VICTOR B. HOWARD
The 1856 Election in Ohio:
Moral Issues in Politics
In recent years a growing number of
social scientists have taken the position that
ethnic and cultural diversity of
American society, and not ideologies of platforms
of the major parties, have been the
chief factors in determining American political
alignments.1 Samuel P. Hays
insists that party ideologies never reflect the major
concern of the local electorate, and on
that level ethno-cultural issues are much
more important in mobilizing the voters
than national questions.2 This interest in
the effects of social and cultural
factors on contemporary politics has led to re-
examinations of the importance of
ethno-cultural influences on political alignments
in antebellum America.3 Most recently,
historical debate on this question has cen-
tered around the relative importance of
the slavery issues in contrast to the ethno-
cultural issues as determining forces in
the origin and support for the Republican
party, especially the Radical wing.
Three main schools of interpretation can
be identified as participants in the
debate. Historians James Ford Rhodes and
Allan Nevins represent a group that
view slavery as the cause for the rise
of the Republican party and for the Civil
War. Rhodes writes without reservation
that "slavery was the cause of the War."
The South "went to war to extend
slavery"; but it was the cruelty "as evidenced by
the rigor with which the lash was
used" that aroused much of the indignation in
the North. In speaking about the
incitement of public opinion against the Kansas-
Nebraska bill by the clergy, Rhodes says
"the ministers would have been recreant
to their calling had they not proclaimed
from their pulpits what the spirit of their
religion prompted them to speak."4
Thus, Rhodes sees the events of the 1850's
and the Civil War as a clash between
good and evil; and Nevins, writing later,
retains Rhodes' stress on the moral
issues of slavery as the ultimate cause of the
war.5
1. Walter Dean Burnham, "Party
Systems and the Political Process," in William N. Chambers
and Walter Dean Burnham, eds., The
American Party System (New York, 1967), 285; Samuel P. Hays,
"Political Parties and the
Community-Society Continuum," in ibid., 158, 161-162.
2. Hays, "Political Parties,"
158, 161-162.
3. Lee Benson, The Concept of
Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case (Princeton, 1961),
165; Joel H. Silbey, ed., The
Transformation of American Politics, 1850-1860 (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1967), 3-4.
4. James Ford Rhodes, History of the
United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the End of the
Roosevelt Administration (London, 1928), I, 27, 53, 325, 480.
5. Allan Nevins, The Emergence of
Lincoln (New York, 1950), I, 12, 27.
Mr. Howard is professor of history at
Morehead State University.
The 1856 Election 25
Michael Fitzgibbon Holt, on the other
hand, challenges the importance of sla-
very in the rise of the Republican party
and instead emphasizes the significance
of ethno-cultural factors. In a recent
study on the formation of the Republican
party in Pittsburgh, he questions the
role of the Kansas-Nebraska act as a signi-
ficant factor in the development of the
party. Even though the basic appeal to the
voters in 1856 was one of hostility to
the South, says Holt, local tensions and the
old party loyalties had as much to do
with determining the outcome of the elec-
tion as the national debate over slavery
extension. Therefore his analysis of the
local issues and the resulting voting
behavior in Pittsburgh leads him to doubt
the importance of the moral issues of
slavery in shaping political patterns in the
North in the 1850's.6
A third and more general position is
seen in studies by Eric Foner and Thomas
A. Flinn. Their analysis of voting
behavior in the 1850's takes into consideration
political, moral, ethno-cultural, and
socioeconomic appeals. Foner sees the funda-
mental achievement of the Republican
party as:
The creation and articulation of an
ideology which blended personal and sectional interest
with morality so perfectly that it
became the most potent political force in the nation. The
free labor assault upon slavery and
southern society, coupled with the idea that an aggres-
sive Slave Power was threatening the
most fundamental values and interests of the free
states, hammered the slavery issue home
to the northern public more emphatically than
an appeal to morality alone could ever
have done.7
The purpose of this paper is to further
investigate the slavery and slavery exten-
sion issues studied by Rhodes and Allen,
specifically in the election of 1856 for
three important areas of the state of
Ohio, as a case study to determine the ex-
tent to which these issues were
successfully used as moral appeals by politicians
and friends of the Republican party in
an effort to influence the vote.
On January 4, 1854, the political calm
of the previous three years was broken
with a storm of religious protests. The
emotional outburst was triggered by Senator
Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois when he
introduced a bill for the organization of
the territories of Kansas and Nebraska.
Douglas' bill incorporated the principle
of "popular sovereignty," that
is, the local residents were to be given the responsi-
bility of choosing for or against
slavery. In its final form, as submitted on January
23, the bill permitted the admission of
the territories, with or without slavery, and
repealed the Missouri Compromise which
had barred slavery from the Kansas
and Nebraska Territory.
Immediately an alarm went out in the
form of an "Appeal of the Independent
Democrats [Radical Republicans] in
Congress to the People of the United States."
This "Appeal" called on the
moral forces of the nation to repudiate the action
taken by Douglas: "We implore
Christians and Christian ministers to interpose.
6. Michael Fitzgibbon Holt, Forging A
Majority. The Formation of the Republican Party in Pitts-
burgh, 1848-1860 (New Haven, 1969), 173, 218, 312.
7. Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor,
Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the
Civil War (New York, 1970), 309; Thomas A. Flinn,
"Continuity and Change in Ohio Politics," Jour-
nal of Politics, XX (August 1962), 542. Several writers have effectively
demonstrated that other issues
were prevalent in secular opinion.
Randolph C. Downes, Lake Port (Toledo, 1951), 107-108, shows
reactions in Lucas County to the
sectional political problems. Frederick J. Blue, "The Ohio Free
Soilers and the Problems of
Factionalism," Ohio History, LXXVI (Winter 1967), 17-32, shows the
importance of the Liberty-Free Soil
groups in the anti-Nebraska coalition. George H. Porter, Ohio
Politics During the Civil War Period (New York, 1911), emphasizes the significance of
national legis-
lative and sectional issues in Ohio.
Their devine religion required them to behold in every man a brother, and to labor for the advancement and regeneration of the human race."8 Dated January 19, 1854, the "Appeal" was signed by Joshua R. Giddings, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Wade of Ohio; Gerrit Smith of New York; and Charles Sumner and Alex- ander DeWitt of Massachusetts. It found a highly receptive audience among the religious forces of the nation. The Journal of Commerce reported that 3,263 anti- Nebraska sermons were preached in New England and New York during the six weeks following introduction of the bill in Congress. The New England clergy organized a joint petition that solicited 3,050 names of clergymen on a roll that extended two hundred feet in length. The petition expressed objections to the Ne- braska bill on moral grounds.9 The clergy of New York followed New England's example, and petition movements got under way in every large population center north of the Ohio River. The New York petition was presented to the clergy of the Western Reserve through the columns of the Ohio Observer, the organ of the New School Presbyterians in northern Ohio. The editor published it in regular petition form, ready for signature, and urged other religious journals follow its example.10 In the Western Reserve, as well as in that portion of the state that was settled by the Ohio Company and in the general area of the Virginia and United States Military Districts, propaganda concerning the evils and threats of slavery fell on fertile soil. Since 1832 these areas had been strongholds of the Whig party and were inclined toward reform. The Western Reserve and the Ohio Company grant were settled primarily by people of New England extraction, and the Yankee West 8. New York Daily Tribune, January 25, 1854. See also Congressional Globe, 33 cong., 1 sess., January 30, 1854, pp. 281-282. 9. Joshua R. Giddings, History of the Rebellion: Its Authors and Causes (New York, 1864), 366; Cincinnati Enquirer, April 6, 1854, citing Journal of Commerce; Presbyterian of the West, March 30, 1854, citing New York Evangelist. The Douglas bill passed the Senate, 37-4, in March 1854, and the House, 113-100, in May. 10. New York Tribune, March 16, 1854; Ohio Observer (Cleveland), March 15, 1854. |
The 1856 Election 27
had always been fertile soil for
antislavery sentiment.11 The teachings of Charles
Finney and Theodore Weld during the
1830's did much to convert the Western
Reserve to the concept of the church's
responsibility for a Christian society. The
church should be a social force in
shaping a Christian nation and an instrument
for political and social change.12
The Virginia Military District had been
largely settled by southerners. Although
many retained close sentimental and
family ties with the South, others had been
motivated in seeking a new home because
of their antislavery views. Many south-
ern Quakers had settled here because of
their opposition to slavery. With the ex-
ception of the counties bordering the
Ohio River this region had been a strong
Whig area since 1832. In 1833 the
Abolition Society of Paint Valley was established
under the leadership of a group of
Presbyterian clergymen.13
In these sections of Ohio religious
institutions were more deeply involved in the
political contest of 1856 than the more
recently settled areas. The Trumbull Dem-
ocrat was convinced that the clergymen of Western Reserve
were more active in
politics than their colleagues in any
other part of the country. "In no equal extent
of population and territory with the
Western Reserve, are there so many fanatics
and bigots; so many divines who preach
from Giddings' speeches, instead of Christ's
gospel," charged the editor. In the
United States Military District an editor de-
clared that there were about twenty
clergymen in the vicinity of Mount Vernon,
Ohio, everyone of whom was unfriendly to
Buchanan and favored Fremont as
president. The clergymen in the Ohio
Company purchase were also "more" fre-
quently accused of introducing partisan
politics into civic affairs than their col-
leagues in any other area.14
Working for similar goals as the clergy
in 1856 were some Republican politi-
cians who promoted the moral crusade
against slavery. Thery were members of
the Radical antislavery wing of the
party. It would be inaccurate, however, to as-
sume that their positions were motivated
entirely by either politics, economics, or
morality; but the moral issue was the
most discussed. When Theodore D. Weld
toured the Western Reserve in the
1830's, he converted Ohio's politicians, Joshua
Giddings and Benjamin Wade, and James G.
Birney to abolitionism as a religious
conviction and Salmon P. Chase in turn
was influenced by the religious arguments
of Birney, who testified that he
championed antislavery because he felt it a religious
duty and because he believed slavery to
be a dreadful moral wrong. During the
election campaign of 1856 Chase used all
of his skill to make slavery the dividing
issue between Democrats and Republicans.
He was, however, disappointed with
the extent to which slavery was
denounced on moral grounds by the Republicans.
Soon after the election he explained to
Giddings the course he felt Radicals should
11. Flinn, "Continuity and Change
in Ohio Politics," 524-527; A. G. Riddle, "The Rise of Anti-
slavery Sentiment on the Western
Reserve," Magazine of Western History, VI (June 1887), 145, 154.
12. Theodore Weld was a Calvinist
clergyman and agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society.
Charles Finney was a Calvinist clergyman
who influenced the Western Reserve by his revival tech-
niques. See W. G. McLoughlin, Modern
Revivalism (New York, 1959), 26; Gilbert Hobbs Barnes, The
Antislavery Impulse, 1830-1844 (New York, 1933), 3-16, 39-40.
13. Robert E. Chaddock, Ohio Before
1850: A Study of the Early Influence of Pennsylvania and
Southern Populations in Ohio (New York, 1908), 35-37, 89; Stephen B. Weeks, Southern
Quakers and
Slavery: A Study in Institutional
History (Baltimore, 1896), 212; Thomas
E. Thomas, Correspondence
of Thomas Ebenezer Thomas; Mainly
Relating to the Anti-Slavery Conflict in Ohio. Especialty in the
Presbyterian Church (Dayton, 1909), 22.
14. Mahoning County Register (Youngstown),
February 21, 1856, citing Trumbull Democrat (War-
ren); Mount Vernon Republican, July
29, 1856; Marietta Republican, July 11, August 15, 1856.
follow: "Let us condemn it as it deserves to be condemned every where . . . and put our action upon the moral ground."15 Throughout his two decades in Congress, Giddings insisted on the primacy of the moral issue in the antislavery movement. In 1846 as commissioner from the Grand River Presbytery to the general assembly of the New School Presbyterian Church, he had carried his attack on slavery to the church's highest judicatory. When the conservatives of the Republican party emphasized economic issues in 1856, he accused the old Whigs of "a cold atheism" for their lack of "recognition of right, of enduring principle, of God, his attributes or laws."16 The uncompromis- ing political stance of many Radicals stemmed in a large part from their convic- tion that slavery should be viewed primarily as a sin. In Congress in 1854, Edward Wade, while telling his colleagues that the Bible was the supreme authority in every moral question, proceeded to outline how slavery violated the Scripture.17 This attitude, moreover, was not limited to only a handful of Radical leaders. A correspondent to the Ohio State Journal who signed himself as an "Old Whig" declared that the real issue of the 1856 election campaign was the extension of slavery. The northern people, he insisted, were "conscientiously opposed to Slavery," believing it to be a moral wrong, "a violation of the law of nature and the laws of God. To establish Slavery is, therefore, in their estimation a sin, a crime, a moral wrong as much as lying, or slander, or larceny, or murder."18 15. George W. Julian, The Life of Joshua R. Giddings (Chicago, 1892), 45; H. L. Trefousse, Ben- jamin Franklin Wade: Radical Republican from Ohio (New York, 1963), 30; Barnes, Antislavery Impulse, 80, 82; Albert Bushnell Hart, Salmon Portland Chase (New York, 1899), 51, 53; Salmon P. Chase to Joshua R. Giddings, May 1, 1857, Joshua R. Giddings Papers, Ohio Historical Society. 16. Julian, Giddings, 351-352, 383; Minutes of the Presbyterian Church (New School) (Philadelphia, 1846), 7; Byron Long, "Joshua Reed Giddings," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Publications, XXVIII (1919), 40-41. 17. Congressional Globe, 33 cong., 1 sess., Appendix, 665-666. 18. Ohio State Journal (Columbus), July 14, 1856. |
The 1856 Election 29
If the true motivations of Radical
Republicans and many of their following are
difficult to ascertain, the same cannot
be said of the clergy who became involved
with political issues in 1856 to a
degree surpassing any previous time since the
American Revolution. The clergymen did
not generally express themselves in con-
ventional political meetings but instead
raised their voices on political matters
from their pulpits or adopted
resolutions or drew up memorials in their church
conventions or associations. Baptists of
Ohio, for example, were almost entirely
on the side of the Republican party.
Jeremiah Hall, president of Baptist Denison
University, dissolved his connection
with the Democratic party and came out
"boldly" for John C. Fremont
and William Lewis Dayton. He had been "an old
and substantial member of the Democratic
party."19 When the 1856 Ohio Baptist
convention met in October, it recorded a
solemn protest against the "flagrant out-
rages" in Kansas, and urged a
special prayer for deliverance from "farther en-
croachment of the slave power." The
faithful were implored to labor without
ceasing by all proper means for the
removal of slavery.20
Free Will Baptists in Ohio spoke in
stronger language than the Ohio Baptist
convention. The Free Will Baptists of
Medina County met in their quarterly con-
ference in June 1856 and expressed
vigorous opposition to the Democrats. "We
utterly abhor the course persued by the
Government in its treatment of Kansas,"
resolved the association. They denounced
the attack on Charles Sumner, and con-
cluded with a warning to their
Democratic members: "We view the position taken
by some of our members in sustaining men
pledged to oppression for important
offices in our Government as
pro-slavery, and inconsistent with Bible doctrine."21
The Free Will Baptists of Huron County
met in their quarterly meeting later in
the month and unanimously resolved that
President Franklin Pierce should be im-
peached because of the Kansas
transgressions and that congressmen who sustained
the administration should be silenced at
the ballot box. The association concluded
its resolutions with the charge that
"all ministers who were silent upon, or apolo-
gized for the system of slavery were
justly to be classed with those watchmen spoken
of by the Prophet Isaiah who declared
them to be dumb and greedy dogs--watchmen
who were blind."22
Congregationalists were equally active
in the Republican cause. A. M. Richardson
delivered a discourse before the Grand
River Congregational Association in April
entitled, "Freedom's Crisis and the
Christian's Duty," in which he attacked slavery
in both church and state. At Lennox,
Ohio, in June, he openly declared:
If any crisis can justify a revolution
this surely is one ... Civil War is forced upon us....
The Church should lead the van in this
struggle for Liberty and Right!
He predicted that political action would
be sufficient if the people would break
their old political ties and join in the
movement to prevent the extension of slavery.23
Church associations and assemblies
passed resolutions against the legislation
and entered formal protests in Congress.
The Methodist conferences in Ohio were
united in their opposition to the
Kansas-Nebraska act. When the North Ohio
conference had met in 1854, the
delegates expressed the "strongest disapprobation"
19. Ohio Repository (Canton),
July 23, 1856, citing the Ohio State Journal.
20. Ohio State Journal, October
25, 1856; Western Reserve Chronicle (Warren), November 5, 1856.
21. Carroll Free Press (Carrollton),
June 26, 1856, citing Cleveland Leader.
22. Norwalk Reflector, July 15,
1856.
23. Oberlin Evangelist, XIII
(June 4, 1856), 90; ibid., (August 27, 1856), 139.
30
OHIO HISTORY
of the Kansas-Nebraska legislation,
considering it "a gross violation of a sacred
pledge." The Cincinnati conference
took an even more determined stand. The
delegates not only had expressed
anti-Nebraska sentiment but also had revealed
antislavery feelings by opposing the
institution of slavery itself. The members of
the conference were urged to send
petitions to Congress demanding that the Fu-
gitive Slave law be excluded from the
territories of Kansas and Nebraska. In 1855
both groups had asked the general
conference to strike at the institution itself
by strengthening the church's General
Rule of Discipline on Slavery.24
A group of activists met in Oberlin on
August 21, 1854, and organized the
Kansas Emigration Aid Association of
Northern Ohio for the purpose of aiding
Free Soilers to settle Kansas. The
meeting was dominated by James H. Fairchild,
James A. Thome, Timothy B. Hudson, and
Henry E. Peck, who were Congrega-
tional ministers and professors of
Oberlin College.25 Earlier in the year Congre-
gational associations had met and taken
action on the Nebraska bill. The Medina
conference of Congregationalists
expressed determined opposition to the Nebraska
bill, and the general Ohio
Congregational conference called it "a crime . . . against
liberty . . . and humanity." Since
it was thought that the paramount moral interest
of the nation had been wantonly violated
by abrogation of the Missouri Com-
promise, the general conference called
on all who loved liberty to rally in the strug-
gle for freedom and to seek to reverse
the injustice by all lawful means.26
Also in opposition to the Nebraska bill
in 1854 were the Ohio New School
Presbyterian presbyteries of Portage,
Pataskala, Trumbull, and Franklin, and the
Free Presbyterian Church. Among the Old
School Presbyterian judicatories only
the strongly antislavery presbytery of
Chillicothe adopted measures opposing the
bill as well as the extension of
slavery.27 The responses of the New School clergy-
men,28 in general, were
typified by the contrasting approaches taken by Joseph
Bittinger, a New School man of the
Presbytery of Cleveland, and Nathaniel West,
Jr., of the Old School Presbytery of
Cincinnati. Bittinger took his stand as an ab-
solute moralist. "Right and wrong
admit no compromise. ... Every compromise
in the domain of ethics is treason or
dereliction," he warned. In opposition, West,
criticizing the entry of the clergy in
politics, "repudiated, with all his power, the
rampant radicalism of the age"
which had fastened itself upon slavery and the
territorial question. He denounced the
movement as being infidel in its tendencies.29
These views represented the extremes of
opinion on slavery and the territorial
24. Minutes of the North Ohio Annual
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1854 (Cin-
cinnati, 1854), 35; ibid., 1855, p.
24; Minutes of the Cincinnati Annual Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, 1854 (Cincinnati, 1854), 35; ibid., 1855, p. 8.
25. Eli Thayer. A History of the
Kansas Crusade: Its Friends and Its Foes (New York, 1899), 177,
citing New York Tribune, August
31, 1854. See also Robert Samuel Fletcher, A History of Oberlin
College: From Its Foundation Through
the Civil War (Oberlin, 1943), I,
391-392.
26. Congregational Herald (Chicago),
June 23, 1854; Minutes of the Second Annual Meeting of the
Ohio Congregational Conference,
Marietta, Ohio, June 20-22, 1854 (Cleveland,
1854), 5-6.
27. Records of the following: Presbytery
of Portage, 1854-1863, IV, 228, Office of the Presbytery
of Cleveland; Presbytery of Pataskala,
1848-1870, II, 120, Library of the Synod of Ohio, Wooster Col-
lege; Presbytery of Franklin, 1846-1860,
I, 215, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia; Presby-
tery of Trumbull, Ohio Observer, May
3, 1854; Presbytery of Chillicothe, 1846-1870, pp. 186-188,
Library of the Synod of Ohio, Wooster
College; Free Presbyterian (Yellow Springs), November 1, 1854.
28. In 1837 the Presbyterian Church in
the United States divided into the Old and New School
branches. The branches differed in
doctrinal principles and on the value of the union with Congrega-
tionalists in benevolent and missionary
enterprises.
29. Cleveland Plain Dealer, May
10, 1854; Cincinnati Gazette, December 4, 1854.
The 1856 Election 31
question in the two main branches of
this denomination, but both branches housed
opinions shading toward moderation.
The Presbyterian journals, in contrast
to the division within the church, were
united in their opposition to the
Kansas-Nebraska act. The New School Central
Christian Herald spoke against the bill, and the Ohio Observer advised
that firm
resistance would kill the proposal.30
The Old School Presbyterian of the West warned:
"Set aside and trample on the
Compromise of 1820, and that of 1850 will not
be worth a straw." Two weeks later
the editor returned to the subject: "Shall a
minority . . . with desperate determination
over-ride the solemn compact of the
nation for the purpose of giving
despotism a wider kingdom? Never!" Much of
the religious opinion that opposed the
Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854 centered around
the idea of national sovereignty that
was proposed in the Presbyterian of the West.
The old concept had been that popular
sovereignty, or democratic electoral ref-
erenda, was to decide local issues
within the limits of a state. Thus to many who
accepted Douglas' proposal and
enactment, a referendum to decide the question
of slavery within a territory was
historically in harmony with democratic princi-
ples. Since the free states had grown
into a national majority, however, a new con-
cept had come to the front in the North,
especially among moralists. This required
that questions of broad national policy,
such as slavery, be decided only by the
will of the popular majority in the
nation at large, without regard to the equality
of the states. A referendum in Kansas
which would go against the will of the na-
tional majority was viewed as despotism
and tyranny.31
The Christian Press, organ of the
independent antislavery Congregationalists,
in 1854 saw evidence of a plot in
Washington to jeopardize the economy of the
North:
With the coldness of a villian who
neither fears God nor regards man, with an utter and
scornful disregard of every principle of
faith or honor, it is proposed to sacrifice all that
should be dearest to the nation as a
whole, and the future prosperity of all the North . . .
with the ultimate design of making
slavery supreme in all our land.
The paper's Cincinnati editor, Charles
B. Boynton, was not willing to give in with-
out a fight. "Let Nebraska for the
moment be sacrificed," he said, but the terri-
tory would be rescued again though it
cost "revolution and blood."32
Far more significant than the issue of
despotism versus democracy was the ten-
dency of the religious as well as some
secular opponents of the act in 1854 to charge
that a sacred pledge had been broken.
The Compromise of 1820 was elevated
almost to the level of a constitutional
provision. Its nullification was considered
to be not only a betrayal but almost an
act of treason. This highly emotional in-
terpretation, however, was not shared by
other segments of the population. The
majority of northern congressmen in 1820
had never accepted the compromise,
a fact Douglas had pointed out when he
traveled through Illinois on a speaking
tour in 1854. Also, southern congressmen
and editors, even though they supported
the principle of sectional equality that
was implied in the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, entertained little hope for
the addition of new slave states. As the
30. Central Christian Herald (Cincinnati),
April 13, 1854; Ohio Observer, February 15, 1854.
31. Presbyterian of the West (Cincinnati),
March 2, 23, 1854; Roy Franklin Nichols, The Disruption
of American Democracy (New York, 1948), 52.
32. Free West (Chicago), March 2,
1854, citing the Christian Press (Cincinnati).
32
OHIO HISTORY
Richmond Enquirer said: "The
Nebraska bill contemplates only the recognition of
a principle. All agree that slavery
cannot exist in the territories of Kansas and
Nebraska. . . . The single aim of the
Nebraska bill is to establish the principle of
federal non-intervention in regard to
slavery. . . ."33
The division of opinion on the bill was
firmly set by the end of 1854, with
the clergy largely committed to opposing
the Kansas-Nebraska act. While there was
a minority of Protestant clergy who did
not favor open agitation on the question
of slavery as a political issue, all the
Protestant journals in Ohio were invariably
opposed to the act.34 There
are indications, however, that the moral issue in politics
would have died out if it had not been
for the contest that developed in Kansas
for control of the territory. As has
been mentioned, many clergymen were deeply
involved in the emigrant aid movement
which had as its objective making Kansas
a free territory. In 1855 southerners
took control of Kansas as a result of a highly
questionable election, and slavery
secured protective legislation. In May 1856 the
Free Soil town of Lawrence, Kansas, was
sacked, and Charles Sumner, Senator
from Massachusetts, was assaulted in the
Senate after delivering his bitter speech,
"The Crime Against Kansas."
The excitement was kept at a boiling point by de-
partures of missionaries and settlers
from Ohio to the Kansas battlefield and by
lecture tours that Kansas settlers and
visiting clergy made in Ohio and other states
to gain sympathy and funds. It was under
the influence of these events that the
campaign and election of 1856 took shape
in Ohio.35
Charles B. Boynton, the Cincinnati
pastor and editor of the independent Con-
gregational Christian Press, in
contrast to his 1854 article which had economic
overtones, delivered a sermon in
February 1856 in which he not only denounced
the extension of slavery for religious
reasons but also expressed the desire to see
every man in Ohio rise up against the
Fugitive Slave law. Near the end of the
year he had a short tenure as pastor at
Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and began to
teach the people of that section to
accept "Kansas and Slavery" as "fit topics
for the Sabbath and the pulpit."
Boynton was of the opinion that a political vic-
tory would be only a superficial gain.
"The real question before the country lies
much deeper than all our political
movements; and there is a . . . religious sen-
timent to shape and sustain political
opinion and action," he prophesied. Boynton
took an active interest in seeing that
his opinions were put before the public in
Ohio.36
33. Glover Moore, The Missouri
Controversy, 1819-1821 (Lexington, 1966), 148-149; Richmond
Enquirer, March 9, 1854. Almost every religious association that
considered the Kansas-Nebraska act
resolved that a sacred pledge of 1820
had been broken by the South. For examples, see Minutes of the
North Ohio Annual Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, 1854, p.
35; Minutes of the Second
Annual Meeting of the Ohio
Congregational Conference, 1854, pp.
5-6.
34. Nathaniel West was the most
outspoken example of a clergyman in Ohio who opposed political
sermons. See Cincinnati Gazette,
December 4, 1854. No Protestant journal favored the Kansas-
Nebraska act. For expressions of
opposition, see Free West, March 2, 1854, citing Christian Press;
Presbyterian of the West, March 2, 1854; Ohio Observer, February 15, 1854.
35. Cincinnati Enquirer, June 3,
1854, citing Presbyterian (Philadelphia); S. L. Adair to S. S. Jocelyn,
June 24, 1854, No. 106346, John H. Byrd
to George Whipple, June 3, 1854, No. 106312, American
Missionary Association Archives, Dillard
University; Henry Smith, The Truly Christian Pulpit: Our
Strongest National Defense (New York, 1854), 31; R. S. Egleston to Milton Badger,
February 5, 1857,
American Home Missionary Society, Fisk
University.
36. Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati),
February 13, 1856; M. M. Langley to S. S. Jocelyn,
February 9, 1856, No. 53485; Charles B.
Boynton to S. S. Jocelyn, No. 53335, American Missionary
Association Archives.
The 1856 Election 33
Many Congregational clergymen did not
limit expression of their views on pol-
itics to sermons and lectures within the
confines of the church. In June the Rev-
erend C. G. Finney, president of Oberlin
College, announced from the pulpit that
the professors and clergymen of Oberlin
College would hold a prayer meeting in
the morning for one week before the
Philadelphia Republican national convention.
The subject of the meetings was to be
Kansas and the success of the Republican
party.37 Patriotic gatherings
were another outlet used by the clergy and laymen
to spread Republican ideas. At Marietta,
Professor Addison Ballard delivered a
Fourth of July address which a Democratic
newspaper characterized as being
"malignant with innuendo . . .
aimed at the Democratic party. . . ." Levi L. Fay,
of the Congregational church at Lawrence
(Ohio) who regularly preached about
contemporary political questions and was
accused of delivering a partisan Fourth
of July address, received a Republican
nomination for local office.38 Undisguised
political meetings in which
Congregational clergymen participated were not limited
to the local Ohio clergy. In February
the Congregationalist and Illinois abolitionist,
Owen Lovejoy, spoke in Salem on the
Christian duty in the present political crisis.
The abolitionist Liberty party lecturer
and staunch Congregationalist, Alanson St.
Clair, came from Kansas to Columbus in
early August to speak. Under the spon-
sorship of the Ohio Republican
committee, he lectured on the wrongs of Kansas.39
A Congregational missionary who had been
sent into Ohio by the American Mis-
sionary Association reported to Lewis
Tappan, an association officer, that he had
labored industriously "to resist
the encroachments of the Slave Power" by purchas-
ing campaign literature from the
Republican committee and distributing it to pro-
mote the cause.40 John A.
Seymour, a Congregational clergyman who had served
in Kansas lectured in central Ohio on
the "outrages" taking place in Kansas. He
held the Democratic administration
responsible for all of the atrocities committed
in Kansas and informed the people that
he had gone to Kansas as a Democrat
but had returned a Republican.41
The New School Presbyterians throughout
1856 continued the opposition to the
Democrats they had initiated in 1854. O.
H. Newton, a pastor of the Delaware
Second Presbyterian Church, called upon
all Christians to act in accordance with
the great principle of right. "I
believe God calls upon us to throw beneath our
feet that slave power which has
so long controlled our nation. . . . Let the noble
sons of the North present an undivided front against the
slavery of the South,"
he urged. Carlos Smith of Tallmadge
spoke in a similar vein. He lectured for twice
the length of his usual Sunday sermon on
the guilty involvement of the Demo-
crats with slavery in Kansas.42 In
Warren in June William G. Clark preached on
slavery as a political institution and
informed his congregation that it was his duty
to spread before his hearers the truth
on all great moral questions and reprove
sin wherever found. On another Sunday at
the end of August he dealt more specif-
ically with the "outrages"
being committed by the Democrats in Kansas.43 Anson
37. Cleveland Plain Dealer, June
20, 1856; Trumbull Democrat, June 26, 1856.
38. Marietta Republican, July 11,
August 15, 1856.
39. Cleveland Leader, March 4,
1856; Ohio State Journal, August 4, 5, 6, 1856.
40. Horace Nye to Lewis Tappan,
September 25, 1856, No. 107569, American Missionary Associa-
tion Archives.
41. Columbiana County Republican (Salem),
July 30, 1856.
42. Delaware Gazette, August 8,
1856; Summit Beacon (Akron), July 30, 1856.
43. Western Reserve Chronicle, June
18, 1856; Trumbull Democrat, September 18, 1856.
34
OHIO HISTORY
Smith of Columbus went so far as to
campaign for the Republican party and accept
the nomination as a candidate for school
commissioner, and D. Howe Allen, pres-
ident of Lane Theological Seminary in
Cincinnati, made a series of speeches for
the Fremont party.44
The Presbyterian missionaries in the
service of domestic missionary societies
in Ohio were among the most outspoken of
Presbyterian Republicans. One mis-
sionary from the American Home
Missionary Society in Morrow County preached
regularly to his congregation against
the "aggressions of slavery" and urged the
people to vote as the Lord would
approve. Another missionary preached a strong
election sermon which was published. It
only offended one family in the congre-
gation "which was of the Democratic
faith," he reported to the officers of the Mis-
sionary Society.45 W. G.
Kephart, a Free Presbyterian missionary of the American
Missionary Association in Gallia County,
was one of the most active clergy in the
state in the Republican cause. He
preached regularly in support of the Republi-
can party. Was Kansas to be another
Ohio, or be like Kentucky and Missouri in
relation to the vitality and strength of
religion? Fear was expressed, in missionary
conventions and in sermons delivered
when collections for missions were made,
that free institutions and, indeed,
freedom of religion were threatened by slavery
in Kansas. Thus, to Kephart,Kansas
became both the symbol for hope of Chris-
tian America as well as the decisive
battleground that would determine the fate
of Christianity's mission to the entire
world. Nathaniel P. Bailey, a New School
clergyman in Ohio, warned the friends of
missions that slavery was a plague and
a giant parasite to be dreaded. Unless
met and totally exterminated, he predicted,
it would "soon prove the Angel of
Death to this first-born of Christian Republics."46
When the New School Presbyterian judicatories
met in 1856, an even stronger
stand was taken against slavery. The
emphasis was placed on the relation of the
church to slavery rather than on the
political controversy concerning Kansas. The
Presbytery of Portage asked the general
assembly to separate the church from
slavery. The Western Reserve Synod
expressed regret that the last general assem-
bly had taken no action against slavery.
This was viewed as more unfortunate
because of the violence in Kansas and
the "suppression of free speech" in the
Congress of the United States.47
When the district conferences of the
Methodist church met in 1856, it became
clear that the clergy and the editor of
the Western Christian Advocate, who spoke
out on the moral issues in the political
campaign of that year, were expressing
the opinion of the majority of the
congregation in Ohio. The North Ohio annual
conference condemned the South for its
"opposition to the churches based on
principles of freedom of conscience"
and expressed deep sympathy for those who
had died in the conflict in Kansas as
martyrs to religious freedom.48 The Cincin-
nati annual conference resolved that the
Methodist clergy could not be deterred
44. Clermont Sun, July 10, 1856.
45. Henry Shedd to
"Secretaries," October 3, 1856, Samuel D. Smith to Milton Badger,
November
17, 1856, American Home Missionary
Society.
46. Gallia Republican (Vinton),
August 14, 1856; Nathaniel P. Bailey, Our Duty As Taught by the
Aggressive Nature of Slavery (Akron, 1856), 4.
47. Minutes of the Presbytery of
Portage, 1843-1863, p. 268, 276, Office of the Presbytery of Cleve-
land; Records of the Synod of Western
Reserve, 1856-1867, p. 227. Archives of the Synod of Ohio,
Wooster College.
48. Minutes of the North Ohio Annual
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church Held in Mans-
field, Ohio, September 17-23, 1856 (Cincinnati, 1856), 25.
The 1856 Election 35
from declaring the whole counsel of God
because political parties that were in
league with slavery made an effort
"to silence the voice of the pulpit by the out-
cry of political preaching."49
Before the election of 1856, the
antislavery editor of the Methodist Northwestern
Christian Advocate believed the general conference would not "evince
before the
world that doughfaced truculency"
which he saw Congress displaying. The anti-
slavery efforts to strengthen the rule
against slavery failed in the 1856 general con-
ference; nevertheless, resolutions were
adopted requesting the book agents and
tract secretary to publish tracts on
slavery, including Wesley's Thoughts on Slavery,
and an associate of William Lloyd
Garrison was chosen editor of the Sunday School
publications. Early in 1857 the Delaware
and Erie conferences also endorsed the
publication of antislavery tracts and
pledged to have them circulated as widely
as possible.50
The campaign and election of 1856 also
elicited various reactions from other
church bodies. The Congregational
associations in the Western Reserve and the
Ohio New School presbyteries were among
those taking the lead in 1856 in de-
manding that the American Home
Missionary Society cease giving aid to slave-
holding churches. Under pressure from
the Northwest, in December the executive
committee of the society cut off aid
from slaveholding churches, and in May 1857
the Western Reserve Synod, led by
antislavery forces at its general assembly in
Cleveland, secured adoption of measures
that provoked the secession of the south-
ern synods from the New School
Presbyterian Church.51 When the Ohio Congre-
gational general conference met in June
1856, opinion was adamant. The conference
expressed hope that the spreading
revulsion in the public mind would lead to a
speedy political revolution through the
ballot box which would divorce the Federal
Government from its "ruinous
alliance" with the institution of slavery. The con-
ference called on all Christians to
unite with them in prayer for deliverance of the
country from "impending
perils."52
In contrast, the clergy of the Episcopal
church were largely silent on the ques-
tions involved in the election of 1856.
Of those who made public statements the
majority censured the pulpit for
involving itself in politics. Nevertheless, in Akron,
Edward Meyer, pastor of St. Paul's
Episcopal Church, denounced the assault on
Charles Sumner and added that the
"arrogance and ruffianism of the slave power"
ought, if it would not desist, to be
withstood by force. It was his view that in the
midst of such violence by the slave
power, the pulpit ought not remain silent.53
The Reverend Joseph E. Ryan of Christ
Church in Warren likewise felt the clergy
should not remain silent, but he was
opposed to political sermons. In response to
an advertisement in the Trumbull Democrat
enquiring where pious persons might
attend churches and hear the gospel
preached without being abused for their po-
49. Minutes of the Cincinnati Annual
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the Year
1856 (Cincinnati, 1856), 36.
50. Northwestern Christian Advocate, December
19, 1855; Gilbert Haven to William Lloyd Garrison
in Liberator, March 29, 1861; Journal
of the Central Conference (Methodist) (New York, 1856), 150;
Minutes of the Delaware [Ohio] Conference (Methodist) (Cincinnati,
1857), 27-28; J. N. Fradenburgh,
History of Erie Conference (Oil City, Penn., 1907), II, 519.
51. Victor B. Howard, "The
Anti-Slavery Movement in the Presbyterian Church, 1833-1861" (un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1961), 217-219, 236-237.
52. Minutes of the Fourth Annual Meeting
of the Ohio Congregational Conference, Dayton, Ohio,
June 17-19, 1856 (Ohio Congregational Conference, 1856), 9.
53. Summit Beacon, June 4, 1856.
36
OHIO HISTORY
litical opinions, he declared that those
who denounced slavery and the violation
of sacred compacts were political
hucksters. Ryan, however, was in agreement with
James H. Bolles, rector of Trinity
Church in Cleveland. In June, Bolles had preached
a sermon on "The Free and
Independent Church" in which he urged that since
the church was not human but divine,
political alliance and intermeddlings with
the motley anti-church organizations of
the day should not overshadow the single-
ness of faith or the implicit obedience
to Christ.54
The Presbyterian newspapers as well as
the clergy also actively engaged in the
political questions of the day. J. G.
Monfort, the editor of the Old School Presby-
terian of the West, changed the publication from a thoroughly conservative
journal,
as it had been under N. L. Rice, to a
decidedly antislavery religious organ. The
Presbyterian of the West confirmed its opposition to the extension of slavery
and
advised all parties not to complain of
the newspaper's opinion lest the voters in-
terpret dissent to be a confession of
sentiment favorable to "slavery propagandism."
Monfort informed the voters that their
freedom and the protection of their rights
depended on the type of legislature and
executive officers they elected and the
policy of the party in power. Since
these decisions were made at the ballot box,
the Christian voter's religion required
him to take a "deep and solemn interest
in politics."55 The New
School Central Christian Herald echoed the sentiments of
Monfort with a warning to the Christian
voter that he would be held to a solemn
account for the manner in which he
employed the franchise vested in him. "There
has been no time in the past history of
this nation when Christians were so loudly
called upon to realize their duties as
at the present." Since slavery tended to result
in the suppression of freedom of speech
wherever it existed, it should not be per-
mitted to spread to the territories,
admonished the editor. The Central Christian
Herald returned to the subject at a later date and proclaimed
slavery to be in-
compatible with freedom of speech.
Either the institution must destroy freedom of
speech or slavery would not survive free
speech for a year.56
The journals of the smaller Presbyterian
bodies also entered into the arena of
political controversy. The Free Presbyterian,
organ of the Free Presbyterian Synod,
saw the election as a national crisis.
"Revolutions never go back, and if the Slave
power is met and defeated on its own
ground, as it will be by the election of
Fremont, other triumphs of freedom must
inevitably follow. If the Slave power
now triumphs in the election of
Buchanan, either the entire continent will be cov-
ered with slavery or 'blood even to the
horses' bridles' will flow to wash out its
stains," prophesied the editor. The
Presbyterian Witness, a publication of the Asso-
ciate Reformed Presbyterian Church,
insisted that morals should be a part of
politics and that politics should be
"the handmaid of religion," then the interests
of one would become intimately connected
with the interests of the other. For this
to be accomplished "men of corrupt
principles and base practices" must be removed
from the arena of politics.57
The emotional tensions that were aroused
by the election campaign of 1856
seem to have been a continuation of the
conflicts present in the upper South and
54. Western Reserve Chronicle, September
17, 1856; Church Review (New Haven, Connecticut), IX
(October 1856), 457.
55. Central Christian Herald, July
31, 1856, citing the Presbyterian of the West; ibid., July 3, 1856.
56. Central Christian Herald, July
31, September 4, 1856.
57. Independent Republican (Montrose,
Penn.), October 2, 1856, citing the Free Presbyterian; Cen-
tral Christian Herald, July 31, 1856, citing the Presbyterian Witness (Cincinnati).
The 1856 Election 37
Southwest between the local population
and clergymen of the northern branch of
the Methodist Episcopal Church. By 1844
the Methodists had already separated
into the Methodist Episcopal Church and
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
The northern branch had a few churches
scattered throughout Missouri and Texas,
while both churches were active in
Kansas. In 1856 northern ministers were mobbed,
tarred and feathered, or murdered in
Missouri, Texas, and Kansas. These and
numerous other acts of violence were
brought to the attention of the people of
Ohio by the Western Christian
Advocate, an organ of the Ohio Methodist confer-
ence, and by the secular press of Ohio.
As reverberations echoed across Ohio, the
Methodist press and clergy responded
with stronger language directed against the
Democratic party. John Lamb, pastor of
the Methodist Church of Mount Vernon
was accused by the Democrats of saying
that, "any man who would stand upon
the Cincinnati Platform [the Democratic
Platform] his face and heart are as black
as hell and damnation." The
venerable Reverend James B. Findley offended the
opposition so much by his uncompromising
speeches that he was even beaten by
a gang as he left a Republican meeting
in Lewisburg.58
The Western Christian Advocate gradually
took a more determined stand against
the administration and the Democratic
party as the election campaign progressed.
During the first week of August the
editor warned readers that they could not lay
aside their Christian character during
the election, and in the next month he ex-
pressed the belief that Kansas must be
free in order to preserve liberty and justice.
"Must the humbug of squatter
sovereignty, and the hue and cry of meddling with
politics, be the strong towers to defend
a nation of adulterers?" queried the editor
as he shifted his attack to the
slaveholder himself a few weeks before the election.
He answered his own question:
"Slavery and slavery extension, the highest crimes
against God and man, are now political
subjects," and it was the duty of all Chris-
tians to vote as their consciences
directed. The strong language used by the Western
Christian Advocate brought a rebuke from the Cincinnati Enquirer. The
paper as-
sailed the Methodist journal for turning
itself into a political sheet.59
The Congregational journals were just as
firm in their commitments to the
Republican party and opposition to the
extension of slavery as the clergy of this
denomination. The editor of the Oberlin
Evangelist, Henry Cowles, informed his
fellow Congregationalists: "We can
and ought to carry our cause to the throne of
grace and plead with our convenant God
for success." He could not see how "any
Christian man, and friend of his
country, any lover of freedom" could vote for
the Democratic party. The Oberlin
Evangelist argued that it was the duty of every
Christian to work for a Republican
victory. "If there are votes within his influence
that can be gained for freedom and
righteousness by an honest presentation of
truth, let him deem the end too precious
to be lost. . . . By all that is fearful in
the pending crisis--by all that is
sacred in freedom and right," implored Cowles,
58. Western Christian Advocate, July
9, 30, 1856; Ohio Statesman (Columbus), October 2, 1856,
citing Dayton Gazette, September
22, 1856, October 24, 1856; Mount Vernon Republican, September 9,
1856; Delaware Gazette, September
26, 1856; New York Tribune, October 16, 1856; Circleville Herald,
September 26, 1856; Madison Chronicle,
October 18, 1856; Daily Capital City Fact (Columbus), Sep-
tember 20, 1856.
59. Western Christian Advocate, January
30, September 10, October 8, 1856; Christian Advocate
and Journal, September 11, 1856, citing Western Christian
Advocate, August 6, 1856; Cincinnati Enquirer,
October 4, 1856; Mount Vernon Republican,
July 29, 1856; Mount Vernon Democratic Banner, July 15,
1856.
38
OHIO HISTORY
"we urge our fellow citizens to
ensure the election of the men whose banner flings
to the breeze the freeman's emphatic
sign 'Free Press, Free Speech, Free Soil, Free
Men, Fremont and Victory.'" The Christian
Press claimed that it was "the Duty
of Every Christian to vote
against debasing the Government . . . ordained for free-
dom, into an Instrument of Oppression
against devoting the vast Territories of the
United States . . . to the Blight and
Curse of Slavery."60
John A. Gurley, editor of the
Universalist Star of the West, matched the most
outspoken radical clergymen in the state
in his condemnation of the Democractic
administration. He had a reputation of
never shunning either political or religious
controversy. Early in July he was
chairman of a great Republican rally in Cincin-
nati in which he urged the audience to
vote for Fremont. The Democratic Cincin-
nati Enquirer denounced him as a
clerical imposter. Gurley replied to the Enquirer's
stinging rebuke that he dared to
denounce the Democratic administration's attempt
to subjugate the industrious and free
people of Kansas because he loved liberty
and hated oppression. Gurley was
nominated for Congress by the Republicans
and took to the field in an active
campaign.61
The presidential campaign in Ohio in
1856 was even more complicated by the
fact that it was a three-cornered
contest between John Fremont for the Republicans,
James Buchanan for the Democrats, and
Millard Fillmore for the Americans. The
American party had its origin in the
secret Know-Nothing lodges that were created
as anti-foreign and anti-Catholic
fraternities dedicated to restricting immigration
as well as increasing residence
requirements for foreign-born voters, and it had
been a significant part of the
anti-Nebraska coalition in 1854.62
As the Ohio gubernatorial contest took
form in 1855, the antislavery advocates,
however, made a determined effort to
free themselves from any tinge of nativism.
Giddings insisted that the slavery
question be "the issue and the sole issue" of
1855. A friend holding a similar opinion
wrote Giddings in June: "Next to the
iniquity of slavery comes that of K
[now] -N [othing] ism--with it we can consis-
tantly have no bargaining, no
trading."63 The Republican press in the Western
Reserve regularly printed the clerical
pronouncements on slavery and also opposed
the Know-Nothings. The Ashtabula Sentinel
and the Cleveland Leader bitterly
denounced Know-Nothingism. The Leader
felt the Republicans were determined
that the Know-Nothings should not
dominate the state convention, and the Sen-
tinel wanted a "free and separate" convention.64
Chase, the antislavery candidate
for governor, however, did not want to
lose the support of the Know-Nothings
60. Mount Vernon Republican, September
23, 1856, citing Oberlin Evangelist; Oberlin Evangelist,
XIII (October 22, 1856), 22; Independent
Republican, October 2, 1856, citing Oberlin Evangelist and
Christian Press.
61. Cincinnati Commercial, July
4, 1856; Cincinnati Enquirer, October 4, 1854; Cleveland Plain
Dealer, September 6, 1856; Clermont Sun, July 10, 1854.
Late in 1856 Gurley's views were re-enforced
by Moncure Conway who came to Cincinnati
from Washington, D. C., where he had been dismissed
from a Unitarian church for delivering a
political sermon early in 1856.
62. William E. Van Home, "Lewis D.
Campbell and the Know-Nothing Party in Ohio," Ohio His-
tory, LXXVI (Autumn 1967), 202-221.
63. Joshua Giddings to S. P. Chase, May
1, 1855, Chase Papers, Pennsylvania Historical Society;
David H. Bradford, "The Background
and Formation of the Republican Party in Ohio, 1844-1861"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1947), 143-146; Richard Mott to Giddings,
June 2, 1855, Giddings Papers; James
Brewer Steward, Joshua R. Giddings and the Tactics of Radical
Politics (Cleveland, 1970), 232-233; Foner, Free Soil, Free
Labor, Free Men, 244.
64. Ashtabula Sentinel, January
8, May 10, 1855; Cleveland Leader, March 15, May 11, 1855.
The 1856 Election 39
and therefore urged his longtime friend
and editor of the Columbian, Edward S.
Hamlin, to cease his criticism of the
Know-Nothings, but Chase held to his com-
mitment not to "proscribe men on
account of their birth" or "make religious faith
a political test."65
At the 1855 state convention in
Columbus, the Know-Nothings led by Lewis
D. Campbell and the anti-Nebraska
advocates maneuvered to get control of a
coalition made up of both groups. Since
most of those who were interested in
forming a new party put the problem of
slavery above nativism, the Republican
movement fused with the Know-Nothing
party in the contest of 1855. The Repub-
lican state convention or People's
movement nominated Chase as a candidate for
governor, but all other candidates were
Know-Nothings. The platform, however,
did not contain a single plank that was
nativist.66 After Chase was elected over
the opposition of the Democrats and the
independent Know-Nothing candidate,
he used his influence as governor to
erase the vestiges of nativism from the Ohio
Republican party. In October 1855, in a
letter to a friend, Chase outlined a pro-
gram for a Republican victory in 1856.
"It seems to me," he wrote, "that we can
only carry the next Presidential
election by making the simple issue of Slavery
or Freedom. We shall need the liberal
Americans [Know-Nothings] and we shall
also need the anti-slavery adopted
citizens." As a result, by 1856, the Republican
platform of Ohio could invite "all
citizens, whether of native or of foreign birth"
to join the party, and both the state
and national platforms were silent on the
immigration issue. The resolution in the
national platform expressing a commit-
ment to constitutional guarantees for
liberty of conscience could be interpreted
as an indorsement of protection for both
the foreign-born as well as the antislavery
clergymen in Kansas.67 Thus,
seeing the Republicans trying to appeal to the
foreign-born voter in Ohio in 1856, the
American party nominated its own candi-
date, Millard Fillmore, and followed a
line of attack similar to the Democrats.
Professor Roseboom explains their
strategy as one "to draw off the southern Ohio
conservatives and hold the balance of
power in the State."68
While the antislavery Republicans and
the religious communities that mobilized
themselves on the fringe of the
Republican party were absorbed with the rhetoric
on the morality of slavery and slavery
extension, the more conservative Republi-
cans were concerned with other issues.
Although the Republican platform dealt
largely with the issues of slavery
extension, it also included two provisions favoring
Federal support for a transcontinental
railroad and improvements of rivers and
harbors. Even though the conservatives
tended to emphasize these provisions, in
Ohio the one absorbing topic was the
question of the extension of slavery. When
the Republicans met in Columbus in May
1856 to draw up the Ohio state Repub-
lican platform, every resolution in the
platform dealt with questions concerning
65. Chase to E. S. Hamlin, February 9,
1855, S..H. Dodson, ed., "Diary and Correspondence of
Salmon P. Chase," American
Historical Association Annual Report, 1902, II, 270; Chase to John Paul,
December 28, 1856, in J. W. Schuckers, The
Life and Public Service of Salmon Portland Chase (New
York, 1874), 158.
66. Van Home, "Lewis D. Campbell
and the Know-Nothing Party in Ohio," 209-210.
67. Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor,
Free Men, 245; Chase to K. S. Bingham, October 19, 1855, Salmon
P. Chase Papers, Historical Society of
Pennsylvania; Porter and Johnson, National Party Platforms,
27-28; Joseph Smith, History of the
Republican Party in Ohio (Chicago, 1898), 61-62.
68. Eugene H. Roseboom, The Civil War
Era, 1850-1873 (Columbus, Ohio, 1944), 320-321.
40
OHIO HISTORY
Kansas, slavery extension, or liberty;
the resolutions were unanimously adopted.69
For some Ohio politicians and secular
newspapers the slavery extension issue
had economic as well as moral
implications. The antislavery Cleveland Leader
stated in October the question to be
decided at the forthcoming election was
whether the unsettled territory would be
devoted to the use of free workingmen
or whether it would be taken from them
and be cursed by the establishment of
slavery throughout its entire extent.
The more conservative Ohio State Journal,
on the other hand, assured the people
that the emigrants to Kansas would not be
needy adventurers "fleeing from the
pinchings of penury," but substantial farmers.70
The ethnic questions did not absorb much
of the attention of the secular press in
1856. Since the extension-of-slavery
issue was dominant, a considerable portion
of attention was directed toward the
part played by the clergy with reference to
this question. Almost every Democratic
paper in the state at some time during
the campaign condemned the political
activities of the clergy. Their loudest criti-
cism centered around the question of
whether or not the clergy was qualified to
speak with authority on political
subjects. It was pointed out that the ministers
were attempting to speak in an area
where they lacked training. Also, the ministers
were accused of departing from the
traditional role religious leaders had assumed
in the previous decades since the
adoption of the Federal Constitution. The Dem-
ocratic press insisted that the
clergymen should concern themselves with individual
salvation and preaching the gospel and
Christ crucified, and not to degrade the
pulpit by involving themselves in
worldly affairs.71
The Republican press, on the other hand,
encouraged political participation of
the clergy as a moral and civic duty.
These papers insisted that spiritual leaders
had the same rights as every other
citizen, and these rights included the right to
speak their minds. Any attempt to muzzle
the clergy was said to be a threat to
both freedom of the press and freedom of
religion. The Republican press argued
that the ministers were speaking in the
field of their calling since moral issues had
become political issues. In fact, the
clergy were encouraged to become involved so
that the election campaign could be made
solely a moral contest. In contrast, the
Democratic press would have preferred
the clergy remain silent so that the contest
could be one of clear-cut issues: union
versus abolitionism.72
The Cincinnati Enquirer launched
the most vigorous attack of any major Dem-
ocratic journal in the state against the
political activities of the clergy. The editor
claimed that the Democratic party was
"strong enough to pity and despise these
clerical hypocrites and
scoundrels," but it was on behalf of the good name of the
Church that the paper raised its voice.
Discredit would be attached to all pulpits
which were thus "prostituted and
desecrated." The editor complained that political
preaching was becoming a "great
nuisance," and suggested that the congregation
get rid of the "presumptuous and
insolent" intruders.73
69. Porter and Johnson, National
Party Platforms, 27-28; Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men,
16-17, 133-134; Smith, History of the
Republican Party in Ohio, 61-62.
70. Annals of Cleveland, citing
Cleveland Leader, October 28, 1856, XXXIX, 324; Ohio State Journal,
April 6, 1854.
71. Cincinnati Enquirer, June 14,
1856; Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 23, September 18, 1856; Dela-
ware Democratic Standard, July
10, 1856; Clermont Sun, August 7, 1856.
72. Cincinnati Gazette, June 16,
20, 1856; Canton Register, July 17, 1856; Western Reserve Chronicle,
June 18, 1856; Western Gazette (Lima),
August 21, 1856.
73. Cincinnati Enquirer, June 14,
1856.
The 1856 Election 41
The Cincinnati Gazette, however,
came to the defence of the clergy. The editor
informed the Enquirer that
"nine-tenths of all ministers in the North, and an equal
proportion of all the church members are
opposed to the Democratic party," and
it was the duty of the pastor of a
church to preach against the evils of slavery and
wickedness of the Kansas affair just as
it was his "duty to make no compromises
with sin." The Enquirer countered
by denying the Gazette was correct in its claim
that nine-tenths of the clergy were
opposed to the Democratic party. The editor
then dryly concluded that a nuisance
such as that posed by the political clergy
would have been remedied by the
ducking-stool fifty years before. The Gazette
ended its defense by maintaining that
many clergymen were firm and conscientious
in the belief that a man could not
"serve God in the Church and the devil at the
polls."74
In central Ohio the Delaware Democratic
Standard charged the clergy with be-
ing disunionists who were "praying
and preaching to hasten on" the division of the
nation. The Delaware Gazette replied
that the clergy were forced to take a stand
because of the outrages of the
administration party in Kansas. The Holmes County
Republican spoke in a similar vein, and concluded that it was now
or never for a
free pulpit to speak out against
"the strides of tyranny."75
The controversy raged around the clergy
in southern Ohio in language that
was as bitter and inflamed as that in
other sections. The Democratic Citizen of War-
ren County minced no words in denouncing
the clergy for preaching "disunion
and fanaticism," and for
endeavoring by "lies to incite to action the worst passions
of men." In rebuttal, the Courier
of Clermont County carried an article by a local
clerical correspondent who characterized
the administration press and its support-
ers in terms that were bitter and
severe, and closed with the remark, "Language
is inadequate to express our eternal
and unmitigated contempt for such miscreant
heel-biting puppies." In return,
the Democratic Clermont Sun denounced the polit-
ical activities of the clergy and
claimed "Such ministers are a cheat, and stalking
hypocricy, and we shall not be timid in
their exposition."76 The Gallia Republican
took the side of the pulpit and did some
preaching of its own:
If you vote for a sheep thief, you
endorse sheep-stealing. . . . If you vote for a slaveholder,
you sustain the awful and matchless
devilism of chattel slavery. . . . If you vote for a man
who is in favor of or in sympathy with
these wrongs, you do virtually and essentially sus-
tain them.77
Although the Greenfield Republican did
not believe in preaching politics, it agreed
with a clergyman whom the editor had
heard recently. "My brethren," the minister
had said, "I wish you to vote just
as you pray. If you pray for slavery and intem-
perance, vote for them." And, in
the Western Reserve, the Democratic Cleveland
Plain Dealer took the lead in denouncing political preaching. The
editor complained
that a Democrat could not go into a
Protestant church, except perhaps the Episco-
74. Cincinnati Gazette, June 16,
20, 1856; Cincinnati Enquirer, June 18, 23, 1856, citing Cincinnati
Gazette.
75. Democratic Standard, July 10,
1856; Delaware Gazette, July 18, 1856; Holmes County Republican
(Millersburg), September 4, 1856.
76. Democratic Citizen (Warren
County), June 12, 1856; Clermont County Courier, cited by Cler-
mont Sun, August 7, 1856.
77. Gallia Republican, September
25, 1856.
42
OHIO HISTORY
pal church, without having "his
feelings wounded and his self-respect debased by
paltry flings at his political
faith."78
In retrospect, it can be argued that the
clergy and religious journals were not
as hypocritical or fanatical as many
Democratic newspapers described them, but
were sincere in their pronouncements on
the slavery issues. It does not follow,
however, that the Republican papers were
correct in their unquestioned acceptance
of the clergymen's predictions of the
demise of liberty if the Democrats were vic-
torious in 1856. Theodore Weld wrote
more accurately about the controversy a few
years after the election: "In this
mighty Northern uprising, notwithstanding its
mixture of motives and base alloys and
half truths and whole lies, . . . the elements
of a vast moral revolution are all aglow
in the surging mass. . . . Simple right is
getting such a hearing as never before
on this continent. . . ."79 Even so, the various
religious denominations differed in
their commitment to the "moral revolution."
The church denominations that had few
adherents in the South tended to make
more pronounced declarations on the side
of the Republicans. Thus, the Free Will
Baptist and New School Presbyterians
were more outspoken than the Episcopalians
and the Old School Presbyterians.
Also, differences in religious
philosophy contributed to a difference in political
involvement. Many in the religious
communities were heirs of the stewardship tra-
dition of the Calvinistic past. These
considered themselves the overseerers of their
brethren's conduct as the earthly
vice-regents of God. They believed that God chose
not to intervene directly to lead the
sinner along the paths of righteousness, but
that He had appointed some men to be the
guardians of their fellow citizens and
the conscience of the nation. For a
generation these stewards of righteousness had
been concerned with the national sin of
slavery, and, in 1856 since slavery was a
political issue, they threw themselves
into the political contest. Another factor which
brought many Calvinists, especially
Congregationalists and New School Presbyte-
rians, into opposition to the expansion
of slavery was the tendency of many of this
group to communalize the sin of
slaveholding--to feel a national denominational
guilt because of the existence of the
southern institution in their nation and church.
This sense of collective sin inspired
Calvinists with a driving urge to oppose the
expansion of the institution and to push
back the boundary of its domain as well
as to free the national assemblies and
national benevolent societies of any relation
with slavery.80
From an analysis of the voting
statistics it would seem that the activities and
pronouncements of the church, the
religious journals, and the clergymen were sig-
nificant factors in the Republican
success in Ohio in 1856, even though the Demo-
crats won the presidency. The three
areas in this study roughly included the Western
Reserve, the Virginia and United States
Military Districts, and the Ohio Company
region. These had been strong Whig
sections of the state from 1832 to 1853, but
voted predominately Republican in 1856.
All Ohio Company counties that were
Whig strongholds before the
Kansas-Nebraska act became Republican counties in
78. Mahoning County Register, May
8, 1856, citing Greenfield Republican; Cleveland Plain Dealer,
July 23, 1856.
79. Theodore Weld to Mrs. Wright (copied
by Mrs. Wright), March 23, 1862, William Lloyd Garri-
son Collection, Smith College.
80. Clifford S. Griffin, Their
Brothers' Keeper: Moral Stewardship in the United States, 1800-1865
(New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1960), x-xi;
Winthrop D. Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes
Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill, 1969), 299-300.
The 1856 Election
43
1856. In the Military Districts,
however, three counties, Ross, Pickaway, and Scioto,
that had been carried by the Whigs in
1852, shifted over to the Democrats in 1856.
These counties, no doubt, were
influenced by the preoccupation of the Republican
party with the slavery issue and the
Democratic charges of disunion and abolition-
ism.81 On the other hand, five Western
Reserve counties shifted from a Democratic
plurality in 1853 to a Republican
majority in 1856. Since this was the region in
which the moral issues of slavery were
given most prominence and the clergy the
most active, clerical activity
undoubtedly accounts for a considerable part of the
large support Fremont received in this
region. When Republicans carried Ohio in
the November election, the Ohio State
Journal gave much of the credit to the West-
ern Reserve and called it "the most
enlightened and enterprizing portion of Ohio,"
but the editor of the Cleveland Plain
Dealer had no kind words for Republican
supporters in the Western Reserve.
"Those old blue law, blue bellied Presbyterians
that hung the witches and banished the
Quakers, are determined," he charged,"to
convert the people of this region into a
race of psalm singers, using the degenerate
dregs of the old puritans remaining here
to drive the Democracy out."82
The relative unimportance of ethnic
issues in 1856 is verified by the insignificant
vote of the American party, which did
not carry a single Ohio county. Even though
the American party vote was relatively
unimportant in the Western Reserve, in the
Military Districts this vote was large
enough so that it probably contributed to
Democratic victories in some former Whig
counties. The contrast between the
Democratic victory in Ohio in 1852 with
169,193 votes against 152,577 for the Whigs,
and the Republican triumph in Ohio in
1856 with 187,497 votes to 170,874 for the
Democrats in part can be explained by
the change in the religious community from
81. Flinn, "Continuity and Change
in Ohio Politics"; W. D. Burnham, Presidential Ballots, 1832-
1892 (Baltimore, 1955), 208-210; Population of the United
States in 1860; Compiled from the Returns of
the Eighth Census (Washington, 1864), 396-397. For the breakdown of
county votes in the presidential
elections of 1852 and 1856, see the
Ohio State Journal, November 23, 1852, and November 24, 1856.
82. Ibid.; these counties were
Cuyahoga, Trumbull, Portage, Medina, and Mahoning; Ohio State
Journal, November 10, 1856; Cleveland Plain Dealer, November
28, 1856.
In his recent study, The Cross of
Culture; A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics, 1850-1900 (New
York, 1970), Paul Kleppner has developed
a pietistic-ritualistic continuum theory to explain the dif-
ference between the passive attitude
toward reform taken by Catholics and other ritualistic religious
groups in the last half of the
nineteenth century, and the active reform orientation of the evangelical
religious groups. The ritualistic
perspective emphasized right belief and accepted the sinful world as
beyond man's ability to mold it into
God's kingdom on earth. The pietistic perspective emphasized
right behavior and concerned itself with
converting the world by purging it of sin. Each group tried
to preserve and promote its value system
and sought recourse to political action which involved con-
flict on issues such as prohibition and
sabbatarianism (pp. 73-77). Kleppner sees these issues as vital
forces that determined the electors'
political affiliations and caused the pietists to identify themselves
with the Republicans as the party of
"great moral ideas," and the ritualists to associate with the
Democrats as the party of
"liberty." Although the theory has considerable merit, there is
little evi-
dence that the pietistic-ritualistic
continuum was a significant force in shaping political alignment in
Ohio in 1856. Indeed, Kleppner makes no
claim for the theory in this election, and concedes that
the determining factor in causing
southern Baptist, Presbyterian, and Disciples to vote the Democratic
ticket in the 1870's and 1880's in Ohio
was their sectional heritage (pp. 64-65, 122-123). In 1856 the
ethnic issues were largely dormant in
Ohio and evangelical religious groups became concerned with
slavery, a distant evil. The Catholic
voter's identity with the Democratic party in 1856 can be best
explained by his adherence to
traditional political ties, his economic competition with the free Negro
in the labor market, and his
preoccupation with self-interest which resulted from his postition as a
minority member and laborer. See Madeleine
Hooke Rice, American Catholic Opinion in the Slavery
Controversy (New York, 1944), 84, 103-105; Bernard Mandel, Labor:
Free and Slave (New York,
1955), 69.
44
OHIO HISTORY
being passive voters, if not observers,
to being active molders of public opinion in
the political arena.83
Thus the unique feature of the election
of 1856 in Ohio was the successful po-
litical uprising of the evangelical
churches, motivated primarily by the moral issues
of slavery and the extension of slavery
into the territories. The political involve-
ment of the religious community in the
sectional controversy, however, did not
come to an end with the election of
1856. The slavery issue remained a major pre-
occupation of the church and the clergy
until the end of Reconstruction,84 and the
Democrats continued to charge the clergy
with misusing their high office. When
the editor of the Dayton Empire was
killed in 1862 by a neighbor as a result of
private and political affairs, Clement
Vallandigham, while speaking to an audience
in Newark, characterized the murder as
one of the sad results of the gospel of hate
that had been preached by many clergymen
for years. During the next year a Dem-
ocratic convention in Butler County
declared that the clergymen were "the devil's
select and inspired representatives,
preaching hate, envy, malice, vengeance, blood
and murder, instead of love, charity and
the doctrine of Christ." The Methodist
preachers in Cincinnati answered this
charge by calling on their congregations to
vote for the unconditional Union ticket
and accused the Democrats of being hostile
to the war and to the Church of God.85
83. Burnham, Presidential Ballots, 676.
84. For evidence of the continuation of
the support of the Republican administration on moral
grounds by the pulpit and the religious
press in Ohio during the Civil War, see Chester F. Dunham,
The Attitude of the Northern Clergy
Toward the South, 1861-1865 (Toledo,
Ohio, 1942), 114, 116. In
1866 Salmon P. Chase told a group of
Methodists: "I have thanked God that the Methodist Church
... knew only one sentiment--that of
devotion to ... our country.... How we have leaned upon your
bishops, . . . your ministers . . . and
your great people." Christian Advocate, April 19, 1866.
85. Porter, Ohio Politics, 145;
Dayton Empire, March 16, 1863; Gospel Herald (Dayton), XIX
(1863), 2, called the convention a
"public indignation" meeting.
VICTOR B. HOWARD
The 1856 Election in Ohio:
Moral Issues in Politics
In recent years a growing number of
social scientists have taken the position that
ethnic and cultural diversity of
American society, and not ideologies of platforms
of the major parties, have been the
chief factors in determining American political
alignments.1 Samuel P. Hays
insists that party ideologies never reflect the major
concern of the local electorate, and on
that level ethno-cultural issues are much
more important in mobilizing the voters
than national questions.2 This interest in
the effects of social and cultural
factors on contemporary politics has led to re-
examinations of the importance of
ethno-cultural influences on political alignments
in antebellum America.3 Most recently,
historical debate on this question has cen-
tered around the relative importance of
the slavery issues in contrast to the ethno-
cultural issues as determining forces in
the origin and support for the Republican
party, especially the Radical wing.
Three main schools of interpretation can
be identified as participants in the
debate. Historians James Ford Rhodes and
Allan Nevins represent a group that
view slavery as the cause for the rise
of the Republican party and for the Civil
War. Rhodes writes without reservation
that "slavery was the cause of the War."
The South "went to war to extend
slavery"; but it was the cruelty "as evidenced by
the rigor with which the lash was
used" that aroused much of the indignation in
the North. In speaking about the
incitement of public opinion against the Kansas-
Nebraska bill by the clergy, Rhodes says
"the ministers would have been recreant
to their calling had they not proclaimed
from their pulpits what the spirit of their
religion prompted them to speak."4
Thus, Rhodes sees the events of the 1850's
and the Civil War as a clash between
good and evil; and Nevins, writing later,
retains Rhodes' stress on the moral
issues of slavery as the ultimate cause of the
war.5
1. Walter Dean Burnham, "Party
Systems and the Political Process," in William N. Chambers
and Walter Dean Burnham, eds., The
American Party System (New York, 1967), 285; Samuel P. Hays,
"Political Parties and the
Community-Society Continuum," in ibid., 158, 161-162.
2. Hays, "Political Parties,"
158, 161-162.
3. Lee Benson, The Concept of
Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case (Princeton, 1961),
165; Joel H. Silbey, ed., The
Transformation of American Politics, 1850-1860 (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1967), 3-4.
4. James Ford Rhodes, History of the
United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the End of the
Roosevelt Administration (London, 1928), I, 27, 53, 325, 480.
5. Allan Nevins, The Emergence of
Lincoln (New York, 1950), I, 12, 27.
Mr. Howard is professor of history at
Morehead State University.