Ohio History Journal

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS AND PROBLEMS OF FACTIONALISM     by FREDERICK J. BLUE       The history of the Free Soil party in Ohio from 1849 until it was dissolved in 1854 was one of incessant factional conflict. One source of controversy was the question whether the party should form a coalition with one of the major parties or should continue as a separate party. This controversy over the organization of the party was finally successfully resolved when Free Soil leaders helped form the new Republican party and thus eliminated the need for them to maintain a third party dedicated to antislavery. The     NOTES ARE ON PAGES 89-93

• 1
 

18                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Laws and a reapportionment law of doubtful constitutionality com-

plicated the situation.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

internal improvements, and land policy. This broadened platform helped

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

introduced more issues over which they could disagree.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

problems.

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

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

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

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

antislavery movement? Should they attempt to preserve their independence

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

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

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

lack of an established organization. Support had grown spontaneously with

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

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

movement unless someone assumed leadership and acted quickly.

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

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

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

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

• 2
 

ended, but not so the mission of our party. . . . This day begins the Presi- dential campaign of 1852, which will be concluded when Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men will be triumphant." Gamaliel Bailey, former editor of a Cincinnati antislavery paper and by 1847 the editor of the Washington, D. C., paper, the National Era, noted the practical problem of establishing a permanent party organization to keep the people aroused: "We must pre-occupy the public mind and establish a machinery of agita- tion."5 Before 1848 the Liberty party had resisted all suggestions of coopera- tion with either of the major parties. By separate action the members had hoped to build their organization until they could replace one of the older parties. Some Free Soilers felt that this was still the best policy. For example, Joshua Giddings, Congressman from Jefferson, Ashtabula County, argued that the group must resist the efforts "to get our members back into the old parties." On the other hand, Salmon P. Chase argued that the antislavery interests would best be served by a coalition with the Democratic party because the Democrats "were ready to 'progress' in the direction of Free Soil."6

• 3
 

20                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

This difference of opinion between Giddings and Chase was reflected in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through coalition with the established Democratic party. He also agreed

with the Democrats on important banking and tariff questions.7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chase's seemingly devious actions.8

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

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

organize was further increased by the extremely complex problems caused

by an apportionment law of doubtful constitutionality that was passed in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incurred charges that the party not only had seriously compromised its

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

party in the state.⁹

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

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

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

apportionment law designed to insure Whig control of the next legislature

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

• 4
 

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                           21

 

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

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

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

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

sentative seats. Democrats, however, questioned both the constitutionality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

common policy became an unfortunate characteristic of the group throughout

its brief history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

each of them as individuals.¹²

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movement as thoroughly as most men."13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 5
 

22                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

which endorsed many Democratic positions on economic issues not related

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

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

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

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

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

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

as well as the leadership and organization.15

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

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

vinced Townshend and Morse of the unconstitutionality of the aforemen-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

remaining in Washington for the congressional session, was not personally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the members from Cuyahoga County could not be persuaded to endorse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 6
 

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                                 23

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

loco focos in the legislature.^"20

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

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

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

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

fearful that the Democrats would not keep their promise and therefore

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

felt that since Democratic strength was concentrated in the southern part

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these gains were possible only because of political maneuvering.²¹

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 7
 

24                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

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

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

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

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

were confused and disappointed on seeing party members split between

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soil party.²⁴

The apparent good feelings between Chase and Giddings reflected no basic

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

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

Democrats could be brought around to an antislavery position without the

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

Democrat unreservedly. Investigation and reflection satisfied me long since

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movement as the Free Democracy. He optimistically believed that the

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

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

Even though Chase temporarily achieved victory through cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the apportionment law dividing Hamilton County. Giddings and Townshend

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

• 8
 

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                             25

 

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

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

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

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

Democrats and take the apportionment problem to the voters.²⁷

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

independent third party movement.²⁹

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

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

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

they embrace the apportionment issue. Therefore leaders in each Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

members prevented its absorption by the Democrats in 1849.

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

1850 and 1851 as Whigs and Democrats worked successfully to convince

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

troublesome slavery issues before the country. Major party politicians argued

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

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

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

• 9
 

26                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

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

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

dicted the impossibility of enforcing the law:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nowhere did Free Soilers show the vitality and enthusiasm of 1848.31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

were embarrassed by President Fillmore's endorsement of the Compromise

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

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

this confused situation because Chase, continuing to look for Democratic

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

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

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

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

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

from Ohio returned to Congress in 1850.³²

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 10
 

legislature Free Soilers remained loyal to Giddings. Finally, with a dead- lock developing, Free Soilers and Whigs combined to elect the antislavery Whig, Judge Benjamin Wade to the Senate, the only prominent candidate on whom they could agree. Wade received Free Soil support because of his vehement opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law. His election was a personal defeat for Chase and indicated to him that chances for a union with the Democrats had become only a remote possibility in Ohio.33 The election of Wade did not mean a Free Soil resurgence or increased opposition to the Compromise. In fact, declining Free Soil strength through- out the country in 1851 indicated that the Compromise was still acceptable to most voters. But Ohioans of all parties did have many reservations, and neither Whigs nor Democrats were willing to endorse the finality of the Compromise. Neither were they willing to attack the settlement openly and directly, however. They apparently feared the potential divisiveness of the issue too much to make a major issue of it.34 On the other hand, the Free Democrats, as the Free Soilers now called themselves,35 hoped to capitalize on the potential antislavery sentiment in Ohio and prepared for an active campaign for the governorship. Once again the Western Reserve

• 11
 

28                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

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

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

addresses, the delegates condemned the Compromise and the Fugitive Slave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prospects were promising.36

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

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

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

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

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

the Democratic party throughout the North was becoming an antislavery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

began to make plans for the national campaign of 1852.37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 12
 

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                           29

 

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

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

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

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

Hampshire as their candidate and waged an enthusiastic campaign. They

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chase seemed incapable of understanding why anyone could question his

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

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

The Free Democrats emerged from the election greatly strengthened. They

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

delegates adopted a radical platform which included endorsement of free

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

run again for governor and passed resolutions commending both Giddings

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

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

strongest party of the state.43

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

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

shown any interest in antislavery. Often they emphasized temperance rather

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 13
 

governor withdrew in favor of the Whig. But the Whigs were not yet ready to surrender their old party ties or to endorse fully the Free Democratic views on antislavery and temperance. In addition, some Free Democrats such as Chase were less than enthusiastic over the proposed union, and the idea proceeded no further.44 To Chase, the future now lay in winning over both Democrats and Whigs to the third party point of view rather than in fusion with either party. He wrote: "I am myself well satisfied that an Independent Democracy, thor- oughly organized and appealing alike to Liberal Whigs and liberal Demo- crats to unite in its action . . . could do our work best." Even Chase was beginning to see that future cooperation with the Whigs was more prom- ising than ever before. By 1853 he had given up switching parties and trying to change the Democrats and sought instead to persuade both Whigs and Democrats to join the Free Democrats.45 The election returns in 1853 gave the Free Democrats the best showing an antislavery party had ever made in Ohio. Lewis carried six counties and received more than 50,000 votes or about eighteen percent of the total; the Democrats swept to an easy victory as expected, but the Whig decline

• 14
 

THE OHIO FREE SOILERS                                              31

 

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

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

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

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

be disappointed. Although the Free Democrats elected thirteen members to

the legislature, the Democrats won an absolute majority.46

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic party were further shattered. The Democratic legislature soon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the new party."⁴⁷

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 15
 

32                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

fusionists experienced almost immediate success in the state with the

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

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

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

successfully overcoming the differences that had plagued them in earlier

years.⁵⁰

The Republican party almost immediately became the minority party in

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

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

nation the Republicans owed much to their antislavery predecessor. They

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

identity, but they had retained their principles.

 

 

THE AUTHOR: Frederick J. Blue is

Assistant Professor of History at Youngs-

town State University.

• 16