THE LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS OF OHIO:
EXPONENTS
OF ANTISLAVERY COALITION
by JOSEPH
G. RAYBACK
Assistant Professor of American
History, The Pennsylvania State College
If there is one aspect of American
history that has received
the attention that is its due, it is the
role of the abolitionist in the
antislavery movement. The main outlines
of the part played by that
small, semifanatical body of men and
women have long been re-
vealed; the eternal history of the group
has long been recorded.
There is one aspect of the subject,
however, which still needs more
attention: the role played by the
leaders of the Ohio wing of the
Liberty party in their effort to broaden
the appeal of the whole
political abolitionist movement. It has
long been accepted that
Salmon P. Chase had an important share
in persuading his party
to merge itself with the Free Soil
movement in 1847-48, but very
little is known of his earlier efforts
to bring about much the same
result, and still less is known of the
early work of other Ohio lead-
ers to achieve similar ends. Yet the
chieftains of Ohio's Liberty
party were laboring with that purpose in
mind from the very in-
ception of the party; indeed, it may be
said that these men were
thinking of a political organization
based upon the broadest anti-
slavery grounds even before the Liberty
party was conceived!
Exactly when the Liberty party was
created will always be a
controversial subject. But there can be
no doubt that the resolu-
tions adopted by the American
Anti-Slavery Society's annual con-
vention, held at Albany, New York, on
July 31, 1839, were a long
step in that direction. The convention
was called to discuss "the
questions which relate to the proper
exercise of the suffrage by
citizens of the free States,"1 a
vague way of stating an issue which
was being assiduously urged upon the
society by Myron W. Holley
and T. C. Torry, and by the organ of the
society, the Boston Eman-
cipator: should abolitionists set up a separate political party
with
1 Emancipator (Boston), August 8, 1839.
165
166 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
immediate abolition as its watchword.2
The convention, which in-
cluded many who opposed political
action, met the issue by indi-
rection. It resolved: "We will
neither vote for [n]or support the
election of any man for President or
Vice President of the United
States, or for Governor or Lieutenant
Governor, or for any legis-
lative office, who is not in favor of
the immediate ABOLITION OF
SLAVERY."3
Indecisive as the resolution was, to
most abolitionists its in-
tention was more than clear-it called
for separate political action.
The general reaction was far from
favorable. For the most part
abolitionists viewed the implications of
political action with an
emotion akin to horror.4 In
Ohio, however, opposition to the course
indicated was based upon different
grounds. The best expression
of this opinion came from Gamaliel
Bailey, editor of the Cincin-
nati Philanthropist, sole
abolitionist paper in the state. Bailey had
no objection to political action,5 but
he did object to political ac-
tion as implied in the Albany
resolution. "In our own state," he
pointed out,
the requirements of abolitionists have
always had exclusive regard to the
subjects on which candidates, if elected,
might . . . be called upon to take
some action. Were it a congressional
election, they required that the office
seeker should hold correct opinions
respecting the right of petition, slavery
in the District of Columbia, the
domestic slave trade, Texas and the admission
of new slave states; because concerning
these, legislative action might justly
be demanded....
Such conduct was reasonable and
consistent [since] the great principle
. . .which should regulate the friends
of human rights everywhere, is, - that
the sole condition to office (so far as
abolition is concerned) be right senti-
ments on those subjects connected with
the cause of human rights, concerning
which a legislator or executive officer
may lawfully be required to legislate or
act. To demand anything beyond this . .
is proscriptive in principle, and
tends to pervert the ballot box from its
only legitimate end - the fulfil[l]ment
of the will of the people in just
legislation under the constitution.
On the other hand, Bailey continued, the
Albany resolution
forbade abolitionists to vote for any
man for president unless he
avowed himself in favor of an act which
was entirely beyond his
2 Theodore C. Smith, Liberty and Free
Soil Parties in the Northwest (New York,
1897), 32-33.
3 Emancipator, August 8, 1839.
4 Smith, op. cit., 34-36.
5 Philanthropist (Cincinnati), August 13, 1839.
LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS 167
control, and "with which he . . .
ought to have, officially, nothing
to do." Such conduct, he implied,
was unreasonable, and he, for
one, felt he could vote "with a
good conscience" for any presi-
dential or congressional candidate who
would simply "avow him-
self in favor of the immediate abolition
of slavery in the District
of Columbia, and hostile to gag law and
lynch law in Congress."6
This objection to the narrowness of the
society's stand was echoed
in editorial letters throughout the
state.7
That Bailey and his correspondents
bespoke the state's senti-
ments upon separate political action
became evident at a special
meeting of the American Anti-Slavery
Society, held in Cleveland
late in October 1839. There, Holley
proposed the formation of a
new political party whose aim would be
the immediate abolition
of slavery. The proposal was
overwhelmingly rejected. Bailey
was quick to point the significance:
"When it is considered, that of
the four hundred delegates in attendance
three hundred and sixty
were from Ohio, this disposition of the
question must be taken as a
clear indication of the sentiments of
the abolitionists of this state
on the project of forming a separate
party. As a body they are op-
posed to it."8 Even more significant was the fact, which Bailey did
not mention, that many of these
opponents of separate political
action were even then laboring to secure
the election of antislavery
candidates of other parties.9
But Ohio's objections notwithstanding,
the exponents of sepa-
rate political action continued on their
course, and on November
13, 1839, in a convention held at
Warsaw, New York, nominated
James G. Birney of New York and Francis
J. Lemoyne of Pennsyl-
vania as their candidates for the coming
presidential campaign.
Both men declined on the ground that
abolitionists generally op-
posed such action. But during the winter
the movement ripened,
and early in February 1840, a
"National Anti-Slavery Convention
for Independent Nomination" was
called to meet at Albany, on
April 1, 1840. The convention met and
named Birney and Thomas
Earle of Pennsylvania to head the
national ticket. This time neither
man declined.
6 Ibid., September 3, 1839.
7 See ibid., October 8, 1839;
Smith, op. cit., 35.
8 Philanthropist, November 19, 1839.
9 See ibid., August 13, November
26, 1839.
168
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Throughout this movement the opposition
of Ohioans in gen-
eral, and of the Philanthropist in
particular, never wavered. Every
step taken toward the creation of the
new party was soundly con-
demned, and the principles already
stated by editor Bailey con-
stantly reiterated.10 To
discredit the movement, the Philanthropist
even went so far as to dub the proposed
Albany meeting the "April
Fool Convention." News of Birney's
nomination hardly changed
this attitude. Momentarily Bailey
faltered; with sorrowful pen he
accepted the inevitable: "Our
friendship for Mr. Birney, and our
high estimation of his judgment and
capacity for government make
us regret that he should have been
selected as an altar on which to
sacrifice a few votes."11 He hoisted the names of Birney and Earle
to the masthead of his paper. A short
while later, however, he was
once more urging his old principles on
Ohio abolitionists.
The fifth anniversary meeting of the
state society was held in
Massillon late in May. As in all
conventions that year, an effort
was made to recommend the nomination of
abolitionist candidates
for legislative and congressional
offices. The effort failed, and the
meeting declared, "that while we
view the question of slavery, re-
garded politically, as paramount to
other political questions, we
do not consider it an exclusive
one."12 What part Bailey played in
securing the adoption of such a
statement it is difficult to say. Cer-
tain it is that he hoped for something
of this nature13 and that he
expressed no regret over the result.
More than likely, considering
the previously expressed views of Ohio
abolitionists on the subject
of a separate party, Bailey's voice was
only one among many to
urge the society to broaden its
political horizons. This rejection of
third party plans, however, only served
to increase the determina-
tion of those who advocated nomination
for all offices, state and
federal, of men who favored immediate
abolition.
It was the unexpected strength of this
movement after the
society meeting, which moved Bailey,
early in July 1840, to reiter-
ate his oft-repeated political maxim
that "a political party in the
North can never be founded on the single
purpose of opposition to
10 Ibid., March 3, 31,
1840.
11 Ibid., April 21, 1840.
12 Ibid., June
9, 1840.
13 See ibid., May 19, 1840.
LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS 169
slavery."14 With this
renewed expression of his views, he once
more entered the lists in favor of some
sort of joint action with
other antislavery forces. While, as a
loyal abolitionist, he continued
to fly the names of Birney and Earle
from the masthead of his
journal, his main efforts were expended
upon the task of keeping
Ohio free of the third-party taint. Each
bit of news that seemed
to aid the cause of joint action was
given attention; almost glee-
fully he reported the disgust of
"Whig abolitionists on the Re-
serve" with the conduct of their
party, and the resulting movement
which would "secure the nomination
in very many places of such
[Whig] candidates for congress and the
state legislature as aboli-
tionists can consistently vote
for."15 Never did he waver in urging
his fellow abolitionists to avoid
separate action in favor of such
movements. The climax to his campaign
occurred in the state-wide
meeting of the abolitionists at Hamilton
on September 1, 1840.
There the third party men once more
proposed separate nominations
for legislative and congressional
offices, but the resolutions com-
mittee, of which Bailey and his friend
former senator Thomas
Morris were the most influential
members, refused to incorporate
the proposals. The meeting named a full
ticket of Birney presiden-
tial electors, but it defeated all
attempts to commit it in favor of
separate nominations for other offices,
thus giving unofficial sanc-
tion to cooperation with other parties.16
In effect, Ohio abolition-
ists, from the outset of the
"Liberty party," had cast their votes, as
far as possible, for political action on
a broader basis than na-
tional leaders had envisioned. For this
action much of the credit
belonged to Bailey.
Whatever success Bailey enjoyed in 1840,
however, was quickly
nullified the following year even in
Ohio. Immediately after the
election, a convention of abolitionists
of the Western Reserve was
held at Akron, which resolved that it
was expedient for the "Lib-
erty Party," as the third-party
organization was now styled, "to
continue the nomination of men true to
the principles of Equal
rights, as candidates for public
office."17 A short while later a state
convention, which was called "to
reestablish harmony and to agree
14 Ibid., July 7, 1840.
15 Ibid., August 25, 1840.
16 Ibid., September 8, 1840.
170 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
upon some rational, effective plan of
antislavery political organiza-
tion," likewise committed itself to
the Liberty party with resolutions
recommending that "the voting
antislavery citizens of Ohio adopt
the policy of previous independent
nominations in all cases where
they are not perfectly assured that men
in whom they can confide
will be presented by one or both of the
existing political parties."18
That action officially established the
Liberty party, with its single
principle of immediate abolition, in the
Buckeye state. On May 12,
1841, the first national convention of
the party met in New York
City, where a full slate of officials
was named, and a presidential
ticket of Birney and Morris was
nominated for the 1844 election.
Throughout all this activity the Philanthropist
was strangely
silent. No criticism of the movement,
obviously so contrary to
Bailey's principles, escaped it. Indeed
it even commented favor-
ably upon the results of the New York
City meeting.19 But if Bailey
was silent, it did not mean that he had
surrendered his ideas. Early
in 1842 he indicated that his mind was
still actively engaged upon
some plan for widening the party's
appeal, through a long editor-
ial in which he pointed out that it was
improper to call the Liberty
party an "abolition party"
since it did not aim at the abolition of
slavery anywhere except in the District of
Columbia and the terri-
tories,20 a doctrine which
one New Yorker charged could only be
"a direct and bold attempt to sell
the abolitionists of Ohio to one
of the political parties."21
While the charge was not entirely
accurate, a movement was
quietly developing among the leaders of
the party in Ohio--Bailey,
Morris, Chase, Samuel Lewis, and
Leicester King-to change the
entire course of Liberty party affairs.
Ringleader of the movement
appeared to be Chase, long-time friend
of the slave, but only re-
cently a member of the party. Chase was
busy with a project which
would simultaneously broaden the party
base by adopting less
extreme principles, and would replace
the name of Birney as stan-
dard bearer with that of William H.
Seward or the aged John Quincy
Adams. One of his objects was to
"bring the old Anti-Masonic
17 Ibid., January 13, 1841.
18 Ibid., January 27, February 3, 1841.
19 Ibid., May 26, 1841.
20 Ibid., February 16, 1842.
21 Ibid., March 16, 1842.
LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS 171
party of Pennsylvania" into the
movement.22 But the best expres-
sion of his whole plan was revealed in a
letter to Lewis Tappan:
I saw by the papers a day or two ago
that Gov. Seward was in New York.
. . . Is there any possibility that he
can be induced to become a candidate for
the Presidency . . . of the Liberty
Party, should that party disengage itself
from the narrow ground it has occupied
in some of the States, and take the
impregnable, yet popular position which
a fair construction of the constitution
furnishes, in regard to slavery . . . ?
I am persuaded with Seward as our
candidate and constitutional liberty and
free labor as our watchword, we could
carry several States in 1844, and a
majority at the next subsequent election.
If the Liberty party perseveres in its
present course as adopted in some States
with Mr. Birney as a candidate, it will,
I fear, become extinct.23
For the better part of a year this
movement remained under-
ground. Here and there some indication
of the plan appeared. The
Philanthropist's expression of high regard for Seward,24 its
refusal
to hoist the names of Birney and Morris
to its masthead despite its
earlier commendation of the
nominations--a matter which gave
exceeding pain to "brother
Leavitt"25---were examples. It was not
until early in 1843, however, that the
mask was entirely removed.
On January 11, the Philanthropist carried
the notice that Morris
intended to decline the vice
presidential nomination, which had
been accorded him by the party in 1841
in order that another con-
vention representing the "greater
numbers" which were constantly
joining the party "might have an
opportunity of acting upon it."26
Almost simultaneously, indicating that
the groundwork had been
well laid, a state convention of the
party held at Columbus, where
Bailey, Chase, Morris, Lewis, and King
all played major roles,
"cordially" approved the
action taken "by the veteran and consist-
ent friend of Liberty," and invited
the "Liberty men of the United
States to meet in convention at Buffalo.
. . on the 28th day of June,
1843, to take into consideration the
subject of that nomination, and
any other matters connected with the
principles, measures and
progress of the Liberty party which may
come before them."27
22 Thomas
F. Woodley, Thaddeus Stevens (Harrisburg, 1934), 191-193.
23 Salmon P. Chase to Lewis Tappan,
September 15, 1842, in Chase MSS, in
Library of Congress. See also Chase to
Tappan, May 26, September 24, 1842, in ibid.
24 Philanthropist,
October 1, 1842.
25 Ibid., January 4, 1843.
26 Ibid., January 11, 1843.
27 Ibid.
172
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
If there was any doubt as to the meaning
of these concurrent
actions, Chase made them clearer in a letter to Joshua Giddings:
The reason why this [resolution] was
adopted is that some dissatisfaction
is felt here in the west with the
nominations of the National Convention at
New York, because that convention is
regarded as a meeting of the National
Anti-Slavery Society [rather] than as a
convention of the Liberty Party. Be-
sides this it is thought that if Mr.
Adams or Governor Seward would accept
the nomination, that additional strength
might be gained for the party.28
A letter to Lewis Tappan added further
light:
It will become the duty of the
Convention either to postpone nominations
for another year . . . or select proper
candidates. Under these circumstances
it has occurred to some in this quarter
to put Judge [William] Jay of your
city in nomination for the Presidency. .
. . To nominate such a man would
not seem like a burlesque. . . . He
represents better than any other man, the
great ideas of Liberty, Peace and
Temperance, and would commend the con-
fidence of every good man in the
nation.29
Adams! Seward! Jay! The purpose was
obvious. Remove
Birney, whose uncompromising views on
abolition were well known,
and replace him with some figure whose prestige and more
moder-
ate attitude on the subject would
attract a greater following. But
the project was doomed to failure.
Neither Adams, nor Seward,
nor Jay would consent to his name being
used. Accordingly the
Buffalo convention renamed Birney and
Morris. The Liberty party
thus continued to take its stand on the
narrow base of immediate
abolition with a tried and true party
member as its standard bearer.
Success for the Ohio leaders, however,
was now but a few years
away. Immediately after the campaign of
1844, Birney's friends
once more brought his name forward.30
This time the Buckeye state
coalitionists were well organized and
ready. Bailey at the helm of
the erstwhile Philanthropist, now renamed the Cincinnati Weekly
Herald, voiced their position:
The Liberty party was organized, not for
the sake of conferring office on
particular men, but for the sake of
freeing our country from the crime of
slavery; and while it should not
disregard the feelings of its candidates, it
28 Chase to Joshua Giddings, January 21,
1842 [sic], in Giddings-Julian MSS, in
Library of Congress. The letter is obviously dated a
year early. Nothing happened in
the fall and winter of 1841-42 which would call for
such an explanation.
29 Chase
to Tappan, February 15, 1843, in Chase MSS.
30 Joshua Leavitt to James G. Birney, December 18, 1844,
January 25, 1845, in
Dwight L. Dumond, ed., Birney Letters (New York,
1939), II, 889-890, 922.
LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS 173
must never, for a moment, permit them to
weigh against the interests of its
great object. Persons, when they accept
the nomination it may tender them,
should do so with the understanding that
they derive no claim from that cir-
cumstance upon the future support of the
party; so that, at subsequent periods,
when it may become necessary to select
candidates, the party may be em-
barrassed with no proscriptive claims,
but left entirely free to act at the time,
as circumstances may demand. If they are
not willing to receive nominations
on such terms, their services can, and
ought to be dispensed with.
It would be uncandid not to apply these
remarks to our late Presidential
candidate. He has served us faithfully
and honorably but he has no personal
claim upon our future support . . . and he
is doing disservice to the enter-
prise in which we are engaged who tempts
to fasten such a delusion on the
party. We should feel ourselves just as
free now in regard to a choice of
Presidential candidates, as if we had
never had one, and the attempt to
trammel this freedom we regard as unjust
and impolitic. If no such attempt
be made and a National Convention, fully
representing the whole of the
party, two or three years hence, should
after full consideration, decide to place
the name of James G. Birney before the
American People . . . we know of no
reason why we would not fully support
him. But if such attempt be made . . .
if by the action of certain cliques and
influences, Mr. Birney be placed in
such a relation to our cause, that a
National Convention should feel itself
embarrassed, and almost compelled to
renominate him, we should feel our-
selves entirely free from all obligation
to the party.31
The threat alarmed the party old guard,32
but threats were not
the coalitionists' only stock in trade.
They were likewise prepared
to organize their movement for a party
with a broader base. In
April they issued a call, prepared by
Chase33 and signed by Bailey
and Lewis, for a "Southern and
Western Convention of the Friends
of Constitutional Liberty." By
"friends" they meant not only the
members of the Liberty party, but all
who, "believing that what-
ever is worth preserving in
Republicanism can be maintained, only,
by eternal and uncompromising war
against the . . . Slave Power,
are resolved to use all Constitutional
and honorable means, to effect
the extinction of Slavery in their
respective States, and its reduc-
tion to its Constitutional limits in the
United States."34
The convention, duly assembled in the
early summer, adopted
the broadest type of antislavery
principles. None of the resolu-
tions, which were drawn up by Chase,
mentioned immediate aboli-
31 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, December 25, 1844. See also ibid., March 6,
1845.
32 See William Birney to James G.
Birney, December 28, 1844, in Dumond, Birney
Letters, II, 894.
33 See paper dated April 19, 1845, in
Chase MSS.
34 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, April 23, 1845.
174 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
tion. Instead it was resolved, "that as a National Party," it was
their purpose "to divorce the National Government from Slavery:
to prohibit slaveholding in all places of exclusive national juris-
diction; to abolish the domestic slave trade . . . and in all proper
and constitutional modes to discourage and discontinue the system
of work without wages; but not to interfere unconstitutionally with
the local legislation of particular states." An invitation was ex-
tended for "an union of all sincere friends of Liberty and Free
Labor" upon these grounds.35 Coalition with antislavery elements
in other parties and a broader platform were now both in the open.
Both subjects came to be mentioned more and more frequently
in the next two years. Several events helped the movement: the ap-
pearance on New Year's Day, 1846, of Birney's "general reform"
project to transform the Liberty party into an organization designed
to put Christian ethics into the government,36 which alienated many
of the old guard and made them amenable to the more practicable
suggestions of Ohio leaders;37 the creation of a new party organ,
the National Era, in Washington under the guiding hand of Gama-
liel Bailey, which aided immeasurably in spreading Ohio doctrines
throughout the whole party; the loss of Birney's services through
paralysis, which liberated many of his friends;38 the failure of the
party to make any appreciable gains in the elections of 1845 and
1846, which produced a feeling that some change was necessary;39
and finally, the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso with its ac-
companying upsurge of antislavery feeling among the rank and file
of the two older political organizations and the fusion of all these
elements in many local elections,40 which made it apparent that
Chase's schemes were not without merit. All helped produce a
change in the minds of Liberty men. One after another various
leaders outside Ohio began to voice their favor.41
35 Ibid., June 25, 1845.
36 The plan for a "general reform party" can be found in Dumond, Birney Let-
ters, II, 970-996.
37 See Theodore Foster to Birney, March 30, August 1, 1846, in ibid., II, 1008,
1026; Russell Erret to Chase, May 9, 1846, in Chase MISS.
38 See Birney to Liberty Party, September 1, 1846, in Dumond, Birney Letters,
II, 1033-1034.
39 Chase to John P. Hale, in Smith op. cit., 110-111.
40 Ibid., 115-117; Ohio Statesmen (Columbus), September 30, October 5, 1846;
Foster to Birney, August 1, 1846, in Dumond, Birney Letters, II, 1025-1026.
41 See New York Tribune, March 25, 1846; Erret to Chase, August 31, 1846,
in Chase MSS; Elizur Wright to Birney, February 8, 1847, in Dumond, Birney Letters,
II, 1039; Guy Beckley to Signal of Liberty (Ann Arbor), March 16, 1847, in ibid., II,
1059.
LIBERTY
PARTY LEADERS 175
The question of what action to take,
however, was still an issue.
There were those who wished merely to
make a nomination and to
dilute the platform of the party just
enough to bring discontented
Whigs and Democrats into the Liberty
fold.42 Chase and his asso-
ciates, on the other hand, were already
in advance of that position.
They were ready to give up the whole
party in order to create a
new movement-an "antislavery league
of all elements."43
But the time for thrashing out these
divergent ideas never came.
A small wing of the party, which had
adopted Birney's general re-
form plan, stole a march on the movement
by calling for a con-
vention of their adherents to meet at
Macedon Locks, New York,
in June 1847. Instantly the party old
guard--led by Joshua Leavitt,
who was still making no
"terms" with slavery "but that of actual
extinction," and who was opposed to
any "bargain . . . manage-
ment, or . . . profound political
maneuvre," by which the old par-
ties, "or a portion of them"
could be used as "tools" in the party's
hands to carry its objects without
joining its ranks44---began to de-
mand a call for a convention of the
Liberty party. The demand
created a fearsome controversy. The old
guard, centered in the
eastern states, took its stand for an
autumn meeting and made no
bones about its reasons: "What we
wish to guard against is the
danger of subjecting our movements to
the control of those who
wish to avail themselves of the
advantages of our organization,
without sharing its responsibilities; or
who would use it for pur-
poses of their own and not for the ends
we have in view--the po-
litical overthrow of slavery."45
With equal candidness the coalitionists,
now prominent in all
western states and a considerable
minority in the East, urged post-
ponement till the early summer of 1848.
Ohio Liberty men were
42 Theodore C. Smith declared that
Leavitt was one of this group. See Smith,
op. cit., 104. From the material that follows it seems rather
evident that Leavitt did
not favor the movement.
43 See Chase to Giddings, October 20,
1846, in Chase MSS; Chase to Hale, May
12, 1847, in Robert B. Warden, An
Account of the Private Life and Public Services of
Salmon Portland Chase (Cincinnati, 1874), 313; Chase to Charles Sumner
September
22, 1847, in Salmon P. Chase, Dairy
and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase (American
Historical Association, Annual Report
. . . for the year 1902, II, Washington, 1903),
123.
44 Emancipator, June 16, 1847.
45 Ibid., May 12, 1847. See also ibid., April 21, 1847; National
Era (Washing-
ton), April 22, May 13, 20, June 24,
1847. Significantly enough the American and
Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, dominated
by the old guard, favored an early nomina-
tion.
176
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
unanimously on the side of postponement,46
and their leaders, as
always, were in the van of the movement.
Bailey, in the editorial
chair of the National Era, pointed
out: "Before next May, a pretty
correct opinion can be formed of the
character of the tickets to be
presented for the suffrages of the
people, and of the final policy of
the old parties---and then we can shape
our nominations accord-
ingly."47 His successor
upon the Cincinnati Weekly Herald, Stan-
ley Matthews, a rising power in the
party, frankly explained that
he expected to see both the Whig and
Democratic parties nominate
candidates who would be "utterly
unacceptable to the honest Anti-
Slavery sentiment of the country,"
which sentiment would be more
than willing then to cooperate with the
Liberty party. "Such a
prospect," he declared, "ought
to modify our own action in the
nomination of our candidates. If there
is a possibility of such de-
sireable [sic] aid, their
reasonable preference ought to be con-
sulted with our own in the selection of
a candidate, upon whom
the entire Anti-slavery sentiment of the
country might unite with-
out any compromise of principle."48
But the whole controversy ended abruptly
when the general
committee of the party, by a strict East
vs. West vote of seven states
to five, and over the strenuous protests
of Chase, called a conven-
tion to meet at Buffalo on October 20,
1847. Ohio coalitionists and
their allies shifted their campaign to
argue against the necessity
of making a nomination at that time, the
Weekly Herald suggesting
that the convention confine itself to
the appointment of a committee
"to correspond with individuals
known as Anti-Slavery men in
other ranks than those of the Liberty
party, compare views and
ascertain in what way, if any, and on
what basis, the Anti-Slavery
sentiment of the country" might be
consolidated.49 It was obvious,
however, that so fortunate an end to the
faction's hopes could not
be expected. When the motion to postpone
nominations was made
at the convention by Chase, it was
overwhelmingly defeated. Only
46 See Cincinnati Weekly Herald, June
30, July 7, 21, 1847. The only voice on
record raised in opposition to the
postponement was that of the Anti-Slavery Bugle
(Salem), a Garrisonian journal. See
Erwin H. Price, "Election of 1848 in Ohio," in
Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly, XXXVI (1927),
235.
47 National Era, April 15, 1847.
48 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, April
21, 1847. See also ibid., May 5, June 2, 30,
1847; National Era, April 22, May
13, 20, June 24, 1847.
49 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, June
23, 1847. See also Chase to Edward Wade,
June 23, 1847, in Chase MSS; Chase to Sumner, September
22, 1847, in Chase Cor-
respondence, 123;
New Hampshire Patriot (Concord), October 7, 1847.
LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS 177
the Ohio delegation
supported it with complete unanimity.50 But
the action was the
last victory of the old guard. Thereafter the
coalitionists took
control.
Their first act was
to write a platform which, while still paying
lip service to the
cause of abolitionism, no longer insisted upon
immediate abolition
of slavery, but only upon its abolition "by the
constitutional acts
of the Federal and State governments." Their
chief plank,
moreover, incorporated the principles which had first
been suggested as a
basis for political action by the Philanthropist
in 1839: "It is
the duty of antislavery men in Congress to propose
and vote for acts to
repeal the Slave Code of the District of Co-
lumbia; to repeal the
act of 1793, relating to fugitives from service;
to provide against
the introduction of slavery in any territory, and
such other laws as
may be necessary and expedient to withdraw
the support of the
government from slavery, and array the powers
of the general
government, on the side of liberty and free labor."51
With their principles
written into the platform, the coalition-
ists then dictated
the choice of party candidates. The question of
who should be
nominated had been given serious consideration ever
since the call for
the convention had been issued. The old guard,
deprived of Birney's
quadrennial availability, had never been able
to unite on that
score. The name most frequently mentioned among
them was that of
Gerrit Smith, of New York, since June the presi-
dential candidate of
the "Macedon Lock-Smiths" as the general
reform wing was
styled by its detractors. But Smith was hardly
popular. Many of the
old guard---among them Leavitt, and the in-
fluential Henry B.
Stanton52---would not accept him, and finding
themselves without a
strong candidate of their own were perforce
obliged to accept
that of their intraparty opposition. The coali-
tionists had played
their game on this score very well. As early as
the midsummer of 1846
their attention--first made public signifi-
cantly enough by the Cincinnati
Weekly Herald53--had been riveted
upon one man, John P.
Hale of New Hampshire, Democratic party
50 Theodore C. Smith
declared that the vote was 128 to 37; Smith, op. cit., 119.
I have been unable to
find this count in any source material. The Emancipator, Octo-
ber 27, 1847, and the
Cincinnati Weekly Herald, November 3, 1847, both published
the figure 144 to 72.
51 Cincinnati
Weekly Herald, November 3, 1847.
52 See Emancipator, September 1, 8, 15, 1847; Henry
B. Stanton to Chase,
August 6, 1847, in Chase
Correspondence, 467-468.
178
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
rebel, elected to the senate by a
coalition of Liberty men, Whigs, and
antislavery Democrats, and thus a living
monument to the success
of coalition. That attention never
wavered. When the time came
for nominations, Hale was easily
selected as the Liberty party's
choice for the presidency. Appropriately
enough the vice presiden-
tial post was accorded one of the Ohio
coalitionists---Leicester King.
The Buffalo convention should be
considered as the climax of
an eight-year struggle by Ohioans to
broaden the abolitionist move-
ment. The full desire of those Ohioans,
as of the year 1847-the
postponement of any action until the
other parties had acted on the
slavery issue in order that a union of
all antislavery elements could
be accomplished-was not achieved there.
But the meeting did
adopt the plans of the Buckeye men, as
of the years 1839-46: the
rewriting of the party platform to
include those antislavery issues
which were agitating the nation and for
which there was some
readily achieved legislative solution
which would attract those
whose views upon slavery were not so
extreme as those of the abo-
litionists, and the nomination of
candidates who would be consid-
ered political leaders with ideas upon
other aspects of government
besides that of slavery. It was a
victory, not complete, but well
worth while. As such, it marked the end
of old-fashioned political
abolitionism. Thenceforth the Liberty
party would respond more
readily to the demands of the period,
until finally its membership
merged into the Republican party, which,
by reason of war, was
able to accomplish the most sanguine
desires of early abolitionists.
To Ohio's liberty party leaders,
oft-condemned as self-seeking, must
be given the credit for the foresight
which finally brought the party
to a recognition of the fact that in
politics the "longest way 'round
may be the shortest way home."
53 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, July
22, 1846.
THE LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS OF OHIO:
EXPONENTS
OF ANTISLAVERY COALITION
by JOSEPH
G. RAYBACK
Assistant Professor of American
History, The Pennsylvania State College
If there is one aspect of American
history that has received
the attention that is its due, it is the
role of the abolitionist in the
antislavery movement. The main outlines
of the part played by that
small, semifanatical body of men and
women have long been re-
vealed; the eternal history of the group
has long been recorded.
There is one aspect of the subject,
however, which still needs more
attention: the role played by the
leaders of the Ohio wing of the
Liberty party in their effort to broaden
the appeal of the whole
political abolitionist movement. It has
long been accepted that
Salmon P. Chase had an important share
in persuading his party
to merge itself with the Free Soil
movement in 1847-48, but very
little is known of his earlier efforts
to bring about much the same
result, and still less is known of the
early work of other Ohio lead-
ers to achieve similar ends. Yet the
chieftains of Ohio's Liberty
party were laboring with that purpose in
mind from the very in-
ception of the party; indeed, it may be
said that these men were
thinking of a political organization
based upon the broadest anti-
slavery grounds even before the Liberty
party was conceived!
Exactly when the Liberty party was
created will always be a
controversial subject. But there can be
no doubt that the resolu-
tions adopted by the American
Anti-Slavery Society's annual con-
vention, held at Albany, New York, on
July 31, 1839, were a long
step in that direction. The convention
was called to discuss "the
questions which relate to the proper
exercise of the suffrage by
citizens of the free States,"1 a
vague way of stating an issue which
was being assiduously urged upon the
society by Myron W. Holley
and T. C. Torry, and by the organ of the
society, the Boston Eman-
cipator: should abolitionists set up a separate political party
with
1 Emancipator (Boston), August 8, 1839.
165