, but they feared its
effect on the
southern wing of the party. The Ohio
delegates, led
by Medary, entered the Baltimore
Convention deter-
mined to secure the nomination of Van
Buren.178. They
would have accomplished this result but
for the two-
thirds rule, whereby the southern
delegates were able to
defeat the Democracy of the North and
to secure a
southern expansionist of the Jacksonian
school for can-
didate. Only the superhuman efforts of
Medary pre-
vented the Ohio delegation from
deserting Van Buren
for Cass when it became evident that
the former could
not be nominated. The Ohioans finally
threw their
strength to Silas Wright, since he held
the same views
as Van Buren; but Wright refused the
offer of a nomi-
nation which he probably at no time had
a chance to
obtain. As Van Buren's strength began
to decline in the
Convention, Medary informed Benjamin F.
Butler, Van
Buren's lieutenant at Baltimore, that
extreme measures
177 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 69-70.
178
The fiery H. C. Whitman wrote that the
Ohio delegation was deteer-
mined that a majority should rule the
Convention and that if a faction should
choose to secede because of that
determination "let them do it and be
damned." Whitman had a great deal
of faith in the power and political
sagacity of his mentor, Senator Alien,
who he wished were there "to
rebuke the damned traitors, as they
deserve, with a voice of thunder."
(Whitman to Allen, May 27, 1844. Allen
MSS., v. IV). The only luke-
warm Van Buren delegate from Ohio was
Samuel Lahm, who felt that
Van Buren was not the strongest man the
party could name. This attitude
disgusted Whitman who wrote "What
better could be asked of a Banker?"
(Whitman to Allen, May 27, 1844, Allen
MSS., v. IV).
90 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
were necessary to prevent Ohio from
going to Cass.
The Van Burenites then agreed to throw
their strength
to Polk.179 The action of
the Ohio Democrats in de-
serting Van Buren, finally, can be
explained by the flood
of propaganda, emanating from
Washington, to the ef-
fect that availability dictated the
choice of another
man,180 and partly by a bid by Cass to
secure the support
of the anti-bank Democrats of Ohio by
expressing doubt
as to whether the Constitution gave
Congress the right
to establish a national bank.181
When Van Buren re-
ceived the majority of votes in the
Convention, T. W.
Bartley, an Ohio delegate, offered a
resolution, declar-
ing Van Buren the nominee.182 He
was declared out
of order but he brought the whole
Convention into a
violent commotion by jumping to a table
and making an
inflammatory speech to overthrow the
two-thirds rule.183
The Democratic platform, as is well
known, declared for
the "re-occupation of Oregon and
the re-annexation of
Texas," thus appealing to the
nationalism of the coun-
try and trying to avoid the sectional
issue.184 Other
planks in the platform pledged the party to oppose the
179 Butler to Van Buren, May 31, 1844,
Van Buren MSS., v. L.
180 Stanton to
Tappan, April 28, 1844. Stanton MSS., v. I; see also
McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, p.
349.
181 McGrane, Reginald C., William
Allen, p. 94.
182 Whitman to Allen, May 29, 1844.
Allen MSS., v. IV.
183
Whitman would have gone even further by
placing Van Buren before
the country as the choice of a
"constitutional" majority, even if the Con-
vention did not rescind the two-thirds
rule. (Whitman to Allen, May 29,
1844. Allen MSS., v. IV). A delegate
declared that Medary acted a
"most disgraceful part" and
that another Ohio delegate drew off his coat
as if he intended to go into a regular
fight. Blackwell to Polk, May 28,
1844. Polk MSS., v. LVI.
184 Garrison,
op. cit., pp. 129-133.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 91
distribution of the proceeds from the
sale of public lands
among the states, and favored the use
of the veto.185
The nomination of James K. Polk was not
received
with much enthusiasm by the Democracy
of Ohio,186
firmly attached as it had been to the
candidacy of Van
Buren;187 but the Democratic press
endeavored to stir up
enthusiasm by pointing to Polk's record
as Speaker of
the House. Polk was not entirely
unknown to the Dem-
ocratic leaders of Ohio. Before the
Baltimore Conven-
tion, H. S. Turney had been sent to
Columbus in an
effort to persuade the Democratic State
Convention to
express a preference for Polk for vice
president. Al-
though he came armed with a letter from
Jackson,188 the
Ohio Democrats had expressed a
preference for R. M.
Johnson.189
Fearing the effect of Polk's past
tariff record on the
Pennsylvania Democracy, Robert J.
Walker, a Missis-
185 McMaster,
op. cit., v. VII, pp. 355-356.
186 Taylor to Allen, June 3, 1844, Allen
MSS., v. IV. Taylor explained
that the ticket would have been received
much more enthusiastically in Ohio
had Wright accepted the nomination for
vice president.
187 Birchard to Van Buren, June 7, 1844, Van Buren MSS., vol. LI; on
the other hand, the Cass leaders, of
Zanesville, assured Polk of their cor-
dial support and of their attachment to
the immediate annexation of Texas.
Hamm to Polk, June 7, 1844, Polk MSS.,
v. LVII.
188 Laughlin to Polk, Jan. 1,
1844, Polk MSS., v. LV.
189 The Ohio Democrats drew their chief
comfort from the defeat of
Cass and Calhoun. (Whitman to Allen, May
29, 1844, Allen MSS., v. IV).
Whitman declared that "The true and
brave position of the Ohio delega-
tion--twenty in number, stripped for the
fight--determined at least that if
Van Buren could not be saved, that the
Jackson and Van Buren policies and
its gallant defenders should not be
offered up on the altar of venality, cor-
ruption, and proscription; and that if
Lewis Cass and his friends were de-
termined that the guillotine should do
its work, then that the damned, rotten,
corrupt, venal Cass cliques from one end of the Union to the other
should
be guillotined." Whitman to Allen,
May 29, 1844, Allen MSS., v. IV; Cave
Johnson to Polk, January 13, 1844, Polk
MSS., v. LV.
92 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
sippi Democrat, advised him to come out
in favor of
"incidental
protection."190 In a letter to
John S. Kane,
of Philadelphia, Polk declared in favor
of a revenue
tariff which would "at the same
time afford reasonable
incidental protection to our home
industry."191 Polk's
position thus agreed with the
pronouncements of the
Ohio Democracy on the tariff, and the
tariff discussions
in Ohio between Clay and Polk became one
of the de-
gree of protection only. The Kane
letter, together with
the naming of George M. Dallas, a
Pennsylvania tariff
Democrat, for the vice presidency,
dulled the hopes of
the Clay Whigs of Ohio,192 because
they were not able
to make an issue on the tariff
question. In their cam-
paign in Pennsylvania, the Democrats
openly pro-
claimed that Polk was in favor of a
protective tariff.
The Texas question and the national
bank absorbed
the interest of the two parties in Ohio
during the cam-
paign of 1844. The Whigs favored a safe
national cur-
rency which they declared could be
obtained only by a
national bank.193 On this
point the issue was clear cut,
190 Walker to Polk, May 20, 1844. Polk
MSS., v. XLVI.
191 Polk to J. S. Kane, Columbia, Tenn.,
June 19, 1844. Polk MSS.,
v. XLVIII.
192 In the Baltimore Convention, Ohio
was ready to give her votes to
Fairfield, of Maine, when the South and
Pennsylvania settled upon Dallas,
whereupon Ohio switched her votes to the
Pennsylvanian in order to pre-
serve her influence. Whitman to Allen,
May 30, 1844. Allen MSS., v. XV.
193 The Democrats also renewed the
ancient charge that Clay had de-
feated the will of the people in 1824,
by a corrupt bargain with Adams.
The Whigs denied the charge and
reprinted Carter Beverly's letter of re-
cantation. Weekly Ohio State Journal,
May 1, 1844. The Democrats also
tried to make political capital out of
the fact that Bartley, the Whig can-
didate for Governor, while a member of
the House, in 1824, had voted for
Adams, for president. The Whigs declared
that he could not have done
anything else because his district had
given Adams five votes to one for
Jackson. Weekly Ohio State Journal, May
1, 1844; Weekly Ohio State
Journal, May 15, 1844; Ohio Statesman, June, July, August,
1844.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 93
since the Democrats reaffirmed their
adherence to the
Independent Treasury repealed by the
Whigs in the
extra session of 1841.
The campaign turned primarily on the
Texas ques-
tion. The Democrats frankly sponsored
annexation
while Clay opposed the addition of
Texas to the Union,
as indicated in the Raleigh letter. As
the compaign
progressed, Clay, apparently fearing
the effects of his
letter on the border states, addressed
other communica-
tions to his friends in Alabama,
stating that he was not
opposed personally to annexation and
would be glad to
see it come about were it not for the
dangers pointed
out in the Raleigh letter. As a party,
the Democrats
of Ohio were more unfriendly to
anti-slavery principles
than the Whigs. There were notable
exceptions, how-
ever, such as Senators Thomas Morris
and Edwin M.
Stanton, both ardent anti-slavery
Democrats of the
radical left wing of the party.194
While Morris had been
discarded by the Democrats, in 1839, on
account of his
attitude toward abolition petitions,
Joshua R. Giddings
had been retained by the Whigs although
his views
were more violently anti-slavery than
those of Morris.
Although T. C. Smith, in his Liberty
and Free Soil
Party in the Northwest, claims that the basis of the
anti-slavery movement in Ohio was moral
and religious,
it appears from the emphasis which
their leaders laid
upon the domination of the South in the
councils of the
Nation, that it was more nearly a
movement of protest
against southern influence, on
political and economic
grounds. This protest was animated by
the dislike of
the southern aristocracy by Ohioans.
The South, for a
194 See Stanton letters to Chase, in
Chase MSS., Pa.
94
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
number of years in control of the
government, had de-
feated projects for internal
improvements and had ob-
tained a very large share of federal
appointments. Both
parties showed an abysmal ignorance of
the importance
of the Northwest by the scant bestowal
of federal
patronage upon the leaders of that
section.
Perhaps another reason why the
Democrats were
more pro-slavery was the fact that the
seat of the
Whigs' strength in Ohio was in the
Western Reserve,
settled by New Englanders who were
dominated by the
Federalist fear of the growing strength
of the South
and West, and who felt a hearty
contempt for southern
social and political institutions. The
Democratic strong-
holds were in the southern parts of the
State, settled by
Virginians, Kentuckians, and North
Carolinians; in the
east central portions, settled by the
Scotch-Irish and
Pennsylvania Dutch, of Pennsylvania;
and in the
Northwest, still in the frontier state
where radical De-
mocracy held sway throughout the
decade. The Demo-
cratic party had expressed its sympathy
with the
grievances of the slaveholders by
passing a Fugitive
Slave Law, in 1839, at the request of
certain political
leaders of Kentucky. Many Whigs also
voted for the
measure, and it will be remembered that
Benjamin F.
Wade was defeated for reflection to the
General Assem-
bly because the Whigs of his district
on the Western
Reserve disliked his vote against the
Fugitive Slave
Law.
For a time the sectional issue in Ohio
politics re-
volved around the repeal of the Black
Laws, possibly
because of the growing demand in
northern Ohio for
their repeal and because of the
willingness of many
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 95
Democrats, who resented the
interference of Whig ora-
tors of Kentucky in Ohio politics, to
acquiesce in this
action.195 The Black Laws
remained a topic of political
controversy until 1849, when they were
partially re-
pealed.196 The attitude of
the two major parties on this
question was fairly well shown in
December, 1841, when
Philemon Bliss (W) moved in the State
Legislature to
strike out the House rule providing that
all petitions
and memorials, relating to slavery or
the disabilities of
negroes, be received without debate and
laid upon the
table without being read or printed.
Rufus P. Spalding
(D) favored the amendment on the ground
that the
right of petition was a constitutional
right which should
not be abridged. The House rule was
abolished finally
by the unanimous vote of the Whigs and
by a large
number of the Democrats.197 In
the same session of the
General Assembly, Le Grand Byington (D)
tried to en-
graft on a bill, incorporating
academies and colleges,
provisions to prohibit the education of
negroes in those
institutions. This was probably an
attempt to prevent
other schools from following the
example of Oberlin
College which had recently admitted negroes.
The
Democrats thus were not in any position
to appeal for
195 Ohio
Statesman, December 8, 1842.
196 See
Chapter VII.
197 Ohio Statesman, December 31, 1841. Le Grand Byington (D) was
the most earnest opponent of the
reception of such petitions. Byington de-
clared that the criticism of the
abolitionists was a "certificate of character
which (he coveted) and which (he should)
on all occasions endeavor to
merit, at the hands of this nefarious
combination of traitors, rogues, and
fools, by recording (his) votes upon the
record of the (Ohio General As-
sembly) on all occasions, against each
and every part and parcel of the
disorganizing and revolutionary
scheme." Byington ended his
flaming
speech by the declaration that the
abolitionists were attempting to bring
about racial equality of the whites and
blacks.
96
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the support of the third party voters;
but they hoped by
a tolerant attitude to get the Liberty
party voters to
keep a distinct organization in order
to weaken the
Whigs.198
The Liberty party conducted an
intensive campaign,
but found it difficult to combat the
arguments of their
former political brethren who pointed
out that Clay was
opposed to the annexation of Texas, and
that by aiding
in his defeat, the Liberty party was really
voting for
the annexation of Texas. So effective
was this Whig
argument that the Liberty party began
to break ranks,
although Clay's later Alabama letters
left some of them
in doubt as to his real position. John
C. Wright, one
of the principal Whig leaders of
Cincinnati, and editor
of the Gazette, complained that
the Alabama letters
were being used as a
"bugaboo" among the anti-annexa-
tionists.199 In order to
hold the voters in line, the Lib-
erty party leaders launched a vigorous
propaganda to
the effect that Clay was a duelist, a
man-stealer, and a
gambler.200
In October, an incident occurred in
Michigan which
very seriously injured the Liberty
party's strength in
Ohio and contributed to Clay's triumph
in the State. On
September 28, Birney, national
candidate of the party,
was nominated by a Democratic
Convention for the
Michigan Legislature. The news was
broadcast in
Whig papers, together with the charges
that Birney pre-
ferred Polk to Clay; that he favored
free trade and the
198 G. W. Ells to Chase, February 15,
1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII.
199 J. C. Wright to Clay, September 5, 1844. Chase MSS., v.
XXIII.
200
T. C. Smith, op. cit., p. 73. The Eaton Democrat declared
that Clay's
habits had been "vicious and
wild" and that "gambling has been one of his
chief pursuits." September 26,
1844.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 97
annexation of Texas. The effect on the
Liberty men, to
whom it seemed as if Birney had acted
falsely, has been
described as "stupefying."
Birney hastened to explain
that this nomination was the result of
local conditions in
Saginaw County, Michigan, where he had
given the
people permission to use his name for
the General As-
sembly in order to break up
mismanagement in the state
government. This explanation, however, failed
to sat-
isfy the new elements of the party
completely, especially
when Birney admitted that he preferred
Polk to Clay on
the grounds that, while both favored
the annexation of
Texas, Clay would be a party leader and
Polk would
not.201 Matters were further
complicated, just before
the election, by the appearance of an
alleged letter from
Birney to J. B. Garland, of Saginaw,
Michigan, in which
Birney declared that he was a
Jeffersonian Democrat,
and that if elected to the Michigan
State Legislature,
he would not agitate the slavery
question. This letter
was circulated all over the North. The
Whig Central
Committee distributed the letter all
over the Western
Reserve, hoping to induce wavering
Whigs to remain
loyal to their party.202 It undoubtedly decreased the
Liberty vote in Ohio, although Birney
promptly issued
a statement branding the letter as a
forgery.203 The
loss of a thousand votes by the Liberty
party, between
the state election, in October, and the
national election,
may be explained by the "Birney
Forgery," although
Liberty leaders argued that the forgery
did not reduce
the old Liberty vote but rather
repelled many members
201 T. C. Smith, op. cit., pp. 77-88.
202 T.
C. Smith, op. cit., p. 78.
203
Cincinnati Daily Gazette, November
5, 1844.
Vol. XXXVIII--7
98 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
of the Whig party who were on the verge
of deserting
Clay.204 In the Oberlin
district, the Whigs nominated
Edward S. Hamlin, a pronounced
abolitionist, in order
to draw the Liberty voters into the
Whig ranks.205 Sal-
mon P. Chase was the real director and
organizer of
the Liberty party in Ohio. He wrote
addresses,
speeches, platforms, and sent out
propaganda to his lieu-
tenants all over the State. Robert
Gillpatrick, an or-
ganizer at New Madison, appealed to
Chase for excerpts
from southern Whig papers to prove that
the Whigs of
the South were in favor of
annexation.206
On the other hand, many Democrats felt
that the
nomination of Polk was a victory for
the "slaveholding
oligarchy," and either did not
vote or voted for Bir-
ney.207 In Lorain County,
most of the accessions to the
ranks of the Liberty party since 1842
came from the
Democrats.208 Although, in
the main, composed of con-
servative Whigs, the Liberty party also
attracted a con-
siderable element of the laboring
classes, who were
drawn into the movement by the feeling
that the major
parties sacrificed their interests to
those of the southern
slaveholders. John Duffy, editor of the
Freeman (Co-
lumbus), informed Chase that the new
party in Frank-
lin County was receiving more support
from the labor-
ing class than from any other.209
204 Welles
to Chase, November 4, 1844. Chase MSS., v. IX.
205 Welles to Chase, October 12, 1844.
Chase MSS., v. IX.
206 Gillpatrick to Chase, August 26,
1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII.
207 Adams Jewett to Chase, June
7, 1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII.
208 Welles
to Chase, April 2, 1844. Chase MSS., v. VIII; Welles to
Chase, July 5, 1844. Chase MSS., v.
VIII.
209 Duffy to Chase, May 21, 1842. Chase MSS., v. VII.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 99
The election of 1844 was hotly
contested.210 The
Democrats were hopeful in spite of the
great Harrison
victory in 1840.211 Such Democratic
compaigners as T.
L. Hamer, Lewis Cass, Samuel Medary,
and Ganse-
voort Melville toured the State in the
interest of Polk.212
Although the Tyler element was weak in
Ohio, Silas
Reed, of Missouri, felt that it held
the balance of power
and assured them that Polk would be the
president of
the whole people and would not embark
on a proscriptive
course.213
The Whigs were able to make a great
deal of politi-
cal capital out of Polk's former
speeches on the tariff,
by charging that he was not in favor of
any degree of
protection.214 These charges
became so damaging that
the Democrats were forced to interpret
Polk's position
on the tariff to the effect that he
favored a revenue tariff,
so arranged as to give protection to
the poorer classes
by placing the burden of taxation on
articles which were
used more particularly by the wealthy.215 This conclu-
sion was admissible in view of Polk's
letter to Kane,216
but the Democratic interpretation in
Ohio emphasized
an "incidental protection"
which would aid the poorer
classes. But this interpretation was
denounced as free
trade doctrine and its protagonists
were declared to be
210 D. T. Disney,
a Democratic leader, of Cincinnati, wrote that "Ohio
never witnessed such a contest as the
one we are now engaged in. The two
great parties are so nicely balanced
that a straw may decide the fight." He
felt that the outcome depended on the
vote of the abolitionists. Disney to
Polk, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 28,
1844. Polk MSS., v. LXIV. See also
Medary to Polk, Columbus, Ohio, October
28, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXIV.
211 John A. Bryan to Polk, September 17,
1844. Polk MSS., v. LXI
212
Melville to Polk, September 24, 1844.
Polk MSS., v. LXII.
213 Reed to Polk, October 3, 1844. Polk
MSS., v. LXII.
214 Daily National Intelligencer, May 31, 1844.
215 Mathews to Polk, June 24, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LVIII.
216 McCormick, Eugene Irving, James
K. Polk, a Political Biography,
pp. 260-261
100
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
in alliance with the English
aristocracy to defeat Amer-
ican manufacturers and American
laborers.217 The
Democrats also appealed to class
prejudice in order to
defeat Clay. He was reported to have
said in a dis-
cussion of the Missouri bill, in 1819,
that "If Gentlemen
will not allow us to have black slaves
they must let us
have white ones; for we cannot cut our
firewood, and
black our shoes, and have our wives and
daughters
work in the kitchen."218 The
Democrats, in the region
of the National Road, were also much
distressed by
Polk's previous utterances on internal
improvements
and sought an expression of opinion
from him in favor
of the continuation of the road.219
Both parties endeavored to secure the
foreign vote
but there is no reason to believe that
the Democrats lost
their hold on that class of voters.
Just before the elec-
tion, the Whig State Central Committee
warned the
leaders to watch the foreign vote and
to encourage every
foreigner who was friendly to the Whigs
to become
naturalized.220 In Cincinnati, in the state election,
Whig
nativists drove the Germans from the
polls in the Ninth
Ward,221 but Clay endeavored
to prevent native Ameri-
canism from becoming an issue, although
he admitted
privately to Peter Sken Smith that
"at the bottom" the
Native Americans had the "right
spirit."222 German
217 Clermont Courier, quoted in Weekly
Ohio State Journal, March 27,
1844; Ohio State Journal, May 1,
1844.
218
Weekly Ohio State Journal, March 6, 1844.
219 C. Muth to
Polk, September 14, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LI.
220
Circular issued at Columbus, Ohio, October
19, 1844, in Thomas
Ewing MSS., v. VII.
221 James A. Ewing to Polk, October 9, 1844. Polk MSS., v.
LXIII.
222 Clay to Peter Smith, June 17, 1844.
Clay MSS., v. XXIII.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 101
Democratic political organizations
supported Polk and
printed accounts of his life in the
German papers.223
The State elections held in October
forecast the as-
cendancy of the Whigs. Mordecai Bartley
defeated
David Tod for governor and the Whigs
carried both
houses of the General Assembly.224
The campaign,
which began as a struggle between the
Whig conserva-
tives and the radical Democrats on the
banking issue,
became confused when Tod receded from
his former
position, in a letter to a Cleveland
Committee of Demo-
crats, in which he admitted the
necessity of a banking
system.225
As Stanton complained, the "moral
force" of the
campaign was lost for the Democrats.226
The Whigs,
of course, interpreted their victory in
the state elections
as a verdict for a well-regulated
system of banks. Med-
ary declared that the defeat of the
Democrats was due
to the effects of the pamphlet, The
South in Danger,
issued by the Democratic Association of
Washington.227
This pamphlet, which was distributed
over the South,
bore the heading "The South in
Danger; Read before
you Vote!" and ended with the
statement: "If Mr. Polk
is elected, Texas will be annexed. I
repeat it, unite with
us and share the glory." The Whig
State Central Com-
mittee of Ohio gave this to the voters
with the declara-
tion that the real question before the
country was "Polk,
Texas, and Slavery; or Clay, the Union
and Liberty."
223 Weber to Polk, June 18, 19, 1844.
Polk MSS., v. LVIII,
224 Weekly Ohio State Journal, October 23, 1844.
225 See Chapter II.
226 Stanton to Tappan, April 28, 1844.
Stanton MSS., v. I.
227 Medary
to General Armstrong, October 9, 1844. Polk MSS., v.
LXIII.
102
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
The real reason for Democratic defeat
was the failure
of the Liberty party to poll a large
vote and the defec-
tion in the ranks of Tod's followers on
banking and cur-
rency questions.
In the National election, a month
later, Ohio cast a
majority of her votes for Clay. The
best explanation of
this result is the unpopularity of the
Democratic plea for
the annexation of Texas, in Ohio; the
disappointment
of the radical Democrats because of the
defeat of their
candidate, Van Buren, in the Baltimore
Convention by
the two-thirds rule; and the ability of
the Whigs to hold
their members in line against the
Liberty defection.
Medary declared that "Fraud,
forgery and the cursed
abolitionists ruined us. They
positively worked the
women and children into the belief that
if you (Polk)
were elected, their husbands and
brothers should in-
stantly be called to march as soldiers
into Texas and
Mexico to be butchered by Spaniards and
Indians!"228
Medary, whose political acumen is not
to be doubted,
asserted that the "Birney
forgery" was largely respon-
sible for the defeat of the Democrats,
because it in-
fluenced those Whigs who were about to
join the Lib-
erty party to retain their old loyalty
for fear that Birney
really was working for the election of
Polk.229
Undoubtedly, other influences were at
work. The
Whigs had accused the Democratic party
of being a
leveling, disorganizing group, allied
with the Dorrites
of Rhode Island.230 The
reaction in the State against
the policies of the Democrats on
banking and currency
228 Medary
to Polk, November 10, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXV.
229 Medary
to Polk, November 3, 1844. Polk MSS., v. LXIV.
230 Ohio State Journal (Tri-Weekly), May-November, 1844.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 103
served to weaken the party on national
matters, and
there was a widespread feeling among
Democrats that
the bankers had conspired with the Whig
party to de-
feat incorporation under the Democratic
banking sys-
tem. The Whigs also attributed the
recovery of pros-
perity to the Whig tariff of 1842, and
there can be little
doubt that the constant repetition of
this statement had
some effect on voters who were already
inclined to doubt
Polk's interest in behalf of the free
laborers of the
North.231 The Democrats
elected Polk, with New York
as the decisive state. The national
result has been
variously interpreted. Garrison claimed
that Polk won
because the people of the United States
wanted
Texas.232
The period of Ohio political history
covered in this
chapter witnessed the triumph of the
Whigs with no
principles; the bringing forward of the
Clay program;
the defeat of a large part of that
program by a Virginia
"abstractionist"; the
rallying of Ohio behind the Clay
program; the rise of a political
anti-slavery party; the
confusion of the expansionist sentiment
with the sec-
tional issue of slavery; and the final
decision of Ohio
for Clay and against Texas annexation;
for the pro-
gram of the old National Republicans
and against the
Independent Treasury; and tariff for
revenue with "in-
cidental protection." But Ohio's
verdict was not the
verdict of the Nation. It remained to
be seen what
program the Polk administration would
evolve and
231 The
Mammoth Stage Company and Moore and Company, controlling
every leading stage company in the
State, asked all their employes to work
for the Whig party. Robert Mitchell to
Polk, November 22, 1844. Polk
MSS., v. LXVII.
232 Garrison,
op. cit., pp. 136-137.
104
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
what the effect of that program would
be in Ohio poli-
tics. An important consideration from
the point of
view of State politics was the question
as to what ex-
tent the major parties sensed the
growing political im-
portance of the Northwest.
CHAPTER IV
NATIONALISM VERSUS SECTIONALISM,
1845-1848
With the victory of the National
Democratic party,
the country was once more launched on a
policy of ex-
pansion. Indeed, Tyler, anxious that
his administra-
tion should secure the credit for the
annexation of
Texas, sent an emissary to the Lone
Star Republic to
convey intelligence of the joint
resolution for annexa-
tion, passed just three days prior to
Polk's inauguration.1
It is important to note that this joint
resolution con-
tained an alternative which allowed the
President to ne-
gotiate with Mexico concerning the
annexation of
Texas in order to avert war. But Tyler
preferred the
method of direct annexation and Polk
did not interfere
with his predecessor's offer. Texas was
admitted to
the Union in December, 1845. There
remained the Ore-
gon question, which had become
increasingly pressing
with the rapid growth of American
population in the
Columbia River region. It was this
which was largely
responsible for the strong stand taken
by the American
Government on the 49th Parallel as the
proper bound-
ary, and the willingness of the British
Government to
negotiate on that basis.2
1 McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, pp.
395-396.
2 Joseph Schafer, "Oregon Pioneers
in American Diplomacy," in Turner
Essays in American History, (1910), pp. 35-55.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 105
The Oregon and Texas questions were not
the only
ones involved in the election of 1844.
The tariff influ-
enced a large number of voters and the
Kane letter, to-
gether with the popularity of Dallas,
the vice presidential
candidate, were largely responsible for
Democratic suc-
ces in a manufacturing state like
Pennsylvania. The
Democrats of Ohio, as one of their
issues, had opposed
"a tariff, the object of which is
to raise money by taxing
the consumption of the laboring
millions for the support
of particular classes, and to build up
and sustain par-
ticular interests in the country at the
expense of all
others, without regard to governmental
revenue."3
For some Ohio Democrats, it had been a
contest to de-
cide between the merits of a National
Bank and an In-
dependent Treasury,4 while
others stressed the issue of
the annexation of Texas.5 Cass's
argument, induced
by his old hatred of England, that
Great Britain was
endeavoring to secure a sphere of
influence in Texas in
order to use it as a vantage-point for
an attack on the
United States, appealed to the
westerner.6 To Corwin,
it was evident that the Democrats would
repeal the
Tariff of 1842 and wage war on Mexico,7
while Medary
thought that New York had
"saved" the country and
that Silas Wright's support of the
National ticket, in
spite of his bitter disappointment over
the defeat of Van
Buren, was largely responsible for the
Democratic vic-
tory.8 The
Whigs, victors in Ohio, interpreted their
3 Eaton Democrat, October 3,
1844.
4 Ibid, October 3, 1844.
5 Ibid., October 3, 1844.
6 McLaughlin, A. C., Life of Lewis
Cass, p. 213.
7 Corwin to Crittenden, November 15,
1844. Crittenden MSS., v. IX.
8 Medary to Van Buren, November 16,
1844. Van Buren MSS., v.
LII.
106
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
success as a mandate to oppose
annexation of Texas
and to pass banking laws more suitable
to the corporate
interests, and possibly even to repeal
the Black Laws.9
One result of this Whig victory was the
election of
Thomas Corwin to the United States
Senate, in Decem-
ber, 1844, to succeed Benjamin Tappan
(D), whose
term closed with the Congressional
session, 1844-1845.
The Whig caucus chose the popular
Corwin over
Thomas Ewing by a vote of 47 to 16.10
There were other things at stake,
which, although
they did not come to the surface in the
newspapers, de-
termined, to a large measure, the
attitude of the Demo-
crats in Ohio toward the Polk
administration and its
progress, and prepared the way for the
general break-up
of parties in 1848. Political parties
in the two decades,
prior to the Civil War, exercised a
nationalizing influ-
ence by attempting to harmonize the
clashing interests
of the different sections of the
country, but badly-man-
aged political machinery often
threatened National
party lines and allowed purely
sectional interests to as-
sert themselves. The Northwest, a
rapidly growing
section, was beginning to demand its
share in the coun-
cils of National parties and in the
distribution of federal
patronage. From party organs and
leaders in 1844,
it was evident that the next
administration must recog-
nize the West or lose that section.
Edward M. Stanton
declared that the Democratic party of
Ohio demanded
9 Giddings to Follett, November 14,
1844, quoted in "Selections from
the Follett Papers, III," in loc.
cit., 1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 19-20.
10 Some who were working for the
nomination of Corwin for president,
in 1848, feared that his election to the
Senate, in 1844, might injure his
chances. William Miner to McLean,
December 8, 1844. McLean MSS.,
v. XI.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850
107
a thorough reform in the distribution
of federal patron-
age and that "nothing but diligent
and decided measures
of reform, on the part of the
President, will satisfy
public opinion.11
With the exception of a few Cass
Democrats and
one or two personal enemies, the
Democracy of Ohio
at once united in pressing upon the
Administration the
appointment of Samuel Medary as
postmaster general.12
This movement seems to have been
spontaneous, since
Medary asked Senator Allen not to press
his appoint-
ment,13 while B. B. Taylor,
one of the most prominent
11 In an effort to impress Polk with the
power of the State, he was
invited to visit Columbus and Dayton as
well as Cincinnati, on his way to
Washington, but the newly-elected
President only touched at Cincinnati,
where he was given an official welcome
by the Democracy of that town.
Stanton to Tappan, March 26, 1845,
Stanton MSS., v. I; Medary, D. T.
Disney, Bela Latham, T. W. Bartley and
others to Polk, December 5,
1844, Polk MSS., v. LXVIII; N. J. Read
to Polk, February 4, [18] 45,
Polk MSS., v. LXX.
12 N. H. Starbuck, editor of St. Mary's Sentinel, to
Allen, December
28, 1844; J. W. Walters to Allen,
February 15, 1845; in Allen MSS., vols.
V and VI; Tod pressed upon Polk the
advisability of appointing Medary
to that office, Tod to Polk, December
11, 1844, Polk MSS., v. LXVIII;
Cave Johnson to Polk, January 2, 1845,
Polk MSS., v. LXIX; such Cass
supporters as Rufus P. Spalding, William
Sawyer, and Edson B. Olds op-
posed the appointment of Medary to the
Cabinet and endeavored to get that
office for Cass in the hope of securing
the succession for him in 1848. (C.
B. Flood to Allen, April 29, 1845, Allen
MSS., v. VIII). Matthias Martin,
a leading Democrat of Columbus, wrote
that all the members of the Gen-
eral Assembly, except one, signed a
petition to secure Medary's appoint-
ment. Martin to Allen, January 23, 1845,
Allen MSS., v. VI; "The Ohio
Democracy assembled en masse and went to
the Palace, to demand that
Samuel Medary should be made P. M. Genl!
! ! Their wishes were made
vocal by an eloquent statement of the
many virtues and high qualities of
Samuel, by Senator Allen. The President
regretted the necessities of the
Republic forbade a compliance with their
wishes." Corwin to Follett, Wash-
ington City, March 7, 1845, quoted in
"Selections from the Follett Papers,
III," in loc. cit. 1914, v.
IX, no. 3, p. 83.
13 Medary to Allen, December 1, 1845,
Allen MSS., v. IV.
108
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Democrats of the State, wrote that
Medary's appoint-
ment would place Ohio in a secure
position, but that
Medary was "of too proud a nature
to ask" for it.14
On the other hand, Tappan explained in
1847, after he
had become a personal enemy of Medary,
that the latter
personally solicited the postmaster
generalship and that
he caused some twenty Democratic papers
of Ohio, over
which he exercised control, to press
his appointment.
Tappan insisted that the Democracy of
the State really
did not favor Medary's appointment, but
that they
pressed his case in order to avoid a
rupture in the party.15
Tappan's testimony must be discounted,
however, in
view of his bitter personal feud with
Medary, in 1846
and 1847, and his betrayal of the
Administration, in
1848, by joining the Free Soil party.16
By January,
1845, Medary was thoroughly disgusted
because of the
coldness and indifference with which
his friends had
been received at Washington. He
professed not to want
an appointment, but that in view of his
services he
thought he should be taken into the
confidence of the
Administration. From early indications,
Medary pre-
dicted that the Polk administration
would be worse than
that of Tyler and that there was danger
of a revolt in
the party ranks. Medary concluded his
diagnosis of the
political situation with the ominous
statement that he
sympathized "with those who feel
as though they would
like to keep back the Texas question to
break certain
14 Taylor to Allen, November 22, [18]
44, Allen MSS., v. IV.
15 In an attempt to ingratiate himself
with Polk, Tappan stated that his
newspaper (the Ohio Press) was
the only Democratic paper in Ohio which
undertook a thoroughgoing defense of the
Administration. Tappan to Cave
Johnson, May 11, 1847, Polk MSS., v.
LXXVI.
16 See Tappan letter in Ohio State
Journal, August 10, 1848,
Party Politics in Ohio, -
1840-1850 109
men's heads with hereafter."17
As a result of the divi-
sion among the Democrats of Ohio on
banking and cur-
rency issues and Polk's inability to
see the importance of
conciliating the Northwest, Medary
failed to receive the
office of postmaster general, which
went to the Presi-
dent's intimate friend, Cave Johnson.18
The gift of the
postmastership of Columbus to Medary
was probably
an adequate guage of Polk's appreciation
of the Democ-
racy of Ohio, but it failed to satisfy
Medary, who sold
the Ohio Statesman to C. C.
Hazewell, in 1846, and tried
to secure a consular appointment, only
to be tricked by
Tod, who had promised to aid him in
securing it.19
Medary was not satisfied with the
appointment, but he
was conciliated after a visit to
Washington and agreed
to aid the party in the fall elections
of 1845.20
Immediately after Polk's election,
there was the
usual demand among Ohio Democrats for
federal pa-
tronage.21 Many ardent
Democrats sympathized with
the declaration of William Dunbar, a
Democratic
leader of Canton, that "The
present Administration
* * * has thus far manifested but
little disposition
to extend to those who have elevated it
to power, a due
proportion of its patronage or favor;
while hundreds
17 Medary to Allen,
January 22, 1845. Allen MSS., v. VI.
18 Johnson to Polk, February 26, 1845. Polk MSS., v. LXXXI.
19 See Chapter
II.
20 Medary to Allen, April 10, 1845.
Allen MSS., v. VIII.
21 Gephart to Allen, March 23, 1846;
Medill to Allen, April 26, 1845;
Allen MSS., vols. XII and XIII; an
ardent Democrat, William Sawyer,
wrote Allen: "To the victor belongs
the spoils. As it is, said J. K. Polk is
President, thank God and the democracy
and me. The Democrats have a
right to demand that the Federal party
leave the different offices throughout
the whole land from the highest to the
lowest." Sawyer to Allen, Decem-
ber 9, 1844, Allen MSS., v. V.
110 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications
of
federalists * *
* are permitted to revel
in
the spoils of our victories * * * There
is a gen-
eral complaint all over the country,
and were it not for
the mortification and disgrace that
would follow, the
Administration would be openly
denounced for its
timidity in this respect by many of our
leading pa-
pers."22 Dissatisfied with the Administration, John
Brough, along with other younger members
of the
party, dropped his interest in
political affairs for a
time,23 and the Democratic
State Convention, of January
8, 1845, revealed an alarming lack of
harmony.24 A
great deal of confusion resulted among
regular Demo-
crats of Ohio when Polk retained many
of the Tyler
appointees in office. For the most
part, they had sup-
ported Polk in 1844, but they had been
followers of
Harrison, in 1840, and the old line
Democrats angrily
demanded their removal.25 Finally,
in 1847, the Dem-
ocratic State Convention adopted a
resolution roundly
22 B. B. Taylor made every effort to secure a consular appointment and
financial support for his paper.
Becoming disgusted with his fruitless ef-
forts, he withdrew his application and
denounced both Allen and the Ad-
ministration. Dunbar to Allen, February
25, 1846, Allen MSS., v. XV.
Dunbar had been editor of the Wayne
County Democrat for six or seven
years; See also James J. Faran to Allen,
February 8, 1845, Allen MSS., v.
VI; Taylor to Allen, May 30, 1846, Allen
MSS., v. XIV; Medary to Allen,
April 15, 1845, Allen MSS., v. VIII;
Morrison to Allen, December 12, 1845,
Allen MSS., v. IX; Taylor to Allen,
January 5, 1845, Allen MSS., v. V.
23 William Miner to McLean, June 13,
1845, McLean MSS., v. XI.
24 Stanton to Tappan, January 10, 1845,
Stanton MSS., v. I.
25 Herwin to Allen, February 11,
1845; T. P. Spencer and Smith Ingle-
hart to Allen, September 17, 1845; J.
Smuckers and L. Cass to Allen, No-
vember 17, 1845; Jacob Medary to Allen,
July 24, 1845, Allen MSS.; L.
G. Griswold to Allen, May 26, 1846; J.
F. Ankeny to Allen, March 7, 1846;
All in Allen MSS., vols. VI, VIII, XII,
and XIV; James K. Etwell to
Allen, February 14, 1846, Allen MSS., v.
XI.
Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 111
condemning Polk for keeping so many
appointees of
Tyler in office.26
The radical anti-bank portion of the
Ohio Democ-
racy, through Senator William Allen,
who became
chairman of the important Senate
Committee on For-
eign Relations, was able to control
appointments to fed-
eral office in such a way as to impede
the activities of
the Cass faction.27 D. T. Disney, a follower of Cass,
asked for an appointment as ambassador
to Russia,28
and, although Cass supported his claim,
urging that
Disney's was the only appointment from
Ohio that he
would ask, Medary induced Polk not to
make the ap-
pointment. Medary confided to Van Buren that Polk
promptly made some appointments in Ohio
at his re-
quest "that will put a few
"softs" in that State to the
wall for the season."29 This procedure in Ohio was in
marked contrast to the policy of the
Administration in
New York, where Silas Wright complained
that the dis-
tribution of federal patronage produced
the impression
that a conservative attitude on
questions of banking and
currency was necessary for appointment
to federal
office.30
26 Ohio Statesman, January 8, 9, 1847.
27 Stanton to ?,
December 26, 1844; Stanton MSS., v. I; In 1846 the
printing of the Post Office Department
for the region around Cleveland,
was taken away from the Cleveland Plain
Dealer and given to the Cleve-
land Times. In 1848, when J. W.
Gray, editor of the Plain Dealer, pressed
for the reasons why that paper should
not be given the printing for 1848,
he was given to understand that it was
because he had befriended the banks
in Ohio politics. Washington Daily
Union, January 31, 1848; E. L. Carney
to Allen, January 4, 1845; Allen MSS.,
v. V; Thomas W. Drake to Allen,
December 14, 1844, Allen MSS., v. V; M.
A. Goodfellow to Allen, Jan-
uary 20, 1845, Allen MSS., v. VI.
28 Disney to Allen, January 25, 1845.
Allen MSS., v. VI.
29 Medary to Van Buren, May 22, 1845.
Van Buren MSS., v. LIII.
30 Silas Wright to Polk, October 18,
1846. Polk MSS., v. LXXXV.
112 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
Although bitterly disappointed with the
course of
the Administration,31 the Democratic
party in Ohio gen-
erally defended its policies. A
striking example of this
party loyalty was the Ohio Democracy's
defense of
Thomas Ritchie, editor of the Daily
Union, the national
organ of the party, who, in February,
1847, was ex-
cluded from the bar of the Senate by a
combination of
Calhounites and Whigs on the ground that he had
brought the members of that body into
disrepute by his
editorial attacks upon them.32 A Democratic meeting
of protest was called in Columbus, and
the Ohio Press
(D) denounced the Senate's procedure as
an attack on
the liberty of the press.33 To
the Cincinnati Daily En-
quirer, this blow at free speech and freedom of the
press, seemed to seal the coalition of
the Whigs of the
Senate with "Calhounism."34
Polk's inaugural address was well
received by the
Democrats of Ohio.35 The
Whigs concluded that it out-
lined a course of "degradation and
ruin."36 The Dem-
31 Medary wrote in December, 1847:
"As to men, they are either crazy
or blindly knavish and it is hard to
tell which. And although I hold the
office of P. Master of this place, I
receive nothing but insults . . . I sent
them my resignation in less than a month
after I received the appointment
but they have failed to act on it . . .
The P. M. General, a friend confi-
dentially informed (me) not long since,
spoke of me as not to be trusted,
as I was of the Van Buren affinities . .
.My destruction has been con-
templated ever since the 4th of March,
1845." Medary to Van Buren,
December 27, 1847, Van Buren MSS., v.
LIV. Other Democrats felt that
it was a matter of great difficulty, if
not an impossibility for an Ohioan
to get an office from the President. A.
G. W. Carter to Allen, June 9, 1846,
Allen MSS., v. XIV.
32 Washington Daily Union, February
16, 1847.
33 Ohio Press, February 20, 1847.
34 Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, February
18, 1847.
35 James Matthews to Allen, March 20,
1845. Allen MSS., v. VII.
36 H. H. Leavitt to McLean, March 19,
1845. McLean MSS., v. XI.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 113
ocrats could find little to commend in
the Cabinet which
contained no representative from the
Northwest.37
Polk signalized his independence of
mind by displacing
Blair and Rives as editors of the
Administration organ
in favor of Thomas Ritchie, who, on May
12, 1845, be-
gan to sound the praises of his Chief.38
Polk might
have angled for the support of the
Northwest by ap-
pointing Medary to edit the National
party organ, an
action which was strongly urged by
Disney and Allen,39
but the President apparently failed to
see the signifi-
cance of the growing political power of
the Northwest.
The first plank of the Democratic
platform of 1844
called for the re-annexation of Texas.
As soon as Con-
gress met in December, 1844, petitions
from individuals
and resolutions from State Legislatures,
for and against
annexation, poured in. The Whig General
Assembly
of Ohio instructed Allen and Tappan and
requested the
Ohio Representatives to vote against
annexation, but
the Democratic members of the Ohio
delegation chose
to abide by their party platform.40
To the Whigs of
37 James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania,
secretary of state; Robert J.
Walker, of Mississippi, secretary of the
treasury; William Marcy, of New
York, secretary of war; Cave Johnson, of
Tennessee, post master general;
John Y. Mason, of Virginia, attorney
general; and George Bancroft, of
Massachusetts, secretary of the navy.
McMaster, op. cit., v. VII, 407.
38 S. I. McCormac, James K. Polk, a
Political Biography, 333; Allen
was opposed to Ritchie as editor of the
Washington Daily Union and threat-
ened to start a new Democratic paper at
the Capital with Blair as editor
if Polk did not displace Ritchie. Polk refused
to countenance the matter,
since he and Cass thought that such a
paper would be in the interests of
Van Buren and Wright. Polk's Diary, v.
I, pp. 355, 361-362.
39 D. T. Disney to Allen, December 20,
1845. Allen MSS., v. VI;
Polk's Diary, v. I, pp. 358-359.
40 Garrison, op. cit., p. 146; Laws
of Ohio, 1844-1845, p. 437; T. C.
Smith says that there was some sentiment
among the Democratic press of
the State against the action of Tappan
and Allen in supporting annexation.
T. C. Smith, op. cit., 106.
Vol. XXXVIII--8
114 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Ohio, the annexation of Texas seemed
"unwise, inex-
pedient, and pregnant with the most
afflictive results to
the Union," and the method by
which the Democrats
proposed to carry it out,
"palpably" unconstitutional.41
The Whigs counselled delay, in the hope
that something
might happen to prevent the carrying
out of the Demo-
cratic pledge,42 although
the Whigs were willing to ac-
cept annexation rather than risk a
dissolution of the
Union.43 Even Giddings
condemned those who spoke
of the dissolution of the Union as a
possible result of
the annexation of Texas; although he
wrote privately
to Follett that it must be resisted at
all costs because
it "must dissolve our present
compact,"44 and after it
became evident to the Whigs that Texas
would be an-
nexed, he urged Follett (W) to call a
convention of all
those, irrespective of party, who were
opposed to the
annexation of Texas.45 Giddings
wanted the Whig
party to take such strong grounds
against the annexa-
tion of Texas that it would absorb the
Liberty party.
As a result of contacts with the
anti-slavery men of
Massachusetts,46 he
attempted, but without success, to
organize popular conventions against
the annexation of
Texas. Giddings' position was
determined by hostility
41 H. H. Leavitt to McLean, February 6,
1845, McLean MSS., v. XI.
42 S. F. Vinton to Greene, December 15,
1844, Greene MSS.
43 Vinton to Greene, December 15, 1844,
quoted in "Selections from the
William Greene Papers, II," in Quarterly
Publications of the Historical and
Philosophical Society of Ohio, 1919, v. XIV, no. 1, p. 19.
44 Giddings to Follett, November 18,
1844, quoted in "Selections from
the Follett Papers, III," in loc.
cit., 1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 20-21.
45 Giddings to Follett, February 18,
1845, quoted in "Selections from the
Follett Papers, III," in loc.
cit., 1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 21-22.
46 Advances were also made to Chase by
Charles Allen and Charles
Francis Adams to sound the anti-slavery
sentiment in Ohio. L. C. Phillips,
Charles Allen, C. F. Adams to Chase,
June 25, 1845, Chase MSS., v. X.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 115
to the slave power rather than love for
the negro. "I
am most confident," he wrote,
"in the belief that quiet
submission to the flagrant outrage of
annexation, su-
pinely permitting ourselves to be sold
and transferred
like Southern slaves to the political
control of the Texan
slaveholders; and forming a new union
with that Gov-
ernment will prove the grave of the
Whig party." He
believed that the Liberty party and the
most strongly
anti-slavery portion of the Whigs would
ultimately
unite.47 Had this move been
successful, the Free Soil
party might have been anticipated by
three years.
The position of the Democrats of Ohio
was difficult
because many believed that the annexation
of Texas
would produce an undue southern
influence in the Na-
tional Government and would break faith
with Mexico,
while others, strongly favoring
annexation, urged Allen
and Tappan to disobey instructions they
had received
from the Whig Legislature.48 Publicly
the Democratic
party continued to approve the actions
of the Admin-
istration toward Texas. Its State
Convention of July
4, 1845, which emphasized the American
claims to Ore-
gon, condemned the attitude of the
Whigs on Texas as
"anti-national" and compared
their action to that of
47 Giddings
to Follett, July 16, 1845, quoted in "Selections from the Fol-
lett Papers, III," in loc. cit.,
1915, v. X, No. 1, pp. 27-29; Giddings' opposi-
tion was of a somewhat different nature
from that of Sumner, who was
possessed by an intense conviction of
"the great shame and wrong of slav-
ery." Complete Works of Charles
Sumner, (Statesman Edition) v. 1, pp.
154-156.
48 There
were still other practical politicians, such as Medary, who felt
a great interest in the matter but who
were willing to leave the whole matter
to the judgment of Allen; George Kesling
to Allen, January 1, 1845;
Joseph M. Fair, to Allen, Feb. 19, 1845;
J. W. Walters to Allen, February
15, 1845; Lewis Day to Allen, December
27, 1844; All in Allen MSS., vols.
V and VI; Many others of same nature in
Allen MSS.; Medary to Allen,
January 31, 1845, Allen MSS., v. XI.
116 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the Federalists in the War of 1812.49 In the actual
vote
on the annexation resolution in
Congress, even Brinker-
hoff and Tappan, who had threatened to
oppose it,
voted for the measure.50 So
completely did the Demo-
cratic party of Ohio fall in line
behind the Polk pro-
gram that Senator Benton's course in
opposing annexa-
tion greatly injured his standing in
Ohio.51
Some Ohio Whigs wanted to make
annexation an
issue in the Congressional elections of
1845, in order to
further the candidacy of McLean,52
but the majority
were content to meet in local
conventions and adopt reso-
tions in opposition to annexation. McLean, himself, felt
that, although most Whigs were opposed
to annexation,
their attitude was unwise, and that the
party should wait
until after annexation was accomplished
and then op-
pose the admission of Texas as a slave
state.53 This
would have divided the parties
hopelessly and brought
about the same state of affairs which the
Whigs were
so anxious to avoid in 1848. With
public opinion in the
United States thus divided, Texas
accepted the offer
of annexation. Following Polk's advice,
in his first an-
49 The Democrats of Marion County
officially approved the course of
the Administration toward Texas, which
they welcomed into the Confed-
eracy. Ohio Statesman, July 7,
1845, Sept. 1, 1845.
50 Stanton to Brinkerhoff, January 19,
1845, Stanton MSS., v. I; Joshua
R. Giddings, op. cit., p. 236;
The Xenia Torch-Light (W) denounced Tap-
pan in a scathing manner. Tappan, in
violation of Senate rules, had made
public the treaty in an attempt to
defeat its passage and "yet . . . the whip
and spur of the slave-dealing
politicians were fearlessly applied, until this
dough-headed abortion of progressive
democracy yielded -- eschewed his
democratic and abolition principles --
spat out the convictions of his judg-
ment -- forgot that he bore the
semblance of a man, and crouched like a
spaniel at the feet of his master."
Xenia Torch-Light, March 13, 1845.
51 R. M. Whitacre to Allen, February 16,
1846, Allen MSS., v. XI.
52 C. Morris to McLean, March 13, 1845.
McLean MSS., v. XI.
53 McLean to Chase, January 10,
1845. Chase MSS., v. VIII, Pa.
Party Politics in Ohio,
1840-1850 117
nual message, Congress acted favorably
upon the ques-
tion, and on December 29, the President
signed the bill
for admission. On February 19, 1846,
Texas was for-
mally admitted.54
There remained the
"re-occupation" of Oregon, an
issue upon which the Democracy of the
Northwest was
enthusiastic. Ready to support the
party in its Texas
program, the Democrats of the Northwest
expected a