Ohio History Journal

DAVID TOD AND THE GUBERNATORIAL CAMPAIGN

OF 1844

by DELMER J. TRESTER

Historian, Wright Air Development Center

The sound of twenty-six cannon shots rolled across Columbus

on the morning of January 8, 1844, noisily signaling the beginning

of a lively day in the capital. "At 9 o'clock, the Columbus Guards

met the Dayton Artillery east of the Scioto river, just as the most

splendidly beautiful brass piece of the Dayton Artillery sent forth

several rounds. In half an hour the two German Artillery com-

panies of this city joined the other companies at the foot of Broad

street, and marched through the city. They made a magnificent

appearance."¹ The occasion for this celebration, with its accompany-

ing pomp and circumstance, was the Democratic state convention.

Delegates had come from throughout the state to nominate a ticket

and draw up a platform for the coming contest.

Despite the outward appearance of a festive occasion, there must

have been misgiving and apprehension in the minds of many who

witnessed the preconvention parade. For a serious split had occurred

in the ranks of the Democrats.

The issue which separated a segment of the Democrats from

the majority was the banking question. Until 1842 there had been

no general banking legislation in Ohio. Those banks in operation

secured their charters from the legislature and were subject to its

direct control. However, in that year the legislature passed the

Latham act, sponsored by the more radical Democrats. Although

the act was a great improvement over previous legislation because

it fulfilled the need for uniformity of charters, the banking interests

and the Whigs denounced its strict provisions.² The Democrats

also insisted on enforced resumption of specie payments by banks

and provided for that in the specie resumption act. This law stated

1 Ohio Statesman (Columbus), January 8, 1844.

2 Charles C. Huntington, "History of Banking and Currency in Ohio Before the

Civil War," Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, XXIV (1915),

191-192.

162

David Tod and the Campaign of 1844           163

that the charter and franchise of any bank would be forfeited upon

the bank's failure to redeem its notes. The Bartley act of February

21, 1843, was another general banking law, which amended the

Latham law and contained a provision reflecting the Democrats'

desire for individual liability of bank officials and stockholders.³

Ohio bankers, either by collusion or sincere dislike of the law,

refused to incorporate under its provisions. They abhorred the in-

dividual liability clause; furthermore, they delayed incorporating

while cherishing the hope that the Whigs would soon pass a

favorable act.⁴

Not all Democrats were pleased with the Bartley and specie

resumption acts. Thomas L. Hamer, along with a group of West

Union followers, opposed the radical banking legislation. In an

open letter addressed to Samuel Medary, Democratic editor of the

powerful and radical Ohio Statesman, Hamer maintained that the

Democrats were not reforming banks but destroying them. Also,

Hamer charged that Medary had attempted to impose his despotic

will on Democrats in the state in order to make them conform to

his views and those of John Brough, auditor of state.⁵ Here was

the beginning of a cleavage which became progressively wider.

It was true, however, that the beginnings of division in Democratic

ranks did not hamper them in the 1842 campaign. They managed

to elect not only their candidate for governor, Wilson Shannon,

but also returned majorities to both houses of the legislature. But

besides being a favorable year to Democrats throughout the nation,

a good part of the Whig losses could be ascribed to the resignation

(or "absquatulation," as it was generally termed) of Whig legis-

lators to defeat the Democratic bill for the single district plan

for apportioning representatives to congress.⁶

A further sign of spreading unorthodoxy relative to banking

resulted from Democrat Edson B. Olds's introduction in the 1843

legislature of a new banking act which did not contain the regular

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., 178.

5 Ohio State Journal (Columbus), July 20, 1842.

6 Edgar A. Holt, Party Politics in Ohio, 1840-1850 (Ohio Historical Collections, I,

Columbus, 1930), 91-99.

164     Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

Democratic principle of individual liability. By this time con-

servative opposition had increased, and several newspapers in the

state challenged the position of the radicals. The Zanesville Aurora,

the Chillicothe True Democrat, and others took positions favoring

a more lenient banking policy.⁷

Perhaps of more serious import was the course adopted by

Governor Shannon, who had already begun to lose contact with

his party because of his alleged intrigues with the national ad-

ministration of President Tyler concerning a possible presidential

appointment.⁸ When Shannon gave his annual message to the legis-

lature in December 1843, he asserted that a "well-guarded and

well-restricted system of local banks, judiciously distributed in the

State, with a fixed amount of capital, adequate to the business

wants of the country, is the best and most practical system of

banking that can, at this time, be adopted in this State."⁹ This

statement went far afield from the Democratic position; indeed,

it came close to an alignment with Whig doctrine. It was in that

session of the legislature that the first real break came in the

hitherto impenetrable legislative position of the Democrats: the

Wooster Bank, the Bank of Xenia, and the Lafayette Bank of

Cincinnati secured extensions of their old charters, which thus

exempted them from the provisions of the Bartley act.¹⁰

Therefore, when the Democrats met on January 8, 1844, for

their state convention, there existed considerable discord over the

most absorbing question of the day.

The name of David Tod came to the convention as an odds-on

favorite for the gubernatorial nomination. He was a native Ohioan,

having been born in Youngstown on February 21, 1805. His father

was George Tod, prominent in Ohio's early history as a pioneer,

lawyer, jurist, politician, and soldier. David Tod, after a meager

education, studied law and obtained his license in 1827. His

political faith was molded when he became a follower of the

colorful Andrew Jackson. In 1832 he was appointed postmaster of

7 Ibid., 103-105.

8 Ibid., 115-116.

9 Ibid., 112.

10 Ohio Executive Documents, 1843, Part I, No. 1 (Columbus, 1843), 7.

David Tod and the Campaign of 1844          165

Warren and resigned that position in 1838 when he ran for state

senator. He won the race and served two busy years in the legis-

lature. Although he did not run for reelection in 1840, Tod

vigorously supported Democratic candidates in the various elections

between 1840 and 1843. This work earned for him the title of a

"giant of Democracy" as well as an expert Whig "coonskinner."11

In the late summer of 1843 a movement developed, particularly

among the radicals, to sponsor Tod's candidacy. The Trumbull

Democrat, published in Warren, was one of the first to beat the

drums for Tod. Soon after, the Stark County Democrat, the

Columbiana Ohio Patriot, and the Holmes County Farmer also

fell in line. There was little inclination to renominate Governor

Shannon. His apostasy with regard to the banking question and

his alleged desertion to the Tylerites had quelled all enthusiasm

for him. Tod's path toward heading the Democratic ticket also

became clearer when Joseph R. Swan refused to have his name

considered by the convention.12

When the delegates of the Ohio Democracy assembled at the

Columbus City Hall at ten o'clock, Tod must have been reasonably

certain he would receive the nomination. After a short organizational

meeting, the convention adjourned to enable the county delegates

to take a poll among themselves and appoint one member of each

district to cast the votes. The representatives reassembled at three

o'clock in the afternoon. On the motion of John Brough the con-

vention proceeded to vote for a candidate, each district giving as

many votes as it had members in the lower house of the legislature.

On the first ballot Tod received sixty-four votes to one for

Robert Lucas of Pike County.

The convention, by acclamation, made Tod's nomination unani-

mous. The concurrence of opinion in favor of Tod, who was

universally regarded as a "hard" on money matters, seemed odd

in view of the differences in the party noted above. The only

possible explanation is that Medary and his cohorts had done

an excellent undercover job in bringing the prominent Democrats

11 See unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Political Career of David Tod (Ohio

State University, 1950), by Delmer J. Trester.

12 Cleveland Herald, September 15, 21, 1843; January 2, 1844.

166     Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

under party discipline, and had conducted an effective newspaper

campaign in support of Tod.

The committee appointed to wait on Tod reported that he was

present. William Medill, the permanent chairman, immediately

introduced him to the delegates. Just before Tod began to speak

a grey-headed veteran in the ranks of the party, Colonel Caldwell,

attracted the attention of Tod and the assembly. He blurted out

the question that was probably in the minds of many other delegates:

Was Tod in favor of banks? But immediately he was drowned out

with cries of "Tod!-Tod!-go ahead Tod!"

The newly nominated candidate began his short address to the

delegates by eulogizing the Democratic party and its principles

of "equal and exact privileges to all." He censured the Whigs as a

group whose aims were to "take power from the many and give

it to the few, to provide for, and protect the rich, at the expense

of the poor."¹3 Tod confessed that this difference in doctrine had

compelled him to join the Democratic party as soon as he had

reached voting age, despite the fact that Democrats were out-

numbered "ten to one" in the area where he lived.

Then he touched upon the main issue of the day. Still speaking

of the Democrats and their convictions, he asserted:

It is their love for these principles that induced them to insist . . . that

the banker should not be exempt from the payment of his debts, while

the farmer is compelled to pay his; hence, their insertion of what is

familiarly called the "private responsibility clause" in bank charters; and

hence, their determination to insist upon that clause. It is their love for

these principles that arrays them in opposition to the establishment of a

National Bank, giving to a few the control of the currency of the country,

and the custody of the funds of the nation, and induces them to urge the

re-establishment of the Independent Treasury law.

He closed his speech by deriding the Whigs and their tenets of

liberal construction of the constitution, high tariff, assumption of

state debts, distribution of land, and a national bank.¹⁴

Although the Democratic press lavishly lauded the acceptance

13 Ohio Statesman, January 9, 1844.

14 Ibid.

David Tod and the Campaign of 1844           167

speech, the Whigs greeted it with derision. The Cleveland Herald

declared that Tod had made the speech in a "bungling manner"

and had committed himself to doctrines which were certain to

bring him defeat.¹⁵ The most severe strictures appeared in the

Whig Western Reserve Chronicle of Warren. It described the

speech as of the "lowest trash" and declared that such expressions

could only be the "contents of the cranium of a small beer

politician."16

The convention continued its labors and drew up the party

platform. The delegates denied that there was authority vested

in the government to incorporate a national bank or issue paper

currency. They further resolved their opposition to a protective

tariff, distribution, and the assumption of state debts. All of

Oregon should be taken "in immediate possession." Relative to

Ohio banking, one resolution stated: "The Democratic party of

Ohio firmly insist upon the enforcement of the laws upon the

subject of Banking now in force, and do sternly and decidedly

vindicate and maintain the just and sound principle of the Individual

Liability of Bankers for the debts of their banks."17

Two days following the Democratic convention, January 10, the

Whigs gathered in Columbus for the same purpose. Although short

notice had been given and the roads had become very muddy, the

delegates came in rather large numbers to the city hall. Following

the rallying speeches by Thomas Corwin and Henry Stanbery, the

evening session witnessed the nomination of David Spangler of

Coshocton.¹⁸ Although the delegates possessed a letter from

Spangler saying that he would not accept the nomination if offered

to him, his friends were sure that he would do so under the proper

unanimous conditions. They were disappointed, however, when they

received a letter from Spangler, dated January 13, declining the

nomination. He gave urgent business affairs as the reason. There-

upon, the Whigs assigned February 22 as the date for a second

convention. But the first convention did draw up a platform. Reform

15 Ibid., January 13, 1844.

16 Ibid., January 23, 1844.

17 Ibid., January 11, 1844.

18 Ohio State Journal, January 11, 1844.

168     Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

in the state government had been one of the pre-campaign rallying

cries, and the Whigs included that as an important plank in the

platform. They also advocated an adequate currency and a change

in the banking laws.¹⁹ The second convention was much more of

an enthusiastic gathering, complete with an Indian chief, live

coons, and campaign songs. Mordecai Bartley, who had served

in the state senate and national house of representatives, was

elected as the Whig nominee.²⁰

Soon after the first Whig convention an interesting development

appeared in Democratic ranks. Delazon Smith, conservative editor

of the Dayton Miamian, placed Tod's name at the head of his

paper. But he did so reluctantly, for he stated:

There must be more harmony existing in the Democratic ranks than

appears to be at present, or a worse than Waterloo defeat awaits us. The

delegates, or at least a number of them, that we have seen, who were

members of the Convention, returned disheartened, and are ready to hang

their harps upon the willow.²¹

Smith's hesitant support of Tod shortly developed into outright

opposition when he heard of the latter's unalterable support of

the Bartley law.

That was all Smith needed to publish an expose of the inner

workings of the Democratic party. In his paper he wrote that about

a year previously Samuel Medary had warned Governor Shannon

to take the hard money stand. When Shannon refused, Medary

sentenced him to political death. About six months later Medary

invited William Allen, C. J. McNulty, William Medill, John B.

Weller, and other Democratic chiefs to a council meeting. It was

then agreed that Tod should replace Shannon; and if the Democrats

secured a majority on a joint ballot of the legislature, Medary

should be chosen United States Senator. Tod was invited to

Columbus and apparently measured up to the hard money re-

quirements of Medary. The latter, in order to promote Tod as a

strong man in the party, wrote to several newspaper editors in the

19 Ibid., January 17, 18, 22, 1844.

20 Ohio Statesman, February 22, 1844.

21 Dayton Miamian, quoted in Cleveland Herald, January 19, 1844.

David Tod and the'Campaign of 1844            169

state whom he could trust. After these papers had suggested Tod's

name, Smith charged,

in due time the editor of the Statesman [Medary] copies into his paper a

string of puffs of the-is to be Governor--and--very innocently declares

it, as his opinion that from the tone of the Democratic press of the State

. . . David Tod, Esq., of Warren, Trumbull county is the best and strongest

man and the manifest preference of the Democracy.²²

Choosing to ignore these accusations, Tod went about the business

of going before the people and airing his views. Appearing before

guests assembled for the Jackson Day dinner in Columbus on

January 8, he made a short speech. Tod promised his listeners that

he would take the field in person and that he would begin at the

earliest possible moment by starting on the following morning.²³

This next day's address was made to the Third Ward Hickory

Club of Columbus, at the Kraus Military Hall. Several men spoke

in German as a prelude to the main delivery by Tod. The latter

made an obvious bid for the German vote by uttering political

platitudes to the effect that the people from Germany sought liberty

here in the United States as Americans tried to preserve it. Another

attempt by Tod to capture votes from the foreign element occurred

the next evening when he appeared before a meeting of the Irish

Repealers in the hall of the legislature. Here he offered a few

words of encouragement for their cause.²⁴

On the thirteenth Tod attended a meeting of the Columbus

Hickory Club at the city hall. He strongly stated his views on

the issues of the campaign, including his advocacy of the Bartley

banking law. The chief Democratic organ of Columbus was pleased

with Tod's "straight forward, open-hearted, fearless manner of

expressing himself." It pointed out that this was quite different

from the "silly, absurd, and ridiculous mode of reaching the in-

tellect and reason of their hearers, by a Kickapoo array of Indian

banners, cider barrels, doggerel songs, ginger bread etc." employed

22 Dayton Miamian, quoted in Ohio State Journal, January 31, 1844.

23 Ohio Statesman, January 9, 1844.

²⁴ Ibid., January 15, 1844.

170     Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

by the Whigs.²⁵ Even the Whig party's paper, the Ohio State Journal,

was complimentary. "We rejoice that a man has been chosen by

the Loco Focos who dare [sic] avow, without equivocation, his

opinions, and all we have to ask is, that he adhere to them with

the same candor before the people of this State from this time

until the next election!!" Apparently the editors thought these

irrevocable views of Tod were sure to result in his defeat. They

promised their readers that they would file these statements to

insure against any possible transgression.²⁶ Tod restated his firm

support of the Bartley banking law     at a rally of the Warren

Hickory Club on January 27.27

It was in the latter part of February that a bombshell was thrown

into the Democratic ranks. Tod left the stump during the first

three weeks of February in order to take care of pressing business

affairs. Shortly after he returned, the Democratic central committee

of Cleveland wrote him a letter asking him to state in accurate

terms his precise views on banking. The members of the committee

thought this was necessary because there had appeared some

misrepresentations in the Whig press. Tod obliged. On February 27

he replied that he favored the old system of banking (that system

existing before passage of the Latham and Bartley acts) with the

following provisions inserted:

1st--The payment of the stock of the Bank in Gold and Silver.

2nd--Individual liability on the part of the stockholders for all debts of

the Bank.

3rd--Limit the issues of the Bank to three times the amount of specie.

4th--Limit the loans to the officers and stockholders, to at least one half

of their stock.

5th--Provide severe penalties, for all frauds on the part of the officers

of the banks.

Tod concluded his letter by stating: "With these provisions the

bill holder will be safe at all times. This object accomplished,

banks would in my opinion conduce to the interests of the people;

but without it all must certainly agree that they are a great curse."²⁸

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Western Reserve Chronicle, January 30, 1844.

28 Ohio Statesman, March 8, 1844.

David Tod and the Campaign of 1844             171

There is no question but that this was a plea for conservative

support. The essence of the plea was contained in his statement

that he favored "the old system of banking." This implied a system

that would make it possible for the banks to obtain their charters

individually from the legislature, contrary to the provisions of

the Latham and Bartley acts. Nevertheless, it was equally true

that Tod did not wish to lose the support of the radicals. Although

he favored the "old system of banking," he also would include

the five restrictions mentioned above. These restrictions, in general,

were the same as those of the current laws!

The explosion of the bombshell occurred when the Whigs

attempted to prove that Tod had made a sudden about-face in

his banking philosophy. The editors of the Ohio State Journal

took him to task at great length and in bitter terms. They made

great capital of the fact that Tod had come out in favor of

"THE OLD SYSTEM OF BANKING." They called upon their readers

to witness this great recantation, and cried, "What! expect the

people of Ohio to rally under the banner of such a nose of wax;

who has in two short months taken two positions wide apart as the

poles, on the great question before the people of this State; and

who has done so only to obtain their votes and confidence that he

may betray them!"²⁹ Shortly thereafter the Cincinnati Sun, which

had supported Tod, tore down his name from its masthead. It

declared that the party should nominate a new candidate who

would hold to the faith.³⁰ The Kalida Venture followed the same

course, calling the candidate's letter "a strange and unlooked-for

tergiversation."³¹ The Cincinnati Enquirer, however, which was

extremely radical in its banking views, attached less importance to

the hasty action taken by the other two papers and was certain

that Tod had not strayed from the Democratic tenet of bank

reform.32

Tod himself realized that he had made a mistake.³³ Soon he

changed the tenor of his remarks and again spoke in favor of the

29 March 9, 1844.

30 Western Reserve Chronicle, April 16, 1844.

31 Ohio State Journal, March 14, 1844.

32 Ibid.

33 Francis P. Weisenburger, The Passing of the Frontier, 1825-1850 (History of

the State of Ohio, III, Columbus, 1941), 418.

172     Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

Bartley law and declared that he supported the Democratic position,

which stated that, relative to banking, the party was in favor of

the status quo. This shift of position again provoked a great out-

burst from the Ohio State Journal. It published a certificate obtained

from prominent residents of Trumbull County who swore that they

heard Tod declare "that as far as the Democratic party was con-

cerned, the question was settled--that they had passed Latham's

Law and Bartley's amendment, and if capitalists would not take

stock under provisions of existing laws, the Democracy would

offer no other terms."³⁴ Throughout the campaign the Whigs

continually played up Tod's alleged duplicity. For example, at a

Whig mass meeting in Cleveland, one of the floats in the parade

carried a portrait of Tod having two faces, and an arm extended

either way. One hand pointed toward a box of hard money,

representing his Columbus speech, and the other grasped a twenty

dollar note indicating his Cleveland letter.³⁵ Nevertheless, during

the rest of the campaign Tod stuck to his support of the more

radical position on banking.

Tod became particularly active on the stump during the summer

months, when the weather favored picnics and outdoor meetings.

From July 22 to October 4 he was slated to appear on over fifty

platforms scattered throughout the state.³⁶ Other important Demo-

crats who were prominent on the speaker's platform, sometimes

accompanying Tod, were John Brough, William Allen, Thomas L.

Hamer, Benjamin Tappan, John B. Weller, and David T. Disney.37

Perhaps Tod realized that the Cleveland letter had cost him a large

block of votes and was determined to recapture them by vigorous

stumping.

The Ohio State Journal greeted this action of Tod's with derision.

It said that he was merely "perambulating the State delivering

himself of a weak, false and contemptible harangue, that he has

committed to memory from the columns of the Statesman."³⁸ Tod's

34 Ohio State Journal, June 6, 1844.

35 Cleveland Herald, May 16, 1844.

36 Ohio Statesman, July 17, 29, 1844; Ohio Coon Catcher (Columbus), August 31,

1844.

37 Ibid.

38 July 30, 1844.

David Tod and the Campaign of 1844           173

tour of the state was no political junket; he worked hard to bring

some order out of the chaotic state into which his campaign had

fallen. This was evident in a portion of his remarks to an audience

of 1,200 people at St. Clairsville during September. He made a

plea for unity, saying that he thought victory in November was

possible, but only if the party became "duly organized."³⁹

Although local issues were more important in the gubernatorial

race, and the banking question of supreme importance, it must be

remembered that the state elections of 1844 occurred during the

national campaign between Polk and Clay. In most of his speeches

Tod usually touched upon some phases of the nation-wide issues.

He favored the acquisition of Oregon, by force if necessary, and

thought that problem should be settled quickly. He also adhered

to the Democratic stand on Texas, favoring its annexation. The

slogan for the "Re-annexation of Texas and the Re-occupation of

Oregon" appealed to the vigorous, expansionist Northwest.⁴⁰ On

several occasions Tod also spoke on the subject of the "Dorrites,"

a group led by Thomas Dorr of Rhode Island, who attempted to

secure an extension of the suffrage in that state. As a result of his

activities Dorr had been imprisoned. For him and his followers

Tod expressed a deep sympathy and predicted that "the sense of

the American people will roll back in a tide of contempt at the

imprisonment of Dorr [and] that those prison walls cannot contain

his body for another year."⁴1

One outstanding theme--that of appealing to class consciousness

--became particularly noticeable in a number of Tod's speeches.

It will be recalled that this was the dominant theme contained in

his acceptance speech before the convention. Tod emphasized it

again and again, usually when he spoke on the tariff or distribution

of the proceeds of the sale of public lands. He denounced the

tariff of 1842 as "unequal in its operation and designed to throw

burdens of the Government on the poor." He was careful, however,

always to point out that the Democrats did not oppose all forms

39 St. Clairsville Gazette, September 13, 1844.

40 Ohio State Journal, August 13, 1844; Holt, Party Politics, 118.

41 Ohio Statesman, October 2, 1844.

174     Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

of tariff, but did not favor the one then on the statute books.⁴²

Speaking in Cleveland on the subject of distribution, Tod told his

listeners that by distribution Ohio would receive about $250,000,

and this would substantially reduce state taxes. But at the same

time it would raise the tariff in order to replenish the national

treasury. This plan Tod regarded as unequal. "I do not wish to

array the poor against the rich," he averred, "but I must declare

that no Democrat, addressing Democrats, can help doing it."⁴³

Meanwhile, Tod's opponent, Mordecai Bartley, also toured the

state. The Whig position on currency and banking had the support

of all members of the party, and Bartley was not forced into the

political vortex in which Tod found himself. The Whig candidate

stuck to his advocacy of a paper circulating medium as being

the "product of an advanced state of commerce," and necessary in a

"well-regulated system of banking." A system of protective tariff

Bartley described as essential "to protect the industry and in-

dependence of the people, and enable them to compete successfully

with the low prices of Labor in Europe." He also supported the

Whig doctrine of distribution, arguing that the public lands had

been held in trust for the people of the states, and following the

payment of the national debt, the remaining proceeds should be

parceled out to the states for the benefit of the people.⁴⁴ Concerning

the Texas question Bartley thought the proposed acquisition un-

constitutional and an unnecessary addition to the national domain.⁴⁵

Perhaps the only national questions which influenced Ohio voters

in their gubernatorial choice were the Texas and Oregon issues.

Tod's stand on both of these was the more popular. But, by and

large, as one periodical put it, "the people of Ohio care little

about Clay or Polk and less about Texas and still less about dis-

tribution. They feel the want of a circulating medium, in which they

can have confidence."⁴⁶ Thus, primary consideration was shown

to the currency and banking proposals of both candidates.

42 Cleveland Herald, June 27, 1844.

43 Ibid., June 26, 1844.

44 Ibid., May 16, 1844.

45 Western Reserve Chronicle, July 23, 1844.

46 Thompson's Bank Note Reporter, quoted in Ohio State Journal, August 29,

1844.

David Tod and the Campaign of 1844            175

During the closing months of the campaign, however, the news-

papers gave considerable space to personal attacks upon Tod.

With Tod adopting a policy of refraining from stressing the

banking issue, thus relieving the pressure of Whig attacks in that

direction, the Whig press sought other weaknesses in his armor.

When they found none, they created them.

They linked the first of these with the all-important banking

and currency issues. This was the famous "pot metal" imbroglio.

The Whig press of the state secured a certificate made by Justice

of the Peace Benedict of Braceville. This sworn statement main-

tained that during the spring of 1844, at a tavern in Ravenna, Tod

had used the following words: "I believe there is gold and silver

enough in the United States to do business with--if not, I would,

rather make up that deficiency with copper, or even POT METAL.^"47

Although Tod vigorously denied ever saying this, the charge stuck.

The Whigs used it to great advantage--particularly in such displays

as the one held in Newark on September 3. Here the center of

attraction was a float carrying a replica of a mint. The "workmen"

operating the mint cast "Tod currency," or pot metal cent pieces,

as they passed along the streets, and threw them to the crowd.

One side of these souvenirs showed a likeness of Tod, and on the

other appeared the words, "not worth one cent."⁴⁸ On another

occasion the Whigs paraded a large wagon which carried an

iron-furnace in full blast. Here they molded "Tod dollars," about

two and one-half inches in diameter and half an inch thick. Tod

secured one of these and later used it as a paper weight in his

office at Youngstown as a humorous, but somewhat grim reminder

of his youthful adventure into politics.⁴⁹

The opposition made an obvious attempt to create a charge out

of thin air when it characterized Tod as an infidel. This stemmed

from a letter written (and later published) by W. H. Heer of

the Methodist Episcopal Church. Heer contended that he had

endeavored to secure passage of a bill, during the time that Tod

47 Western Reserve Chronicle, July 16, 1844.

48 Ohio State Journal, September 12, 1844.

49 George B. Wright, "Honorable David Tod," Ohio State Archaeological and

Historical Quarterly, VIII (1900), 111.

176     Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

served in the legislature, which would have provided more safety

of worship by increasing to two miles the distance from churches

that dealers in beer, cider, and whiskey could operate. Heer pointed

out Tod as one who had opposed that measure.⁵⁰ The Western

Reserve Chronicle saw no inconsistency in elaborating the case to

describe Tod as a "profane swearer, [one who] denies the truth

of revelation, and reviles the Christian religion."⁵1 The simple

truth of the matter was that he had opposed the bill when it came

before the judiciary committee, of which he was a member, because

he regarded it as unconstitutional. It was only following the pub-

lication of testimonials on behalf of Tod and a threat to sue the

Ohio State Journal for libel that the paper admitted it made its

charge too quickly and had misconstrued Heer's letter.⁵²

Having Tod on the run, the Whigs proceeded to keep him there

in an almost humorous manner. The next fabrication hurled at

him also grew out of his legislative career. In closing a judiciary

committee's report, which Tod apparently had read to the legis-

lature, he made the remark that the committee felt justifiable pride

in being the first to be composed of "native born sons." Obviously,

this related to the fact that all of its members had been born in

Ohio. The Whigs expanded this innocent remark to mean that

Tod was anti-foreign in his feelings and that all his protestations

of love for the foreigners in Ohio were unadulterated lies.⁵³ Still

another vilification accused Tod of failing to show proper respect

for the American flag,⁵⁴ and that in his private speech he swore

"with more frequency and fluency than any man in Northern

Ohio."⁵⁵ It was somewhat wondrous that they placed such limita-

tions on the area!

Either the Democratic press was too busy answering accusations

against Tod, or Bartley had led too circumspect a political life,

for the latter was not subjected to the treatment suffered by Tod.

Two weak attempts were made, however, to sling mud at Bartley.

50 Ohio State Journal, July 16, 1844.

51 September 17, 1844.

52 July 19, 1844.

53 Ohio State Journal, August 3, 1844.

54 Scioto Gazette (Chillicothe), quoted in Cleveland Herald, August 23, 1844.

55 Ohio State Journal, September 28, 1844.

David Tod and the Campaign of 1844           177

The Ohio Statesman sneered at him because during the time he had

served in the national congress he had voted for John Q. Adams,

although his constituents had supported Andrew Jackson. This

revived the old "corrupt bargain" charge. The same paper also

blamed him for refusing to support a resolution to recompense

individuals who had suffered imprisonment under the provisions

of the alien and sedition law. But these charges were not pressed,

and Bartley did not pay much attention to them, letting them die a

natural death.⁵⁶

All in all, it was a colorful campaign. The publication of cam-

paign papers by both sides added further interest. The Ohio State

Journal came out with the Whig Battering Ram, or Straight-Out

Revived. The Ohio Statesman issued the Ohio Coon Catcher, "to

aid in the great work of catching and skinning coons in the ensuing

autumn."⁵⁷ In Dayton the Whig press released That Same Old Coon,

and the Democrats followed suit with The Coon Dissector. Perhaps

the most interesting of the cartoons to appear in any of these papers

during the campaign was one in the Ohio Statesman. Pictured were

contrasting likenesses of a fat, sleek, healthy "coon" representing

1840, and a lean and hungry-looking creature depicting 1844.

Beneath the latter appeared the phrase, "Sic transit gloria coonery !"⁵⁸

The Whigs used the interesting device of publishing, almost every

day, "renunciations" by Democrats who had dropped their "Loco

Foco" alignment, and had deserted to the Whig camp. Although

the campaign was not as interesting from the spectator standpoint

as had been the one in 1840, a good many of the same props

were used by both sides in an attempt to catch the applause--and

votes--of their spectators.

Despite the mistakes Tod had made during the campaign and

the harsh treatment he endured from the opposition press, the vote

in October was very close. Bartley received 146,333 votes; Tod,

145,022; and Leicester King, the Liberty party candidate, 8,898.59

56 April 5, 1844.

57 The first issue of the Whig Battering Ram appeared on August 9, while the

Ohio Coon Catcher began publication on August 17.

58 October 4, 1844.

59 Ohio State Journal, December 3, 1844.

178     Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

It was obvious from these results that the Liberty party held the

balance of power between the two major groups. However, there

was little cause for Tod to have made any sort of bid for Liberty

party votes, because most of the members were more sympathetic

toward the Whigs.⁶⁰ Besides, Tod had nothing to offer them.

It seems that the principal reason for Tod's defeat was simply

that to a small portion of his party he appeared too radical in his

banking views; when he attempted to straddle the fence at one

point in the campaign, he lost some radical support. Had he kept

his original position, and then made an attempt to go slow on

banking while he emphasized other issues, particularly his "rich

against the poor" argument, it is possible he could have won.

But as it was, the Whigs not only elected their candidate for

governor, but also returned majorities to both houses of the legis-

lature. This meant a serious blow to the Democrats, because it gave

the jubilant Whigs an opportunity they had eagerly awaited--a

chance to pass their version of a banking law.

Following the election Tod took one more political step before

he returned to private life. It had been rumored in Democratic

circles that Medary was in line for election as senator from Ohio,

should the Democrats secure a majority in both houses of the

legislature in October 1844. After their failure Tod made an

attempt to help secure Medary an award for his industrious efforts

in behalf of the party. Tod wrote a letter to the newly elected

president, James K. Polk, and urged him to include Medary in his

new cabinet as postmaster general.⁶¹ But Tod's appeal was in vain,

for Cave Johnson received the appointment.

Two years later, in 1846, the Democrats again selected Tod as

their standard bearer. But William Bebb defeated him by a slender

margin. It was not until 1861, when he shed his Democratic

allegiance and ran on the Union party ticket, that Tod achieved

election as governor of Ohio.

60 Weisenburger, Passing of the Frontier, 439.

61 Tod to Polk, December 11, 1844. Polk Manuscripts, Library of Congress.