ROBERT F. HOROWITZ
James M. Ashley and the Presidential
Election of 1856
When the name James M. Ashley of Toledo,
Ohio is mentioned, one usually thinks
of the vindictive impeacher of President
Andrew Johnson, but Ashley's contribu-
tions to the history of mid-nineteenth
century America transcend this one event.
This becomes evident from studying his
activities in connection with the 1856 presi-
dential election. Ashley played a
prominent part in establishing the machinery for
a national Republican party, became a
political aide to Salmon P. Chase, and in-
dicated that he was an ultra-radical
Republican by becoming one of the first advo-
cates of Negro suffrage.
Ashley was originally a Democrat of what
he liked to call the Jefferson and Jack-
son school.1 He believed in strict
regulation of banks, specie currency, equitable tax
laws and rigid economy in a government
devoid of pomp and special privilege. Al-
though he was in favor of economic
growth, he looked upon corporations as per-
nicious institutions.2 In
1852 he supported and made speeches for Franklin Pierce
for President,3 but he broke
with the Democrats in 1853, partially because of his dis-
illusionment with Pierce's proslavery,
pro-southern views, and partially because of
his realization that the party would
never be truly antislavery. His involvement
1. James M. Ashley-James B. Steedman
Debate, September 24, 1860 at Toledo, Ohio, in Toledo Blade,
September 26, 1860; James M. Ashley to
A. Sankey Latty, September 25, 1854, in ibid, September 27,
1854; James M. Ashley, interview, in
Toledo Commercial, December 22, 1892; James M. Ashley Manu-
script, Chapter X, 1, University of
Toledo Library. The Ashley manuscript is in the form of a "Mem-
oir." Ashley wrote it in July 1896.
The "Memoir" concerns his early life and it contains one chapter on
his political campaigns. The pagination
is confusing as to chapter and page numbers, necessitating some
unusual citations. The
"Memoir" was for many years in the possession of Edward R. Hewitt,
Ashley's
son-in-law. Upon Hewitt's death, his
daughter, Mrs. Gordon Stevenson, gave the manuscript to Mr.
John Morgan, presently the research
librarian at the University of Toledo, who was then thinking of
doing a study of Ashley. While the
author was doing research in Toledo, Mr. Morgan showed him the
"Memoir" with the permission
of the present Ashley family. In the summer of 1971 the manuscript was
placed in the University of Toledo
Library. There are two copies of it, one hand written and the other
typed. They are exactly the same. The
author read both copies, and the citations in this study come
from the typed copy.
2. Toledo Blade, July 3, 1854,
October 18, 1858, September 17, 1860; Ashley to D. B. Smith, March
1866, in ibid., March 30, 1866;
James M. Ashley, "Speech," Montpelier, Ohio, September 1856, in Ben-
jamin W. Arnett, ed., Duplicate Copy
of the Souvenir from the Afro-American League of Tennessee to
Hon. James M. Ashley of Ohio (Philadelphia, 1894), 622 (hereafter cited as Orations
and Speeches), Ash-
ley, "Speech," Fulton County,
Ohio, November 1, 1859, ibid., 33-35.
3. Ashley-Steedman Debate, September 14,
1860 at Defiance, Ohio, in Toledo Blade, September 17,
1860.
Mr. Horowitz is an instructor in the
History Department of Brooklyn College.
|
with the Temperance movement, which the Democracy opposed, was also an impor- tant factor in his decision to leave the Democrats.4 In 1854, with the political ex- citement generated by the Kansas-Nebraska issue, he became involved in the People's or Fusionist movement which led to the formation of the Ohio Republican party.5 In the process, Ashley indicated that he was an arch radical by coming out for abolition. He also became a follower of Salmon P. Chase, for whom he began to work, with the ultimate goal of securing the presidency for the great antislavery leader in 1856.6 But Chase had to have a position of power to use as a base to ob- tain a national political following, and thus the first steps of Ashley and other anti- slavery men were directed towards the Ohio gubernatorial election in 1855. The Ohio Fusionists won a resounding victory in the state and congressional elec- tions in 1854, but there was no real harmony in the organization, as it was soon split between two groups. On the one side were the conservative Whigs and Know-Noth-
4. Ibid., March 4, 1852, September 16, 21, 1853, October 1, 1853; Ashley to Editor Toledo Blade in ibid., September 27. 1853; 0. White to Salmon P. Chase, September 9, 1853, Salmon P. Chase Papers, Library of Congress; Ashley, "Memoir," Chapter X, 10-11. 5. Joseph P. Smith, ed., History of the Republican Party in Ohio (Chicago, 1898), I, 9-14, 19; David H. Bradford, "The Background and Formation of the Republican Party in Ohio, 1844-1861" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1947), 133-137, 139-141, 146-148; Toledo Blade, July 3, 15, 1854: Ashley to Latty, September 25, 1854, in ibid., September 27, 1854. 6. Orations and Speeches, 300; Ashley, "Memoir," Chapter X, 23; Ashley, interview, Toledo Com- mercial, December 22, 1892. |
|
ings who wanted to sacrifice antislavery ideals for nativism and anti-Catholicism in an effort to build a national, rather than a sectional, party. On the other side were the radical Democrats, Whigs, and Free Soilers who were determined to hold firmly to their antislavery principles and were hostile to Know-Nothingism.7 The two wings of the movement fought a battle for domination and the arena was the up- coming gubernatorial election. The conservative, or Know-Nothing element, wanted the nomination to go to Jacob Brinkerhoff of Mansfield, a former Democrat who had been a Free Soiler in 1848 and who had recently joined the Know-Noth- ings.8 The antislavery forces were in favor of Chase. After the 1854 elections were over Ashley and other Chase supporters, such as E. S. Hamlin, editor of the Ohio Columbian, Joseph R. Williams, editor of the Toledo Blade, Dr. John Paul of Defiance, and the recently elected Congressman Richard Mott of Toledo, began planning strategy for Chase's effort to obtain the gubernato- rial nomination. These antislavery men were ready to juggle nominations and to make deals on certain matters, but they would not settle for anyone but Chase.9 In January 1855, after assessing the political situation, Ashley informed Chase of
7. Eugene H. Roseboom, The Civil War Era, 1850-1873 (Carl Witte, ed., The History of the State of Ohio, IV, 1944), 295, 297-298; Bradford, "The Background and Formation of the Republican Party in Ohio," 144. 8. Eugene H. Roseboom, "Salmon P. Chase and the Know-Nothings." Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXV (December 1938), 340-341. 9. Ashley, "Memoir," Chapter X, 23; Ashley, interview. Toledo Commercial, December 22, 1892; Roseboom. "Chase and the Know-Nothings," 340; Salmon P. Chase to E. S. Hamlin, November 1, 1854. January 22, February 8, 1855, Chase to L. D. Campbell, May 25, 1855, in Albert Bushnell Hart, ed., Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase (Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1902, Vol. 11), 265-270, 273-274; Joshua R. Giddings to George W. Julian, May 30, 1855, Julian-Giddings Papers, Library of Congress; Toledo Blade, June 18, 1855. |
James M. Ashley 7
his opinions on how to win the
nomination. He was against calling a separate Inde-
pendent Democratic convention, as other
Chase partisans advised. Arguing that
the antislavery forces would gain
nothing from such a course, he stated that he
hoped the movement would be discouraged.
Ashley wanted the Fusionist organi-
zation to continue as it had in 1854,
since he believed that the Chase faction could
control the July 13, 1855 state
convention. He really wanted to accomplish two
things: the endorsement by ballot for a
second time of the aims and principles of the
antislavery forces and the destruction
of the Hunker Democracy, who he feared
would win if the Fusionists split apart.
If the Hunkers were destroyed, "the young-
doubting and aspiring in their ranks
will at once leave them [the Hunkers] and join
that party which gives them most
assurances of success. If they believe it to be the
K-Ns-let them go there-better in their
ranks with the old liners, so far as we are
concerned."10 Ashley
reported that by June 1 he would know exactly what to do.
If everything did not work out, the
Chase supporters would still have time to call a
separate convention or attend the
Fusionist meeting and withdraw, if it appeared
they were not in control.11
Yet, in actual fact, Ashley's real
reason for fearing an open split within the Fu-
sionist movement was that he was already
looking ahead to the 1856 presidential
election. He concluded that an open
fight with friends both in Ohio and across the
nation was inevitable, but at the moment
they had to avoid this and keep the minds
of the people on the issue they held
most dear, antislavery. To him this was so par-
amount that he "could not conceive
how men could wish .. to endanger our suc-
cess in so important a matter, by
lending their names and influence to open or ren-
der worthless the advantages we gained
last year by the fusion movement."12
By the end of May, Ashley asserted that
the radical forces could not control the
July 13 convention and he was now in
favor of calling an Independent Democratic
meeting at Columbus on July 4. He feared
that if Chase lost the nomination at the
full party convention, it would be
impossible for him to recover for the presidential
contest in 1856. Ashley thus believed
that if the Independents nominated Chase on
July 4, they would go into the Fusionist
convention in a strong position. But if it
became impossible to obtain their men
and their platform, they could either break
up the convention or withdraw and
resolve to stand by the July 4 ticket. "This," he
declared, "is the only feasable
plan I can derive to draw off the true friends offree-
dom from the Know Nothings.... If we wait until after the
13th of July, we will be
divided ... and beaten and afterwards disheartened and
inactive. "13 Ashley continued
to favor the calling of a separate
convention as late as June 16.14
He also urged Chase to take a strong
stand against the Know-Nothings. Ashley,
Mott, and Williams had gone over a
letter Chase had written to Dr. Paul on Decem-
ber 28, 1854, which dealt with his
refusal to endorse the Know-Nothing movement.
Chase had said that, "I cannot
proscribe men on account of their birth. I cannot
make religious faith a political
test." But the letter had also shown a sympathetic
feeling towards antislavery
Know-Nothings. Ashley wanted Chase to have a re-
vised edition (most likely the
elimination of the paragraph favorable to antislavery
nativists) of this letter published,
since he felt it was indispensable that something be
10. Ashley to Chase, January 21, 1855,
Chase Papers, Library of Congress.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., May 29, 1855.
14. Ibid., June 16, 1855.
8
OHIO HISTORY
done before William Seward or any other
presidential aspirant came out against the
Know-Nothings. Such action would
indicate that Chase was not "solicitous as to
what the public might say," and
that those individuals who intended to support
Chase could not later claim to have done
so without understanding where he stood
on this issue. Also, it would place him
in the front line with those antislavery men
who feared nativism, for the nomination
in 1856, and this was of utmost impor-
tance.15
Chase eventually published the letter in
June, but without the suggested revisions
of Ashley and friends. The Cincinnati
antislavery leader believed that one had to
work cautiously to moderate Know-Nothing
influence in the People's movement,
not attack it head on, since an open
breach between the two branches of the fusion
coalition would cause great harm to the
antislavery movement.16 On this matter
Chase's analysis, and not Ashley's,
would prove to be the correct one.
In mid-June, Ashley attended the Know
Something national convention at Cleve-
land (at the same time a Know-Nothing
gathering was breaking apart at Phila-
delphia), where he did all he could to
protect Chase's interests. The Know Some-
things were in reality an antislavery
group in which nativism was a lesser force.
The platform of the organization
castigated slave power aggressions, praised free la-
bor, and advocated that principles rather
than place of birth should be the test for
citizenship. The only nativist plank the
Know Somethings retained was their de-
mand for the separation of religion (the
Catholic hierarchy) from any influence in
political affairs.17 Ashley
felt he could work with this antislavery group, and after
three days of effort, he managed to
obtain a resolution which set up a committee to
correspond with the seceding
Know-Nothings and other independent organizations
in the Midwest. The committee was to
contact all groups opposed to the Pierce ad-
ministration and to the slave power who,
regardless of party, wanted to rally behind
an Anti-Nebraska presidential ticket in
1856. Ashley was appointed chairman of
the committee which included among its
members the antislavery leader James A.
Briggs of Cleveland, the Maine
politician John A. Swayne, and future Congressman
Schuyler Colfax of Indiana. The
committee was empowered to call a mass meeting
at Pittsburgh on September 10, or at any
place it might choose to make preliminary
arrangements for a national
Anti-Nebraska convention in 1856. Pittsburgh was
chosen because of its central location,
but Ashley, who favored the city only as the
site for an organizational meeting,
wanted the nominating convention to be held in
Cincinnati. This Ohio city was
supposedly Chase territory. Ashley wrote to Chase
and asked him for the names of those who
might be interested in a national move-
ment promoting Anti-Nebraska principles.
The young man from Toledo was pre-
pared to do all he could to secure the
cooperation of their "friends throughout the
Union."18 According to historian
Andrew Crandall, this effort was the genesis of
the first Republican national
convention; the preliminary meeting, however, did not
15. Ibid., May 29, 1855; J. W. Schuckers, The Life and Public
Services of Salmon Portland Chase (New
York, 1874), 156-158; Albert Bushnell
Hart, Salmon P. Chase (Boston, 1899), 153-155.
16. Ibid.; Hart, Diary and
Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, 267-272; Oran Follett to Chase, January
7, May 2, 1855. Chase Papers, Library of
Congress.
17. New York Times, June 14, 15,
16, 1855; Sister M. Evangeline Thomas, Nativism in the Old North-
west, 1850-1860 (Washington, D.C., 1936), 185-186; Carl F. Brand,
"History of the Know-Nothing Party
in Indiana," Indiana Magazine of
History, XVIII (March, June 1922), 196.
18. Ashley to Chase, June 16, 1855,
Chase Papers, Library of Congress; Andrew W. Crandall, The
Early History of the Republican
Party, 1854-1856 (Gloucester, 1960),
48-49, 62 fn34.
James M. Ashley 9
take place in September but in February
1856.19
What Ashley and Chase were trying to
accomplish was the organization of a na-
tional political machine favorable to
the latter. To be specific, Ashley formulated
the plan because he wanted "to be
in advance of any movement that the 'organiza-
tion' as such might make for Seward, or [John] Hale or any other
person."20 He was
determined not to be caught napping
while other prospective candidates were in-
tensifying their efforts. At this time
Ashley was extremely optimistic over Chase's
chances for 1856. If enough of their
friends took the initiative, he informed Chase,
"we can easily nominate you and
assume the name Independent Democrat." But
Ashley was worried about the
Know-Nothings and the gubernatorial nomination,
and still wanted a separate convention
to be called on July 4.21
The apprehensions of Ashley and other
Chase supporters proved to be un-
founded. The Independent Democratic
convention did not have to meet, since the
Ohio Know-Nothings grew weaker as the
year progressed.22 At the July 13 Fusion-
ist convention, after some argument and
discussion and a lot of manipulating,
Chase received the gubernatorial
nomination and Brinkerhoff was nominated for
Ohio Supreme Court Judge. Eight other
nominations went to the Know-Nothings,
but the platform was strongly
antislavery.23 A group of Whig Know-Nothings could
not support Chase, and at a separate
convention on August 9 they nominated for-
mer Governor Allen Trimble to run for
the highest state office. The Democrats had
re-nominated Governor William Medill on
January 8. After a hard-fought cam-
paign Chase emerged as the victor in the
fall election by 16,000 votes.24
Chase now had a solid base from which he
could make a run for the presidency.
Ashley immediately began working towards
this goal. The first thing he did was to
write to Thomas Spooner of Cincinnati,
head of the Ohio Know-Nothings, thanking
him for his help in the election and
asking him to resign his presidency, publish his
reasons for doing so, and join the
Republican party. Ashley argued that this would
lead to the disintegration of the Ohio
order, except for the Trimble proslavery wing,
and relieve the Republicans of the
charge that they had joined with a group "whose
principles were antagonistic to
freedom."25 He concluded that if this course were
followed, the Republicans would gain
over half the foreign vote of Ohio and a large
number of the sincere old-line
antislavery Democrats. It would also preserve the
peace and harmony which was vital to
Republican interests and to Chase's success.
To Ashley, as to other antislavery men,
it was quite important that the Republicans
free themselves of the pernicious
influence of the Know-Nothings by 1856, if they
truly expected to accomplish anything.
There is no direct evidence which would in-
dicate that Spooner explicitly adopted
Ashley's advice, but he did step down as
president of the Ohio order, and soon
afterward broke away from the national
Know-Nothings. He also remained a
steadfast Chase supporter. Many of those
19. Ibid.
20. Ashley to Chase, June 16, 1855,
Chase Papers, Library of Congress.
21. Ibid.
22. Roseboom, "Chase and the
Know-Nothings," 341.
23. Toledo Blade, July 16, 1855;
Bradford, "The Background and Formation of the Republican Party
in Ohio," 146-148; Smith, Ohio
Republican Party, I, 33-37; Roseboom, "Chase and the
Know-Nothings,"
344-345.
24. Bradford, "The Background and
Formation of the Republican Party in Ohio," 149; Roseboom,
Civil War Era, 306-311; Toledo Blade, October 15, 1855; Ashley
to Chase, October 21, 1855, Chase Pa-
pers, Library of Congress.
25. Ibid.
10
OHIO HISTORY
who had followed Spooner in supporting
Chase in 1855 soon forgot nativism and
accepted the antislavery concepts of the
new Republican party.26
Since Chase ran on a platform free of
nativist ideas, Ashley believed that the Cin-
cinnatian's election was a step in the
right direction, as it freed the antislavery men
from the charges that they secretly
favored the Know-Nothing movement. Thus
Ashley concluded that Chase's position
on nativism was no longer open to mis-
representation. Nevertheless, Ashley was
upset about other matters. Seward's
speech at Albany, New York, on October
12, 1855 (in which he endorsed the new
Republican party) was creating a
nation-wide sensation and catapulting him into a
position of leadership.27 This
only distracted attention from Chase. Ashley was
most concerned, however, over the
efforts of some Republicans to talk about the
governor-elect as if he were a fanatic.
He wrote Chase that he regretted,
The New York Tribune in speaking of you
should have used the term abolitionist. I am half
inclined to think it done purposely and
for effect. I hope it was not, but really it does you no
good. Our Republican papers ought to
call the attention of the Tribune to it, and ask it to
make the distinction between an
Abolitionist and a Republican.28
Ashley was also fearful of what the
Democrats were thinking. He was convinced
that they had decided to join the free
state men (the antislavery forces) in Kansas
and adopt popular sovereignty as part of
their national platform. If this were to
happen, he told Chase, "they would
catch a great many of our votes."29 His fears
concerning the Democrats were unnecessary,
but they clearly indicated how worried
he was about any movement which might
distract from the vote-getting power of
Chase and the new party.
In the fall of 1855, after the
gubernatorial election, a group of antislavery leaders
met at Congressman Mott's home in
Toledo. Among those present were Ashley,
Chase, Hamlin, Dr. Paul, Williams,
future Congressman Fernando Beaman of
Michigan, and German language
newspaperman Fred Hassaurek of Cincinnati.
The purpose of the conference was to
talk over plans for securing the presidential
nomination for Chase. One of the main
issues discussed was the definite necessity
of holding a preliminary meeting to set
up the machinery for a national convention.
But the question was where to hold it.
That it should be in the West was obvious.
After considering Cincinnati, Chicago,
and St. Louis, Ashley's original suggestion
for Pittsburgh was accepted. To try to
gain support for this decision, the Ashley
correspondence committee went into high
gear.30
Ashley immediately sent out letters and
circulars to friends throughout the nation
and also began traveling to specific
places. On November 16 he was in Pittsburgh
discussing matters with Russell Errett
of the Pittsburgh Gazette. Errett did not have
encouraging news. He told Ashley that at
present there was no real hope of unity
among the Pennsylvania Anti-Nebraska
factions without sacrificing principles. But
he did believe that David Wilmot (the
Pennsylvania antislavery leader) would be in
26. Ibid., Thomas Spooner to
Chase, February 5, 1856, ibid., Roseboom, Civil War Era, 315;
Rose-
boom, "Chase and the
Know-Nothings," 349-350; Thomas, Nativism in the Old Northwest, 206.
27. Ashley to Chase, October 21, 1855,
Chase Papers, Library of Congress; Crandall, Early History of
the Republican Party, 33, 43, 49.
28. Ashley to Chase, October 21, 1855,
Chase Papers, Library of Congress.
29. Ibid.
30. Ashley, interview, Toledo Commercial,
December 22, 1892; Ashley, "Memoir," Chapter X, 24.
James M. Ashley 11
favor of holding an informal convention
in Pittsburgh.31
By January 18, 1856, Ashley had received
forty-one replies to his circular calling
for a mass meeting in Pittsburgh on
February 22, 1856. Only one was against the
idea of such a meeting and only three
opposed the date.32 Ashley was encouraged
by the overall positive response, but,
while he was busy corresponding with anti-
slavery men, a new organization,
"The Republican Association of Washington," was
set up. The new group, headed by Lewis
Clephane (an aide to Dr. Gamaliel Bailey
of the Washington National Era), was
in favor of a later date for the preliminary
meeting. In fact, Wilmot, Bailey, and
other more conservative antislavery men pre-
ferred March 26 as the best time.33
In January Ashley informed Chase that he had
written twenty-five more letters urging
people to insist on February 22, believing
that they would win this battle since
many in Washington under Mott's prodding
were coming around to their point of
view.34 He was correct in his assessment be-
cause Bailey's group (Wilmot, J. Z.
Goodrich of Massachusetts, Clephane and Law-
rence Brainard of Vermont) finally
agreed to the February date.35 Ashley was to a
large degree responsible for the idea of
the February convention and thus deserves
credit for being one of the founders of
the national Republican party.
On February 20 Ashley left Toledo to go
to Pittsburgh. He was going to try,
among other things, to persuade the
preliminary convention to adopt the name
Democratic Republican, though a
convention in his own district was against the
idea. He had contacted other delegates
about the matter and he told Chase that
"David Wilmot and several to whom I
have written on the subject favor the name-
and none oppose it but the most ultra
Whigs-except to my surprise Doctor
Bailey."36 Ashley had
been working diligently in Chase's behalf, and the Toledoan
was prepared to continue his efforts in
Pittsburgh.
The radical antislavery men dominated
the Pittsburgh convention, with Ohio
having the second largest delegation at
the meeting. Chase was unable to attend,
but his views were expressed by Ashley.
Other Chase supporters at the meeting
were Alfred P. Stone (a future national
committeeman who had worked hard to
have the preliminary convention held on
February 22) and the Ohio politician
Francis D. Kimball. Other prominent
radicals in attendance were Joshua R. Gid-
dings of Ohio, George W. Julian of
Indiana, Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, and Zach-
ariah Chandler of Michigan.37 The
convention achieved its purpose and established
the machinery necessary for a national organization.
After some discussion a na-
tional committee was set up empowered to
call for a nominating convention at
Philadelphia on June 17, 1856.38 The
basis for representation at the nominating
convention was to be six at-large
delegates from each state and three delegates from
31. Russell Errett to Chase, November
16, 1855, Chase Papers, Library of Congress.
32. Ashley to Chase, January 18, 1856,
Chase Papers, Library of Congress.
33. Ibid.; Crandall, Early
History of the Republican Party, 51-52.
34. Ashley to Chase, January 18, 1855,
Chase Papers, Library of Congress.
35. Crandall, Early History of the
Republican Party, 52; Ashley to Chase, February 26, 1856, Salmon P.
Chase Papers, Ohio Historical Society.
36. Ashley to Chase, February 19, 1856, ibid.
37. Ibid.; Roseboom, Civil War
Era, 316; Hans L. Trefousse, The Radical Republicans (New York,
1969), 98; Bradford, "The
Background and Formation of the Republican Party in Ohio," 161; Crandall,
Early History of the Republican
Party, 51, 156.
38. Leonard H. Bernstein,
"Convention in Pittsburgh," The Western Pennsylvania Historical
Magazine,
XLIX (October 1966), 289-300; Official
Proceedings of the Republican Convention Convened in the City of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on the
Twenty-Second of February, 1856 (New
York, 1856), 12-13; Crandall,
Early History of the Republican
Party, 60-61; New York Tribune, February
24, 1856.
12 OHIO HISTORY
each congressional district in the
states. Ashley moved to amend this resolution by
making it two at-large and one district
delegate, but his proposal was tabled.39 He was
also unable to convince the gathering to
adopt the name Democratic Republican.
As soon as the Pittsburgh meeting was
over, he sent Chase his analysis of what
had happened. Ashley was happy about the
overall results of the convention and
had been impressed by the quality and
talent of the men who attended. The con-
vention did not take as radical a stance
as Ashley desired, but on the whole he was
quite satisfied. Glad that he had
insisted on holding the meeting on February 22
and not in March, he told Chase, "I
am well satisfied and believe we shall triumph-
let the KNs take what course they
please."40 The sanguine Ashley also reported
that if the nomination had been made at
this convention, Chase would have re-
ceived "two votes to one of the
entire delegations."41
The young politician then tried to
analyze the total political picture. He pre-
dicted that strong movements were going
to be made in favor of the nomination of
Nathaniel P. Banks, Jr., of
Massachusetts and of John C. Fremont of California.
Of the two, Ashley was more worried
about Banks. He also said there was some
strength for Wilmot, Seward, Hale,
Preston King of New York, Cassius M. Clay of
Kentucky, and Supreme Court Judge John
McLean of Ohio. Since the Pittsburgh
gathering was controlled by antislavery
elements, Ashley tended to be overly opti-
mistic, believing Chase could obtain a
majority of the delegate votes from New
York and Pennsylvania, all of the votes
from the West, and many from the South.42
He was so confident that Chase was going
to receive the nomination that he
started to talk about vice presidential
running mates. Among the possibilities
Chase supporters had mentioned at
Pittsburgh were Francis P. Blair, Sr., of Mary-
land, Francis P. Blair, Jr., of
Missouri, Fremont, and Banks. Believing that good
politics indicated the nomination should
go to a man from a slave state, Ashley felt
that Blair of Maryland was the best
choice. If the vice presidential nomination was
to come from the North, Ashley preferred
Banks since he would give strength and
popularity to a ticket.43
Though the machinery for a national
Republican party had been established at
Pittsburgh and the tone and content of
the platform had been antislavery, Ashley's
analysis concerning Chase's ability to
obtain the presidential nomination proved to
be unrealistic. It soon became obvious
that none of the leading antislavery radicals
had a chance of securing the nomination.44
Chase simply could not overcome his
background as a Free Soiler and his
former close association with the Know-Noth-
ings in Ohio. Also, although his friends
had tried hard, Chase never acquired suf-
ficient support from the East.45
In Ohio, Republicans were split between
the governor and Judge McLean, and at
the state convention in May no
preference was established.46 The main criterion for
39. Official Proceedings, 13;
Smith, Ohio Republican Party, I, 52.
40. Ashley to Chase, February 26, 1856,
Chase Papers, Ohio Historical Society.
41. Ibid.; another Chase
supporter, John Heaton, also felt the governor could have received the nomi-
nation here, Crandall, Early History
of the Republican Party, 156, 174 fn7.
42. Ashley to Chase, February 26, 1856,
Chase Papers, Ohio Historical Society.
43. Ibid.
44. Trefousse, The Radical
Republicans, 96; Crandall, Early History of the Republican Party, 60-61,
154; Bernstein, "Convention in
Pittsburgh," 296-299.
45. Crandall, Early History of the
Republican Party, 155-159; Bradford, "The Background and Forma-
tion of the Republican Party in
Ohio," 230.
46. Roseboom, Civil War Era, 317.
James M. Ashley 13
obtaining the nomination was the ability
to attract voters from all elements of the
established parties, especially
conservative ones.47 The man who had such a follow-
ing seemed to be Fremont, and as the
June convention drew near many of the radi-
cal Republicans were ready to accept
him, rather than a conservative candidate.48
Ashley was chosen as a delegate from
Ohio's Fifth Congressional District to the
1856 Republican national convention in
Philadelphia.49 The Ohio delegation was
still split over whom they should
support, but a majority, including Ashley, favored
Chase first and Fremont as their second
choice. Chase had instructed his emissaries
to withdraw his name from consideration
if the movement for Fremont became too
strong; his orders were carried out.
Fremont received the presidential nomination
on the first ballot, with Ashley voting
for the Pathfinder.50 William L. Dayton of
New Jersey, a former Whig, was nominated
for vice president. The chairman of the
convention, Henry S. Lane of Indiana,
acting on a motion made by Ashley, ap-
pointed a committee of nine, including
the young man from Toledo, Thaddeus Ste-
vens of Pennsylvania, and Kinsley S.
Bingham of Michigan, to notify Fremont of
his nomination.51 The platform was all
that Ashley and other radicals had hoped
for. It condemned polygamy and slavery
as the "twin relics of barbarism," asserted
that neither Congress nor a territorial
government could establish slavery in a terri-
tory, called for the admission of Kansas
as a free state, came out in favor of a trans-
continental railroad and internal
improvements, and accepted Chase's idea that the
Federal Government had the power to
abolish slavery in areas under its juris-
diction.52 Ashley had also
put forth this view. Chase and his followers were con-
tent since these resolutions clearly
called for the "denationalization of slavery."53
Upon returning to Toledo, Ashley was
forced to devote a great deal of his time to
his business (he owned a drug, or
general, store), but in his spare moments he im-
mersed himself in the campaign.54 In
July a large rally calling for "Freedom and
Fremont" was held in Toledo. A Fremont
Club was established, with Ashley as
one of a three-man executive
committee.55 As the campaign
progressed, Ashley
made a few stump speeches for the
reelection of Mott and for the national ticket.
Most of these speeches were typical
election year efforts, but one given in Septem-
ber in a grove near Montpelier, Williams
County, Ohio, was as daring and radical
an oration as had ever been given in
that part of the country.
After answering a few questions from the
audience, Ashley quickly informed his
listeners where he stood on the question
of slavery. He said, "I am opposed to the
enslavement in any country on God's
green earth, of any man or any race of men ...
and I do not admit that the Constitution
of my country recognizes property in
man."56 Slavery to him
was " 'the sum of all villanies' . . . the blackest of crimes ...
47. Crandall, Early History of the
Republican Party, 159-161.
48. Trefoussee. The Radical
Republicans, 96, 100.
49. Toledo Blade, May 9, 1856.
50. New York Tribune, June 17,
19, 1856; Roseboom, Civil War Era, 317-318; Ashley, "Memoir,"
Chapter X, 26; Ashley,
"Speech," Montpelier, Ohio, September 1856, in Orations and
Speeches, 617.
51. New York Times, June 20,
1856; Smith, Ohio Republican Party, I, 58.
52. Kirk H. Porter and Donald B.
Johnson, National Party Platforms, 1840-1956 (Urbana, I11.. 1956),
27-28.
53. Chase to George W. Julian, July 17,
1856, Julian-Giddings Papers.
54. Ashley, "Memoir," Chapter
X, 26.
55. Toledo Blade, July 14, 1856.
56. Orations and Speeches, 605.
14 OHIO
HISTORY
and . . . the most revolting infamy that ever afflicted mankind or cursed
the earth."57
"This monster wrong," he
exclaimed, "this crime of the centuries, has fastened its
fangs into our national life, and . . .
has demoralized and debauched a large part of
the entire nation, north and
south."58 There was, as far as he was concerned, no ex-
cuse or justification for the peculiar
institution.59
As for who was responsible for this
deplorable situation, Ashley, like other radical
Republicans, placed the blame on a
conspiracy of slaveholders and northern dough-
faces. These men, he stated, had
misinterpreted the Constitution, degraded reli-
gion, perverted meanings in the Bible, and
gained control of the Federal Govern-
ment. The conspirators, he said, who
were committing,
Crimes against humanity and our
democratic government are at this very hour laying broad
and deep the conditions which are
certain to ultimate in a revolution of fire and blood that
must end, either in the destruction of
this Union and Government, or in the abolition of the
institution of slavery which the slave
barons are to-day madly attempting to fasten upon the
nation for all time.60
Furthermore, Ashley believed that an
honest reading of the United States Con-
stitution clearly proved that slavery
could not legally exist in the nation for a single
hour. He reiterated that the men who
founded this great country did not intend the
Constitution to recognize property in
men. If the document were properly inter-
preted, "a slave could not breathe
anywhere, on the land or on the sea beneath our
starry flag."61 Ashley
also attacked the theory that the Bible sanctioned American
slavery. The sight of churchmen
defending this infamous falsehood was to him a
revolting spectacle. He denied most
vehemently "that the Bible anywhere author-
izes or justifies the crime of American
slavery," but that as he read it, slavery was
"abolished and prohibited under the
dispensation and teaching of Christ."62
Letting loose a strong attack against
the Fugitive Slave Law, Ashley stated that he
was horrified and dismayed that the law
was being readily obeyed. Those who
practiced the profession of slave
catching were "land-slave pirates." He presented a
strong case in favor of the position
that no clause or section of the Constitution gave
Congress the power to enact laws for the
return of runaway slaves. Anyone who
claimed to find support for such an act
in the Constitution was guilty of a "forced in-
terpretation, and an outrage on the
meaning of language, and on all known rules of
law."63 Congress did not
possess such power, and he was "confident that no such
power was intended to be
conferred."64
With deep feeling Ashley urged his
audience to support Fremont. Millard Fill-
more, the American party candidate, was
nothing more than a "'decoy duck'" who
was "simply being used by the slave
barons to catch Northern doughface suckers
and political eunuchs."65
As for the Democratic candidate James Buchanan, Ashley
exclaimed, "all his life he has
been a suave, putty-man ready and willing to be
57. Ibid., 605, 613.
58. Ibid., 613.
59. Ibid., 614-615.
60. Ibid., 606, 615-617.
61. Ibid., 616, 623.
62. Ibid., 615.
63. Ibid., 611-613, 623-625.
64. Ibid., 625.
65. Ibid., 617.
James M. Ashley 15
molded and stamped with the brand of the
slave barons."66 He was "the prince of
all Northern Janus-faced
politicians," and if he was elected the nation would be dis-
graced and dishonored.67 But the heart of Ashley's speech was
the statement that
slavery had to be eradicated:
If this can be done in no other way, it
will become our duty to amend our national Con-
stitution and all our State
constitutions, so as to secure to every living human soul within our
gates, their right to life, liberty and
property, and it must also be amended so as to secure to
all States, representatives in Congress,
and in State legislatures-in proportion to the votes
cast in each, to the end that all the
people, white and colored, shall be fairly represented in
State legislative assemblies and in the
national Congress.68
In the year 1856 this was as radical a
statement as an orator dared to make. Ashley
not only had declared that he was an abolitionist
but also, more importantly, had
come out for Negro suffrage and
officeholding.
He ended his stirring speech to great
applause saying, "It cannot be that this long,
dark night of shame and crime will
endure forever . . . so I, . . . close my speech to-
day with the declaration, that come what
may 'AMERICAN SLAVERY MUST BE
DESTROYED.' "69
In this speech Ashley clearly indicated
where he stood on most of the major issues
of the day, regardless of the
consequences. He spoke with a passionate feeling for
humanity which showed deep moral
earnestness. He took bold, forthright positions
which indicated that he was a man who
had moral courage and took action based
on his convictions.70 Above
all, it indicated how far in advance he was of Fremont
and the majority of the Republican
party.
The campaign in Ohio was extremely hard
fought and often quite bitter. The
Democrats and the Know-Nothings charged
the Republicans with radicalism, call-
ing them fanatical abolitionists,
believers in Negro equality, and disunionists. The
Republicans played up the Kansas issue,
the Preston Brooks-Charles Sumner can-
ing affair, and attacked the concept of
popular sovereignty "as a subterfuge for the
advancement of slavery."71
The evangelical churches, motivated by the moral is-
sues of slavery, supported Fremont.72
In the October state and congressional elec-
tions the Republicans in Ohio were
successful, but by smaller pluralities than in
1854.73 In the November national
elections Fremont carried Ohio, but Fillmore
votes in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and
Illinois prevented Fremont from carrying these
states and gave Buchanan the final
victory.74
Ashley thus played an important role in
the events which make up the history of
the presidential election of 1856.
Involved in the movements to establish a Re-
publican party in Ohio and to have Chase
elected governor, he was also largely re-
66. Ibid., 618.
67. Ibid., 617, 618.
68. Ibid., 616.
69. Ibid., 628.
70. Frederick Douglass,
"Introduction," Orations and Speeches, 6-7.
71. Roseboom. Civil War Era, 319-322:
Bradford, "The Background and Formation of the Republican
Party in Ohio." 162-163.
72. Victor B. Howard, "The 1856
Election in Ohio: Moral Issues in Politics," Ohio History, LXXX
(Winter 1971), 43-44.
73. Roseboom, Civil War Era, 322;
Ashley, "Memoir," Chapter X, 26.
74. Roseboom, Civil War Era, 323;
Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men (New York. 1970),
130.
16 OHIO HISTORY
sponsible for the February 22 meeting
which set up a national Republican organiza-
tion. He had worked diligently, if
unsuccessfully, first for Chase and then for
Fremont. In the process Ashley made a
name for himself in national politics as a
radical, who not only wanted immediate
abolition of slavery but also favored the ul-
tra-extremist doctrine of Negro
suffrage. As a Congressman during the Civil War
and Reconstruction period, Ashley
continued his fight against the "peculiar in-
stitution" by introducing a
resolution for a Constitutional amendment abolishing
slavery and then guiding it to passage
in the House of Representatives, and by his
consistent advocacy of Negro civil and
political rights.
ROBERT F. HOROWITZ
James M. Ashley and the Presidential
Election of 1856
When the name James M. Ashley of Toledo,
Ohio is mentioned, one usually thinks
of the vindictive impeacher of President
Andrew Johnson, but Ashley's contribu-
tions to the history of mid-nineteenth
century America transcend this one event.
This becomes evident from studying his
activities in connection with the 1856 presi-
dential election. Ashley played a
prominent part in establishing the machinery for
a national Republican party, became a
political aide to Salmon P. Chase, and in-
dicated that he was an ultra-radical
Republican by becoming one of the first advo-
cates of Negro suffrage.
Ashley was originally a Democrat of what
he liked to call the Jefferson and Jack-
son school.1 He believed in strict
regulation of banks, specie currency, equitable tax
laws and rigid economy in a government
devoid of pomp and special privilege. Al-
though he was in favor of economic
growth, he looked upon corporations as per-
nicious institutions.2 In
1852 he supported and made speeches for Franklin Pierce
for President,3 but he broke
with the Democrats in 1853, partially because of his dis-
illusionment with Pierce's proslavery,
pro-southern views, and partially because of
his realization that the party would
never be truly antislavery. His involvement
1. James M. Ashley-James B. Steedman
Debate, September 24, 1860 at Toledo, Ohio, in Toledo Blade,
September 26, 1860; James M. Ashley to
A. Sankey Latty, September 25, 1854, in ibid, September 27,
1854; James M. Ashley, interview, in
Toledo Commercial, December 22, 1892; James M. Ashley Manu-
script, Chapter X, 1, University of
Toledo Library. The Ashley manuscript is in the form of a "Mem-
oir." Ashley wrote it in July 1896.
The "Memoir" concerns his early life and it contains one chapter on
his political campaigns. The pagination
is confusing as to chapter and page numbers, necessitating some
unusual citations. The
"Memoir" was for many years in the possession of Edward R. Hewitt,
Ashley's
son-in-law. Upon Hewitt's death, his
daughter, Mrs. Gordon Stevenson, gave the manuscript to Mr.
John Morgan, presently the research
librarian at the University of Toledo, who was then thinking of
doing a study of Ashley. While the
author was doing research in Toledo, Mr. Morgan showed him the
"Memoir" with the permission
of the present Ashley family. In the summer of 1971 the manuscript was
placed in the University of Toledo
Library. There are two copies of it, one hand written and the other
typed. They are exactly the same. The
author read both copies, and the citations in this study come
from the typed copy.
2. Toledo Blade, July 3, 1854,
October 18, 1858, September 17, 1860; Ashley to D. B. Smith, March
1866, in ibid., March 30, 1866;
James M. Ashley, "Speech," Montpelier, Ohio, September 1856, in Ben-
jamin W. Arnett, ed., Duplicate Copy
of the Souvenir from the Afro-American League of Tennessee to
Hon. James M. Ashley of Ohio (Philadelphia, 1894), 622 (hereafter cited as Orations
and Speeches), Ash-
ley, "Speech," Fulton County,
Ohio, November 1, 1859, ibid., 33-35.
3. Ashley-Steedman Debate, September 14,
1860 at Defiance, Ohio, in Toledo Blade, September 17,
1860.
Mr. Horowitz is an instructor in the
History Department of Brooklyn College.