Ohio History Journal
THE ELECTION OF 1848 IN OHIO*
BY ERWIN H. PRICE
CHAPTER I
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL BACKGROUND
In the year 1848, in Ohio, the Whig
administration,
under Governor William Bebb, was
drawing to a close.
In the Legislature, there was a Whig
majority whose
efforts were sometimes embarrassed by
an energetic
group of Democrats. This opposition,
moreover, had
the advantage of working with the party
in power, in
national politics at Washington. The
Ohio representa-
tion in Congress was predominantly
Whig. In the Sen-
ate, however, the Buckeye State was
represented by one
Whig, Thomas Corwin, and one Democrat,
Wm. Allen.
The close patronage of that day filled
federal offices all
over the land, with trusted agents of the
party in power,
thus building up a hierarchy that was
inclined to
hearken to good counsel. The complaint
was often
made, by the minority editors, that
their papers were
held up in the post office at crucial
times.1 Federal ap-
pointees generally kept in touch with
the drift of local
* A thesis presented for the degree of
Master of Arts, Ohio State
University, 1927.
1 Editorial on the efficiency of the
Post Office in Ohio State Journal,
January 16, 1848.
(188)
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 189
politics; there were even charges of
their overweening
influence in the State Assembly.2
Legislation forms the natural soil from
which party
issues arise in political campaigns.
The laws reflect the
good or evil in civic policies
undertaken by one party
and opposed by another, or more often
each party
strives to take unto itself the credit
for policies that are
seen to be good, and to blame its
opponent for those that
fail. The Whig legislators in Ohio had
made a record
in which the party professed great
pride. On the side
of finance, they pointed to a bank-law
and a tax-law as
well as to provisions for discharging
the state debt. Al-
most every Whig local convention
includes praise for
these measures, in its resolutions.3
From 1816 to 1845,
there was a persistent demand for bank
reform. The
Locofocos had given this demand the
form of a cry for
what was called individual liability.4
Individual liabil-
ity, as a policy of safety, consisted
in the requirement
that all bank-directors of state banks
be men of prop-
erty, and that they be made personally
liable for default
of their institutions. The Locofocos
had regarded this
policy as a sort of panacea for the
ills of banking.
Their efforts had resulted in its
partial adoption by the
State legislature when called upon to
charter new insti-
tutions.
In April, 1848, the public mind was
focused on the
entire question of State-banking by an
event which the
Whig press featured as a final proof of
the folly of all
2 Letter of a correspondent attributing
the withdrawal of Democrats
from the Senate in the apportionment
controversy to the influence of "Wash-
ington" in Ohio State Journal, March
6, 1848.
3 Resolutions submitted to the Central
Committee from various locali-
ties, in the Ohio State Journal, January
to December, 1848 -- passim.
4 Ohio Statesman, January
to December, 1844.
190 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
hopes based on individual liability,
the failure of the
Wooster Bank.5 It had been
chartered by a Democratic
Legislature in 1834.6 Ten years later
its charter had
been amended by the addition of an
individual liability
clause in a Legislature of which the
Senate was Whig,
the House Democratic.7 The
bank of St. Clair, chart-
ered with a similar liability
safeguard, had failed at an
earlier date, as had some others of the
same kind; but
their fall did not arouse the public
interest as did the
Wooster calamity, coming during the
heat of a great
campaign.8 Whig editors did
not fail to point the moral;
they regarded the bank of Wooster as a
grand example
of the weakness of individual
liability, forgetting for
the time that the Whigs themselves had
aided to pass
the amendments in question.9 Not
that individual lia-
bility was the cause of the bank's
failure; the point was
that this panacea had not kept it from
failing. The gen-
eral state banking law, that was in
force in 1848, had
been passed under Whig auspices. It
provided that
the holder of bank-notes, from state
banks, might have
at all times the right to change them to
specie. Provi-
sion was made, by an ordinance of the
Board of Control
(September, 1848), for the keeping of
funds sufficient
for the purpose, in each of the main
branch banks in the
various towns.10 The misfortune of the
Wooster Bank,
as will be seen later, was that it had
been exempted from
certain requirements of the general
law.
5 Ohio State Journal, April 8, 1848.
6 Ohio Acts of Local Nature of the
Session of 1834, 76.
7 Second section of an act to amend the
Charter of the Bank of
Wooster, Ohio. Ohio Laws, Vol.
42, 19.
8 Editorial on history of individual
liability, in Ohio State Journal,
April 17, 1848.
9 Ibid., April 20, 1848.
10 Report of Bank inspection, in Ohio State Journal, September,
1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 191
Early in 1848, the Whig Legislature had
created a
sinking fund, to be increased in
succeeding years,
whereby the state debt might be
liquidated.11 In 1836,
when the Democrats came into power, the
state debt
was, in round numbers, $5,000,000. By
February,
1845, it had increased to more than
$19,000,000.12 No
doubt the advancing wealth of the
community and the
increasing demand of transportation,
which led to heavy
expenditures for canals, roads, etc.,
at least partly justi-
fied the increase. Of course, the Whig
press took ad-
vantage of the situation. Both parties
were, perforce,
engaged in the work of public
improvements. The
figures seem to show that Democratic
operations on the
canals had been more costly per mile
than those of the
Whigs. Washouts and attendant damages
partly justi-
fied the difference, however.13 The
expense occasioned
by the Mexican War was sufficient to
complete the Whig
financial bill of particulars.
The experience of the Democracy with
individual
liability not having been flattering,
the leaders of the
party began to attack the state system
of banks of issue.
Their usual reflection was that
promises to pay, made
by banks or bank stockholders, were not
very reliable
capital.14 That seems to be
the thought of the best minds
of the party. Chase, of Democratic
antecedents, admits
in his letter to Ely Nichols, a
"great mistrust of govern-
ment banking."15 It were better,
the Democrats said,
not to rely on any kind of bank paper.
To the Whig
11 Report of Legislation, Ohio
State Journal, January 27, 1848.
12 Auditor's Report of State Liabilities, February 15, 1845, Doc. 47.
Report, Board of Public Works,
1841-1850.
13 Ohio Statesman, March 30, 1843.
14 Ohio Statesman, March 30, 1848.
15 Dodson, S. H.,
"Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase,"
in Annual Report of the American
Historical Association, 1902, Vol. 2, 142.
|
192 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications policy of state-banks issuing notes convertible into specie, they opposed the idea of no banks of issue at all, but a candid reliance on specie, in the first place.16 Their candidate for governor became known, among his other |
|
|
|
soubriquets, as "hard money Weller." Indeed, to the more radical elements, all banks were anathema. "There is a concerted effort on the part of the Locofoco press, to break the banks of this state, for political purposes," wrote the Cleveland Herald. "The Pack have opened 16 Resolutions of the Democratic State Convention, in Ohio Statesman, January 12, 1848. |
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 193
on the Sandusky, Norwalk, Clinton, and
Circleville in-
stitutions."17 These attacks
consisted of published
statements to shade the credit of the
particular banks.
In resolutions of the Democratic State
Convention,
there is liberal criticism of the
exalted powers of the
bank commission and a charge of
secrecy. In matters
of taxation, discrimination in favor of
state banks was
loudly condemned for not having
produced the desired
result of driving out foreign bank paper.
The taxation
measures of the Whigs are indicted on
the general count
that the entire duplicate is $300,000
greater in 1848
than 1844. The Democrats did not offer
much criticism
on Whig plans for paying the state debt
but they dis-
agreed with their manner of disposing
of state lands.
The expense of the Mexican War, the
Ohio Democrats
justified in their defense of the war
itself, and they were
of one accord on that matter.
The War had a bearing on a state issue
of another
kind, one that was part of a general
policy thrown into
strong relief by the expansionist
activities that began
with the annexation of Texas. Agitation
on the Black
Laws was not new, especially on the
Reserve the popu-
lation of which was, "for all
practical purposes," Abo-
litionist.18 It had existed
for years before this time and
was an issue on which Governor Bebb had
been able to
ride into power, by a small plurality.
In the year 1845,
a renewed effort to repeal these laws
had failed in the
Assembly, but by a smaller margin than
ever before.
With the exception of the Abolition
papers, the press
of the year 1848 does not feature the
question of their
17 Cincinnati Enquirer, cited in Ohio
Statesman, September 20, 1848.
18 Smith, T. C., "The Liberty
and Free Soil Parties in the North
West", 90.
Vol. XXXVI--13.
194
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
repeal but the movement in that
direction, while uncon-
scious, was unmistakable. This was true
because the
war policy engendered a wide-spread
sentiment on the
subject of the negroes and the
"peculiar institution."
Opposition to the Black Laws came to be
a practical
thing when the anti-war principles were
formulated.
The recruits to these principles came
from both parties
at once and were ready to join in the
work of destruc-
tion when the proper time should come.
These laws
were cruel and unjust; they denied to
the free negro in
Ohio not only equality of privileges,
education and ac-
commodation; they denied him the right
to testify in
court against a white man. It is not
strange that with
the advent of the Mexican War the pulse
of Ohio quick-
ened on this subject. While there were
many men of
Democratic antecedents, like Chase,19
for example, who
opposed the infamous laws, yet the
outcome of the elec-
tion seems to justify the opinion that
opponents. were
for the most part Whigs.
Of the issues in national politics,
some were germane
to the war program; others were the
general questions
of policy on which there had long been
a division of opin-
ion. Among the latter the tariff
question assumes its
usual importance. At this time the
country was under
the Walker Tariff, with its low
schedule. Even Pennsyl-
vania had been beguiled into supporting
the Democracy
by fair promises regarding protection.20
The Whig
policy at the North was well known on
the matter of
tariff and examination of the various
resolutions of
Ohio local conventions shows the party
of that state to
19 Dodson, op. cit., p. 132.
20 Woodburn,
J. A., Political Parties and Party Problems,
54.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 195
be in strong accord with
the general stand. They glory
in the principle of protection.21
The resolutions of the
Democrats, on the contrary, are full of
confidence in the
Walker Tariff, showing no tendency to
depart from the
classic theory.22 They
likewise are strong in their en-
dorsement of the Sub-Treasury System
which is vio-
lently assailed by the Whigs.23 Although the Demo-
crats go through the formality of
condemning a United
States bank, their opponents are
strangely silent on this
point. They content themselves with a
desire for "a
sound and uniform currency." Whigs
of the Twelfth
District in Ohio criticise the Locofoco
profession of
"hard money" as follows:
"They have, by passing the
Sub-Treasury Law and the issuing of the
treasury notes
by the government, taken the most
effective means of
withdrawing the precious metals from
circulation, by
substituting instead thereof, an
expensive paper circu-
lation, of uncertain and fluctuating
value" -- a condi-
tion which was alleged to bear heavily
on the West.24
Of the other issues, not related to the
Mexican War
in a direct way, the most important was
the one raised
by President Polk's veto of the Rivers and
Harbors Bill
of 1847. In the resolutions of the Whig
State Conven-
tion, held at Columbus, in January, the
President is
charged with hair-splitting in the
reasoning of his veto
message.25 The Democratic State
Resolutions are silent
on the subject, but there is abundant
argument in the
21 Resolutions of various Whig local
conventions, in Ohio State Jour-
nal, January to December, 1848, passim.
22 Resolutions of Democratic local conventions, in Ohio State Journal,
January to December, 1848, passim.
23 Resolutions of Whig Convention, in
Ohio State Journal, January 20,
1848.
24 Ohio State Journal, March 20, 1848.
25 Ohio State Journal, January 20, 1848.
196
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Democratic press, to the effect that
Congress had not
the power to legislate for internal
improvements within
the States.26 The Whig
editors of Ohio dwelt upon
these statements with bitter emphasis.
They gave them
the widest publicity in the hope, no
doubt, of appealing
to the interests of the lake and river
people. In these
tirades, President Polk is presented to
the Western mind
as the Dragon guarding the gates of
Paradise. A news-
paper in the southern part of the
state, commenting on
the passage of a steamer for
considerable distance up
the Scioto River, ironically adds that
it might have pro-
ceeded to Columbus, but for the
presence of Polk roots
in the channel. The resolutions of the
local Whig Con-
ventions are almost unanimous in
treating this phase of
the Democratic attitude. No effort was
spared to make
it a casus belli.
The approach of the Mexican War-cloud
made sum-
mary action on the part of the
President unavoidable.
The natural result was that his haste
became the basis
for a charge of executive usurpation. A
number of his
other acts, the veto of the Rivers and
Harbors Bill, the
Oregon bluff, and the alleged arbitrary
distribution of
appointments lent color to the charge.
The Democrats
were in complete accord, everywhere in
Ohio, in regard
to the blame for opening of hostilities
with Mexico. In
the words of the administration and of
the resolution on
this point, adopted by the State
Convention at Colum-
bus, "War existed by the act of
Mexico herself".27 The
Whigs, however, rested the onus of the
War entirely on
the shoulders of the President and
proceeded to chastise
26 Ohio Statesman, January 10, 1848.
27 Ibid.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 197
him in speeches, pamphlets, and
resolutions. The
Whigs of Greene County resolved:
"that James K. Polk
was guilty of wanton usurpation, in
ordering United
States troops into the territory beyond
Corpus Christi,
without the intervention of
Congress."28 In taking the
role of opposition to executive
usurpation, the Whigs
were appealing to a popular tradition.
Tom Corwin
was fond of tracing the party lineage
from its tem-
pestuous career under Andrew Jackson to
those Whigs
in England who defied the King.29
The other questions which are patently
involved in
the War and its aims become apparent
when the senti-
ment of the country during its progress
is drawn from
the press. The Democrats who endorse it
visit upon
their adversaries the nickname of
"Mexican Whigs."30
The state resolutions not only applaud
the War, but go
far enough to say, in agreement with
the President, that
"no conclusion of hostilities can be honorable to the
United States, which shall not bring us
indemnity for
the past and security for the
future."31 Other resolu-
tions contain vehement denunciations of
the stand of
the Anti-War Whigs. This was not only
because the
latter opposed the War itself, but also
for the reason
that they feared and tried to forestall
the expected addi-
tion of territory, to which Democratic
talk about in-
demnity clearly referred. Moreover, such resolutions
were the definite answer to certain
unmistakable dem-
onstrations on the part of the Northern
Whigs.
28 Resolutions of Greene County Whigs,
in Ohio State Journal, January
14, 1848.
29 Morrow, Josiah, Life and Speeches
of Thomas Corwin, 48; Speech
of Corwin at London, Ohio, reported in Ohio
State Journal, October 7, 1848.
30 Ohio Statesman, January 16,
1848.
31 Ibid., January
11, 1848. Congressional Globe, Twenty-ninth Cong.,
2d sess.
198
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
In Congress, the Ohio Senator, Thomas
Corwin, had
made himself the star of the futile
drama of the oppo-
sition. On the eleventh of February,
1847, the so-called
"Three Million Bill" came up
in the Senate.32 It was
an act providing for additional
appropriations to pursue
the War to a definite and honorable
finish. Webster,
Crittenden, and Corwin had a little
conference and
agreed, as Corwin understood it, not to
vote for appro-
priations for a war of conquest. When
it came to a
vote, however, his two confreres
deserted him, not hav-
ing really concurred in the same
opinion. Undaunted
by his isolation, the Ohio Senator
launched into an elo-
quent denunciation of "this unholy
war." He was bit-
ter and unsparing in arraigning its
authors. "If I were
a Mexican I would tell you: 'Have you
not room in
your own country to bury your dead men?
If you come
into mine, we will greet you with
bloody hands and wel-
come you to hospitable graves'."
This was the expres-
sion that received the most caustic
condemnation of the
Democrats. It has been said that no
speech delivered in
the Senate was more widely read, more
frequently
quoted, more warmly admired, or more
bitterly de-
nounced.33
The reaction to the anti-war speech on
the part of
the old line Whigs of Ohio was most
cordial. Of the
hundred or more formal expressions of
sentiment sub-
mitted to the organ of the Whig Central
Committee by
the local conventions, hardly one omits
an endorsement
of this speech. A score of them mention
Corwin as first
32 Morrow, op. cit., 48-49. Ibid., 312.
33 Morrow, op. cit., 48-49. Ibid.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 199
or second choice for the presidency.34
These expres-
sions showed that Corwin's bitterness
found an echo in
county, representative district, and
village. His name
was frequently coupled with that of
Columbus Delano,
Ohio representative in the House,
because of similar
statements of opinion in his remarks on
the Civil and
Diplomatic Appropriations Bill.35 To
the Democrats,
these two men were hideous examples of
Mexican
Whigs. In the eloquence of Corwin they
heard only
gilded treason of which they attempted
to make him
ashamed. The strongest reaction of this
sort was a pe-
tition from certain Locofocos of
Richland county to the
State Senate, praying that:
"Honorable Thomas Cor-
win be asked to resign his seat in the
Senate of the
United States," and further that
"he be imprisoned in
the Ohio Penitentiary for the duration
of the war."
The Judiciary Committee, to which the
petition was re-
ferred, being of course predominantly
Whig, substituted
an expression of confidence in him.
Charles Reemelin
and Edson B. Olds, Democratic members
of the Com-
mittee, drafted a minority report,
however, which was
published in the party organ.36
The vehemence of these recriminations,
the fact of
such genuine condemnation of an aim
that normally en-
lists the most patriotic feelings, both
point to the inside
content of the war policy. They
indicate that there was
something in the issue which partly
curdled the patriot-
ism. The Wilmot Proviso had already
indicated what
it was. It showed pretty clearly that
in regard to the
34 Local Whig resolutions, reported in Ohio
State Journal, January to
December, 1848.
35 Congressional Globe, Twenty-ninth
Cong., 2d sess., 278.
36 This minority report appears in Ohio
Statesman, January 12, 1848.
200
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
division of opinion over the War, the
real issue was not
whether the United States should or
should not conquer
new territory but whether or not
territory should be
taken from the foreigner to nourish the
Moloch of slav-
ery. That this was true of Ohio
sentiment also at that
time there can be no doubt. On the same
day that the
Wilmot Proviso passed the House, and
before the meas-
ure was introduced, Jacob Brinkerhoff presented
a joint
resolution from the legislature of Ohio
"relative to ex-
cluding slavery from Oregon Territory
and any other
territory which may be hereafter
annexed to the United
States."37 After
Corwin's anti-war speech, the Franklin
County Representative in the Ohio
General Assembly
introduced a series of resolutions on
this subject which
were still more definite. The second of
that list of reso-
lutions contains the declaration that
"the State of Ohio
neither seeks nor advises the
acquisition of new terri-
tory." The first reads in part,
"that foreign territory
purchased by the nation or conquered by
the na-
tional army, is, and in the nature of
the case, must be,
subject to national control."38
These words express the
intention to stop the enemy on the
first line of defense,
if possible, by preventing the conquest
of territory. If
that is not possible, then the nation
will control those
territories and there will be a chance
to prohibit slavery
in them by congressional action.
Perhaps more than
anything else the resolutions disclosed
a mistrust of the
motives of the South in the
territories, that may or may
not have been justified.
Four of Ohio's nineteen representatives
voted against
37 Journal of the House of Representatives, Twenty-ninth Congress.
2d
Sess., 344-346.
38 Resolutions of Ohio Legislature,
reported in Ohio State Journal,
January 18, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 201
the Proviso. In the subsequent contest
this proposition
became the platform of those who held
that slavery
should not enter into the new
territories. In the po-
litical thought of Ohio and no doubt of
the whole north-
west, it was identified with the
Anti-Slavery clause of
the Ordinance of 1787. The two were
referred to in-
terchangeably by press and convention
but most often,
the terms of the Ordinance were used by
the drafters
of resolutions. So far as could be
determined in this
work, the Whigs of Ohio were unanimous
in support
of the principle. The Whigs of Gallia
County, at Gal-
lipolis, March 25, 1848, were in favor
of extending the
Ordinance of 1787 to Mexican
Territory.39 About the
same words were used by the Belmont
County Resolu-
tions and this language seemed to be
conventional among
the Whigs.40 Realizing that
it was hopeless to oppose
the annexation of territory, they fell
back on the de-
termination to control the destiny of
that territory, once
it was annexed.
The Ohio Democrats were not entirely
adverse to
the Wilmot Proviso. It had been introduced by a
Pennsylvania Democrat, and Brinkerhoff
and Fries, of
the Buckeye Delegation, had helped him.
One wonders
from their language whether the Whigs
were not often
inclined to shy at the Proviso proper
because it had been
hatched by a Democrat in Congress. An
editor writ-
ing late in the campaign on this
subject wishes to re-
mind his readers that the "new
Wilmot Proviso is ex-
clusively Whig property," having
been "first introduced
39 Ohio State Journal, April 5, 1848.
40 Ibid., April 17, 1848.
202
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
into the Oregon Bill in 1845, by that
staunch Whig,
Robert C. Winthrop, of Boston."41
If the Wilmot Proviso was, or had been
made, ex-
clusively the property of the Whigs,
all of them were
not satisfied with its doctrine. The
report of their
proceedings at the National Convention
certainly proves
that fact. Yet, in the House of
Representatives at
Washington, were two men, Joshua
Giddings and J. M.
Root, elected in part by Whig votes,
who would gladly
have narrowed that party's property to
the Wilmot Pro-
viso alone. Although they were members
of the Lib-
erty Party which had frankly accepted
the slavery issue
as dominant, they were cooperating with
the Whigs of
their own districts and received
nominations at their
hands. The Democratic State Convention chose to
doubt the legal theory of the Proviso
but it does not
follow that all Ohio Democrats
concurred in that doubt.
Jacob Brinkerhoff and George Fries,
Democratic Con-
gressmen from Ohio, would accept no
doctrine concern-
ing slavery in the territories but that
of the Wilmot Pro-
viso.42 They were within the
Democratic Party and
were qualified to lead great numbers of
their co-parti-
sans to newer views. Root and Giddings,
in spite of
their positions in an anti-slavery
group, retained enough
of the savor of earlier connections to
be able to play
the same role in the Whig Party.
Beside the men of Whig or Democratic
antece-
dents who were against slavery in the
territories, were
those of the type of James G. Birney
and Sam Lewis.
They were practical men also and had
for years formed
41 Ohio State Journal, September 28, 1848.
42 Speech
of Mr. Brinkerhoff in State Democratic Convention, re-
ported in Ohio State Journal, January
10, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 203
the heart and core of the Liberty
Party. Already they
were seeking alliance with kindred
spirits. In their
shift from the severe anti-slavery
position to that of
simple opposition to slavery in the
territories they were
followed by a great many of their
fellow Liberty men.
Despite the lingering radicalism which
seemed to tint
their views at first, one cannot help
believing that the
older parties were sending out men to
meet them.
Chase was committed to the practical
aim of rap-
prochement among all the groups opposed to slavery in
any way. In a manner outside the arena,
unfettered by
the interests of the officeholder, he
was laboring to make
the dreamers more practical and the old
line men more
decided in their views on slavery. In
the latter part of
March, Mr. Root made a speech in
Congress in which
he referred to the "vast
prestige" that the United States
would enjoy from Mexican territory. He
declared fur-
ther that a prominent issue in the next
campaign would
be the Wilmot Proviso. "I, for
one, am prepared to
meet it," he continued; "so
is Ohio; so is the North."43
Here, then, was the issue on which
Chase and his co-
laborers could depend to rally the
divergent anti-slavery
men. Furnishing a sort of middle ground
between the
two extremes of absolute abolition of
slavery every-
where and of the policy of
non-interference, the Proviso
was at once a temptation and an
opportunity to com-
promise.
43 Speech of Mr. Root, in State
Democratic Convention, reported in
Ohio State Journal, March 28, 1848.
204
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
CHAPTER II
LOCAL AND NATIONAL CONVENTIONS
A defeated proposition is sometimes the
most puis-
sant of all political forces because
its very failure
awakens sympathy and brings new
adherents to its
standard. The Senate destroyed the
Wilmot Proviso
after it had passed in the House. It
never took its place
in the statutes of our country; it was
never in all its
legislative history more than a mere
proposal. Before
the end which it sought could be realized,
war swept
away the evil it was meant to remedy.
Despite this
fact, however, it had in it a principle
which went back
to the early years of the Republic. The
popular mind
saw that principle incorporated in the
Anti-Slavery
clause of the Ordinance of 1787 at a
time when its jus-
tice had been unchallenged. That fact
added the force
of tradition to the views of those who
opposed slavery
in the territories. Before 1848,
however, there had
long ceased to be any show of the former
unanimity;
there were many opinions. In the spring
of that year,
the Proviso lay before the two great
parties, destined
to be embraced with fervor in some
quarters and tim-
idly rejected in others.
In 1847, in the New York Democratic
Convention,
David Dudley Field, leader of the
Anti-Slavery Demo-
crats, proposed a resolution that
"while the Democracy
of New York would faithfully adhere to
the constitu-
tion and maintain the reserved rights
of the States, they
would still declare their
uncompromising hostility to the
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 205
extension of slavery into territory now
free."1 The
measure was defeated and the
Anti-Slavery Democrats
left the Convention. This group saw
loyalty to the anti-
slavery principle first and party
loyalty next. Believing
in the justice of their views, they
determined to carry
the quarrel to the National Convention.
For this pur-
pose, they held a Convention of their
own at Herkimer
from whence went forth a call for a
convention to elect
delegates to go to the National Democratic
Convention
and speak the voice of New York's Free
Democracy.2
This proceeding led to the nickname
which their con-
temporaries bestowed upon them. They
were called
Barnburners because of their
willingness to risk the
integrity of the Democratic Party for
the sake of de-
stroying an evil tendency. The Herkimer
Convention
meant something in American History not
only because
of the issue which formed it but
because of the per-
sonnel of the gathering. Churchill
Cambreleng, friend
of Martin Van Buren, presided over the
meeting, and
the ex-President's son John reported
the resolutions.
The body was addressed by David Wilmot
and thus
the stamp of authenticity was placed on
the proceeding
by the national champion of its principles.
The call
was sent forth for a convention, to be
held on Wash-
ington's Birthday, 1848, for the
purpose of electing
Barnburner delegates. These delegates
were to go from
New York to the National Convention to
dispute with
the Hunkers for seats. "The
Herkimer Convention,"
Van Buren's biographer says, "was
an important pre-
liminary to the formation of the
Republican Party."3
1 Ohio State Journal, June 7, 1848.
2 Woodburn, op. cit., 79, 80.
3 Shepard, E. M., Martin Van Buren, 418-419.
206
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
From the pen of Salmon P. Chase comes
an expression
on the significance of this move of the
Barnburners
which shows that the gesture was not
lost on Ohio. "It
was a great blow for liberty and right,
that struck at
Herkimer. The conventions of both parties in your
state had repudiated the only measure,
which during
the last quarter of a century, has been
brought forth, of
an anti-slavery character."4 The
home of the writer
was in Cincinnati where there was at
the time a Barn-
burner newspaper, the Cincinnati Signal,
edited by
James W. Taylor, who identified himself
with subse-
quent movements of the faction.5
The current of policy in the Ohio
Democracy, at
least before the State Convention,
betrayed no very
great discord. Months before either
state or national
conventions had been held, the organ of
the State Com-
mittee carried at its mast-head the
names of Cass for
President and Weller for Governor.6
While this seemed
to indicate unanimity, evidences are
not lacking of dis-
ruptive tendencies. The State
Convention was held in
the second week of January, in a large
theater audito-
rium, at Columbus.7 A
resolution was introduced at
the outset to pledge the Convention to
Lewis Cass' can-
didacy for President. Benjamin Tappan,
editor of the
Ohio Press, spoke against the proposal. Mr. Brinker-
hoff, member of Congress, made a few
remarks against
it also. He said that he had been told
that Cass did not
concede the power of Congress to
legislate for the terri-
tories. If that were true, he added
that he was not in
4 Dodson, op. cit., 124-126.
5 Letter of correspondent to Cincinnati Signal,
quoted in Ohio State
Journal, August 10, 1848.
6 Ohio
Statesman, January 1 to October 7,
1848.
7 Ibid., January 11, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 207
favor of Cass' candidacy. Later acts of
Mr. Tappan
seem to show that he was in earnest. As
for Brinker-
hoff, because of his connection with
the Wilmot Proviso,
in the previous Congress, it is hard to
see how he could
have spoken otherwise. It is worth
noting, in this con-
nection, that the speech of Brinkerhoff
was not reported
in the Ohio Statesman, but found
a prominent place in
the report of the leading Whig organ of
the State.8
The resolution was referred to the Committee
on Reso-
lutions and then found a place in the
final declarations
of the State platform. After disposing
of this matter
and before the report of the committee,
they proceeded
to ballot for the candidate for
Governor. Weller, Wood,
Duncan, and Lowe were in the running
with Wood as
chief rival of the first named. Duncan
and Lowe re-
ceived very small votes and were hardly
serious com-
petitors. The result of the first
ballot stood: Weller
146, Wood 118, Duncan 19, and Lowe 7.
Weller of
Butler County was the final choice and
thus became the
candidate of the Democracy for Governor
of Ohio.9
Cursory reference has already been made
to the re-
port of the Committee on Resolutions.
It opened with
a declaration against a United States
Bank, expressed
confidence in the Walker Tariff, laid
the blame for the
War on Mexico, and strongly condemned
the attitude
of the anti-war Whigs. There were also,
as has been
indicated, an endorsement of the
Sub-Treasury System
and a condemnation of the Whig banking
policy in the
State. The latter clause was coupled
with the statement
that hard money was the only
constitutional currency.
8 Ohio
State Journal, January 10, 1848.
9 Ohio Statesman, January 11, 1848.
208
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Besides the declaration committing the
Party in Ohio
to the candidacy of Cass and a
resolution complimentary
to Colonel Weller, there was also one
in favor of a con-
vention for revising the Constitution
of Ohio. On the
greatest national issue of the
campaign, the convention
having endorsed Lewis Cass, follows
also his political
opinion exactly as Brinkerhoff had
defined it. After
deprecating in very courteous language
the extension of
slavery, their decision is that
"not to the Congress of
the Union, but to the people asking
admission into the
Union, belongs the power to declare
what institutions
shall exist in the territory thus
asking for admission."10
Having delivered themselves of this
grave ultimatum,
the Democratic delegates repaired to
the American
house to listen to speeches and songs
and to drink to
the health of the "gallant Colonel
Weller."11 Here they
no doubt enjoyed further that harmony
which the press
of the Party described as
characteristic of the great
meeting. Perhaps this unanimity was
overdrawn. The
speech of Brinkerhoff and Tappan on the
proposed en-
dorsement of Cass, and the presence of
a Barnburner
newspaper at Cincinnati, would seem to
indicate an echo
of the Syracuse discord. Eli Tappan
threw down his
hammer on the first of June and closed
the office of the
Ohio Press. His statement of June 30, 1848, justified
his conduct. He writes: "I feel it
to be equally my
duty, to withdraw from the position of
editor and serv-
ant of my party, as soon as I can no
longer support its
leading measures and
candidates."12 Gray of the Plain
10 Resolutions of State Democratic
Convention, in Ohio Statesman,
January 11, 1848.
11 Ohio Statesman, January 11, 1848.
12 Ohio Press, May
31, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 209
Dealer, after referring to him affectionately (?) as "old
Gimlet-Eyes," writes: "We
should have been glad to
have been rid of him years ago. Had he
bolted twenty
years ago, this state would now be as
permanently
Democratic as Pennsylvania. Every bolt
adds five thou-
sand votes to the Democratic
Party."13 Whether this
be true of the Democratic malcontents
or not, the fact
remains that there was no bolt at
Columbus, of the na-
ture of the Syracuse withdrawal. In Ohio,
there were
perhaps no such bitter memories as in
New York.
Above all, there was no favorite son of
the Buckeye
State whom the popular fancy could
picture as a martyr
to the two-thirds rule.
A task for the State Convention had
been to select
two delegates-at-large to the National
Convention.
David Disney and John P. Edgerton were
the men
chosen. The selection of the others was
left to the con-
gressional districts. The Whig editors
pointed out that
"Mr. Polk was well represented in
the number" because
there happened to be two post-masters,
a United States
marshal, and a district attorney in
Ohio's delegation.
Prominent among them were R. P.
Spalding, Thomas
W. Bartley, District Attorney for Ohio,
Sam Medary,
editor of the Statesmen, Thomas
W. Drake, of the Ohio
Legislature, and others well known in
the local councils
of the party.14 The grand
convention met pursuant to
call on May 22, 1848, in the Old
Universalist Church at
Baltimore.15
Andrew Stephenson of Virginia was
elected Presi-
dent of the Convention after
organization had been com-
13 Ohio State Journal, quoting Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 10, 1848.
14 Ohio State Journal, January 10, 1848.
15 Ohio Statesman, May 23, 1848.
Vol. XXXVI--14.
210
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
pleted under the temporary chairmanship
of James
Bruce. Mr. Norton, of Massachusetts,
moved that all
rules be accepted as of 1844 excepting
the two-thirds
rule. Some little discussion followed
this, Yancey, of
Alabama, favoring the two-thirds rule
and Morse, of
Louisiana, opposing. The upshot was,
however, that
the two-thirds rule was adopted without
serious objec-
tion.16 A resolution was
then passed to permit two of
the bolting Barnburners and two of the
old Hunkers
to address the body in defense of the
right to be seated.
The Hunkers' representatives were Sen.
Daniel Dickin-
son and Mr. Foster, while the bolters
chose J. C. Smith
and Preston King. In his speech, King,
referring to
the solemn endorsement of the Wilmot
Proviso by the
Ohio Legislature, declared that
principle to be the ulti-
matum of himself and his associates.17
In this allusion,
he was appealing more to Whig precedent
than to that
of the Ohio Democrats, who, as has been
noted, turned
down the Proviso in the State
Convention. The advo-
cates of the Barnburners received, on
the whole, scant
courtesy from the South. They were
continually inter-
rupted, and when they first took the
floor there were
cries of protest against their speaking
at all. They held
out firmly, however, refusing to pledge
themselves to
the "candidate of the
Convention" or to abide by its rule
on their own qualifications.18 This
arrangement fell
cold on the ears of the Barnburners;
they had come to
Baltimore to be justified and not to be
placated. After
the resolutions had been reported,
Churchill Cambreleng
rose and read a protest against the
seating of both sets
16 Ohio
Statesman, May 24, 1848.
17 Ibid., May 25, 1848.
18 Ohio State Journal, May 27, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 211
of delegates. Then respectfully
declining to be seated
in the Convention, the Barnburner
delegation went away
"to a place provided for
them."19 On May 25th, Gen-
eral Lewis Cass was nominated.
The resolutions adopted were clear and
precise;
most of them need only to be mentioned.
They opened
with an assertion of the principle of
strict construction,
as applied to the powers of the
National Government.
In accord with this, there is a
disavowal of the right
of that government to commence and
carry on a system
of internal improvements, or to assume,
directly or in-
directly, the debts of states
contracted for that purpose.
On the principle of taxation, they are
in favor of no
more revenue than is necessary to
defray the expense
of the government. There is also
condemnation of
the protectionist doctrine. A United
States Bank is de-
nounced as unconstitutional and
"calculated to place the
business of the country in the control
of a concentrated
money power." On the issue of the
public lands, oppo-
sition was expressed to any law for the
distribution of
their proceeds among states. An evident
bid for the
foreign vote inheres in the statement
against "abridg-
ing the present right of taking citizenship"
and owning
land. The Mexican War is heartily
approved and peace
advocated on just principles of
"indemnity for the past
and security for the future."
There are also compli-
mentary resolutions to Mr. Polk and one
expressing
congratulations to the French on the
recent revolution.
The Eleventh Resolution voices decided
opposition to
"the removal of the executive
qualified veto."20
19 Ohio State Journal, May 29,
1848.
20 These Resolutions are referred to as
given in the Ohio State Journal,
June 6, 1848.
212
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
These resolutions are not different
from what was
generally expected from the Democrats
for the most
part they are repetitions of principles
that were tradi-
tional in the party. Both sides of the
slavery contro-
versy awaited the expression of the
Convention on the
status of slavery in the territories.
The resolution on
slavery could not be said to have
defined an attitude on
its status in new territories. The statement of the
Convention is simply that
"Congress has no power un-
der the Constitution of interfering
with or controlling
the domestic institutions of the
several states and that
such states are the sole and proper
judges of everything
pertaining to their own affairs, not
prohibited by the
Constitution; that all efforts of the
Abolitionists or oth-
ers made to induce Congress to
interfere with the ques-
tion of slavery or to take incipient
steps in relation there-
to are calculated to lead to the most
alarming and dan-
gerous consequences." This
statement is not different
in substance from the plank on the same
subject in the
platform of 1840. There is possible
cause for conjec-
ture, however, as to what was meant by
forbidding
Congress to interfere with slavery in
the states "or to
take incipient steps in relation
thereto." Could these
words have had reference to the control
of slavery in
the territories or in the District of
Columbia as an "in-
cipient step" toward the entire
regulation of the sub-
ject by Congress? However that be,
there is no doubt
that those who had hoped for a
definite, unequivocal
statement, on one side or the other,
were disappointed.
Of the language used, General Commander
said that
it was good as far as it went, but it
did not go far
enough. The minority of the Committee
had made a
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 213
report in favor of an open denunciation
of the Wilmot
Proviso. If this report had been
accepted, he would
have assured General Cass of the vote
of South Caro-
lina but he feared that he could not do
so now. This
criticism offered from the Southern
standpoint was un-
doubtedly based on truth. The platform
did not take
open ground on the Wilmot Proviso, but
it is hard to
imagine language that could have more
completely sanc-
tified the existing institution.21
The Eighteenth resolution presented the
names of
Lewis Cass and W. O. Butler to the
people of the
United States as Democratic candidates
for the national
honors of President and
Vice-President. The state-
ment on the question of slavery in the
territories might
be too moderate for the South
Carolinian; but to the
Barnburners who read it in the light of
their own ex-
periences at Baltimore, it must have
seemed sufficiently
definite. If the language of the platform
did not make
the Democratic attitude clear to them,
the character of
the candidate could not fail to do so.
Whether or not
this estimate of the situation is just,
the events of the
campaign ought to reveal.
A comparison of the Ohio resolutions
with those of
the National Convention discloses that
although there
is not absolute harmony, there is,
nevertheless, no pro-
nounced discord. On all the strictly
national questions
mentioned in the Columbus document,
there is practical
identity of sentiment. Those who rejoiced over the
smoothness of the waters, in January,
must have been
happy to see a good articulation
between the state and
national principles in May. On the
matter of the ex-
21 Ohio State Journal, May 30, 1848.
|
214 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications tension of slavery, the commitments of the State Reso- lution are much more definite than those of the National document. Those who differed from the main trend in New York State were strong enough to organize a bolt; the same element at Columbus became stragglers to fol- |
|
|
|
low after the Barnburners. From Ohio no divergent current flowed to Baltimore; from New York went a group, first to divide the counsel of the party and next to leave it, in order to build a Jericho for other refu- gees. The possible effect of this action became the oc- casion of prophecy during the whole campaign. |
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 215
The next subject of conjecture
concerned what the
Whigs were going to say about this
matter at Philadel-
phia. In the latter part of the year
1847 and early in
1848, many local conventions were held
by the Whigs
in Ohio. If they failed to agree on any
group of can-
didates they did give voice to fairly
unanimous senti-
ments on political policy. The Whigs of
Greene county,
meeting on January 1, 1848, indicated
Corwin as their
choice for President and Columbus Delano
for Gov-
ernor.22 Wyandot County Whigs, meeting at Upper
Sandusky on January 12, recommended
Corwin for
President and John Cary for Governor.22
At Steuben-
ville and Hillsboro, on January 8 and
12, respectively,
Colonel James Collier was endorsed for
Governor.23
"Any good Whig" is a frequent
expression in regard
to a candidate for the Presidency.24
Warren County
Whigs also voiced their preference for
Corwin and De-
lano, while Pike County stood for J. J.
VanMetter as
first choice for the governorship.24
Logan added itself
to the list of counties which preferred
Corwin and De-
lano.24 Other choices for
governor are Colonel Elias
Florence and Wm. P. Cutler, of
Washington County.25
Many resolutions, especially on the Reserve,
express a
preference for Seabury Ford, who
perhaps had a great-
er following than any other in the
Northern part of the
State.
A meeting held in the late summer of
1847, at Leb-
anon, Warren County, produced some
interesting conse-
quences. Its purpose was to afford
Representative John
22 Ohio State Journal, January 14,
1848.
23 Ibid., January 16, 1848.
24 Ibid., January 17, 1848.
25 Ibid., January 18, 1848.
216
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
N. C. Schenck an opportunity to
"give an account of
his stewardship in Congress."
Among those present
were Governor Bebb, John Woods (Auditor
of State)
and Jeremiah Morrow, of Warren County,
who pre-
sided.
Of this meeting, the Hamilton Intelligencer
says that it was at first called for
Warren County,
alone, but an invitation being extended
to the people
of neighboring counties to attend, it
became in fact
a convention for the southwestern part
of Ohio.26 A
Committee on Resolutions was appointed
on which
Lewis D. Campbell, of Butler County,
took a prominent
place.27 According to his
own statement, Mr. Campbell
was the author of the resolutions
drafted by the com-
mittee.28 The following is their most pronounced
declaration: "As Whigs of Ohio, we
contend for the
success of our principles and no man
who is not a thor-
ough Whig, approved by the Whig
Convention, can
receive our support for the Presidency,
now or here-
after." The other statements of
principle adopted by
this body will be considered
later. The statement
quoted above is one of a number of
things which tend
to explain and to justify the not
unimportant role of
Mr. Campbell in this campaign.
When the State Convention assembled at
Columbus,
in January, he was present as delegate
from the Butler
County district. Being placed again on
the Committee
on Resolutions, he submitted several of
those that had
been drawn by the Lebanon assembly and
they were
adopted as part of the state
platform.28 Those of the
26 Speech
of L. D. Campbell, in Hamilton Intelligencer, July 25, 1848
(Extra).
27 Hamilton Intelligencer, September
2, 1847.
28 Speech of L. D. Campbell, in Hamilton
Intelligencer, July 25, 1848
(Extra).
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 217
state resolutions that are not worded
exactly as the
Butler County meeting worded them
convey the same
meaning. The following is identical in both: "We
have abiding faith in the cardinal
principles and meas-
ures contended for by the Whig Party in
the contests
of 1840 and 1844 -- Protection to
American Indus-
try -- a sound and uniform currency --
internal im-
provements -- opposition to the
Sub-Treasury system
and eternal resistance to executive
usurpations." Both
condemn the Mexican War and laud Corwin
for his
speech on the dominant issue in
national politics: "We
deprecate a war of conquest and
strenuously oppose the
acquisition of Mexican territory, but
if additional ter-
ritory be forced upon us, we will demand
that there be
neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude therein,
otherwise than for punishment of
crime." In regard to
the presidential candidate, the
Convention pledged the
vote of the State to "any true
Whig who may be pre-
sented as nominee."29
On the sixth ballot, Seabury Ford was
nominated for
governor, receiving 180 votes, while
Delano, his nearest
competitor, received 85, and James
Collier, 14.30 Joseph
Vance of Champaign County, and John
Sloane of
Wayne, were chosen delegates-at-large
to attend the
National Convention. It was then
recommended to the
congressional districts of the state
that they meet by
county or district at an early date to
select the local
delegates. These delegates were then to
choose the two
electors at large, as soon as the
nomination should be
29 Hamilton Intelligencer, September
2, 1848. See also Whig State
Resolutions, cited below.
30 Ohio State Journal, January 20, 1848. Whig State Resolutions, in
Ohio State Journal, January 20, 1848.
|
218 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications made at the National Convention. Thereafter, in the districts, the people were to designate electors as soon as possible.30 These measures, together with the desig- nation of a State Committee, were included in the |
|
|
|
Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-first resolutions.30 Mr. Campbell proposed for these resolu- tions certain substitutions calculated to lead to an ex- pression of the will of the rank and file.30 The proposed 30 Ohio State Journal, January 20, 1848. Whig State Resolutions, in Ohio State Journal, January 20, 1848. |
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 219
substitution was somewhat cumbersome
and bitterly un-
welcome to the organizers of the
Convention. Meeting
with Uproarious contumely, it was
withdrawn in time
to prevent its proponent from falling
entirely out of
grace. Taken in connection with the
resolution regard-
ing the genuineness of the candidate,
drawn at the Leb-
anon meeting in August, 1847, this
attempt indicates a
lingering mistrust of the political
motivation of the
Party.
The preferences which appear in the
local platforms
during the period after the State
Convention are some-
what varied on the matter of the
Presidency. Ash-
land,31 Champaign,32 Erie,33
and Harrison34 endorse
Henry Clay as first choice, and Greene
County names
him as second choice with Corwin as the
preferred.37
Warren, Lake, Clinton,35 and
Miami36 Counties also
mention him either as first choice or
as second choice
after Corwin. Outside of Cincinnati,
the Xenia Torch-
Light declared that every paper in the Miami Valley had
come out for Corwin as candidate for
the Presidency.38
Another favorite son, Judge McLean, is
frequently
mentioned, but his boom is not strong
in comparison
with that of the eloquent anti-war
senator. The Elyria
Courier vigorously attacks the Ohio State Journal for
not championing the cause of McLean as
energetically
as that of Corwin.39 As for
Clay, there does not seem
31 Ohio State Journal, March 2,
1848.
32 Ibid., April 24, 1848.
33 Ibid., March 3, 1848.
34 Ibid., April 22, 1848.
35 Ibid., March 7, 1848.
36 Ibid., March 6, 1848.
37 Ibid., February 29,
1848.
38 Ibid., February 11, 1848, quoting Xenia Torch-Light.
39 Ibid., April 21, 1848.
220 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
to be any marked sentiment against him
among Ohio
Whigs. Those who do not endorse him in
so many
words seem to hold his candidacy as a
measure which
they would embrace without hesitation,
if they thought
it promised success.
None of these candidates were
sufficiently in the
clear on the big issues to be able to
carry a majority
both North and South. The national
party manipu-
lators knew this; so they cast about to
find a man who
was uncommitted. No men are more
notoriously out
of the ebb and flow of politics than
military men, and
with the memories of 1840 in their
minds, it is not
strange that the Whigs began to turn to
this possibility.
Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor
presented them-
selves as the two great figures of the
recent struggle.
Scott was living in the North, Taylor
in the South. Thus
in addition to the fact that the latter
had not aired any
views on the Wilmot Proviso, his
residence and personal
interests were in his favor. Living on
a plantation in
Louisiana, known in the southwest as a
master of
slaves, Taylor seemed the better fitted
to woo the South
to the Whig standard.
His first contact with the people of
Ohio, on the
subject of the presidency, was through
James W. Tay-
lor, the Barnburner editor of
Cincinnati. Early in
1847, the editor sent to General Taylor
an editorial re-
garding the question of slavery in the
territories,
frankly inquiring whether he endorsed
the sentiments
therein expressed. The statement read
in part: "The
only path of safety for those who will
hereafter fill the
presidential office, is to rest in the
discharge of execu-
tive functions. The extension over the
Continent be-
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 221
yond the Rio Grande of the Ordinance of
1787, is an
object too high and permanent to be
baffled by presiden-
tial vetoes." May 18, 1847, General Taylor replied,
briefly and simply acknowledging
"his high opinion
and decided approval of the views and
sentiments" ex-
pressed in the editorial.40 Later
the Free Soilers de-
clared that the General disavowed this
letter.41 How-
ever that may be, the letter appeared,
in the spring of
1847, in the Barnburner sheet, and was
given some cir-
culation throughout the State. However,
the people of
Ohio seem not to have been favorably
impressed with
Taylor's candidacy. The Whig organ of
the State finds
him not its "first choice for the
presidency, owing to his
manner and habits of life," but
avows a willingness to
support him, should he define his
position clearly enough
to win the nomination.42
It would be hardly fair to attribute
this attitude to
any want of confidence in the General's
ability or integ-
rity. His military successes had given
him a good deal
of popularity even among those who most
heartily con-
demned the Mexican War. As a man he had
the char-
acteristics of simplicity and sincerity
which have al-
ways appealed strongly to the common
people, most of
whom do not prize the rigidness of
party ties. His
friends may have had the design of
making him an in-
dependent candidate; there is some
evidence tending in
that direction.43 The
Allison letter to which reference
has been made contains statements that
show a great
40 Cincinnati
Signal, quoted in Ohio State Journal, June 17, 1848.
41 Hamilton Free Soil Burner, October
10, 1848.
42 Ohio State Journal, February 8,
1848.
43 Cincinnati Gazette, February
3, 1848.
222
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
indifference to party politics;45 yet
it must have been
clear to both Taylor and his friends
that such a position
offered no chance of victory. The only
avenue open to
him was furnished by the Whig Party. If
he had made
an open statement in favor of the
Wilmot Proviso, the
Whigs of Ohio would probably have
stayed with him to
a man. The fact that he did not do so
seems to be their
strongest objection to him.
Wherever expediency seemed to dictate a
military
man, the local conventions were apt to
prefer Scott.
Others, to guard against the
eventualities of the future,
would stand for "any good
Whig."44 The instructions,
which Lewis Campbell carried as a
delegate to the
Philadelphia Convention, are
illuminating on this point.
They were drawn in March after the
State Convention
at Columbus.45 In his speech
at Lebanon, after his re-
turn from the Convention at
Philadelphia, he said that
the following part of his instructions
was intended to
exclude General Taylor: "That the
delegates now ap-
pointed are hereby instructed to vote
for Thomas Cor-
win, as Whig Candidate for the
Presidency, as first
choice of this district" -- and
after that -- for any good
man, known to be a Whig, a whole Whig,
and nothing
but a Whig." More definitely
still, a letter attached to
Campbell's commission recommended a
bolt from the
National Convention, if any attempt
should be made to
rush that body for Taylor. The
Secretary referred in
writing to this letter and made it a
part of the instruc-
tions.46
44 Ohio State Journal, March 3, 1848.
45 There is evidence that the Democrats
considered nominating Taylor
in advance of the Whigs. See Phillips,
Ulrich, "Toombs, Stevens.
Cobb Correspondence", 86.
46 Hamilton Intelligencer, July 25, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 223
February 22, 1848, the call was
published for the
Whig National Convention, to be held in
the old Chinese
Museum, at Philadelphia. Among the
delegates sent
by Ohio the more prominent were Joseph
Vance, John
Sloane, Samuel Galloway, Secretary of
State; Daniel
Tilden, John A. Bingham, John Sherman,
and Lewis
Campbell. When the Convention assembled
on the sev-
enth of June, the star of Clay seemed
to be in the as-
cendancy.47 The Ohio
delegation was pretty solidly op-
posed to Taylor. From the tone of
resolutions drawn
before the State Convention, it appears
that Clay might
well have gotten the vote of the Ohio
delegation. The
love of the Sage of Ashland seemed to
be so deeply
rooted in Ohio that where he was not
mentioned among
the preferences it was because there
was no need of
doing so. Those that mention him as
second choice
evidently do so either with the thought
of availability in
mind or the desire to compliment
favorite sons.
Pennsylvania stood for Clay first, with
Taylor as
second choice. When the Ohio Delegation
met on Mon-
day evening, Mr. Campbell says that
they agreed to pull
for Scott because it was being said
that the Whigs must
nominate a military man to oppose General
Cass.
When the Butler County man suggested a
committee of
conference from the various states
going for Clay, Web-
ster, and Scott, in order to ascertain
who was the strong-
est man, his plan was vetoed by a
"venerable Ohio dele-
gate in whom we all placed much
confidence."48
Mr. Campbell's account of the
proceedings to this
47 Ohio State Journal, February 22, 1848. Dyer, Oliver, Great Sena-
tors, 68 et seq.
48 Hamilton Intelligencer, July
25, 1848.
224
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
point tallies with that of Oliver Dyer,
newspaper cor-
respondent who was present at the
Convention. He
says that Thurlow Weed was standing
back of Taylor's
candidacy, as he had been secretly for
some time.
Weed's reason for this position was his
conviction that
only Taylor could carry the day for the
Whigs. Agree-
ing with him in this particular and
perhaps acting as
his agent at Philadelphia, Truman Smith
of Connecti-
cut awaited patiently the chance to
throw the vote of
his state for the General. Mr. Dyer
says that Weed
worked personally with the New York
delegation, leav-
ing the Pennsylvania and Ohio groups in
the hands of
influential men of their own number.
This latter fact
obviously accounts for the action of
the "venerable
Ohio Delegate." Thus Ohio was
encouraged to stand
for Scott and to believe that
compromise would fix the
choice eventually upon him.49 The
aim of the whole
proceeding was clearly to break the
hold of Clay at the
outset. Weed knew his ground; as will
be seen later,
he had prepared the way for Whig
victory. Believing
that Taylor's personality fitted the
specifications, he
would not permit the divergent sentiments
of the body
to unite against his candidacy.
On the first day of the Convention, the
Taylor men
came in organized for a drive. They had
kept a sep-
arate headquarters, met the various
incoming delega-
tions, and scattered bulletins and
broadsides through
the city in favor of their candidate.
J. M. Moorehead
of Greensboro, North Carolina, was
chosen permanent
President of the Convention, the
Southerners having
courteously yielded the temporary
speakership to the
49
Dyer, op. cit., 68-86.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 225
North. Seventeen of the Southern delegates were
members of Congress familiar with the
rules of the
House which had been adopted to guide
the delibera-
tions of the Convention. The opening of
the meeting
and the arrangement of the
preliminaries was attended
with much confusion and it was well
into the second
day before the balloting could take
place.50 Texas not
having sent any delegates, was
represented by Louis-
iana on many of the important
committees and in cast-
ing the vote.
At about five o'clock in the afternoon,
at the instant
of the completion of the preliminaries,
a motion was
made to proceed with the balloting,
there having been
as yet no effort to define the
principles on which a can-
didate could stand. Mr. Campbell then
arose and sub-
mitted, as an amendment to the motion,
a resolution of
the following tenor: "As it is the first duty of the
representatives of the Whig Party of
the United States
to preserve the integrity of the principles
of that party,
the claims of no candidate can be
considered by this
Convention unless the candidate stands
pledged to main-
tain and carry out the cardinal
principles of the Whig
Party." This expression was
greeted by the South-
erners with howls of protest and a
scene of the greatest
excitement followed. After a short
debate during which
Campbell begged of the South
"ground enough to plant
our flag-staff on," the amendment
was tabled, or toma-
hawked, to use the expression of its
proponent.51
The result of the first ballot stood:
Webster 22,
50 Hamilton Intelligencer, July
25, 1848.
51 Dyer, op. cit.; 73 et
seq. cf. Ohio State Journal, June
12, 1848.
See also Speech of Mr. Campbell,
reported in Hamilton Intelligencer,
loc. cit.
Vol. XXXVI--15.
226
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Scott 43, Clay 97, Taylor 111. Hoping
for better re-
sults, the Clay men labored with their
deserters during
the interval between ballots. Those
results did not mate-
rialize, however; the return of the
second trial was:
Webster 22, Scott 49, Clay 86, Taylor
118. The Con-
necticut delegation under the lead of
Truman Smith was
still holding firm for Clay. This gave
hopes to those
who were toiling for the peerless
leader; so they joined
forces with the Webster men and the
Ohio delegation
in support of an adjournment which took
place, amid
great confusion, at ten o'clock at
night. About mid-
night, seventy-five or eighty of the
Clay, Scott and
Webster delegates were convened and
addressed by
Governor Jones of Tennessee who pleaded
with Ohio
and Massachusetts to join forces for
Clay. The voice
of the "venerable delegate"
was raised again, however,
to declare that Ohio could never be
carried for Clay.52
This does not seem to have accorded
with the sentiment
of the Ohio Whigs as heretofore
expressed. There is
no doubt that the North had been
disappointed in him
in 1844 but it was part of the nature
of his genius to be
able to come back to the people's affections.
Little or no
resentment appears in the many
expressions of Ohio
Whigs on the possibility of his
candidacy. The just
conclusion seems to be that the great
Kentuckian could
have carried Ohio if any Whig could
have done so.
The next morning, before most of those
who had at-
tended the midnight conference were
present, the Ohio
delegation under the influence of this
member passed
resolutions against such a proceeding.
When the third
ballot was taken, Truman Smith suddenly
threw Con-
52 Dyer, op. cit., 73 et seq.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 227
necticut's five delegates to Taylor.53
This action was
the occasion of the wildest enthusiasm
among the Gen-
eral's supporters. The excitement
having subsided, the
fourth vote was taken and was found to
stand: Taylor
171, Scott 63, and Clay 32.54 On the
first ballot Ohio
had given 20 votes for Scott, 1 for
Clay, 1 for Taylor,
and 1 for Judge McLean. In every
succeeding ballot
she had cast at least twenty votes for
Scott.55
When the nomination of Taylor was
announced,
Mr. Galloway, of Ohio, made a motion to
declare a re-
cess for the purpose of consultation.
Amid shouts and
jeers from the South, this motion was
ruled out of
order despite the eloquent protests of
the Ohio man.
Two Ohio delegates, Daniel Tilden and
John A. Bing-
ham, attempted to focus the attention
of the body on
the subject of slavery in the
territories; but their ef-
forts were entirely unsuccessful. Mr.
Tilden's resolu-
tion was tabled.56 Mr. Bingham, attempting to read
his resolution ratifying the nomination
of Taylor "on
condition that he was in favor of Whig
measures and
opposed to the extension of
slavery," was allowed to
proceed as far as the words
"extension of. . ." There
his voice was drowned by the angry
protests of the
Southerners. Intermingled with the general clamor,
were heard cries of
"Fire-brand," "Kick it out" and
"Lay it on the table."57 Needless to say the motion
dropped out of sight and with it
perished every effort
to commit the Whig Convention to a
definite stand on
the Proviso.
53 Hamilton Intelligencer, July
25, 1848.
54 Ohio State Journal, June 12, 1848.
55 Ibid.
56 Dyer, loc. cit., 73 et seq.
57 Hamilton
Intelligencer, July 25, 1848.
228
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
The rest of the time was then consumed
in listening
to flowery speeches. Some of these were
the eloquent
orations of backers-out among whom were
many Ohio
men. Joe Vance had opposed General
Taylor but he
"knew when he was licked."
Delegate Gunn had "come
here as a Whig and as a Whig expected
to support the
nomination." Colonel James Collier
"pledged Ohio to
do its duty."58 The editor of the Ohio
State Journal,
Whig organ of the state, applauded
Vance's speech, a
few days later, under the caption,
"Glorious old Joe
Vance."58
This was not the reaction of all of
Ohio's delegation,
however, nor of all the convention.
Allen of Massachu-
setts, with a speech against "the
discipline of the South,"
led the way to a different position.
For this act of
temerity on the part of its delegate,
the Old Bay State
tasted more of the famous discipline.
The Vice-Presi-
dency which was first intended to go to
Abbott Law-
rence, was actually given to Millard
Fillmore of New
York.59 Galloway and
Campbell were warm in their
denunciation of the Convention's
action. "I am," said
the former, "the advocate of Free
Soil and free terri-
tory. . . . This platform, my
constituents cannot
and will not abandon. If a candidate is
orthodox on these
fundamental principles, they and I can
hail and receive
him. If he is not, he will be nailed by
us, as base coin
to the counter." Mr. Campbell
openly declared that he
would not vote for Taylor at all, and
he menaced the
South with "that great moral
principle which has fast-
ened itself so firmly on the free Whigs
of Ohio."60
58 Ohio State Journal, June 14, 1848.
59 Wilson, Henry, Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power, 2, 137.
60 Ibid.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 229
Later, at the Worcester Convention
called by the Massa-
chusetts malcontents, he stated his
intention to go back
home to consult his constituents, after
which, he added,
"I will take my position and it
will be right."61
After the nomination had been
accomplished, Henry
Wilson secured the use of a lecture
room in the Museum
for a meeting of the irreconcilables.
Present at that
meeting from Ohio were Lewis Campbell,
Samuel Gal-
loway, J. C. Vaughn, and Stanley
Matthews. Mr. Wil-
son, of Massachusetts, presided
temporarily, and John
C. Hamilton, son of Washington's famous
secretary,
was chosen as permanent chairman. There
were in this
assembly men from Maine, New Jersey,
New York,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Ohio.62
They had
battled valiantly and in vain to secure
some concession
to principles in a National Convention
that was thinking
in terms of men. The proceedings of the
group will be
better dealt with later. Among other
things done, a rep-
resentative was named to attend the
Ohio State Inde-
pendent People's Convention at
Columbus.63
The Democratic State Convention had
suggested the
illegality of the Wilmot Proviso; if
the National Con-
vention did not express itself so
definitely, its intentions
on the subject were clear enough. If
the articulation
between state and national declarations
had been in the
case of New York what it was in that of
Ohio, there
would have been no doubt about the
outcome. Especially
is this true when considered in the
light of the Whig
situation. In spite of the issue raised
by the Wilmot
Proviso, Ohio Democrats for the most
part remained
61 Ohio State Journal, July 3, 1848.
62 Wilson, op, cit., 2, 137 et seq.
63 Ibid., 142.
230
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
within their national party, but the
Whigs of the Nation
and of the State of Ohio showed less
cohesion. In this
situation, which way would Ohio go in
the election of
1848?
CHAPTER III
OHIO IN THE BUFFALO CONVENTION
There was some solid sentiment behind
the grimaces
of the angry group at Philadelphia and
a substantial
part of it was in the Buckeye State. On
the eighth of
July, at Bellgrove, in Madison County,
a mass meeting
of all parties was held, for the main
purpose of oppos-
ing the Philadelphia and Baltimore
nominations. The
strongest element in its constituency
was the Whigs.1
Papers like the Elyria Courier and
the Ashtabula Sen-
tinel were open and bitter in their disapproval of Tay-
lor. The latter journal, edited by a
son of Joshua Gid-
dings, commented on the establishment
of the Ohio
Standard, as a Free Soil Organ, at Columbus, as fol-
lows:
"How gloriously will the
forthcoming sheet,
under the guidance of such men as
Hamlin and Vaughn,
contrast with the late adhesion of the State
Journal to
the Southern mandate in favor of
slavery's appointed
vice-regent."2 The
statement is the more significant be-
cause of the fact that this Mr. Vaughn
had been editor
of the Cincinnati Gazette and
was a delegate to the Whig
National Convention. There, on the
Western Reserve,
indeed, little difference of opinion
seems to have mani-
fested itself. Mr. Smith declares that
within a week
after Taylor's nomination every county
on the Reserve,
1 Ohio State Journal, July 8, 1848.
2 Quoted in Ohio State Journal, July
7, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 231
in defiance of party lines, repudiated
the nominee and
called for an independent candidate.3
The too evident designs of the South in
the Mexican
expansionist program had crystallized
the political feel-
ings of these people into a bitter
aversion to slavery that
lost sight of other issues. The men of
this part of Ohio,
lately arrived from New England, with
the moral quick-
ness of their Puritan forbears, took
little account of ex-
pediency and held the opportunist in
contempt.4 There
was a local fusion and a forgetting of
party ties in a
common zeal of which the very name,
Giddings, sug-
gests the type.
The people of north-eastern Ohio were
not alone
in this attitude, nor did they move
without leaders. In
the years preceding 1848, the same
passion had been
enlisting the most brilliant minds of
the State. By the
year 1848, they were prepared to make
the most strin-
gent personal sacrifices in the cause.
Advised that he
had been selected to defend the negroes
captured from
a vessel, The Washington, whose
status as a slaver was
in question, Mr. Chase wrote:
"Please say to the com-
mittee, that my services are cordially
at their disposal;
but I can accept no fee in a case of
this kind."5 Sam
Lewis, Ohio's first State
Superintendent of Schools,
after or during the riot against the National
Era, in
Washington City (1847), sent a letter
to the editor
proffering aid. "Should the mob have proceeded to
carry out their threats, you may draw
on me at sight
for one hundred dollars and for one
hundred dollars for
two months to come, to rebuild and
continue the pub-
3 Smith, op. cit., 128.
4 Dodson, op. cit., 134-142.
5 Dodson, loc. cit., 134-141.
232
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
lication of the Era," he
wrote. "I can wear old clothes
and go back to my bread and water fare,
but I cannot
see the last vestige of liberty
destroyed by a mob."6
The man who received this letter was
Dr. Gamaliel Bai-
ley, the Cincinnati abolitionist and
former editor of the
Philanthropist. By the aid of Ohio Anti-Slavery men,
Chase, Birney, Giddings, Lewis, and
others, he had been
made editor of the National Era at
Washington where
he became the efficient national voice
of anti-slavery
sentiment in the country at large.
These were men who,
to the torrent of feeling, could add
insight, breadth of
view, and political savoir.
The Liberty Party was the political
custodian of
anti-slavery capital, mainly because it
had taken the
principle into the field and had been
on the firing line.
Chase and Lewis were perhaps its most
outstanding fig-
ures in Ohio. The former, after acting
with the party
at an earlier time, was slowly exerting
a kind of prac-
tical influence upon its members. Even as early as
1845, James G. Birney had hoped to
transform the Lib-
erty group from a "one idea"
party into a general radi-
cal reform party. The indifference of Chase at this
time, however, defeated the project.7
Chase was a pris-
tine Democrat; occasionally he tuned
his ears to the call
of the pack and he never quite gave up
the hope that
Democracy would yet absorb the
anti-slavery doctrine.
But the effort to broaden the platform
of the Liberty
Party did not subside. In June, 1847, the Liberty
League was formed at Macedon Lock, New
York, under
the influence of William Goodell and
Lysander Spooner.
6 Lewis, Wm. G. W., Biography of
Samuel Lewis, Chap. 26.
7 Smith, op. cit., 101.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 233
Its long series of resolutions
purported to provide the
more appealing platform desired by the
best men within
the party. Gerrit Smith was nominated
for President
and Elihu Burritt for Vice President.8
The response
of the old line Liberty men of Ohio to
this action was
not at all cordial, however; they
seemed to deprecate the
step of the New York Convention and
heaped criticism
on the head of Spooner and Goodell.9 If
Chase was
indifferent to Birney's effort he
opposed the Macedon
Lock candidate on practical grounds. In
his letter to
John Thomas of Cortlandville, New York,
he warmly
approves Gerrit Smith as a man, but
hesitates to rec-
ommend him as a Liberty Party candidate
subject to
the proposed Convention of 1847.10 The keener
judg-
ment of the Ohio Liberty man taught him
that the ef-
forts of Gerrit Smith and the earlier
aims of Birney
represented quite forlorn hopes. He saw
that the Lib-
erty Party could not be broadened from
within because
the rank and file refused to take up
the larger cause.
The only course feasible for a role of
influence was
amalgamation, by means of compromise,
with elements
in other parties.
There is evidence of this attitude on
the part of the
Ohio statesman as early as 1846. In one
of his letters
to Joshua Giddings, he refers to a
proposed political
union, evidently outlined in a previous
letter, and to
which the congressman seems to have
demurred. His
purpose to seek alliance with other
forces appears clearly
from his words: "What I am willing
to give up is
names, separate organizations; what I
am not willing
8 Smith, op. cit., 101.
9 Salem Anti-Slavery Bugle, October
29, 1848.
10 Letter of S. P. Chase to Thomas, June
24, 1847, in Dodson, op. cit.
234
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
to give up is principles and consistent
action both with
reference to men and to
measures."11 He mentions also
a Liberty Creed which he has drawn up
and enclosed
in the letter for Giddings' inspection.
It is intended to
replace one which his correspondent had
prepared and
submitted for his approval, a clear
indication of the pur-
pose of Salmon P. Chase to speak for
the Liberty Party
of Ohio. Again and again this aim of a
great union
of anti-slavery men appears in his
letters. To Sumner,
he wrote in the autumn of 1847:
"And now what is the
true policy of practical, do-something
anti-slavery men?
Shall we stand apart -- Whigs,
Democrats, and Liberty
men -- and neutralize each other? Or
shall we unite?
I am for union."12 Sumner
had referred to Chase's
arguments before the Supreme Court, in
the celebrated
Van Zandt slavery case as a possible
basis of constitu-
tional interpretation upon which to
rally the anti-slavery
forces of the different parties. This suggestion is
highly pleasing to Chase, who would
have delighted in
such a role. He continues: "Why
cannot we all unite
on them, and so for the practical
measures thence re-
sulting -- Wilmot Proviso, slavery
abolition in the Dis-
trict and the like?" Of course he
is sincere in his op-
position to slavery in all its forms;
there is no doubt
that he would have enjoyed the honor of
being its exe-
cutioner.
With his mind occupied by these
ambitions, he was
anxious to postpone the call for a
National Liberty Con-
vention until some time in 1848, in
order to await the
action of the two great parties. In June, 1848, he
pleaded with Leavitt, the most important leader of the
11 Dodson, op. cit., 122.
12 Ibid., 122-124.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 235
Liberty Party in the East, to defer
that assembly until
the spring of the coming year.13 In
a letter written a
few days later to John Thomas of
Cortlandville, he made
the same suggestion, that the Liberty
men wait until
spring for this important matter.14
Such was also the
position of Edwin M. Stanton of Ohio
and of Joshua
Leavitt. It was strenuously opposed,
however, by the
Gerrit Smith faction because in
agreement with the old
timers of the party, they wished for
the retention of
Puritan standards.15 The Anti-Slavery
Bugle, of Salem,
Ohio, the organ of this group in the
State, raised its
voice against the proposed
postponement.16 A corres-
pondent of the Cleveland American noted
another false
chord. "I see the Western Citizen
has nominated John
P. Hale as candidate for
President," he writes. "Why
go outside the party for a
candidate?"17 In July, a
writer in the Cincinnati Herald deprecates
the fact that
many who still rank with the party
drift toward Judge
McLean or Silas Wright.18 A
letter of Chase's to Pres-
ton King, under date of July 15, 1847,
speaks warmly of
Silas Wright and intimates that it is
time to be finding
out his views before the Liberty Convention
meets.19
This course was no doubt predicated on
the possible
nomination of the well-beloved New
Yorker for the
presidency, by the Democrats. His
untimely death cut
short all hopes for the New York
friends and put an
end to Chase's dream of leading his
Liberty followers
into the fold of Democracy through the
door of the
13 Letter to Joshua Leavitt, Dodson, op.
cit., 124.
14 Ibid., loc. cit.
15 Anti-Slavery Bugle, July 25, 1847.
16 Ibid.
17 Cleveland American, quoted in Ibid.,
June 25, 1847.
18 Cincinnati Herald, quoted in Ibid.,
July 9, 1847.
19 Dodson, op. cit., 121.
|
236 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications Wilmot Proviso. These nods and becks on the part of Chase and his confreres cast about them a fog of mis- trust. They made the conservative element all the more determined to call the convention in the fall of 1847. |
|
|
|
The committee in charge of the National Conven- tion being in the hands of the opponents of Chase and Stanton, the call was issued for a convention at Buf- falo on October 20, 1847.20 Here met the last national concourse of the Liberty men with one hundred and forty 20 Anti-Slavery Bugle, October 29, 1847. |
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 237
delegates and many outsiders who were
interested in
the issues. There were twenty-three Ohio delegates
present and Sam Lewis was chosen
president of the
meeting. The Liberty League was much in
evidence.
The Business Committee reported the
main resolutions
which were passed. Gerrit Smith then
made a minority
report proposing two resolutions which
were voted
down.21 They embodied the
creed of those whose hopes
were bound up in the separate existence
of the party.
The first declared it to be the duty of
the Liberty party
to become a permanent party and to
extend its platform
to embrace "all the political
wants of the country, espec-
ially anti-land monopoly, free trade,
and universal suf-
frage without distinction of
color." The second was
the Spooner doctrine which pronounced
slavery entirely
unconstitutional anywhere in the United
States. Lea-
vitt tried to throttle discussion on
the subject but Gerrit
Smith succeeded in making an eloquent
appeal for his
principles.21 It was
hopeless, however, for the very
words of the resolutions mark them as
the work of an
impractical mind. The principal
statement of the ma-
jority report declared for the
exclusion of slavery from
the national territories, its
prohibition in all places under
the United States government and the
discouragement
of it in the States where it already
existed.22 Stanton
and Chase made a futile effort to defer
nomination of
a presidential candidate to a later
time. Seeing that
the tide was strong for Hale, however,
Stanton made a
warm speech in support of him and he
was nominated
for the Presidency, with Leicester
King, of Ohio, as his
21 Anti-Slavery Bugle, October 29, 1847, loc. cit.
22 Anti-Slavery Bugle, loc. cit.
238
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
running mate. The failure of the Smith
Resolutions
was an unwholesome chalice to the
conservatives. "They
have cut loose from principle and the
right and the lean-
ness of Meroz will be upon them,"
was the way the
action was characterized by the Anti-Slavery
Bugle.23
If Chase and Stanton failed to prevent
a nomination,
they succeeded signally and well in the
platform. The
principles of the Liberty Party were
modified to meet
the views of the men who knew how to
accomplish ul-
terior results by moderate measures.
They had made
an open link in the Liberty chain by
means of which the
party strength might be joined to
forces yet to appear
in the national arena.
From the correspondence of Ohio Liberty
Leaders
with the great statesmen of the East,
and from an ob-
servation of movements in New York, at
this time, it
is easy to see the hopes nourished by
them and the events
which gave force to those hopes. Six
days after the
meeting of the Buffalo Convention, the
Herkimer Barn-
burner demonstration was held. John Van
Buren pre-
pared an address to the people, David
Dudley Field
wrote the resolutions, and the Free
Democracy of New
York came vividly into the public eye.24
It is not strange
that practical men, some of whom, like
Chase, spoke the
Democratic language, should be
influenced by these de-
velopments. They could not help rejoicing that the
foundation stone, the Wilmot Proviso,
rested under both
the Barnburner structure and their own.
After com-
menting jubilantly on the Herkimer
meeting, Mr. Chase
continues as follows, in a letter to
Charles Sumner:
"In this state of things, what is
to be done? Can not
23 Anti-Slavery Bugle, loc. cit.
24 Wilson, op.
cit., 127.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 239
a great convention of anti-slavery men
be held at Pitts-
burgh, next May or June, to put a
ticket in nomination
which will at all events receive votes
enough to carry
the nominees in the house? I have a
good deal of faith
in a movement of this kind."25
To these hopes kindred
aspirations were added as the voice of
Ohio Whiggery
spoke more clearly day by day on the
Proviso, and as
the cry for a military candidate
narrowed down to the
demand of the South for Taylor, the
Louisiana slave-
holder.
Thus the policy of the Liberty men
began slowly to
take shape under the stewardship of the
more liberal
element. The defeated faction retired
to mourn through
a quasi-pietistic press, the fall of
Gerrit Smith and the
triumph of politics over ethics. The
car of the progres-
sives ran over them wailing their
protests. Early in
May, a call was published by the state
committee of the
Liberty Party summoning a convention to
meet at Co-
lumbus on Thursday, June 22, 1848.26 It
did not feature
the arguments of Spooner or the
abolition of slavery in
the states; its aim was the practical
one of the other
group. "It is probable that the
question of the exclu-
sion of slavery from the national
territories will make
the great and paramount issue in the
coming election
of the President" -- so ran the
opening statement. Then
followed the expression of a hope that
either the Whig
or Democratic Convention would nominate
a candi-
date who would represent "our
views on this subject."27
Failing this, there was a prospect that
the friends of
freedom would rally on this one issue
and present an
25 Dodson, op. cit., 124-127.
26 Ohio State Journal, May 12,
1848.
27 Ohio State Journal, loc. cit.
240
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
independent candidate for the suffrage
of the people.
The call was signed by S. P. Chase, R.
B. Pullen, A. O.
Moore, Sam Lewis and Stanley Matthews.
Chase presided at the Convention which
was held
at the State House in pursuance of this
call. It was
largely attended and passed a series of
resolutions among
which was one declaring against any
Liberty nomination
for Governor. John P. Hale and
Leicester King were
nominated for President and Vice President,
in accord-
ance with the action taken at Buffalo
in the year pre-
ceding.28
This meeting seems to have been timed
so as to take
place while another one of more
universal character
was in progress in the same city. On
May 20, 1848, a
call appeared in the Cincinnati Gazette
for an Ohio Mass
Free Territory Convention to express
the popular feel-
ing on the extension of slavery.29
It was an expression
of the sentiment so universal on the
Reserve and else-
where and was signed by three thousand
voters from
thirty counties. This body assembled on
June 21, 1848,
at Medary's Hall above the office of
the Ohio Statesman,
but because of its increasing numbers
was forced to
accept the hospitality of Auditor Woods
and retire to
the House of Representatives.30 There
were one thou-
sand delegates composed of Whigs,
Democrats, and
prominent Liberty men.31 The
last fused rapidly with
the elements from other parties and
there is plenty of
evidence to show that both conventions
were planned
by the same heads. Chase, Lewis, and
Matthews fig-
28 Ohio State Journal, loc. cit.
29 Cincinnati Gazette, May 20,
1848.
30 Smith,
op. cit., 129.
31 Ohio State Journal, loc. cit.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 241
ured in both assemblies. Sawyer of
Cincinnati presided
and the more prominent officers were
Whigs or Demo-
crats. A committee of one from each
congressional
district was selected to make
nominations for permanent
officers. This committee then appointed
a committee
on resolutions. A letter was read from
Nathaniel Guil-
ford of Cincinnati. E. S. Hamlin came
forward and
after reading a letter from Joshua
Giddings, addressed
the Convention; Joseph Vance of Knox
County made
an address also.32 Perhaps
the greatest speech of the
occasion was that of James G. Birney,
former Liberty
candidate for the presidency and at
this time domiciled
in Michigan. For several years he had
not occupied a
place in politics commensurate with his
genius because
an accident had interfered with his
powers of speech.33
Chase of the Committee, prepared the
resolutions.
They are a statesman's best effort,
admirably express-
ing the smoldering sentiment of the
people.34 They
begin by repudiating the nominations at
both Philadel-
phia and Baltimore, as obnoxious to the
people's wishes.
Referring to "the Proviso of
Jefferson prohibiting the
existence of slavery after 1800 in all
the territories of
the United States," this platform
recites historical au-
thority through a period of fifty years
to prove that the
policy of the nation toward slavery has
been not to
"extend or nationalize it"
but to "limit and localize"
the offensive institution. On the
immediate issue, the
declaration of the Convention is very
clear to the effect
that "we accept the issue tendered
to us by the slave-
32 This Joseph Vance is a Knox County
Free Soiler and must be
carefully distinguished from Joseph
Vance of Champaign County.
33 Ohio State Journal, June 21,
1848.
34 These resolutions are taken as
reported in Ohio State Journal, June
21, 1848.
Vol. XXXVI--16.
242
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
holders, as to their demand for more
slave states and
for more slave territory, and our
answer is: "No more
slave states, no more slave
territory!"
Seeing the principle thus keenly
delineated, one can
not help admiring the hard sense of the
leaders in reach-
ing out to join hands with every
progressive group in
the North. There was a warm approval of
the legal
opinions of Judge McLean to the effect
that the institu-
tion of slavery could not exist anywhere
excepting by
special enactment; that the relation of
master and slave
is entirely artificial. The stand of
John P. Hale, the
"first rebel against Hunkerism and
Slavery in the Dem-
ocratic Party," is sincerely
complimented. Preston
King and John Van Buren are lauded for
"their in-
domitable courage and inflexible
perseverance" in lead-
ing the bolters of the New York
Democracy. The reso-
lutions also express great honor for
the manly actions
of the New York Barnburners in refusing
to accept
seats in the Democratic National
Convention on terms
dictated by the slave power. There are
overtures ad-
dressed to the various leaders of the
bolting Democrats
and the Progressive Liberty men. To
capture the sym-
pathies of the Northern pioneer and the
wage-earners
of the East, the platform contains a
plank in favor of
free grants of public land as a real
free soil policy. In
addition to these alluring proffers
there is a great deal
to admire in the consummate skill with
which Chase
coordinated the movements of the
Liberty men and the
Free Soilers in Ohio without losing the
good will of the
former. As for the Whigs, it will be
remembered that
Mr. Vaughn, a member of the little
group of malcon-
tents at Philadelphia, was present at
the Columbus Con-
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 243
vention as the bearer of an important
message. Partly
as the result of his presence, a call
went forth from the
Ohio Capitol which invited all friends
of freedom, "op-
posed to the election of Lewis Cass or
Zachary Taylor,"
to assemble in convention at Buffalo on
August 9, 1848,
to nominate candidates for the
Presidency and Vice
Presidency of the United States.35
The part of Ohio men in these political
maneuvers
was beyond a doubt monumental. No small
portion of
the planning and outlining of the field
was due to the
genius of Chase alone, alert, keen and
leaning toward
the Democracy. Yet, if we may trust the
accounts of
men who witnessed personally many of
the moves and
countermoves, the ground wires for the
Buffalo thun-
derbolt were laid by national
manipulators who were
not friendly to the Democrats. The
Barnburner tinder
lay heaped up high in the State of New
York where it
had been nursed by interested parties
to await just such
a spark as the call that went forth at
the instance of
the bolting Whigs.
When the news of the bolt at Baltimore
became
known in New York a vast concourse of
Barnburners
awaited, in City Hall Park, the arrival
of messengers
from the Convention (June 6, 1848). It
is said that the
meeting there was set for the afternoon
of that day
under the secret influence of Thurlow
Weed, as exerted
through Barnburner friends.36 Weed's
genius was al-
ways at the service of the Whigs but
his power and his
friends were everywhere. He seems to
have had the
35 All the foregoing discussion,
inclusive of quotations, is drawn from
report of the resolutions of the
convention as reported in Ohio State Jour-
nal, loc. cit.
36 Dyer, op. cit., 59-68.
244
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
happy faculty of ingratiating himself
with men. His
reason for being interested in the time
of the demon-
stration at City Hall Park was that he
wished a large
group of Whigs, who were to be his
guests at the Astor
House, to witness the disaffection of
the New York
Democrats. When the vast meeting was
held in the
Park amidst the greatest indignation
and enthusiasm,
the messengers who addressed them were
Cambreleng,
Tilden, and Field. These men were the
past associates
and partisans of Van Buren, the man
who, his friends
insisted, had been sacrificed to the
sanctity of the two-
thirds rule. The whole move of the
malcontents from
Syracuse on, had rallied round this
alleged martyr, and
prominent among the engineers of its
beginning was
his own son.37 The Whigs
were consistently frightened
by the anticipated Free Soil bolt; they
were made to
believe that every encouragement must
be given to the
Barnburners, and that the Whig
candidate should be
a man to whom Van Buren would not
hesitate to give
possible aid by his presence in the
struggle. For that
purpose, who could be better than a
candidate without
a political past? If the Democratic
bolt was to mate-
rialize, the Whig leader would have to
be free from
any of the earlier rancor of his party
toward Van Buren.
Thus Weed's aim was two-fold, to choose
the proper
Whig candidate and to assure his
success by the split
in Democracy's rank.
The result was that the Barnburner
National Con-
vention was sitting at Utica by June 21
for the purpose
of nominating a presidential candidate.38 Ohio was
represented by a number of delegates
among whom were
37 Dyer, loc. cit.
38 Ibid., 67, et seq.,
and Ohio State
Journal, June 21, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 245
Benjamin Tappan and James W. Taylor.
The latter
addressed the Convention in a very
eloquent speech.39
After a becoming display of modesty,
Van Buren per-
mitted his name to be used with the
long foreseen re-
sult that he received the nomination.40
The Utica Con-
vention was contemporaneous with the
Columbus Con-
vention. A glance at the flattering
resolutions taken
by the latter with regard to the
Barnburners and the
preoccupations of Chase with eastern
leaders of Democ-
racy shows the cut of the whole
cloth. There is no
doubt that the stirrings in the breasts
of the Liberty
men and the restlessness even of the
Whigs received a
strong impetus from the activities of
the recalcitrant
Democrats of New York.
In the months before the meeting of the
Free Soilers
at Buffalo, speculation and prophecy
were rife as to
the question of the candidate. However,
there is a good
deal to show that the keener minds
entertained little un-
certainty on the point. The fact is,
the candidate was
ready; the past had created him. This
did not, of course,
keep the Liberty men from fighting for
John P. Hale
nor the fond adherents of Ohio leaders
from advocating
their favorites. Perhaps the three most outstanding
possibilities were John P. Hale, Judge
McLean of Ohio,
and Martin Van Buren.
Hale was already in the field as
Liberty candidate.
He was an earnest opponent of slavery,
a debater of
some judgment and a great deal of good
humor, and
was very much admired by his followers.
Chase was
on friendly terms with him, but did not
have him in
mind as leader of the third element in
the campaign.
39 Ohio State Journal, loc. cit.
40 Ohio State Journal, loc. cit.
246
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
In spite of his being a Democrat,
prudent minds must
have seen that his appeal was not
universal enough for
the desired purpose. Interesting
letters were exchanged
between Chase and Sumner on the subject
of John R.
McLean. They show a rather serious
consideration of
him especially on the part of the
former but also a rather
marked desire to see his opinions
change in certain ways.
"I wish with you," wrote
Chase, "that Judge McLean
had a stronger backbone of
constitutional anti-slav-
ery."41 In a former
letter, he had expressed the con-
viction that Judge McLean "went
wrong on the Van
Zandt case but was with us" in
opposition to the ex-
tension of slavery.42 In
Chase's letter of June 15, 1848,
to John P. Hale, he voices a
"sincere" regret that the
Liberty Party made any nomination for
the presidency
at their convention.43 He
had hoped, according to his
expression in this letter, that Hale
would go into the
Senate "as an independent
Democratic Senator" to oc-
cupy very nearly the same position to
the Democratic
Party on its Anti-Slavery side as
Calhoun, on the pro-
slavery wing -- all of which amounts to
a delicate sug-
gestion to his correspondent, to withdraw
and get out
of the way.44
The inference from these letters is
that Chase was
delegated to draw out the Judge and to
decoy him into
the third party field if possible. His
labors on the bench
had given him a deserved popularity and
he was known
to be against the extension of slavery,
but not on the
same grounds as the Wilmot Proviso
people. Being a
41 Dodson, op. cit., 115-116.
42 Ibid., 128-132.
43 Ibid., 134-136.
44 Dodson, loc. cit.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 247
Whig and popular in Indiana and Ohio,
it is probable
that some of the Free Soilers looked
with favor on him.
Chase's efforts to get an expression
from him seemed
to have failed, however. Samuel
Galloway, it will be
remembered, had placed the name of
McLean in nomi-
nation at Philadelphia and afterwards
withdrew it.45
Later the Whig press attributed to the
Judge a state-
ment to the effect that he felt bound
to stand by the
Whig nominee because his own name had
been before
the Convention.46 A short
time before the Convention
of the Free Soilers at Buffalo, the Ohio
State Journal
imputed to Chase the statement, made in
a meeting of
Free Soilers, in Truro Township,
Franklin County, that
Judge McLean had withdrawn his support
from Tay-
lor.47 From the Neil House,
Chase wrote an indignant
letter to the editor in which he denied
the charge and
likewise the assertion that McLean's
name had been
before the Philadelphia Convention.48 His warmth in
regard to the latter point tends to
show that he was
trying desperately to have McLean's
name before the
Buffalo Convention. It is not possible
to determine
whether or not he was misquoting the
Judge, but he
must have said a good deal in regard to
his potential
candidacy. He was hardly likely to
misrepresent the
situation either, because McLean was
his father-in-law.
From these occurrences it seems fair to
assume that
Chase went to Buffalo with some sort of
ambition for
McLean.
On August 8, 1848, the pilgrims of
freedom began
45 Ohio State Journal, June 12,
1848.
46 Ibid., July 27, 1848.
47 Ibid.
48 Ohio State Journal, July
28, 1848.
248
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
arriving at Buffalo from all points of
the compass.
Among them were Whigs, Democrats and
Liberty men
who had answered the call for the
assembly of the free
territory elements of all parties in
order to take meas-
ures against the invasion of slavery
into the undefiled
West. Opposing editors of the Whig
Party labored to
show that no Whigs of any consequence
were present.
The opposition generally, tried to ridicule
so motley and
varied a body. Gray, of the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
who covered the Convention for his own
paper, used
vivid language in describing it.
"The Oberlin Canopy
was lighted up," wrote he,
"and bright the lamps shone
o'er--Barnburners, bolters, sore-heads,
sick Whigs, and
darkies."49 Reports
said that the Convention was large
but by no means so large as expected,
that the Whigs
were all going home because of lack of
company and
that the gathering was exclusively an
Abolition-Barn-
burner affair.50 The report
of the proceedings, as taken
from the Buffalo Commercial
Advertiser, showed a very
pronounced abolitionist influence, it
is true.51 The old
Liberty men formed a heavy contingent,
but some of
their most influential men were of Democratic
antece-
dents.51 These together with
the Barnburners must
have given a flavor of Democracy to the
otherwise
varied group. It was often referred to
as the Con-
vention of the Free Democracy and it
has been pointed
out that behind the chairman's desk, in
the main com-
mittee room, hung a picture of an old
barn, with the
legend beneath it: "Let it burn
for conscience sake."52
49 Report of the
Buffalo Convention, in Cleveland Plain Dealer, quoted
in Ohio State Journal, August 14,
1848.
50 Ohio State Journal, August 14, 1848.
51 Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, quoted
in Ohio State Journal, Au-
gust 15, 1848.
52 Woodburn, op. cit., 6-81.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 249
The group of men who went to Buffalo
from Ohio
were not of the sort to be mocked. They
included in
their number James Briggs, Jacob
Brinkerhoff, Profes-
sor Mahan, of Oberlin College, Samuel
Lewis, and S.
P. Chase.53 The last named
had an influence greater
in many ways than that of any other
person present as
delegate unless it be Benjamin Butler
of Massachusetts.
Joshua Giddings is roundly criticised
by the Whig press
for absenting himself from Congress to
attend the Con-
vention.54 An outbreak of
speechmaking preceded ac-
tion. General Nye of New York, a
Barnburner dele-
gate to Baltimore, retold the story of
their grievance
and referred also to Henry Clay as
another noble son
of Liberty sacrificed on the altar of
slavery.55 Samuel
Lewis and Joshua Giddings both
addressed the Con-
vention in eloquent and telling
speeches.57 Samuel
May, the Abolitionist who had been for
dissolution of
the Union, now saw in the movement
culminating on
this day, "hope renewed."56
The earlier part of the
assembly seems to have taken on the
appearance of an
old time abolitionist meeting. In
addition to the pres-
ence of many abolitionists, Henry Bibb,
a fugitive slave,
was permitted to address the Convention.
Gray, of the
Plain Dealer, refers to him ironically as "Chancellor
Bibb" because of his discussions
of legal points and
reports the aversion of one of the
delegates "to taking
his cue from a nigger."58 This
dark coloring in the
assembly, however, is only an evidence
of the fact that
53 Wilson, op. cit., Chap. 13.
54 Ohio State Journal, August 17, 1848.
55 Ohio State Journal, August 14, 1848.
56 Wilson, op. cit., 154.
57 Ibid., loc. cit.
58 Ohio State Journal, August 17, 1848.
250
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
radicals and moderates have gotten
together on some-
thing tangible; it presages danger to
the slavery in-
terest.
Chase had not been able to forestall a
boom for Hale.
The New Hampshire man was genial and
personable;
his following in the Free Democracy was
not trifling.
When a letter came from Van Buren that
was hesi-
tant and demurring in tone, the hopes
of Hale's friends
rose to a high pitch. The party of Van
Buren was keen
enough to read the opposite meaning
between the lines
of his letter. They quickly checkmated
the Hale adher-
ents by proposing Hale and Dodge for
President and
Vice President, thus angering the
friends of Charles
F. Adams who was already expectant of
nomination.59
In order to simplify the proceeding, it
was at last pro-
posed to choose a nominating committee
which should
consult calmly on the situation and
report its recom-
mendation to the whole body for
ratification or rejec-
tion. The personnel of that committee
when chosen in-
cluded Chase who was its chairman and
B. F. Butler.60
Chase had a certain interest in McLean
but the reti-
cence of the judge and the absence of
any demonstration
in his behalf forced the Ohio man to
drop him. Butler
was the trusted friend, admirer, and
pupil of Van
Buren. As John Van Buren and Cambreleng
had been
on hand at Herkimer, and Cambreleng
later at City Hall
Park and Utica, so was Butler present
on this occasion
to take his turn at the wheel of the
Little Magician.
In a speech eulogizing his subject and
referring to his
many pleasing personal traits, Butler
deftly convinced
59 Dyer,
op. cit., 96-97.
60 Ohio State Journal,
August 17, 1848.
|
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 251 the Committee that Van Buren would accept the nomi- nation. He did not succeed in accomplishing his pur- pose, however, without encountering the ghost of the ex-President's past. |
|
|
|
His own personal enthusiasm for his old teacher led him into fields remote from politics. He detailed the facts concerning Van Buren's country home at Lin- denwald, told of his own visits there, and of moments of intimacy that revealed the interest of his host in his farm and its growing crops. Brinkerhoff of Ohio in- |
252
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
terrupted him rather rudely at this
juncture and called
out: "Damn his cabbages and
turnips. What does he
say about slavery in the District of
Columbia?"61 This
question had behind it the memory of
Van Buren's mes-
sage of 1837 in which he promised not
to disturb slavery
in the District. The frequent
references of the press
to the subject show that it still
haunted the minds of
the Ohio Democrats from whose number
Brinkerhoff
came. Butler proceeded with great
courtesy and good
humor with his speech, entirely
undaunted by the shock.
He took it upon himself to promise that
Van Buren
would not veto such a bill were it
presented to him then.
The result was a complete triumph for
Van Buren.
When the final vote was taken, it stood
Van Buren 244,
Hale 151, scattering votes 71.62
Of the Committee on Resolutions, the
two most pow-
erful figures were Chase and Butler. A
glance at the
platform discloses the fact that its
authorship was
shared to a large extent by the former
because some of
its statements are repetitions of the
Columbus Resolu-
tions.63 The remarkable
feature of them is their variety
and completeness; there are principles
in abundance to
equip a new party for a long political
journey. The
language in which they are worded
breathes dignity and
grace as well as discriminating
judgment. The conven-
tions of the two old parties are
condemned for having
weakly surrendered principle to
availability. On con-
temporary matters there is a criticism
of the alleged
61 Dyer, op. cit., 101.
62 Ohio State Journal, August 14, 1848.
63 The discussion of the platform which
follows was drawn from the
platform as reported in Buffalo Commercial
Advertiser, copied in Ohio
State Journal, August 15, 1848. See also for State Free Soil
Resolutions,
Ohio State Journal, June 16, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 253
"compromise bill" then
pending in the Senate and a
declaration in favor of the immediate
organization of
Oregon and the Mexican territories
along lines of
"freedom and established
institutions." There is also
a plank demanding cheap postage for the
people, re-
trenchment in the national expenses,
and election of all
United States civil officers by the
people. Likewise there
is, inconsistently enough, a plank
advocating internal
improvements in rivers and harbors, by
the Federal gov-
ernment. On the tariff question it was
declared that
there should be enough tariff to
provide for paying off
the public debt. The free grant of public lands was
also emphasized as an appeal to the
West and to the
working class of the Northeast. This
was to become a
more or less permanent influence in the
history of
parties.
On the general subject of slavery, the
historical
resume of policy appeared which had
been first drafted
at the Columbus Convention. The legal
basis of the
position lies in the statement that
slavery exists by
virtue of state law alone and that
Congress has no
power to introduce it where it does not
exist already.
In the words of Chase, "Congress
has no more power to
make a slave than to make a king."
From this axiom
comes the conclusion that "it is
the duty of Congress
to relieve itself of all responsibility
for the existence
and continuance of slavery"
wherever it possesses con-
stitutional authority to legislate on
the subject. In
other words, the proper course is for
the government
to prohibit slavery in all territory
under it by congres-
sional action.
Their meaning becomes clear in the
light cast upon
254
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
these resolutions by the occurrences at
the time of their
report to the Convention. Casting about
for slogans,
the expression: "No more slave
states, no more slave
territory" was used. Chase arose
and suggested that the
words be changed to "no more slave
states, no slave
territories."64 The
storm of applause which greeted
this epitomized expression of the sense
of the Conven-
tion is evidence of its accuracy.
There is a moral elevation in these
sentiments that
is rather foreign to the politics of
the day. The refu-
gees from the houses of Democracy and
Whiggery had
gone away to inhabit a more comely
dwelling. The
press might berate Van Buren and shake
under his nose
the skeletons of his alleged
pro-slavery past, but he
stepped onto a platform swept clean of
the slave holder's
debris. As to the construction of that
platform, it is
no use to impugn the motives of the
Barnburners nor
to lay at their candidate's door the
charge of revenge-
ful opportunism. It is not clear, it
does not seem true
that he was animated by personal
motives, as such, and
it is not just to impute to him the
evil passions of his
associates. The purposes of history
have often been
served by the agency of prejudice.
Those Liberty men
who, like Professor Mahan of Oberlin,
hesitated a while
on the candidate, were willing to yield
on that point for
the sake of being the architects of his
principles.
On the threshold of a great national
campaign, one
possibility appeared rather clearly on
the horizon -- that
one of the two old parties would
receive punishment for
venal pro-slavery, although both were
guilty. Another
fact still more clearly outlined on the
horizon was the
64 Dyer, op. cit., 103.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 255
dedication of a mighty organization to
the Wilmot Pro-
viso principle. Eyes of faith foresaw
from this hour
the time when the "stone rejected
of the builders should
become the head of the corner,"
through the rise of a
new party to considerable influence.
The role Ohio men
and Ohio sentiment played in this
development, as has
been seen, was an important one. Of all
groups present
at the Buffalo Convention, Mr. Dyer
says that the Ohio
galaxy shone brightest. Chase's labors
to prepare the
field in the Liberty Party and the
services of the Colum-
bus Convention from which went forth
the call for Buf-
falo are still stronger evidence.
CHAPTER IV
THE CAMPAIGN IN OHIO
The two candidates of the old line
parties can not
be said to have been clearly at odds in
their opinions on
slavery nor indeed in their opinions on
any of the other
great questions. This was due largely
to the non-com-
mittal policy of one of them. However,
as to general
character and personality, they present
very striking
contrasts. The Whig candidate was a
military man.
His virtues and his faults were those
of the soldier.
His conduct during the Mexican War was
marked by
good judgment, moderation and excellent
success. He
had never held public office in any
civil capacity and
there is no doubt that his reaction on
political matters
were rather feeble and colorless. In
civil crises, one
would expect his actions to bear the
precision and arti-
ficial despatch of the military program.
In civil life,
he was a Louisiana planter who owned
slaves.
256 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Lewis Cass was a man of another
school.1 He had
been born in New Hampshire of English
Puritan an-
cestry and his father was a soldier in
the Revolution.
After a fairly good classical education
at the Exeter
Academy, he came with his father to
Ohio where he
began the career which was to associate
forever his name
with the history of the Northwest. He
took part in
the war of 1812 and witnessed the
disgrace of Hull at
Detroit. At the time of his nomination,
he was not new
to the duties of civil office; he had
filled the post of gov-
ernor of the Northwest Territory and
had served as
Commissioner of Indian affairs; he had
also been am-
bassador to France and when nominated
was in the
United States Congress as Senator from
Michigan. As
governor of the Northwest Territory he
had distin-
guished himself by a salutary and
business-like admin-
istration. His early associations and
successes in the
Northwest and in Ohio had given him
some popularity
and made him in a certain way the
mouthpiece of the
West in the Senate. His diplomatic experience in
France and his activities during the
British war had
given him a hatred of England and made
him an en-
thusiastic admirer of French
civilization. He enjoyed
some prestige as a scholar and has left
some books which
reflect contemporary society.
The availability of Taylor was based on
at least two
facts; his position as a slaveholder,
which had influence
on southern opinion; and his very
obvious taciturnity in
regard to matters political, especially
the Wilmot Pro-
viso. To these might be added the ever
present in-
fluence of military success -- a thing
of which the
1 Biographical matter on Lewis Cass,
which follows, is drawn from
McLaughlin, A. C., Lewis Cass,
passim.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 257
Whigs knew the power among people. In
the begin-
ning, Cass must have seemed most
acceptable to the
Democrats because of his supposed hold
on the affec-
tions of the old Northwest. This was
counter-balanced
by his unpopularity with the
Barnburners because of
his part in defeating the nomination of
Van Buren in
1844. The New York Barnburners had had
a cham-
pion in Silas Wright whom they had
groomed for the
Democratic nomination and whose
friendship for Van
Buren was ominous for the Hunkers. When
Wright
died, this cause of apprehension was
removed and Cass'
stock rose on the market accordingly.
It might have
been expected from his associations in
the Northwest
Territory that Cass would be an
exponent of the fam-
ous anti-slavery Ordinance. His
position on this point
before the year 1846, however, was only
less doubtful
than that of Taylor; but by the year
1848, he was com-
pletely identified with the opposition to
the Wilmot Pro-
viso, being to that extent more open in
his views than
his adversary. This also gave him a
better currency
in the South because between the Wilmot
Proviso and
opposition to it slavery could not
hesitate. To the mili-
tary achievements of Taylor, the
friends of Cass op-
posed his part in the War of 1812,
which if not spec-
tacular, was at least honorable. His
friends hoped that
these facts together with his
popularity in the North-
west would give him the strength
necessary for elec-
tion. To his hopes, on the other hand,
Van Buren and
the Barnburners represented the fly in
the ointment.
An analysis of the possibilities
exposes two salient
questions that vitally concerned the
ambitions of the
two candidates. They were: "Could
Cass' hold on
Vol. XXXVI--17.
258
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the Northwest be made to counterbalance
the disaffec-
tion in New York? Could the
Anti-Slavery Whigs of
the North be made to swallow Taylor, a
slaveholder, as
President of the United States ?"
On this point it is well
to note that the Taylor malcontents
were scattered about
at the North while Cass opponents in
the Democracy
were assembled in the State of New
York, with the
chance before them of throwing the largest
State in
the Union into the scales against him.
The activities of the press in Ohio and
elsewhere
were directed, as they generally are,
toward bringing
out the sentiments of the candidates on
important ques-
tions. The most frequent query among
the dissatisfied
Whigs in regard to General Taylor was:
Is Taylor
really a Whig? A still more important
one concerned
his views on the Wilmot Proviso, on
which point the
General maintained, for a long period,
a most baffling
silence. Reference has already been
made to the letter
of James W. Taylor, the Barnburner
editor of Cincin-
nati, which put up to the
candidate-to-be the matter of
the Proviso in a few paragraphs, and
openly asked if
it met his views. The response accredited
to Taylor in
the publications of the editor may be
taken to show a
disinclination to veto the measure
should it be passed,
but nothing more.2 The
anti-slavery press of Ohio is
responsible for the statement that
Taylor disavowed his
answer as it was published in the Signal.3
He may have
done so, especially in the South. This
is not to be un-
derstood, however, as an assertion on
the part of Gen-
2 Cincinnati Signal, May 18,
1847, quoted in Ohio State Journal, June
17, 1848.
3 Hamilton Free Soil Banner, October
10, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 259
eral Taylor that he would veto the
Proviso if presented
for his signature.
His letter of acceptance is most
colorless in senti-
ment, containing no pledge of any sort.4 He attempted
to set at rest conjecture on the
question of his Whiggery
by a letter written to Captain J. S.
Allison under the
date of April 22, 1848. He here makes
the statement
that "he is a Whig but not an
ultra Whig," and, if
elected, "will not be the mere
president of a party." He
adds some matters regarding the veto
power, which he
believes should only be used sparingly
by the executive
in cases of a clear violation of the
Constitution or "mani-
fest haste and want of consideration by
Congress." On
all other subjects, the tariff,
internal improvements, etc.,
he declares that the will of the people
as expressed
through their representatives in
Congress ought to be
respected and carried out by the
executive.5 In a sec-
ond letter to the same man under date
of September 4,
1848, he reiterates his statement
regarding his Whig-
gery, and adds that he would have
accepted the nomina-
tion from the Democrats, but in so
doing would not
"abate one jot or tittle of his
opinions as written down."6
"He was not," he continued,
"a party candidate, in that
straitened and narrow sense which would
prevent his
being the candidate of the
people." These two letters
were widely circulated in Ohio and
appear in nearly
every Whig paper of any consequence in
answer to
those who would doubt the sincerity of
the candidate
on party questions. They seemed to
indicate that Tay-
4 Gideon, J. & S. G., "A
Brief Review of the Character, Career and
Campaigns of General Zachary
Taylor", Washington, 1848,
(Republished
from the North American and United
States Gazette, Philadelphia).
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
260
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
lor would follow pretty closely the
wishes of the people,
and to convey the idea that executive
functions had been
abused. This happened to be then, as it
generally is, a
rather popular appeal. His failure to
state definitely his
own views on the Wilmot Proviso,
internal improve-
ments, and other matters, is thrown in
the shade in the
press of the Ohio Whigs by specious
endorsement of his
non-partisan liberalism.
On the matter of internal improvements,
Taylor's
letter to Allison says, at least by
implication, that he
would not allow his veto to stand in
the way of such a
program.7 Cass had already
attempted to straddle or
evade this issue in the previous year.
Invited to at-
tend the Chicago Rivers and Harbors
Convention to be
held in July, 1847, he sent a reply
courteously thanking
his correspondent and stated simply
"that circumstances
would put it out of his power to be
present at that time."8
This letter became the subject of
frequent comment by
the Whig papers in Ohio and was
accepted as proof
undeniable of Cass' stand on internal
improvements.
Thereafter, when approaching this
subject in the course
of his editorial tirades, the Ohio
State Journal editor
loved to identify Cass as "the man
who met with a cir-
cumstance just before starting to the
Chicago Conven-
tion which prevented him from having an
opinion for
the public eye in relation to the
improvement of Western
harbors and rivers."9 In
June the Democratic candi-
date was called upon to answer a
question regarding
the internal improvements issue during
a speech which
he was making at Cleveland. The answer
which he
7 Gideon, op. cit., 8.
8 Ohio State Journal, May 8, 1848.
9 Ohio
State Journal, January 26, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 261
gave was somewhat equivocal. "The
noise and con-
fusion which pervades this vast
assembly will, I appre-
hend, prevent my being heard by all
present. I can but
refer you to my votes as recorded and
my sentiments as
heretofore expressed on these
questions."10 The Whigs
of Ohio did not fail to ring the
changes on "the noise and
confusion" speech all through the
campaign and pointed
out that the question had been put by
Judge Wood, him-
self a Democrat, with no intention to
embarrass the
candidate.11 The campaign
rhymer of the Whigs trans-
lated the Chicago Convention letter
into song as follows:
"Let Cass run his chances--we think
circumstances
Will prevent his attendance, you know.
Old Zach fights to win--he's good
looking--he'll come in
With a shout from Ohio."12
The compliment to the Old Hero may be
of doubtful
truth but there is no doubt that the
Whigs of Ohio built
much on the "circumstances"
of General Cass.
President Polk's message of July, 1848,
devoted
some discussion to the proposed
organization of new
territory, and asked for an
appropriation of $12,000,000
to complete the Treaty of Peace with
Mexico. On the
former subject, the President
recommended immediate
organization of the new territory and
extension of the
laws over it. In regard to all the
slavery controversy
in the territories, he let it be known
that he inclined
favorably to compromise and had a very
bad opinion
of "dissension."13 Commenting on the bill pending in
the House for the organization of
Oregon Territory,
10 Cleveland Herald, June 19,
1848.
11 Cleveland Herald, loc. cit.
12 Ohio State Journal, January 26, 1848.
13 Published in Hamilton Intelligencer,
July 10, 1848.
262
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the passage of which was delayed by
efforts to take
from it the clause forbidding slavery,
the Ohio State
Journal declares that the Territory of Oregon is, by the
express terms of the Missouri
Compromise, free terri-
tory -- a manifest inaccuracy. On
learning that a com-
mittee had been constituted to provide
a compromise on
the subject, the editor stated
unequivocally: "We ear-
nestly hope that no such effort will be
allowed to suc-
ceed. We want no more compromises on
the subject of
slavery."14 Similar comment in other Ohio papers
leaves no doubt as to the stand of the
Ohio Whigs, what-
ever be the undisclosed opinion of
their candidate.
When the vote was taken on the question
of laying on
the table the bill containing the
proposed compromise
feature, nearly all the Whig
representatives from Ohio
and some of the Democrats voted in the
affirmative.15
This action concerned only the Mexican
cession lands.
When the Oregon Bill was considered,
the clause giving
the veto power to the governor was
stricken out by the
House which, however, refused to remove
the ordinance
against slavery. The Wilmot Proviso was
resumed and
the bill put upon its passage. It
passed the House by a
large majority, Ohio Whigs voting in
its favor.16 For
this action they received the universal
endorsement of
the press of their party in the State.
The Whig editors exhausted the arts of
political
ventriloquism in trying to put into the
mouth of Taylor
language on the Wilmot Proviso that
would be accept-
able to the northern conscience of
their party. Yet so
far as has been found up to the present
the Old General
14 Ohio State
Journal, July 22, 1848.
15 Ohio State Journal, August 3, 1848.
16 Ohio State Journal, loc. cit.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 263
never expressed himself in terms any
more definite than
the shadowy implications of the
Cincinnati Signal let-
ter of 1847, and the Free Soil
Banner says that he after-
wards disavowed that. At the opening of
the year 1848,
Cass' opinions on the Proviso were
rather clear; since
he held to an altogether different
theory on the matter
of slavery in the territories, he was
against the Proviso.
The story of how he arrived at this
view was told
and retold by Whigs and Democrats. In
August, 1846,
the Three Million Bill came before the
Senate on the
last day of the session, about a
half-hour before noon.
A motion being made to strike out the
Proviso then
forming a part of the measure, John W.
Davis of Mas-
sachusetts took the floor, and talking
against time, re-
sisted the motion and gave his reasons.
The session
closed without a vote. The Democratic
press took up
the speech of Davis and laid to his
door the defeat of
the Proviso in the Senate. All over the
United States
he was blamed for having caused the
failure of the meas-
ure in the Senate. The Ohio
Statesman and the Demo-
cratic press in Ohio generally seized
upon this incident
as a typical case of Whig perfidy.17
Subsequently his-
torians have justified his conduct on
the ground that
there was no hope for its passage and
that he really
saved the measure from immediate
defeat. George
Rathbun, representative from New York,
declared in
the Utica Convention that he conversed
with Cass on
the afternoon of the adjournment during
a trip on the
train between Washington and Baltimore.
Cass then
regretted that Davis had talked the
Proviso to death
and stated that all the Northern
Democrats in the Sen-
17 Ohio Statesman, July 11, 1848.
264
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ate had agreed to support it following
the lead of Allen
of Ohio. At the next session of
Congress, in a conver-
sation with Rathbun and Brinkerhoff of
Ohio, Cass de-
clared that if it came to a vote he was
for the Proviso.18
This speech of Mr. Rathbun was reported
largely and
broadcasted through Ohio by the Whig
papers. It
was reported in substantial agreement
by some of the
Democratic papers during the campaign.19
McLaugh-
lin, Cass' biographer, admits its
practical truth, and
that the later acts of the Michigan
Senator were incon-
sistent with his remarks made at this
time.20
In regard to the question of slavery in
the terri-
tories, four views obtained in this
period of history. The
Wilmot Proviso was based on the
constitutional power
of Congress over the territory and
meant actual prohi-
bition of slavery there. The Southern
leaders, under
the influence of Calhoun, subscribed to
the property
theory, resting on the legal obligation
of protection to
the individual in his ownership of
slaves. The view that
the Missouri Compromise line should be
extended to
the Pacific was based on the same
constitutional as-
sumption as the Wilmot Proviso.
Dickinson of New
York is credited with having first
suggested that the
real right of decision in municipal
legislation on this
great subject was in the people of the
territories con-
cerned. Cass and after him Douglas were
the men who
introduced and popularized it in
politics.
On December 24, 1848, Cass wrote the
famous Nich-
olson letter, which was addressed to A.
O. P. Nicholson
18 Ohio State Journal, July 14, 1848.
19 Ohio Press, May 8, 1848.
20 McLaughlin, op. cit., 232-233.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 265
of Nashville.21 It represents the birth
of this new and
potent idea impregnated with a spirit
of self-determinism
and freighted with grave possibilities.
Distinctly it was
the voice of the great Northwest
speaking with a hearty
confidence in the people's judgment and
free from anti-
slavery prejudice. Like Judge McLean,
the writer be-
lieved slavery could only exist by
virtue of positive law.
He admitted the power of Congress to
make rules and
regulations governing territory in a
general way, but
he did not include within that field of
regulations the
right to make municipal law or to
define the relation of
husband and wife or of master and
servant or of master
and slave. The function of municipal
legislation of that
sort would appertain to the territorial
legislature, by
which Congress should provide for the
expression of
the people's will through law.22
This stand of Cass was accepted and
appreciated
by many slavery men in the South. In a
letter from
Thomas W. Thomas, a Georgia planter, to
Howell Cobb,
under date of June 5, 1848, the writer
asked if Cass did
not vote against attaching the Proviso
to the Three Mil-
lion Bill, and went on to endorse him because
he stood
for "fifty-four forty" and
for the acquisition of Mexi-
can territory.23 The fact
that Cass did so vote on the
Proviso and was forced to defend his
change of senti-
ment in the Senate was the cause of
much adverse com-
ment in the Whig Press. This was in
March, 1847, and
Senator Miller of New Jersey was the
man who forced
him to explain himself. The text of his
remarks at
21 McLaughlin, op. cit., 239.
22 Copy
in Ohio State Journal, July 18, 1848.
23 "Letter of Howell Cobb,"
in Annual Report of American Historical
Association for 1911, 2 Vol. -- Vol. 2, 107.
266
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
that time is substantially the argument
of the Nichol-
son letter.24 The charges
which accompanied the testi-
mony of Rathbun and Miller were to the
effect that
after the death of Silas Wright, Cass
broke restraint
and prostrated himself before the
slavery interests of
the South.25 McLaughlin, in
his preface, states his own
conviction that the Michigan Senator's
change of heart
was not due to motives which are open
to suspicion, and
he bases the finding on the fidelity of
men of probity,
in Michigan, to his cause.26
The comment of the Free Soil press in
Ohio on the
position of the two candidates in
regard to slavery is
illuminating. The Cleveland Plain
Dealer's editorials
are to the effect that Cass is
acceptable to the North on
the slavery question because he
believes slavery illegal
unless established by positive law in
the territories, and
that for that reason a prohibition is
not needed.27 A
letter addressed to the Plain Dealer
from Georgia states:
"You profess to be cooperating
with the Democrats
South to elect a President. If you will
come to Georgia
and make yourself known, if you do not
receive a pres-
ent of two gallons of tar and a bolster
of feathers, it
will be owing to the stinginess of your
Whig and not
your Democratic friends."28 Elsewhere appear long
lists of exchanges professing to come
from Southern
papers such as the Augusta Republic,
the New Orleans
Bee and the Review, of Marion, Alabama. They uni-
24 Ohio State Journal, July 14,
1848.
25 Ohio State Journal, loc. cit.
26 McLaughlin,
op. cit. Preface.
27 Cleveland Plain Dealer, quoted
in Hamilton Free Soil Banner, Oc-
tober 10, 1848.
28 Anti-Slavery Bugle, December 1, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 267
formly endorse Taylor because "he
is in favor of the
extension of slavery."29
Moreover, in every local campaign, this
issue on
the Wilmot Proviso is the touchstone of
political fitness.
L. D. Campbell, Whig candidate for
Congress, received
the endorsement of the Free Soilers of
the Second Ohio
District because he answered their
questions unequivo-
cally on this point in favor of the
Proviso. He stated
that he believed Congress had power to
prevent
slavery in the territories, and that he
would vote for
such a law. In a public meeting held at
Lebanon, he
completely floored Baldwin, his
Locofoco adversary, who
attempted to dodge on the matter of
slavery in the ter-
ritories.30 Daniel Duncan, Whig candidate for Con-
gress from the Franklin County
District, believed that
that body would report a bill dividing
the new territory
on the "36-30 principle" and
"could not under any cir-
cumstances be induced to vote for an
extension of
slavery over another foot of
territory."31 General Tay-
lor, he said, would stand by the will
of Congress, veto-
ing only in case of
unconstitutionality. Cass would veto
any bill containing the Wilmot Proviso
while Taylor
was pledged to approve any bill passed
by Congress, not
clearly unconstitutional. To Duncan the
situation was
very clear; he was a Taylor man. To
Root and Camp-
bell, neither candidate of the two old
parties seemed
possible.32 Accordingly the Ohio
State Journal treated
them both to a liberal course of
hazing. Dr. Alexander
Duncan of Cincinnati based his
candidacy for Congress
29 Free Soil Banner, October 10, 1848.
30 Ohio State Journal, August 17,
1848.
31 Ohio State Journal, August 3, 1848.
32 Hamilton Intelligencer, August
3, 1848.
268
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
on ground similar to the Plain
Dealer views -- for Cass
and the Wilmot Proviso. Such a position
seems nearly
as untenable as the Whig editors
painted it.33
The presidential campaign was energetic
and full
of the usual amount of petty
recriminations.34 Against
Cass it was alleged that he had dined
at the public table
until he was enormously rich, and that
he had sponsored
in the Northwest Territory legislation
to effect the sale
of white vagabonds into slavery.35
At this time, the
Democratic candidate was very stout in
figure and the
Whigs affected to credit this to his
alleged "ten rations
a day" as commissioner of Indian
affairs.36 Long
tables were published disclosing
fabulous sums which
he had drawn in salary and perquisites
from the Na-
tional Government. Of Taylor, it was
said that he had
insulted the Ohio volunteers by his
reprimand of a cer-
tain soldier from Coshocton who had
stolen chickens in
Mexico, and that he owned land between
the Nueces
and the Rio Grande.37 The
fact that the American party
had recommended him at one time for
President was
used to identify him with the nativist
doctrine. Pam-
phlets in the German language were
distributed by the
Democrats to broadcast this
information.38 Extrava-
gant verbiage featured the hand-bills
that were circu-
lated to stimulate the voter to action.
One announcing
an address to be given by Alexander
Duncan at Leb-
anon, describes Thomas Corwin as
"licking the blood
33 Ohio State Journal, July 17,
1848.
34 Some of these accusations were based
on fact; others were undoubt-
edly the fabrications of prejudiced
minds.
35 Ohio State
Journal, October 18, 1848.
36 Ohio State Journal, loc.
cit.
37 Ohio Statesman, August 3, 1848.
38 Ohio State Journal, October 21, 1848.
|
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 269 from the sword of General Zachary Taylor."39 An- other playing on the theme of military glory, depicts the speaker, John B. Weller, as about to "stand up in your midst and take counsel with you, more fearless than |
|
|
|
when standing on the blood-red field of Monterey when death yawned and blood flowed on every side."40 The declarations and conduct of the two candidates 39 Hand-bill announcing meeting at Lebanon, to be addressed by Alex- ander Duncan, July 14, 1848. Bound with "Scott Battery and Other Papers," Ohio State Library. 40 Hand-bill announcing a meeting to be addressed by John B. Weller, June 24, 1848, at Sidney, Ohio. Bound with "Scott Battery and Other Papers," Ohio State Library. |
270 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
for governor followed rather faithfully
the example set
by the presidential aspirants. Coming
from the West-
ern Reserve, it seems to have been
pretty generally felt
by the Whigs that Ford was against
slavery and for
the Wilmot Proviso. His silence, however, was as
marked as that of General Taylor; he
seems to have
been committed to the policy of
watchful waiting. If
he had any tendency to defend Taylor's
principles, he
was justified in waiting for a
declaration of them. As
for Weller, his speeches generally
showed a desire to
interpret according to his needs the
views expressed in
the Nicholson Letter. For instance, in
an address at
Columbus on August 14, he thus dealt
with the argu-
ment of Cass: "Slavery existed in Louisiana when
purchased and in Texas when annexed;
but the terri-
tory we have now acquired from Mexico
is free terri-
tory and unless Congress establish
slavery there it can
never exist there."41 In so much, according to his
Columbus speech, he disagreed with
Cass. He goes on
to distinguish between the Wilmot
Proviso and the Ordi-
nance of 1787 by saying that the latter
is a compact while
the former might be repealed by the
next Congress if
passed. He added, however, that he was
opposed to any
interference with slavery. His question
-- What is
the difference between Cass and Van
Buren on the
slavery question, anyway? -- was
evidently intended to
placate anti-slavery sentiment.
The two candidates for the office of
governor were
of exactly opposite types. Weller, of
Butler County,
was a successful politician and had
served in the House
of Representatives from the Butler
District when
41 Ohio State Journal, August 19, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 271
scarcely of legal age.42 Coming
into Ohio as a young
man, he practised law after studying in
the office of
Jesse Corwin, whom he afterwards
defeated for the of-
fice of County Prosecutor. He seems to
have been a
rather brilliant man, and his rise in
politics was rapid
and spectacular up to the time of his
race for the gov-
ernorship. His chief adversary in
Butler County was
Lewis Campbell, the Whig bolter. In
their youth, at
the time when both were strangers in Ohio,
they had
shared the same room and the same bed
at Hamilton.
Afterwards they were pitted against
each other in the
race for the office of representative
and Weller was the
victor. Since there had been so much
activity in the
past, the Whigs experienced little
difficulty in finding
rents in his garments. Grave
irregularities in the ad-
ministration of local offices were
charged against him,
and the method of attack was rude and
brutal -- the
more so in that gross exaggeration was
resorted to.
In his record in Congress, however,
certain things
were pointed out that tended to show
sympathy with the
slavery interests. He had introduced a
measure cen-
suring Joshua Giddings for having
presented resolu-
tions defining the power and duty of
the general gov-
ernment in regard to slavery in the
territories.43 No
less than three times in the session of
1842 he had voted
with the South to lay on the table the
bill to do away
with the celebrated Twenty-first Rule
regarding slavery
that was so long opposed by John Quincy
Adams.44
"There is perhaps no man in
Ohio," writes the State
42 Bartlow, B. S., et al., "A
History of Butler County," 914-915.
43 Journal of House of Representatives, Twenty-seventh Cong., 2d
Sess., 571.
44 Ohio State Journal, August 31, 1848.
272
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Journal man, "who is a more uncompromising supporter
of slavery and more unequivocally
opposed to its ex-
tinction or restriction than John B.
Weller of Butler
County. In his stump speeches in the
southern part of
the state he denounces the Jefferson
Proviso as a hum-
bug."45 If Weller was a
friend of slavery he did not
allow it to appear in his speeches in
Columbus and in
the northern part of the State. At
Maumee City and
Elyria and elsewhere on the Reserve, he
contented him-
self with calling the Wilmot Proviso
unnecessary.46
Seabury Ford came with his parents from
West
Mountain, Connecticut, to Ohio as a
youth.47 He is
said to have been one of the first two
Ohio students at
Yale University, the other being his
friend, the Rev-
erend D. Witter. At Yale he was a
classmate of the
uncle of Rutherford B. Hayes. Returning
to Ohio he
studied law under Samuel Phelps of
Painesville and
later with his uncle, Judge Hitchcock.
He was after-
wards successful as a lawyer but never
became wealthy
and retained a great love for the
country and for farm-
ing. He served two terms in the Ohio
Senate, where
he had been twice speaker. He had also
been Speaker
of the Ohio House. Much was made of his
record by
the Whigs, who loved to refer to him as
"cheesedom's"
candidate, meaning that he came from
the Reserve and
from.the midst of a dairy country. His
simplicity and
rural New England prudence were also
much celebrated.
His political record in the State of
Ohio was undoubt-
edly good. On matters of currency and
banking his
head seems to have been level; he
vigorously opposed
45 Ohio State Journal, August 31, 1848.
46 Quoting Elyria Courier, Ibid., July
8, 1848.
47 Ibid., July 31, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 273
the celebrated Plunder Acts of 1837 and
1840. In 1844,
Ford had supported Clay. The Democratic
press of the
period cast few or no reflections on
his integrity and
honesty -- a pretty safe indication
that his character
was above reproach. Mr. Riddle's
comment on his po-
litical career has every appearance of
justification.48
"Few men in Ohio had so long a
period of service in
the legislature. No one was, on the
whole, so useful
to the State. At his entrance upon
public life, the State
was groaning under an enormous debt for
expensive,
unfinished, and generally unproductive
canals. She
was without any system of finance
either as to banks
or taxation and her system of common
schools was rudi-
mentary."49 It would be too much to attribute the
amelioration of these conditions to any
one man. How-
ever, in the matter of banking at
least, even the most
conservative Democrats have little to
say against the
program that had been strongly
advocated by Ford in
the Whig Party. Chase refers to it with
approval in
his correspondence.50
On the matter of currency, Mr. Ford
believed that
the state should establish and maintain
a banking sys-
tem that would furnish a uniform
currency. To this
end he worked during his period of
legislative activity
along with the leaders of his party.
The Baltimore Sun
says of the Ohio banking system in
1848: "The State
Bank of Ohio has become the most
important money
institution on this continent. With
thirty-seven branch-
es covering the whole State all bound
together with
one common interest, and in all
important respects all
48
Riddle, Albert G., "A History of Geauga County."
49 Ibid.
50 Dodson, loc. cit.
Vol. XXXVI--18.
274
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
governed by one head, the Board of
Control, it now is-
sues five and a half millions of
currency and sustains
an accommodation line, in the way of
notes and bills
discounted, of several millions, holds
two millions of
specie, and has a cash capital of three
million, four hun-
dred thousand."51 The
Board of Control consisted of
a president and delegate from each
branch of the State
Bank and had care over the affairs of
the respective
branches for the faithful
administration of which all
of them were jointly and severally
liable. The State
Bank issued paper only through its
branches. A rule
was adopted at the meeting of the Board
of Control on
July 18, 1848, requiring each branch to
keep on hand
in its own vaults the amount of gold
and silver coin re-
quired by law as a basis of its issue.52
This rule was
alleged to dispense with the necessity
of deposits in
Eastern Banks as a basis of
circulation. The stand of
Weller and the Democratic press on the
subject of banks
has already been the subject of
consideration. At a
late session of the State Legislature,
a law had been
passed forbidding any officer of the
State Banks of Ohio
to pay out over his counter bills of any
bank located
outside the State of Ohio. The
Democrats used this
law to rebuke the Whigs who had
supported a state
system by the argument that it would
keep out of the
State of Ohio doubtful paper from the
banks of other
states.53 Exemption from
taxation for the State Bank
bills of Ohio and certain other
discrimination in regard
to taxing bank property, which
proceeding had been
urged by the Whigs for the same reason,
was likewise
51 Baltimore Sun quoted in Ohio State Journal, July 17, 1848.
52 Ibid., July 18, 1848.
53 Ohio Statesman, March
8, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 275
criticised as failing to produce the
desired result. The
Democratic state platform contained
condemnation of
this alleged favoritism. It is
significant that the organ
of the Whig State Central Committee, in
its report of
the resolutions, omits this clause of
the platform, while
it appears in the report of the Ohio
Statesman.54
After the failure of the Wooster Bank,
the Whig
press engaged in an amusing controversy
with the
Democratic papers as to which party was
responsible
for the charter and general legislation
under which it
was organized.55 It appears
from these charges and
countercharges, inasmuch as neither
denies facts
brought forth by the other, that Whigs
participated in
the chartering of the Bank and later in
the relaxing of
the rule requiring that transfers of
stock be made only
on the books, in favor of the Wooster
institution. Laws
regarding banking for which the Whigs
received credit
were those requiring that individual
liability of stock-
holders obtain,56 that
deposits be held in eastern banks
to cover drafts, and that certain
safeguards be taken
concerning the transfer of bank
stock.57 The individual
liability clause was inserted, so the
Whigs declared,
under Democratic pressure, and they
hastened to charge
that the Wooster stockholders were
themselves busy
decrying the bank's paper so that they
might buy it at
a debased value.58 To all
these charges made against
their ideas on state banking and
finance the Democrats
had replied by nominating "hard
money Weller" and
54 Ohio Statesman, January
10, 1848. See also, Ohio State Journal,
January 10, 1848.
55 Ohio Statesman, April 18,
1848.
56 Ohio. Acts of a General
Nature, 1843-1844.
57 Ibid., loc. cit.
58 Ohio State Journal, May 2, 1848.
276 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
turning down Judge Wood because he was
not "hard"
enough.59 If, however, the
State Banking system of
Ohio deserved any of the praise so
abundantly bestowed
on it by the Baltimore Sun there
is no doubt that some
of that praise went also to the credit
of Ford.
The views of the Whig candidate for
governor on
state policy were largely a matter of
record. He came
from the Reserve and the Democratic
press does not
charge him with general opinions on
slavery in its
local aspect, that are in any way
different from those
of his section. Weller on this point,
however, may be
justly charged with having straddled
the local issue and
at least with having followed Cass on
the national issues
if he did not agree with every respect
of his doctrine. It
could hardly be expected of him that he
would be in
favor of repealing the Black Laws. Ford
was not so
definite on national questions, no more
definite than
was Taylor. His silence seemed too
profound to be en-
tirely genuine. His adversaries
affected to translate it
in the way most satisfactory to their
ambitions. The
difference in the maneuvers of the two
candidates is
clear. Weller attempted to please both the
northern and
southern parts of the state on slavery
and the Black
Laws, but in general stayed with the
leader of the na-
tional ticket on federal issues. Ford's
stand on local
issues was a matter of record but on
political policies
and candidates he chose to be silent.
The practical point
involved concerns the relative merits
of silence and dis-
simulation when one is in close
quarters.
The Democrats in Ohio were urging, on
state mat-
ters, some other policies which tend to
unite them in
59 Ohio State Journal, June 16, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 277
sentiment with a movement that had
begun much earlier
in the East. Taken in connection with
that movement,
the anti-bank stand and the other
matters about to be
mentioned present themselves as part of
a larger design.
The Ohio Statesman thought that
the State ought to
make a new constitution and that that
constitution ought
to contain a clause against state
banks, a reform of the
judiciary, and a clause providing for
the election of more
of the state officers by the people.
Among the officers
mentioned are auditor of state, judges,
clerk of courts,
and board of public works. To these the
friends of the
negro, both Whig and Democratic, added
protective
measures that would dispense with the
Black Laws.60
This program is uniform in being a
consistent de-
mand for more democracy in the state
government. The
anti-bank idea belongs with the other
suggestions for
the reason that in the minds of the
common people gov-
ernment banking was often allied with
corrupt policy.
The defense of the veto on the ground
that the president
is the people's tribune is also
consistent with this posi-
tion. A great number of constitutions
were thus
changed in the western states between the
initiation of
the Equal Rights or Locofoco movement
and 1850. The
persistence of the name
"Locofoco" as applied to the
Ohio Democrats by the Whig papers, is
in itself evi-
dence of this liaison.61 The
proposal for a new constitu-
tion was warmly opposed and even
scouted by the
Whigs.62
A certain impetus was given to this
demand by some
60 Ohio Statesman, March 10, 1848. See also Ohio State Journal, Feb-
ruary 7, 1848.
61 Trimble, Wm., "Diverging
Tendencies in the New York Democracy
in the Period of the Locofocos."
396-421.
62 Ohio State Journal, February 22, 1848.
278 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
events that had occurred in the Ohio
Legislature in
January of 1848. An apportionment bill
was passed by
the Whig House and sent to the Senate
against the op-
position of the Democrats. It provided
for dividing
Hamilton County into two districts for
purposes of rep-
resentation in the State Assembly, in
such a way as to
give the Whigs a certain preponderance.63
The Loco-
focos immediately decried the bill as a
violation of the
State Constitution, which provided for
representatives
and Senators to be "apportioned
among the several
counties according to the number of
white male inhab-
itants above twenty-one years of age in
each."64 This
practice of dividing a county had never
been resorted
to before, but the Whigs claimed that
if the legislature
could unite several counties it might
also divide a single
county. On February 11, when the bill
came up to the
Senate, that body disagreed to certain
amendments
made in the House after the report of
the joint commit-
tee and after the Senate had already
passed the measure
in its original form. A prominent
Democratic Senator,
Dr. Edson B. Olds of Circleville,
immediately left the
Senate.65 The question was
not pressed to a vote at that
time, but came up again on the
fourteenth. The Senate
was about to vote on the question
raised by the House
amendments when fourteen other
Democratic Senators
followed the example of Olds on the
eleventh and with-
drew leaving the body without a quorum.66
The action of the
"Absquatulators," as they were
called, was prompted by the conviction
that the Demo-
63 Ohio
State Journal, February 10, 1848.
64 Ohio Constitution, 1803.
65 Ohio State
Journal, April 13, 1848.
66 Ibid., February
14, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 279
crats were being cheated out of the
dominance which
they enjoyed in Hamilton County, by a
violation of the
constitution of the State. Only two
Democrats remained
in the Senate--Edward Archbold and
Nicholas Spind-
ler. The fifteen repaired to a room in
the American
Hotel where they held an indignation
meeting and took
certain action alleged by the Whig
papers to have been
"revolutionary."67 The bill was signed by the Speaker
of the Senate after its return with the
offensive amend-
ments removed, however, and the Whigs
universally ac-
claimed it as law. The Democratic
papers pointed out
that it had not been passed the second
time, that is, after
its return to the Senate, but had
become law by signa-
ture of the Speaker of the Senate when
that body was
not legally in session. The Whigs
reverted to its pas-
sage in the first instance, when
everything was ap-
proved save the amendments, to prove
its genuineness.68
Feeling ran high and the remarks of the
Democrats
were outrageous and bitter. Colonel
Weller is alleged
to have stated at Eaton that if the
Locofocos succeeded
in getting a majority of the popular
votes of the state
in the elections, they would have a
modification of the
Apportionment Law, "if it had to
be done at the point
of the bayonet."69 A county paper
reports that Mr.
Byers of Wayne County, who was one of
the fif-
teen, avowed that it was their
intention to resist with
force any effort of the Senate to
compel their attend-
ance. While riding home on the
stage-coach, he was
said to have declared that the
"Absquatulators" had
67 Ohio State Journal, March 9, 1848.
68 Ohio State Journal, loc. cit.
69 Cincinnati Gazette, March 11,
1848. See also Dayton Journal and
Eaton Register quoted in Ohio
State Journal, March 13, 1848.
280 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
armed themselves in Room 18, American
Hotel, for
that purpose.70
It would require a very detailed
account to follow
the current of editorial comment on
this move of pro-
test. The Whigs were furious and
charged their ad-
versaries with desiring a bloody
Revolution. They com-
pared the "Absquatulators" to
the Revolutionists then
agitating French politics, referring to
the alleged boss of
the Democratic Party in Ohio as
"Citizen Sammedary,"
and to his colleague whose name was Mat
Martin, as
"Matmartine." Nearly every set of local Whig reso-
lutions drawn up after January 10
contains bitter de-
nunciations of the
"Absquatulators," the nefarious fif-
teen who wanted to overthrow the
government of the
state. Spindler and Archbold were
painted in glorious
settings in the Whig papers while their
Democratic
brethren flayed them as traitors.
Archbold sent out
cards to his constituents defending his
action and charg-
ing the fifteen with servile obedience
to Dr. Olds and
Sam Medary, the latter of whom he
alleged to be the
genius of this doubtful coup.71 The
Democratic stand
is declared with virulence by the Ohio
Statesman. "Ohio
has no apportionment law. The Democratic
members, to
their honor be it spoken, defeated the
damnable tin-pan
project. Let the Whigs elect under it
if they dare;--
let them attempt to carry out this
high-handed and dan-
gerous scheme. But before they do so,
let them inquire
whether such an attempt will be
peacefully submitted to,
or whether it will end in violence and
anarchy."72
On the tenth of May, the irate
Democracy met in
70 Summit
Beacon quoted in Ohio State Journal, March 11, 1848.
71 Cincinnati Gazette, March 15,
1848.
72 Ohio Statesman, March 10, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 281
convention at Columbus to determine
what should be
done in so grave a crisis. They took a
revolutionary
step in imitation of their French
prototypes, by the cre-
ation of a committee which was dubbed
the Committee
of Public Safety. It was composed of
prominent men
from different localities whose task
was to hold the
members of the party in line for the
execution of the
action decided on at Columbus, and to
meet on occasion
to confer for the public good. There
were twenty-one
men in all on this committee, among
them A. E. Wood,
Clement L. Vallandigham, and Sam
Medary.73 Their
resolutions called on Governor Bebb to
convene the Leg-
islature for the passage of an
apportionment law. In
case he failed to do so, the
resolutions recommended
"ulterior measures." The latter expression was then
defined to mean that the Democrats
would vote under
the Whig Apportionment Law, electing as
many of their
legislative candidates as possible.
Then these candidates
were to refuse to serve, which action
would put an end
to the law-making power provided for in
the then Con-
stitution. It would then, the
resolutions stated, devolve
on the sovereign people to frame a new
constitution. In
case of the Governor's refusal,
provision was made to
assemble a state convention in December
to devise means
of sounding the people on the subject
of a new constitu-
tion.74 The language of the
resolutions seems unduly
serious and marked by a frivolous
elevation of tone.
The fact is, many Democrats took
exception to the spirit
of the program, and Mr. Sherer of Ross
County went
73 Ohio
Statesman, May 12, 1848.
74 Resolutions of the Convention
reported in Ohio Statesman, loc. cit.
282
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
on record as opposing the expression,
"ulterior meas-
ures."75
It is not hard to see why the Whigs put
the Demo-
crats to the trouble of a revolution in
order to defend
themselves. It must be remembered that
the complex-
ion of the next state legislature was
not the only stake
involved. At that time the local
legislature chose a host
of State officers now elected by the
people. Moreover,
this was the year for electing a man to
succeed Wm.
Allen, "Ohio's tall Senator."
The Lima Argus reports
that only one Whig was found in
Hamilton County to
defend the Apportionment Law. He said
that "the
Whigs were in a tight place and had to
strain a point
to get out of a bad snap."76
To the Democrats, how-
ever, the whole fiasco seems to have
occurred as a gol-
den opportunity to foist a Locofoco
constitution on the
people. Their most genuine reaction,
perhaps, was one
of bitter resentment, although it is
well known that the
question of a new constitution was
taken up in earnest
a few years later.
Such was the condition of politics in
Ohio when in
midsummer the prospect of a third party
loomed up on
the eastern horizon. The Whigs at first
seem to half
welcome the approaching spectre,
fearing the Devil less
for their own sins than for those of
their neighbors.
The Ohio State Journal wrote:
"A terrible punishment
sooner or later awaits the party that
for mere lust of
power, becomes derelict of principle.
Mr. Van Buren,
to the Locofocos, is the embodiment of
that truth which
in 1844 the party abandoned. At first
the little cloud he
rode upon was no bigger than the human
hand but it
75 Ohio State Journal, May 12, 1848.
76 Lima Argus, quoted in Ohio
Statesman, March 10, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 283
reaches now far and wide about the
horizon -- the low
roar in the distant sky is now detected
to be thunder."77
The same paper, however, did not fail
to scourge the
Whig bolters, Root, Campbell, and
Giddings, for their
cruel apostasy, but thought the Free
Soilers would only
draw upon those Democrats who had been
Van Buren
men from the start.78 "There
are thousands in Ohio
who looked toward the Buffalo
Convention with hope,"
he adds, "who since it has acted
will turn their backs
upon the nominee."79
The Free Soilers, however, had
made no promises on the matter, and
their campaign
opened in Columbus with the
establishment of E. S.
Hamlin's Ohio Standard, a paper
at the head of whose
editorial columns appear the names of
Van Buren and
Adams as candidates, together with the
letter of Gen-
eral Jackson recommending the former as
Polk's suc-
cessor.80
Thereafter during the campaign, while
not ceasing
to point out that Van Buren's rod was for
the backs of
the Democrats especially, the Journal
man attacked the
Free Soiler with a virulence too
genuine to be disinter-
ested. Not only did he criticize the
omission of the Dis-
trict of Columbia anti-slavery
declaration in the Buf-
falo platform, but he went back into
the past of "Little
Van" to trot before the public the
dark shades of what
he called a pro-slavery career. Thus
the Whigs put in
evidence Van Buren's inaugural address
as President in
which he opposed the abolition of
slavery in the District
77 Ohio State Journal, August 5, 1848.
78 Ibid., August 1, 1848.
79 Ibid, August 12, 1848.
80 Ohio Standard, August 12, 1848.
284
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
and promised to veto such a bill if
passed.81 Likewise
his vote as Vice-President, when the
Senate was tied on
the bill which permitted a censorship
of the mails in
the interest of the slavery power, was
the subject of
comment.82 The Free Soil
Banner pointed out in answer
to this what was manifestly true, since
the accuser him-
self put it that way, that the vote was
merely a vote of
courtesy to allow the engrossing of the
bill.83 It was
likewise recalled to Giddings that he
had made a speech
in the House bitterly criticising Van
Buren for his ac-
tion in extorting a large sum from the
British govern-
ment in payment for slaves aboard the Comet
and En-
comium.84
The Anti-Slavery people, according to
the tenor of
the Whig press, had prostituted their
integrity and bar-
tered away their principles for the
sake of gain. The
charge of insincerity was freely made
against the Barn-
burners, who in the state of New York
"adhered to all
the ancient absurdities and abuses of
Locofocoism."85
They were, moreover, noticed to be
"absorbing the Abo-
litionists and making an organization
to put into power
their own leaders."86 A
correspondent of the Signal,
the Ohio Barnburner organ, wrote that
the Barnburn-
ers could not support Ford because he
was a bank man,
a Whig, and "thoroughly committed
to the miserable
system of state policy which has
prevailed in Ohio for
the past five years." He decided
also against Weller,
and added that neither could they
support a Liberty
81
Richardson, Jas. D., "Messages and Papers of the
Presidents," Vol.
IV, 1535.
82 Ohio State Journal, August 18,
1848.
83 Hamilton
Free Soil Banner, September 25, 1848.
84 Ohio State Journal, August 17, 1848.
85 Ibid., July 23, 1848.
86 Ohio State
Journal, loc. cit.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 285
candidate if there were one, since the
Liberty men fav-
ored laws preventing the arrest of
fugitive slaves, while
the demand of the Barnburners was for a
law creating
a state independent treasury system.87
The Free Soil-
ers waged an energetic campaign at any
rate, deter-
mined to make themselves felt. In
regard to the Presi-
dency, E. S. Hamlin declared the big
aim to be to throw
the election into the House where he
thought "we might
trust Mr. Van Buren to do the rest by
cheating," an
evident pleasantry which was repeated
in several
towns.88
In this campaign of publicity for the
Free Soil
Party, Chase was exceedingly active. On
the twenty-
fourth of July, with Keith, he
addressed a meeting in
the Market House at Columbus in which
he labored to
prove that the Whigs of the North were
not bound by
the action of the Party, and spoke of
having heard at
meetings of both the old parties free
territory spoken of
as a policy of each.89 Later
in the campaign, he toured
the Reserve in an effort to detach the
Whigs and Demo-
crats there from their allegiance. At
the same time Gid-
dings was in the Miami Valley on the
same errand. Ac-
cording to the Whig press, neither was
meeting with the
success anticipated.90 Chase
admitted that his attempts
to detach the Democrats on the Reserve
from their
moorings were not very much
appreciated, and assigned
as the reason that the Free Soil Whigs
whom Corwin
tempted back encouraged many of the
Barnburners to
drop back to Cass.91 The
failure in regard to the Demo-
87 Cincinnati Signal, quoted in Ohio
State Journal, August 10, 1848.
88 Ohio State Journal, August 7,
1848.
89 Ibid., July 25, 1848.
90 Ibid., October 4, 1848.
91 Dodson, loc. cit.
286 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
crats seems to have been the most
surprising feature in
Chase's own mind.
As to the general situation in regard
to the governor-
ship, it, like everything else, was
highly speculative at
this time. Ford's reticence continued
despite the efforts
of the Democratic press to force
statements from him.
To the eager interrogatories of such
papers as the Ohio
Statesman and the Cleveland Plain Dealer about how he
intended to vote he replied with sphinx
like composure
that he "would vote by
ballot."92 George Fries, a Demo-
cratic congressman, writing to Howell
Cobb of condi-
tions in Ohio, thus treated the
possibilities of Ford:
"Weller thinks, and all
appearances now indicate, that
Ford's prospects are daily declining.
He, thus far, has
not dared to define his position. Let
him do that either
for Taylor or Van Buren and the game is
up."93 He
mentioned also having toured the
Reserve with Weller
and having attended with him the
largest mass meeting
he ever saw, at Youngstown. Here he
says he was as-
sured by the best men of "our
party" that while Van
Burenism was eating out the vitals of
Whiggery, "it
would take it as long to fatten off
what it gets from De-
mocracy as it would have required those
asses to have
fattened, that are said in the Good Old
Book to have
snuffed up the east wind."94 Early
in July, Chase had
written to Ford in order to draw from
him a statement
as to "his present anomalous
position in regard to Gen-
eral Taylor," a pose which was
causing the Free Soilers
to resolve to withhold support from the
Whig candidate.
He urged upon Ford the danger of his
position and the
92 Ohio State Journal, August 11, 1848.
93 Phillips, op. cit., 124-125.
94 Phillips, loc. cit.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 287
risk that he was running in losses from
both sides on
the slavery issue.95
Meantime the Whigs were busy
demonstrating, as
has been already pointed out, the rapprochement
which
they affected to see between the
Democrats and Free
Soilers. An editor of a Whig paper
mentioned having
met members of the Free Democracy who
were candid
enough to admit that they had no hopes
of electing Van
Buren, and who freely acknowledged that
a vote for
him was a vote for Cass.96
This statement was also
accredited to Hamlin, who of the two
old party candi-
dates was reported to have said that he
preferred Cass.97
In support of this alleged conspiracy,
the Whig press
of Columbus referred sarcastically to
the manifestations
of friendship between Medary and John
Van Buren on
the occasion of the latter's visit to
that city. This seems
rather unlikely for there is no reason
to believe that the
Van Burens would want to go out of
their way to elect
Cass. It is more logical to believe
that they would have
preferred to elect Taylor if they were
at all influenced by
personal motives. Moreover, in Portage
County,98 to
use one example, and in other quarters
of which men-
tion will be made later, there were
many instances of
Whigs and Free Soilers uniting on the
same candidates,
whereas few examples of the alignment
of Democrats
and Free Soilers were mentioned in the
press of any
of the parties. One other ambition of
the Free Soilers
appeared in a letter to the Cincinnati Herald,
and it in-
dicated that they were no more asleep
on certain mat-
95 Dodson, op. cit. 125.
96 Ohio State Journal, September 7, 1848.
97 Ibid., August 8, 1848.
98 Ohio State
Journal, August 28, 1848.
288
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ters than the proponents of the
Apportionment Law.
It stated as follows: "Every
member of the next legis-
lature from the Reserve, will be a Van
Buren man.
Holding the balance of power as they
will, I trust that
the place William Allen has occupied
heretofore in the
United States Senate will be filled by
a Free Soil man,
such a man as Giddings, Chase, Tappan,
Campbell, or
Delano."99
Early in October the state election was
held, and it
revealed some conditions that put out
the flame of
speculation on some of these matters.
When the earlier
returns had come in on the fourteenth,
it was seen that
the election had been a close one. The Ohio
State Jour-
nal was claiming a plurality of 3,033 for Ford on the
basis of these incomplete returns, and
that the Senate
would be equally balanced between Whigs
and Loco-
focos, while in the House there would
be a Whig major-
ity of four.100 It will be seen,
however, that this state-
ment was made on the premises most
favorable to Whig
pretensions. On the sixteenth, that
paper was willing to
concede the possibility of Weller's
election, but repeated
its former convictions regarding the
Senate and the
House.101 By October 20th,
the Anti-Slavery Bugle had
practically accepted the election of
Weller, and hoped
"that if such be the case it will
teach Ford that keeping
mum is a poor policy."102
The official return of the figures of
the election was
published October 27, 1848, and showed
a narrow plu-
rality for Ford, although the Democrats
continued to
99 Cincinnati Herald, quoted
in Ohio State Journal, September 13, 1848.
100 Ohio State Journal, October
14, 1848.
101 Ibid.,
October 16, 1848.
102 Anti-Slavery Bugle, October 20, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 289
claim the election for Weller on the
basis of alleged
irregularities until the inauguration
of the new gov-
ernor.103 This report gave
Ford 148,666 votes to Wel-
ler's 148,321, or a plurality of 345
votes. These figures
are used by Mr. Smith, and were taken
by him from
the Cleveland True Democrat of
December, 1848.104
Thus Ford carried thirty-nine counties
and in some of
them his margin was very small indeed.
His adversary
carried forty-four counties. Among them
were Ham-
ilton, Wayne, Stark, Richland, all
counties with fairly
heavy populations. In 1846, Bebb had
likewise carried
thirty-nine counties but out of a
smaller total number.
His plurality was 2,385, not at all
large, but larger than
that of Ford.105 On the Reserve, Ford
carried Ashta-
bula, Cuyahoga, Erie, Geauga, Huron,
Lake, Lorain,
Medina, Portage, and Trumbull counties.
Mahoning
and Summit, Ashland and Ottawa, he
lost, but they
were counties large portions of which
were outside the
Reserve. His plurality in the different
Reserve coun-
ties did not much vary from that of
Bebb and in Huron
county it was exactly the same.
The study of these figures shows one
thing clearly
-- that Ford had not received the
anticipated gains that
the Whigs had believed would come from
the Free Soil-
ers, who between Weller and Ford, it
would seem, ought
to choose the latter. He had not
committed himself suf-
ficiently to justify Free Soil
Democrats of the Free Soil
ranks in voting for him, according to
their own judg-
ment. The voters had therefore remained
largely in
103 Report of election returns over
name of Sam'l Galloway, Secretary
of State, in Ohio State Journal, October
27, 1848.
104
Smith, op. cit., 153.
105 Smith, loc. cit.
Vol. XXXVI--19.
290 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
their old attachments. Such would seem
to be the only
possible inference. As for Weller, his
position was suf-
ficiently known to enable him to profit
by the strength
of his national leader.
CHAPTER V
A CONSIDERATION OF THE ELECTION RETURNS
The effect of these state figures on
the Whigs in
Ohio was the same as that of a bolt of
lightning on
the senses of a torpid sleeper. It
became clear to them
that the plain truth of the situation
was that the Free
Soilers had not drawn so heavily from
the Democrats
after all. They felt themselves
betrayed, outraged, and
duped, having tickled their vanity with
the false hope
of gains for Ford and the Whigs from
the weakening
of the Locofocos by the Free Soil eddy.1
Casting about
for reasons acceptable to their self
respect, the Whigs
tried to make it appear that more Free
Soilers had voted
for Weller than for Ford.2 Since
Weller's position on
slavery was well known, this is a
manifest absurdity.
The facts seem to show that, aided by a
large part of
the Free Soil votes, the Whig candidate
was just able
to win and nothing more. It was thus
conceivable that
many Free Soilers who had been formerly
Whigs, and
had voted for Ford because he was
considered to repre-
sent the lesser of the two evils, would
now go for Van
Buren. The only possibility that could
check that move
would be the survival of an early Whig
antipathy to the
"Little Magician." The only
conclusion that bears the
1 Ohio State Journal, October 21, 1848.
2 Ibid., November 2, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 291
appearance of justification is that the
dominance of the
Whigs in Ohio, a matter of record since
1836, was weak-
ening; that the history of the period
was witnessing the
senility and approaching decay of a
party. How else
may the drop from a plurality of three
thousand odd
in BeLb's campaign to three hundred odd
in Ford's case
be explained, especially when the
presumption naturally
is that Ford's vote contained some Free
Soil constitu-
ency? For how could anyone who was
consistently a
Free Soiler, either Locofoco or Whig,
vote for Weller?
This conclusion appears all the more
accurate when
we take into account the blows that had
already been
delivered against the party, blows the
most dangerous
of which had come from within its own
ranks. In his
biography of Joshua Giddings, George W.
Julian de-
clared that the opposition of that Ohio
Congressman
to the speakership of Robert Winthrop
in the House was
the beginning of the crumbling of Whig
integrity.3
Color is lent to that view by the
rancid bitterness with
which the party organs rebuke Giddings.
He had vis-
ited Massachusetts in company with
Campbell, Profes-
sor Mahan, and other Free Soilers and
opponents of
Taylor, and had gone into Mr.
Winthrop's district
"where," so states the Ohio
State Journal, "a little re-
flection might have convinced him that
he was unwel-
come."4 The Free Soil
papers, however, applauded his
action in causing the defeat of the
Massachusetts man.5
The attitude of Root and Campbell has
already been
the subject of comment. The latter will
be observed to
have been a consistent adversary of the
Philadelphia
3 Julian,
Geo. W., "Life of Joshua Giddings," 255-257.
4 Ohio State Journal, July 24, 1848.
5 Anti-Slavery Bugle, January 21, 1848.
292
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
nominee from the important hour of the
meeting in the
Museum lecture-room to the eve of the
national election.
His career during 1848 bears a great
resemblance to
that of Giddings. Both are marked by
great integrity,
both are energetic and successful in
politics, and both
base their ambitions firmly on the rock
of their con-
stituents' affections. It is
significant, also, that they
came out triumphant in their candidacy
for the House
in the election of 1848. It has already
been pointed out
that Campbell united in his following
both old-line
Whigs and Free Soilers.6 Although
the Whig papers
were malicious and vindictive in their
criticism of Gid-
dings, yet they affected to
congratulate him on receiv-
ing the Whig nomination for Congress,
daring to hope
that he would find Taylor more
acceptable than Van
Buren.7 Taken together with
similar alignments on
candidates in Portage and other
counties and the oft-
repeated counsels of the Free Soil
press to its constitu-
ents not to waste their votes on men
who couldn't be
elected, these circumstances prove
another point.8 They
tend to show that the Whig plaints
about betrayal by the
Free Soilers are mere sophistry.
As a result of the unexpected outcome
in October,
Ohio became the cynosure of Whig eyes
all over the
nation. All was anxiety and activity
and the air was
full of cries beseeching help for the
party in Ohio.
Horace Greeley had sulked in his tent
after the defeat
of Clay -- had gone back "across
New Jersey alone and
on foot," full of bitter memories
of the Philadelphia
6 Free Soil Banner, August 21, 1848.
7 Ohio State Journal, August 25,
1848.
8 Free Soil Banner, August 21, 1848,
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 293
coup.9 His wounds grew better during the summer,
however, and his reply to the Ohio
State election was
a long and eloquent letter calling on
the Whigs of the
Buckeye commonwealth to gird their
loins for action.
This letter was published broadcast in
the papers and
the country was flooded with copies of
the New York
Tribune. "Will one of you sleep sweeter or sounder,
in the blaze of the bonfires, amid the
roar of the can-
non proclaiming that Ohio has cast her
vote with South
Carolina and Texas, and that your
Jacobins may now
proceed to overturn your laws and take
possession of
your state government by violence and
intimidation --
by nullification and the sword?"10
Orators were im-
ported from Kentucky to declare, as did
Governor Met-
calfe at London, that they
"understood the fact that
General Taylor would not veto a Wilmot
Proviso and
were going to vote for him
anyway."11 If Congress
chose to limit slavery to its present
location he was
willing to abide by that behest. Seward
came from New
York to make a hasty tour of Ohio in
the interests of
the party. Truman Smith, Chairman of
the National
Executive Committee, sent a circular
into Ohio sagely
ordering the Whigs to "enter into
no controversy on
the subject of Free Soil, for
controversy is what the agi-
tators desire."12 In a
public letter to D. Gregory, of
Delaware County, he bitterly attacked
Giddings for hav-
ing charged, according to information
which had come
to him, that he (Smith) and Crittenden
of Kentucky
were the actual authors of the Allison
Letter.13 He drew
9 Dyer, op. cit.
10 Ohio State Journal, November 13, 1848.
11 Ibid., October 9, 1848.
12 Anti-Slavery Bugle, October 20, 1848.
13 Ohio State Journal, November
1, 1848.
294
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
a fearful bill of particulars against
the Cuyahoga man's
record in the House and went on to
advise him that he
was really standing for Cass in
supporting Van Buren.
A public letter of Giddings had charged
Smith with hav-
ing supported the Amistad decision.
He replied to this
in a public letter which was bitter,
malicious, and prac-
tically insulting, but did not come to
the point on the
real issue of the correspondence. In a
reply Giddings
simply repeated his charges.14 It
is not easy to over-
estimate the importance of Giddings in
this campaign.
One cannot fail to be impressed with
his activity, and
with the exactness with which he spoke
the voice of his
constituency, nor is it possible to
forget his strong sense
of probity.
He threw himself heart and soul into
the struggle,
going everywhere to make speeches,
writing letters to
the press, and exerting himself in
every conceivable way
to bring about the triumph of his
principles. The men
whom he had to meet on the Whig side
were Corwin,
Ewing, Delano, and other important
figures. In a way
he seems to have been, after the
October election, the
especial object of attack. Even in his own district,
where history gives much evidence of
the esteem in which
he was held, his old teacher, Elijah
Whittlesey, charged
him with having received illegal
mileage while in Con-
gress. This charge was printed on
leaflets and dis-
tributed all over the Cuyahoga
District. His biographer
points out that it was not until 1857
that he was able to
disprove the assertion. The reason for
this concerted
attack on him by the Whigs is not far
to seek. Giddings
in a certain way represented the past,
present, and fu-
14 Julian, loc. cit.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 295
ture of the Free Soil Party, the group
which the venom-
ous Whig papers held to account for the
near defeat of
Ford.
They sent out scores of orators to
address meetings
in all parts of the state, every day
and evening. These
men varied in calibre from the two
penny stumpers to
great men like Ewing, Goddard, and
Corwin. The pa-
pers published their itineraries weeks
in advance of
their appearance. Their assaults
together with those
of the party newspapers were directed
with great vio-
lence against Van Buren. It was even
published of
him, besides matters heretofore
referred to regarding
his political record, that he was
himself interested in a
Southern plantation and drew a handsome
income from
the investment.15 The charge
appeared also that he
was, as his Barnburner constituency was
declared to
be, at heart with the Democrats. He was even de-
scribed by the Whigs as conspiring to
elect Cass -- a
purely local and illogical view. In
support of it, the
Ohio State Journal pointed to the many grievous re-
sults of the Free Soil apostasy.
Discussing the defeat
of Mr. Duncan, Whig candidate for
Congress and op-
ponent of slavery extension, by
Sweetser, the Locofoco
candidate, and the defeat of Edwards in
Pickaway by
Edson B. Olds, the
"Absquatulator," he said the Free
Soilers were to blame for both
conditions. He added
that the defeated candidates were as
good Free Soil
men as either Root or Giddings. The
votes given for
Birney in 1844 effected this result for
the Whig na-
tional ticket, and there was no reason
to expect any-
thing different at this time, since the
conditions were
15 Julian, loc. cit.; also in
Smith, op. cit., 152.
|
296 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications the same.16 Of the Free Soil Party in general the editor continued: "It does not elect its own candidates but it interferes in such a manner as to prevent the election of all who support its doctrines. It borrows a |
|
|
|
doctrine of the Whig Party, which that party has kept in operation for a half century and attempts to patent it. It seeks to elect a people's President by the votes of a minority of the people."17 16 Ohio State Journal, October 17, 1848. 17 Ibid. |
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 297
By many of his adversaries, Thomas
Corwin, Ohio's
favorite son, was considered the most
effective of the
Whig campaigners. His biographer speaks
of Cor-
win's eloquence as of the histrionic
type which, with his
well-known humor, must have made him
valuable to
his party on a stumping tour. He was
thrown into the
fight with great force, and his energy
on behalf of the
Whigs was like that of Giddings for the
Free Soilers.
During the summer months of 1848, he
was everywhere
in Ohio. He worked on the Reserve;18
he was at Leb-
anon and Cincinnati; he made speeches
at Columbus,
Cleveland, Elyria, Mansfield, and a
number of smaller
towns.19 His famous speech
against the Mexican War
had added to his popularity and made
him as welcome
in Massachusetts as in Ohio.20 He
defended Taylor
and Taylor's stand on the Wilmot
Proviso. With views
approaching those of McLean, he went
over the length
and breadth of the Western Reserve
asserting over
and over again: "I know he will
not veto the Proviso."21
Chase admitted that he made some gains
on the Free
Soilers and that he was hard to meet.
At Cleveland
hand-bills were circulated by the
Locofocos charging
him with treason and his adversaries
dubbed him "Tay-
lor's chief jackal in Ohio."22
An address at a meeting in Ashland is
typical of
his answers to the opponents of Taylor.
It is likewise
as clear an argument as could be made
to persuade a
northern man of either party to vote
for "Old Zach."
He made the open statement that he knew
General Tay-
18 Ohio State Journal, October 18, 1848.
19 Ibid., October 20, 1848.
20 Ibid., August 15, 1848.
21 Dodson, op. cit., 143-145.
22 Anti-Slavery Bugle, October 20, 1848.
298
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
lor was opposed to the extension of
slavery. A certain
Austin, being present, asked if it were
not true that
Southern men urged his election because
he was said
to be in favor of the extension of
slavery. Corwin ad-
mitted that. Then he went on to say
that if General
Taylor should publish his opinions in
favor of the Pro-
viso, he would not get a southern vote;
if he published
opinions against it, he would not receive
a northern
vote. He was then asked if "we
were to be made the
dupes of the southern men." He
replied that he could
not answer, but that as for himself,
"he was not de-
ceived." To these thoughts he
added the argument that
"since we are equally divided into
slave and free states
and as the whole South would vote
against the Wilmot
Proviso, no law embracing the
principles of the Ordi-
nance of 1787 could be passed in the
Senate, unless we
had a Northern vice-president to give
the casting vote."
He further declared that to vote for
Van Buren was to
vote for Cass by indirection. This
presentation of the
situation seems not far from accurate.
The alternatives
before the voter who opposed the
extension of slavery
were to vote for Van Buren, who could
not possibly be
elected unless an improbable fortune
should throw the
election into the House, or to vote for
Taylor, trusting
that he was right on the Proviso -- to
take a chance.
The former proceeding added a second
element of risk
dependent on the currents of sentiment
in the House,
should the election go there. The
rational man hesi-
tating between two roads, one of which
is attended with
double the risk of the other, knows
which to choose.
The Ashland Sentinel reported,
however, that at the end
of the speech the efforts of the Taylor
men to raise ap-
|
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 299 plause for him fell flat and that Ashland County wit- nessed an unusual thing -- a crowd that had to be in- vited to cheer Tom Corwin.23 Recalling that Ashland County had gone for Weller, it is clear that a shady |
|
|
|
sentiment lay behind this lack of demonstration, for there is no doubt that the Whig Senator was presenting the beau cote of his cause. So powerful was his pres- tige, despite the unpopularity of his arguments at Ash- 23 Free Soil Banner, October 10, 1848. |
300
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
land, that the Locofocos charged him
with receiving
twenty-five thousand dollars for
stumping Ohio.
On November 9, the campaign came to an
end.
154,775 votes were cast for Cass,
138,360 for Taylor,
and 35,354 for Van Buren.24 Cass'
plurality over Tay-
lor was 16,415; his plurality over Van
Buren was 119,
421, while Taylor's plurality over the
Free Soiler was
103,006. If half the Free Soil vote of
the Little Magi-
cian, in Ohio, had gone to Taylor he would
have de-
feated Cass by the slight plurality of
1,262 votes. It
may be presumed that much more than
half of Van
Buren's vote came from the ranks of the
Anti-Slavery
Whigs, for in 1844, when the vote of
the Liberty Party
in Ohio was only 8,050, the Whig
plurality over Polk
was yet 5,940. In 1840 the Whig
plurality had been
23,000 odd over the Democrats with a
tiny abolition
vote of 903. These figures show that
the Whig vote
had suffered a steady decline, and the
fact alone of
the increase of the third party vote
from 1840 to 1848
is of some importance in explaining it,
especially when
taken in connection with the growing
respectability of
anti-slavery sentiments.
The consideration of the returns and a
comparison
of them with those of earlier elections
reveal many in-
teresting facts. In 1848, 41,502 more
votes were cast
in the presidential election than were
cast in the guber-
natorial election. In the state
election of 1842 the Lib-
erty men had held the balance of power.
That condi-
tion had appeared in every election for
Governor down
to 1848 when there was no third party
candidate. In
24 These figures are taken as given in
Smith, op. cit., 155 f. They are
reported also as follows: Taylor,
138,356; Cass, 154,783, and Van Buren
35,374, in Ohio State Journal, November
24, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 301
1844, when the Whigs elected Thomas
Bartley to the
Governorship by a plurality of 1,322,
King, the Liberty
candidate, had polled 8,441 votes.25
In the state elec-
tion of 1846 the plurality of Governor
Bebb had been
2,368, while Sam Lewis, Liberty
candidate, had polled
10,799.26 There is no doubt that Bebb
would have been
beaten had it not been for his speeches
on the Re-
serve in support of the repeal of the
Black Laws.27 Ford
made no such speeches in support of the
Wilmot Pro-
viso. The large numerical difference
between the presi-
dential and gubernatorial votes in the
year 1848 raises
the suspicion that many men of
anti-slavery or Free
Soil tendencies refused to vote at all.
The third party vote had increased from
8,050 in
1844 to more than four times that
figure in 1848. To
understand that change it must be kept
in mind that
the third party movement had become
broader. The
Barnburner bolt had brought it an
unexpected accre-
tion from the side of the Democrats.
The activities of
James W. Taylor and the Ohio delegates
to the Utica
Convention indicate that this defection
was very per-
ceptible in the State. The attraction
of certain policies
in the Free Soil platform such as the
unrestricted grant
of public lands was capable of uniting
wage-earners in
the East with the men of the Northwest
even though
both might be indifferent to slavery as
a moral issue.28
25 Smith, op. cit. f. 76.
26 Ibid., 93.
27 Ibid., f. 80.
28 In
the period of the later forties, Horace Greeley was the chief
champion of free lands for the workers
from the Public Lands of the West.
The argument was based on the alleged
"natural right to land" inherent in
the individual. Homestead limitations
were contemplated as a method of
assuring his share to the individual.
Many of the fathers of the Republican
Party in Wisconsin belonged to this
movement -- among them Alvin Bovay.
"Only because slavery could not
exist in one-hundred-sixty acre farms did
302
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
The Democratic revolt, however, did not
assume pro-
portions in Ohio that were dangerous to
the party. The
fact is clear that the rebellion was
much more harmful
to the Whig Party, for the reason that
its vote in 1848
fell below that of 1844.
Yet if the Democrats did not
predominate in the
Free Soil movement they undoubtedly
added something.
On the Reserve there was bitter
aversion to Van Buren.
The Cleveland True Democrat declared
that the vote
there would have been 10,000 higher for
Hale, McLean
or any man other than Van Buren.29
The diminution
in the total vote on the Reserve from
1844 to 1848 was
8,474 and must have been composed of
disappointed
Whigs and Liberty men. Outside the
Reserve, not a
single county went for Van Buren. The
small groups
in the various counties may have
contained some Demo-
crats but it is pretty safe to say that
the Free Soilers
gained in New York because of the
nature of their can-
didate and lost more in Ohio than they
might have ex-
pected for the same reason. Chase
thought the low
vote in the State at large to be due to
the activities of
Corwin and the other Whig orators whose
work in Oc-
tober has been referred to.30 Such
a conclusion, if just,
tends simply to show the tenacity of
party associations.
Many strange results showed themselves
in the
House contest in the State, for the
reason that the Ap-
portionment Law dividing Hamilton
County confused
the election. The Democrats voted for
their usual num-
ber of representatives from Hamilton
County and the
the Republican Party come into contact
with slavery." -- Commons, J. R.,
"Horace Greeley and the Working
Class Origins of the Republican Party"
in Political Science Quarterly. V.
24, 488-489.
29 Smith, op. cit., 155.
30 Also Dodson, op. cit. Letter
of Chase to Sumner, November 27, 1848
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 303
Whigs followed the provisions of the
new law choosing
their men from the designated
districts. The result was
that two Locofocos, Pugh and Pierce,
presented them-
selves for the two seats which the
Whigs claimed for
Spencer and Runyan. The clerk of
Hamilton County
issued certificates of election to both
couples so that
the settlement of the difficulty was
left to the House of
Representatives in determining the
qualifications of its
members. The difference persisted for
an unduly long
time, both parties resorting to all
sorts of subterfuge
in order to seat their claimants as
representatives from
Hamilton County. After resolutions had
been offered
and lost to seat each set of
representatives,31 January
26, 1848, Pugh and Pierce, the Locofoco
claimants,
were seated,32 probably on
the ground that the Whig
Apportionment Law was unconstitutional.
The com-
mittee rendered a minority report,
however, prepared by
the Whigs.33 There were
several other contested elec-
tions of minor importance some of which
had to be held
over again in order to be legal. The
gubernatorial re-
sults were hotly contested by the
Democrats on the basis
of irregularities and voting which was
not sufficiently
clear in indicating the purpose of the
voter. For in-
stance, the Senate Committee was called
on to judge of
the efficacy of a poll sheet which
indicated a certain
number of votes in Crawford County, for
"Seabury."34
On January 22, 1844, it was formally
announced to
Mr. Ford that he was elected Governor
of Ohio.35
31 Ohio. Journal
of the House of Representatives, 1849. Forty-seventh
General Assembly, 12.
32 Ibid., January 26, 1849.
33 Ibid., App. 54.
34 Ohio. Senate Journal of the
State of Ohio, 1849. Forty-seventh
General Assembly, 109.
35 Ibid., 164.
304
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
During the debating of these matters,
the demonstra-
tions became almost lawless at times
and the newspa-
pers regaled their readers with the
depraved language
of the legislators.
The part of Ohio in the political
molding of this
period cannot be gainsaid. For the Free
Soil movement,
she furnished two guiding spirits --
Chase and Gid-
dings. For the principle which served
as issue in na-
tional affairs it is rather clear that
an Ohio Congress-
man was responsible. Mr. Persinger
says, on the au-
thority of R. T. Stevenson, of Ohio
Wesleyan Univer-
sity, that the original draft of the
Wilmot Proviso is in
the possession of the Brinkerhoff
family and in the
handwriting of Jacob Brinkerhoff, who
first drafted it
to be introduced by David Wilmot.36
The movement of
Ohio politics about this great
principle was used as an
agent to assemble the variant forces of
the East and
North that were ready for a third party
of some kind
because they were tired of pro-slavery
persiflage. The
point of departure for that movement
was the Colum-
bus Free Territory Convention, which
resulted largely
from the efforts of Chase. It was the
link between
Philadelphia and Buffalo. Another
result of this period
was the unexpected outcome of the
election of an Ohio
Senator. Fate left the balance of power
in the Ohio Sen-
ate in the hands of Morse and
Townshend, two Free
Soilers elected by Free Soilers alone.
They were induced
to join their force with certain Whigs
and Democrats
to accomplish the election of Chase.
Ewing and Gid-
dings were before that body as
candidates, but Ewing
could not meet the approval of the
Democrats and Gid-
36 Persinger, C. E., "The Bargain
of 1844," Vol. 1, 171.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 305
dings was persuaded that his path of duty lay in the
House.37 The election of Chase placed in
the Senate
another anti-slavery senator and at the same time ele-
vated a man whose star was rising in politics. If the
immediate outcome of the struggles of 1848 in Ohio ran
counter to the general current in the nation, the men
of
the state were morally progressive and helped in no
small
degree to determine the direction of future currents.
RETURNS OF STATE ELECTION OF 1848 BY COUNTIES
Ford Weller
Adams .................................. 1,295 1,553
Allen .................................. 685 954
Ashland ................................. 1,316 2,342
Ashtabula ............................... 3,405 936
Athens ................................ 1,639 1,280
Auglaize ................................. 379 955
Belmont ................................. 3,169 2,798
Brown .................................. 1,871 2,330
Butler ................................... 2,150 3,574
Carroll .................................. 1,596 1,385
Champaign
............................... 1,940 1,446
Clark
................................... 2,407 1,340
Clermont ................................ 2,142 2,640
Clinton .................................. 1,949 1,108
Columbiana .............................. 2,288 2,739
Coshocton ............................... 1,574 2,095
Crawford ................................ 835 1,558
Cuyahoga ................................ 3,329 2,290
Darke ................................... 1,608 1,580
Defiance ................................. 308 468
Delaware ................................ 2,205 2,006
Erie
..................................... 1,392 1,112
Fairfield ................................. 2,066 3,573
Fayette .................................. 1,147 904
Franklin ................................. 2,885 2,934
*Gallia
Geauga .................................. 2,005
897
37 Smith, op.
cit., 171.
* Figures for Gallia County not now available.
Vol. XXXVI.--20.
306 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
RETURNS OF STATE ELECTION OF 1848 BY COUNTIES
--Continued
Ford Weller
Greene
.................................. 2,192 1,264
Guernsey ................................ 2,525 2,569
Hamilton ................................ 8,307 9,930
Hancock ................................. 868 1,320
Hardin .................................. 557 544
Harrison ................................ 2,005 1,678
Henry
................................... 222 289
Highland
................................ 2,212 2,121
Hocking ................................. 707 1,228
Holmes .................................. 989 2,002
Huron ................................... 2,135 1,682
Jackson .................................. 824 1,069
Jefferson ................................. 2,374 2,358
Knox .................................. 2,288 3,224
Lake .................................... 1,606 715
Lawrence ................................ 948 676
Licking .................................. 3,269 3,438
Logan ................................... 1,660 1,064
Lorain .................................. 2,155 1,521
Lucas ................................... 1,239 1,126
Madison ................................. 1,259 691
M ahoning
................................ 1,269 2,069
Marion .................................. 1,302 1,460
Medina .................................. 1,926 1,835
Meigs ................................... 1,202 908
Mercer
.................................. 346 539
Miami ................................... 2,435 1,616
Monroe .................................. 1,119 2,218
Montgomery ............................. 3,679 3,436
Morgan .................................. 2,441 2,492
Muskingum
.............................. 4,117 3,167
Ottawa .................................. 173 267
Paulding ................................. 59 162
Perry ................................... 1,287 2,076
Pickaway ................................ 1,994 2,076
Pike
............................. ....... 770 831
Portage
.................................. 2,249 2,234
Preble ................................... 2,204 1,456
Putnam .................................. 323 613
Richland ................................. 2,054 3,484
Ross
.................................... 2,896 2,204
Sandusky
............................... 874 1,074
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 307
RETURNS OF STATE ELECTION OF 1848 BY COUNTIES
--Concluded
Ford Weller
Scioto ................................... 1,509 1,067
Seneca ................................. 1,403 2,071
Shelby ................................... 1,027 1,153
Starke ................................... 2,431 3,288
Summit .................................. 2,489 1,866
Trumbull ................................ 3,069 2,028
Tuscarawas .............................. 2,496 2,359
Union
................................... 1,070 785
Van Wert ................................ 155 320
Warren
.................................. 2,801 1,864
Washington .............................. 2,266 1,823
Wayne .................................. 2,091 3,256
Williams ................................. 269 484
Wood
................................... 562 557
Wyandot ................................. 833 939
This return is taken from the report as published in
the Ohio State
Journal, October
27, 1848, under signature of Sam'l Galloway, Sec'y of State.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1848 -- FIGURES OF THE STATE
OF OHIO RETURNED BY COUNTIES
Taylor Cass
Van Buren
Adams ........................ 1,259 1,690 196
Allen .......................... 728 1,070 2
Ashland ....................... 1,341 2,519 2,467
Ashtabula
..................... 1,124 876 2,467
Athens ........................ 1,846 1,509 320
Auglaize ....................... 457 1,039 14
Belmont ....................... 2,725 2,892 543
Brown ......................... 1,771 2,557 403
Butler ......................... 1,959 3,536 381
Carroll ........................ 1,453 1,395 345
Champaign .................... 1,878 1,508 330
Clark
.......................... 2,506 1,375 204
Clermont ....................... 2,204 2,833 408
Clinton
........................ 1,233 1,122 755
Columbiana .................... 1,850 2,732 865
Coshocton ...................... 1,814 2,422 137
Crawford ...................... 952 1,678 90
Cuyahoga ...................... 1,776 2,368 2,594
Darke ......................... 1,508 1,554 81
308 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1348 -- FIGURES OF THE STATE
OF OHIO RETURNED BY COUNTIES--Continued
Taylor Cass
Van Buren
Defiance ....................... 384 567 23
Delaware ...................... ,866 1,574 268
Erie
........................... 1,409 999 681
Fairfield ....................... 2,438 3,515 42
Fayette ........................ 1,157 946 128
Franklin ....................... 3,199 3,029 284
Gallia ......................... 1,630 1,081 95
Geauga ........................ 872 922 1,373
Greene ........................ 2,035 1,256 644
Guernsey ...................... 2,375 2,504 489
Hamilton ...................... 9,018 10,834 1,968
Hancock ....................... 1,016 1,501 32
Hardin ........................ 596 605 51
Harrison ....................... 1,564 1,658 543
Henry ......................... 217 297 17
Highland ...................... 2,114 2,224 342
Hocking ....................... 856 1,319 23
Holmes ........................ 1,118 2,224 45
Huron ......................... 1,950 1,769 876
Jackson ........................ 987 1,108 50
Jefferson ....................... 2,147 2,231 455
Knox .......................... 1,910 2,890 538
Lake .......................... 777 716 904
Lawrence ...................... 1,164 745 53
Licking ........................ 3,030 3,468 534
Logan ......................... ,652 1,147 276
Lorain ........................ 647 1,473 1,616
Lucas ......................... 1,298 1,197 327
Madison ....................... 1,329 712 80
Mahoning ...................... 720 1,953 1,042
Marion
........................ 1,001 1,193 55
Medina ........................ 1,140 1,836 1,098
Meigs ......................... 1,327 1,014
305
Mercer ........................ 360 641 16
Miami ......................... 2,542 1,822 272
Monroe ....................... 999 2,574 330
Montgomery ................... 3,561 3,331 304
Morgan ........................ 2,320 2,448 314
Morrow ....................... 1,166 1,884 407
Muskingum
.................... 4,427 3,380 428
Ottawa
........................ 90 231 45
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 309
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1848 -- FIGURES OF THE STATE
OF OHIO RETURNED BY COUNTIES--Concluded
Taylor Cass
Van Buren
Paulding ....................... 70 198
Perry .......................... 1,488 2,192 19
Pickaway ...................... 2,115 1,960 24
Pike
........................... 842 909 33
Portage ....................... 1,270 2,149 1,127
Preble
......................... 2,106 1,519 314
Putnam ........................ 402 634 3
Richland ....................... 2,087 3,177 188
Ross .......................... 3,394 2,306 174
Sandusky ...................... 928 1,148 124
Scioto ......................... 1,838 1,268 13
Seneca ........................ 1,536 2,326 483
Shelby ......................... 1,021 1,129 49
Stark .......................... 2,382 3,495 570
Summit ........................ 1,892 1,815
1,058
Trumbull ...................... 1,364 1,951 2,075
Tuscarawas .................... 2,662 2,553 184
Union ......................... 1,030 797 173
Van Wert ...................... 233 381
Warren ........................ 2,526 1,861 402
Washington .................... 2,079 1,930 462
Wayne ........................ 2,284 3,380 190
Williams ....................... 328 515 154
Wood ......................... 647 636 29
Wyandot ........................ 951 1,059 46
This report shows 111 votes for Gerrit Smith electors
-- official re-
turn for State, in Ohio State Journal, November
24, 1848.
310 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Publications of the United
States Government.
Congressional Globe, 108 volumes. Washington 1834-
1873.
Journal of the House of
Representatives, Washington,
1847.
Richardson, James D., A Compilation
of the Messages
and Papers of the Presidents,
1789-1897. 10 volumes.
Washington, 1896-1899.
2.
Publications of the State of Ohio.
Acts of a Local Nature of the Session
of 1834.
Journal of the House of
Representatives of Ohio, 1849,
Forty-seventh General Assembly. Columbus, 1849.
Ohio Laws. Vol. 42.
Reports of the Auditor of State, 1845-1847.
Report, Board of Public Works, 1841-1850.
Senate Journal, State of Ohio, 1849. Columbus, 1849.
Ohio Constitution. Columbus, 1803.
NEWSPAPERS
Anti-Slavery Bugle. Salem and New Lisbon, Ohio.
Cincinnati Gazette.
Cleveland Daily Herald.
Free Soil Banner, Hamilton, Ohio.
Hamilton Intelligencer.
Ohio Press. Columbus.
Ohio State Journal. Columbus.
Ohio Statesman. Columbus.
Ohio Free Standard. Columbus.
Old Zach. Campaign paper published at infrequent intervals
and bound with Scott Battery and
other Papers. Ohio State
Library.
PERIODICAL
Political Science Quarterly, v. 24.
BIOGRAPHIES
Dodson, S. H., "Diary and
Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase"
in Annual Report of the American
Historical Association
for 1903. 2 volumes. Washington, 1903.
Gideon, J. & S. G., A Brief
Review of the Character, Career and
Campaigns of General Zachary Taylor. Washington, 1848.
The Election of 1848 in Ohio 311
Julian, George W., Life of Joshua
Reed Giddings. A. C. Mc-
Clurg & Co., Chicago, 1897.
Lewis, William G. W., Biography of
Samuel Lewis, first State
Superintendent of Schools. Methodist Book Concern, Cin-
cinnati, 1857.
McLaughlin, Andrew C., Life of Lewis
Cass. Houghton, Mifflin
Co., Boston and New York, 1899.
Morrow, Josiah, Life and Speeches of
Thomas Corwin. W. H.
Anderson & Co., Cincinnati, 1896.
Phillips, Ulrich B. "Toombs,
Stephens, Cobb Correspondence" in
Annual Report of the American
Historical Association, 1911.
2 volumes, Washington, 1913.
Schuckers, J. W., The Life and Public
Services of Salmon Port-
land Chase. New York, 1874.
Shepard, E. M., Martin Van Buren. Boston
& New York, 1899.
Warden, Robert B., An Account of the
Private Life and Public
Services of Salmon Portland Chase. Cincinnati, 1874.
LOCAL HISTORIES
Bartlow, B. S., Todhunter, W. H., et
al., A History of Butler
County, Ohio. B. F. Bowen & Co., Hamilton, 1905.
Riddle, Albert G., A History of
Geauga County ,Ohio. Historical
Society of Geauga County,
Painesville, 1880.
MISCELLANEOUS
Commons, J. R. & Associates, History
of Labor in the United
States. The Macmillan Co., 2 volumes, New York, 1918.
Dyer, Oliver, Great Senators. Robert
Bonner's Sons, New York,
1889.
Persinger, Clark E., "The Bargain
of 1844 as the Origin of the
Wilmot Proviso," in Annual Rep.
of the American Historical
Association, 1911. 2 volumes,
Washington, 1913.
Trimble, Wm., "Divergent Tendencies
in the New York Democ-
racy in the Period of the
Locofocos" in American Historical
Review; 1918-1919, vol. 24.
Smith, T. C., "The Liberty and Free
Soil Parties in the North-
west," in Harvard Historical
Studies. Longmans, Green
& Co., New York, 1897.
Wilson, Henry, The Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power in America.
3 volumes. James R. Osgood & Co.,
Boston, 1874.
Woodburn, J. A., Political Parties
and Party Problems in the
United States. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1914.