Ohio History Journal

THE LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS OF OHIO: EXPONENTS

OF ANTISLAVERY COALITION

by JOSEPH G. RAYBACK

Assistant Professor of American History, The Pennsylvania State College

If there is one aspect of American history that has received

the attention that is its due, it is the role of the abolitionist in the

antislavery movement. The main outlines of the part played by that

small, semifanatical body of men and women have long been re-

vealed; the eternal history of the group has long been recorded.

There is one aspect of the subject, however, which still needs more

attention: the role played by the leaders of the Ohio wing of the

Liberty party in their effort to broaden the appeal of the whole

political abolitionist movement. It has long been accepted that

Salmon P. Chase had an important share in persuading his party

to merge itself with the Free Soil movement in 1847-48, but very

little is known of his earlier efforts to bring about much the same

result, and still less is known of the early work of other Ohio lead-

ers to achieve similar ends. Yet the chieftains of Ohio's Liberty

party were laboring with that purpose in mind from the very in-

ception of the party; indeed, it may be said that these men were

thinking of a political organization based upon the broadest anti-

slavery grounds even before the Liberty party was conceived!

Exactly when the Liberty party was created will always be a

controversial subject. But there can be no doubt that the resolu-

tions adopted by the American Anti-Slavery Society's annual con-

vention, held at Albany, New York, on July 31, 1839, were a long

step in that direction. The convention was called to discuss "the

questions which relate to the proper exercise of the suffrage by

citizens of the free States,"¹ a vague way of stating an issue which

was being assiduously urged upon the society by Myron W. Holley

and T. C. Torry, and by the organ of the society, the Boston Eman-

cipator: should abolitionists set up a separate political party with

1 Emancipator (Boston), August 8, 1839.

165

166     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

immediate abolition as its watchword.² The convention, which in-

cluded many who opposed political action, met the issue by indi-

rection. It resolved: "We will neither vote for [n]or support the

election of any man for President or Vice President of the United

States, or for Governor or Lieutenant Governor, or for any legis-

lative office, who is not in favor of the immediate ABOLITION OF

SLAVERY."³

Indecisive as the resolution was, to most abolitionists its in-

tention was more than clear-it called for separate political action.

The general reaction was far from favorable. For the most part

abolitionists viewed the implications of political action with an

emotion akin to horror.⁴ In Ohio, however, opposition to the course

indicated was based upon different grounds. The best expression

of this opinion came from Gamaliel Bailey, editor of the Cincin-

nati Philanthropist, sole abolitionist paper in the state. Bailey had

no objection to political action,⁵ but he did object to political ac-

tion as implied in the Albany resolution. "In our own state," he

pointed out,

the requirements of abolitionists have always had exclusive regard to the

subjects on which candidates, if elected, might . . . be called upon to take

some action. Were it a congressional election, they required that the office

seeker should hold correct opinions respecting the right of petition, slavery

in the District of Columbia, the domestic slave trade, Texas and the admission

of new slave states; because concerning these, legislative action might justly

be demanded....

Such conduct was reasonable and consistent [since] the great principle

. . .which should regulate the friends of human rights everywhere, is, - that

the sole condition to office (so far as abolition is concerned) be right senti-

ments on those subjects connected with the cause of human rights, concerning

which a legislator or executive officer may lawfully be required to legislate or

act. To demand anything beyond this . . is proscriptive in principle, and

tends to pervert the ballot box from its only legitimate end - the fulfil[l]ment

of the will of the people in just legislation under the constitution.

On the other hand, Bailey continued, the Albany resolution

forbade abolitionists to vote for any man for president unless he

avowed himself in favor of an act which was entirely beyond his

2 Theodore C. Smith, Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest (New York,

1897), 32-33.

3 Emancipator, August 8, 1839.

4 Smith, op. cit., 34-36.

5 Philanthropist (Cincinnati), August 13, 1839.

LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS                 167

control, and "with which he . . . ought to have, officially, nothing

to do." Such conduct, he implied, was unreasonable, and he, for

one, felt he could vote "with a good conscience" for any presi-

dential or congressional candidate who would simply "avow him-

self in favor of the immediate abolition of slavery in the District

of Columbia, and hostile to gag law and lynch law in Congress."6

This objection to the narrowness of the society's stand was echoed

in editorial letters throughout the state.⁷

That Bailey and his correspondents bespoke the state's senti-

ments upon separate political action became evident at a special

meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held in Cleveland

late in October 1839. There, Holley proposed the formation of a

new political party whose aim would be the immediate abolition

of slavery. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected. Bailey

was quick to point the significance: "When it is considered, that of

the four hundred delegates in attendance three hundred and sixty

were from Ohio, this disposition of the question must be taken as a

clear indication of the sentiments of the abolitionists of this state

on the project of forming a separate party. As a body they are op-

posed to it."⁸ Even more significant was the fact, which Bailey did

not mention, that many of these opponents of separate political

action were even then laboring to secure the election of antislavery

candidates of other parties.⁹

But Ohio's objections notwithstanding, the exponents of sepa-

rate political action continued on their course, and on November

13, 1839, in a convention held at Warsaw, New York, nominated

James G. Birney of New York and Francis J. Lemoyne of Pennsyl-

vania as their candidates for the coming presidential campaign.

Both men declined on the ground that abolitionists generally op-

posed such action. But during the winter the movement ripened,

and early in February 1840, a "National Anti-Slavery Convention

for Independent Nomination" was called to meet at Albany, on

April 1, 1840. The convention met and named Birney and Thomas

Earle of Pennsylvania to head the national ticket. This time neither

man declined.

6 Ibid., September 3, 1839.

7 See ibid., October 8, 1839; Smith, op. cit., 35.

8 Philanthropist, November 19, 1839.

9 See ibid., August 13, November 26, 1839.

168   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

Throughout this movement the opposition of Ohioans in gen-

eral, and of the Philanthropist in particular, never wavered. Every

step taken toward the creation of the new party was soundly con-

demned, and the principles already stated by editor Bailey con-

stantly reiterated.¹⁰ To discredit the movement, the Philanthropist

even went so far as to dub the proposed Albany meeting the "April

Fool Convention." News of Birney's nomination hardly changed

this attitude. Momentarily Bailey faltered; with sorrowful pen he

accepted the inevitable: "Our friendship for Mr. Birney, and our

high estimation of his judgment and capacity for government make

us regret that he should have been selected as an altar on which to

sacrifice a few votes."¹¹ He hoisted the names of Birney and Earle

to the masthead of his paper. A short while later, however, he was

once more urging his old principles on Ohio abolitionists.

The fifth anniversary meeting of the state society was held in

Massillon late in May. As in all conventions that year, an effort

was made to recommend the nomination of abolitionist candidates

for legislative and congressional offices. The effort failed, and the

meeting declared, "that while we view the question of slavery, re-

garded politically, as paramount to other political questions, we

do not consider it an exclusive one."¹² What part Bailey played in

securing the adoption of such a statement it is difficult to say. Cer-

tain it is that he hoped for something of this nature13 and that he

expressed no regret over the result. More than likely, considering

the previously expressed views of Ohio abolitionists on the subject

of a separate party, Bailey's voice was only one among many to

urge the society to broaden its political horizons. This rejection of

third party plans, however, only served to increase the determina-

tion of those who advocated nomination for all offices, state and

federal, of men who favored immediate abolition.

It was the unexpected strength of this movement after the

society meeting, which moved Bailey, early in July 1840, to reiter-

ate his oft-repeated political maxim that "a political party in the

North can never be founded on the single purpose of opposition to

10 Ibid., March 3, 31, 1840.

11 Ibid., April 21, 1840.

¹² Ibid., June 9, 1840.

13 See ibid., May 19, 1840.

LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS                   169

slavery."¹⁴ With this renewed expression of his views, he once

more entered the lists in favor of some sort of joint action with

other antislavery forces. While, as a loyal abolitionist, he continued

to fly the names of Birney and Earle from the masthead of his

journal, his main efforts were expended upon the task of keeping

Ohio free of the third-party taint. Each bit of news that seemed

to aid the cause of joint action was given attention; almost glee-

fully he reported the disgust of "Whig abolitionists on the Re-

serve" with the conduct of their party, and the resulting movement

which would "secure the nomination in very many places of such

[Whig] candidates for congress and the state legislature as aboli-

tionists can consistently vote for."¹⁵ Never did he waver in urging

his fellow abolitionists to avoid separate action in favor of such

movements. The climax to his campaign occurred in the state-wide

meeting of the abolitionists at Hamilton on September 1, 1840.

There the third party men once more proposed separate nominations

for legislative and congressional offices, but the resolutions com-

mittee, of which Bailey and his friend former senator Thomas

Morris were the most influential members, refused to incorporate

the proposals. The meeting named a full ticket of Birney presiden-

tial electors, but it defeated all attempts to commit it in favor of

separate nominations for other offices, thus giving unofficial sanc-

tion to cooperation with other parties.¹⁶ In effect, Ohio abolition-

ists, from the outset of the "Liberty party," had cast their votes, as

far as possible, for political action on a broader basis than na-

tional leaders had envisioned. For this action much of the credit

belonged to Bailey.

Whatever success Bailey enjoyed in 1840, however, was quickly

nullified the following year even in Ohio. Immediately after the

election, a convention of abolitionists of the Western Reserve was

held at Akron, which resolved that it was expedient for the "Lib-

erty Party," as the third-party organization was now styled, "to

continue the nomination of men true to the principles of Equal

rights, as candidates for public office."¹⁷ A short while later a state

convention, which was called "to reestablish harmony and to agree

14 Ibid., July 7, 1840.

15 Ibid., August 25, 1840.

16 Ibid., September 8, 1840.

170    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

upon some rational, effective plan of antislavery political organiza-

tion," likewise committed itself to the Liberty party with resolutions

recommending that "the voting antislavery citizens of Ohio adopt

the policy of previous independent nominations in all cases where

they are not perfectly assured that men in whom they can confide

will be presented by one or both of the existing political parties."18

That action officially established the Liberty party, with its single

principle of immediate abolition, in the Buckeye state. On May 12,

1841, the first national convention of the party met in New York

City, where a full slate of officials was named, and a presidential

ticket of Birney and Morris was nominated for the 1844 election.

Throughout all this activity the Philanthropist was strangely

silent. No criticism of the movement, obviously so contrary to

Bailey's principles, escaped it. Indeed it even commented favor-

ably upon the results of the New York City meeting.¹⁹ But if Bailey

was silent, it did not mean that he had surrendered his ideas. Early

in 1842 he indicated that his mind was still actively engaged upon

some plan for widening the party's appeal, through a long editor-

ial in which he pointed out that it was improper to call the Liberty

party an "abolition party" since it did not aim at the abolition of

slavery anywhere except in the District of Columbia and the terri-

tories,²⁰ a doctrine which one New Yorker charged could only be

"a direct and bold attempt to sell the abolitionists of Ohio to one

of the political parties."²1

While the charge was not entirely accurate, a movement was

quietly developing among the leaders of the party in Ohio--Bailey,

Morris, Chase, Samuel Lewis, and Leicester King-to change the

entire course of Liberty party affairs. Ringleader of the movement

appeared to be Chase, long-time friend of the slave, but only re-

cently a member of the party. Chase was busy with a project which

would simultaneously broaden the party base by adopting less

extreme principles, and would replace the name of Birney as stan-

dard bearer with that of William H. Seward or the aged John Quincy

Adams. One of his objects was to "bring the old Anti-Masonic

17 Ibid., January 13, 1841.

18 Ibid., January 27, February 3, 1841.

19 Ibid., May 26, 1841.

20 Ibid., February 16, 1842.

21 Ibid., March 16, 1842.

LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS                      171

party of Pennsylvania" into the movement.²² But the best expres-

sion of his whole plan was revealed in a letter to Lewis Tappan:

I saw by the papers a day or two ago that Gov. Seward was in New York.

. . . Is there any possibility that he can be induced to become a candidate for

the Presidency . . . of the Liberty Party, should that party disengage itself

from the narrow ground it has occupied in some of the States, and take the

impregnable, yet popular position which a fair construction of the constitution

furnishes, in regard to slavery . . . ? I am persuaded with Seward as our

candidate and constitutional liberty and free labor as our watchword, we could

carry several States in 1844, and a majority at the next subsequent election.

If the Liberty party perseveres in its present course as adopted in some States

with Mr. Birney as a candidate, it will, I fear, become extinct.23

For the better part of a year this movement remained under-

ground. Here and there some indication of the plan appeared. The

Philanthropist's expression of high regard for Seward,²⁴ its refusal

to hoist the names of Birney and Morris to its masthead despite its

earlier commendation of the nominations--a matter which gave

exceeding pain to "brother Leavitt"^25---were examples. It was not

until early in 1843, however, that the mask was entirely removed.

On January 11, the Philanthropist carried the notice that Morris

intended to decline the vice presidential nomination, which had

been accorded him by the party in 1841 in order that another con-

vention representing the "greater numbers" which were constantly

joining the party "might have an opportunity of acting upon it."²⁶

Almost simultaneously, indicating that the groundwork had been

well laid, a state convention of the party held at Columbus, where

Bailey, Chase, Morris, Lewis, and King all played major roles,

"cordially" approved the action taken "by the veteran and consist-

ent friend of Liberty," and invited the "Liberty men of the United

States to meet in convention at Buffalo. . . on the 28th day of June,

1843, to take into consideration the subject of that nomination, and

any other matters connected with the principles, measures and

progress of the Liberty party which may come before them."²⁷

22 Thomas F. Woodley, Thaddeus Stevens (Harrisburg, 1934), 191-193.

23 Salmon P. Chase to Lewis Tappan, September 15, 1842, in Chase MSS, in

Library of Congress. See also Chase to Tappan, May 26, September 24, 1842, in ibid.

24 Philanthropist, October 1, 1842.

25 Ibid., January 4, 1843.

26 Ibid., January 11, 1843.

27 Ibid.

172     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

If there was any doubt as to the meaning of these concurrent

actions, Chase made them    clearer in a letter to Joshua Giddings:

The reason why this [resolution] was adopted is that some dissatisfaction

is felt here in the west with the nominations of the National Convention at

New York, because that convention is regarded as a meeting of the National

Anti-Slavery Society [rather] than as a convention of the Liberty Party. Be-

sides this it is thought that if Mr. Adams or Governor Seward would accept

the nomination, that additional strength might be gained for the party.²⁸

A letter to Lewis Tappan added further light:

It will become the duty of the Convention either to postpone nominations

for another year . . . or select proper candidates. Under these circumstances

it has occurred to some in this quarter to put Judge [William] Jay of your

city in nomination for the Presidency. . . . To nominate such a man would

not seem like a burlesque. . . . He represents better than any other man, the

great ideas of Liberty, Peace and Temperance, and would commend the con-

fidence of every good man in the nation.29

Adams! Seward! Jay! The purpose was obvious. Remove

Birney, whose uncompromising views on abolition were well known,

and replace him   with some figure whose prestige and more moder-

ate attitude on the subject would attract a greater following. But

the project was doomed to failure. Neither Adams, nor Seward,

nor Jay would consent to his name being used. Accordingly the

Buffalo convention renamed Birney and Morris. The Liberty party

thus continued to take its stand on the narrow base of immediate

abolition with a tried and true party member as its standard bearer.

Success for the Ohio leaders, however, was now but a few years

away. Immediately after the campaign of 1844, Birney's friends

once more brought his name forward.³⁰ This time the Buckeye state

coalitionists were well organized and ready. Bailey at the helm of

the erstwhile Philanthropist, now    renamed the Cincinnati Weekly

Herald, voiced their position:

The Liberty party was organized, not for the sake of conferring office on

particular men, but for the sake of freeing our country from the crime of

slavery; and while it should not disregard the feelings of its candidates, it

28 Chase to Joshua Giddings, January 21, 1842 [sic], in Giddings-Julian MSS, in

Library of Congress. The letter is obviously dated a year early. Nothing happened in

the fall and winter of 1841-42 which would call for such an explanation.

29 Chase to Tappan, February 15, 1843, in Chase MSS.

³⁰ Joshua Leavitt to James G. Birney, December 18, 1844, January 25, 1845, in

Dwight L. Dumond, ed., Birney Letters (New York, 1939), II, 889-890, 922.

LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS                        173

must never, for a moment, permit them to weigh against the interests of its

great object. Persons, when they accept the nomination it may tender them,

should do so with the understanding that they derive no claim from that cir-

cumstance upon the future support of the party; so that, at subsequent periods,

when it may become necessary to select candidates, the party may be em-

barrassed with no proscriptive claims, but left entirely free to act at the time,

as circumstances may demand. If they are not willing to receive nominations

on such terms, their services can, and ought to be dispensed with.

It would be uncandid not to apply these remarks to our late Presidential

candidate. He has served us faithfully and honorably but he has no personal

claim upon our future support . . . and he is doing disservice to the enter-

prise in which we are engaged who tempts to fasten such a delusion on the

party. We should feel ourselves just as free now in regard to a choice of

Presidential candidates, as if we had never had one, and the attempt to

trammel this freedom we regard as unjust and impolitic. If no such attempt

be made and a National Convention, fully representing the whole of the

party, two or three years hence, should after full consideration, decide to place

the name of James G. Birney before the American People . . . we know of no

reason why we would not fully support him. But if such attempt be made . . .

if by the action of certain cliques and influences, Mr. Birney be placed in

such a relation to our cause, that a National Convention should feel itself

embarrassed, and almost compelled to renominate him, we should feel our-

selves entirely free from all obligation to the party.31

The threat alarmed the party old guard,³² but threats were not

the coalitionists' only stock in trade. They were likewise prepared

to organize their movement for a party with a broader base. In

April they issued a call, prepared by Chase33 and signed by Bailey

and Lewis, for a "Southern and Western Convention of the Friends

of Constitutional Liberty." By "friends" they meant not only the

members of the Liberty party, but all who, "believing that what-

ever is worth preserving in Republicanism can be maintained, only,

by eternal and uncompromising war against the . . . Slave Power,

are resolved to use all Constitutional and honorable means, to effect

the extinction of Slavery in their respective States, and its reduc-

tion to its Constitutional limits in the United States."³⁴

The convention, duly assembled in the early summer, adopted

the broadest type of antislavery principles. None of the resolu-

tions, which were drawn up by Chase, mentioned immediate aboli-

31 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, December 25, 1844. See also ibid., March 6, 1845.

32 See William Birney to James G. Birney, December 28, 1844, in Dumond, Birney

Letters, II, 894.

33 See paper dated April 19, 1845, in Chase MSS.

34 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, April 23, 1845.

LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS                         175

The question of what action to take, however, was still an issue.

There were those who wished merely to make a nomination and to

dilute the platform of the party just enough to bring discontented

Whigs and Democrats into the Liberty fold.⁴² Chase and his asso-

ciates, on the other hand, were already in advance of that position.

They were ready to give up the whole party in order to create a

new movement-an "antislavery league of all elements."⁴³

But the time for thrashing out these divergent ideas never came.

A small wing of the party, which had adopted Birney's general re-

form plan, stole a march on the movement by calling for a con-

vention of their adherents to meet at Macedon Locks, New York,

in June 1847. Instantly the party old guard--led by Joshua Leavitt,

who was still making no "terms" with slavery "but that of actual

extinction," and who was opposed to any "bargain . . . manage-

ment, or . . . profound political maneuvre," by which the old par-

ties, "or a portion of them" could be used as "tools" in the party's

hands to carry its objects without joining its ranks^44---began to de-

mand a call for a convention of the Liberty party. The demand

created a fearsome controversy. The old guard, centered in the

eastern states, took its stand for an autumn meeting and made no

bones about its reasons: "What we wish to guard against is the

danger of subjecting our movements to the control of those who

wish to avail themselves of the advantages of our organization,

without sharing its responsibilities; or who would use it for pur-

poses of their own and not for the ends we have in view--the po-

litical overthrow of slavery."⁴⁵

With equal candidness the coalitionists, now prominent in all

western states and a considerable minority in the East, urged post-

ponement till the early summer of 1848. Ohio Liberty men were

42 Theodore C. Smith declared that Leavitt was one of this group. See Smith,

op. cit., 104. From the material that follows it seems rather evident that Leavitt did

not favor the movement.

43 See Chase to Giddings, October 20, 1846, in Chase MSS; Chase to Hale, May

12, 1847, in Robert B. Warden, An Account of the Private Life and Public Services of

Salmon Portland Chase (Cincinnati, 1874), 313; Chase to Charles Sumner September

22, 1847, in Salmon P. Chase, Dairy and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase (American

Historical Association, Annual Report . . . for the year 1902, II, Washington, 1903),

123.

44 Emancipator, June 16, 1847.

45 Ibid., May 12, 1847. See also ibid., April 21, 1847; National Era (Washing-

ton), April 22, May 13, 20, June 24, 1847. Significantly enough the American and

Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, dominated by the old guard, favored an early nomina-

tion.

176    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

unanimously on the side of postponement,⁴⁶ and their leaders, as

always, were in the van of the movement. Bailey, in the editorial

chair of the National Era, pointed out: "Before next May, a pretty

correct opinion can be formed of the character of the tickets to be

presented for the suffrages of the people, and of the final policy of

the old parties---and then we can shape our nominations accord-

ingly."⁴⁷ His successor upon the Cincinnati Weekly Herald, Stan-

ley Matthews, a rising power in the party, frankly explained that

he expected to see both the Whig and Democratic parties nominate

candidates who would be "utterly unacceptable to the honest Anti-

Slavery sentiment of the country," which sentiment would be more

than willing then to cooperate with the Liberty party. "Such a

prospect," he declared, "ought to modify our own action in the

nomination of our candidates. If there is a possibility of such de-

sireable [sic] aid, their reasonable preference ought to be con-

sulted with our own in the selection of a candidate, upon whom

the entire Anti-slavery sentiment of the country might unite with-

out any compromise of principle."⁴⁸

But the whole controversy ended abruptly when the general

committee of the party, by a strict East vs. West vote of seven states

to five, and over the strenuous protests of Chase, called a conven-

tion to meet at Buffalo on October 20, 1847. Ohio coalitionists and

their allies shifted their campaign to argue against the necessity

of making a nomination at that time, the Weekly Herald suggesting

that the convention confine itself to the appointment of a committee

"to correspond with individuals known as Anti-Slavery men in

other ranks than those of the Liberty party, compare views and

ascertain in what way, if any, and on what basis, the Anti-Slavery

sentiment of the country" might be consolidated.⁴⁹ It was obvious,

however, that so fortunate an end to the faction's hopes could not

be expected. When the motion to postpone nominations was made

at the convention by Chase, it was overwhelmingly defeated. Only

46 See Cincinnati Weekly Herald, June 30, July 7, 21, 1847. The only voice on

record raised in opposition to the postponement was that of the Anti-Slavery Bugle

(Salem), a Garrisonian journal. See Erwin H. Price, "Election of 1848 in Ohio," in

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, XXXVI (1927), 235.

47 National Era, April 15, 1847.

48 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, April 21, 1847. See also ibid., May 5, June 2, 30,

1847; National Era, April 22, May 13, 20, June 24, 1847.

49 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, June 23, 1847. See also Chase to Edward Wade,

June 23, 1847, in Chase MSS; Chase to Sumner, September 22, 1847, in Chase Cor-

respondence, 123; New Hampshire Patriot (Concord), October 7, 1847.

LIBERTY PARTY LEADERS                                                                177

the Ohio delegation supported it with complete unanimity.⁵⁰                                     But

the action was the last victory of the old guard. Thereafter the

coalitionists took control.

Their first act was to write a platform which, while still paying

lip service to the cause of abolitionism, no longer insisted upon

immediate abolition of slavery, but only upon its abolition "by the

constitutional acts of the Federal and State governments." Their

chief plank, moreover, incorporated the principles which had first

been suggested as a basis for political action by the Philanthropist

in 1839: "It is the duty of antislavery men in Congress to propose

and vote for acts to repeal the Slave Code of the District of Co-

lumbia; to repeal the act of 1793, relating to fugitives from service;

to provide against the introduction of slavery in any territory, and

such other laws as may be necessary and expedient to withdraw

the support of the government from slavery, and array the powers

of the general government, on the side of liberty and free labor."⁵¹

With their principles written into the platform, the coalition-

ists then dictated the choice of party candidates. The question of

who should be nominated had been given serious consideration ever

since the call for the convention had been issued. The old guard,

deprived of Birney's quadrennial availability, had never been able

to unite on that score. The name most frequently mentioned among

them was that of Gerrit Smith, of New York, since June the presi-

dential candidate of the "Macedon Lock-Smiths" as the general

reform wing was styled by its detractors. But Smith was hardly

popular. Many of the old guard---among them Leavitt, and the in-

fluential Henry B. Stanton^52---would not accept him, and finding

themselves without a strong candidate of their own were perforce

obliged to accept that of their intraparty opposition. The coali-

tionists had played their game on this score very well. As early as

the midsummer of 1846 their attention--first made public signifi-

cantly enough by the Cincinnati Weekly Herald^53--had been riveted

upon one man, John P. Hale of New Hampshire, Democratic party

50 Theodore C. Smith declared that the vote was 128 to 37; Smith, op. cit., 119.

I have been unable to find this count in any source material. The Emancipator, Octo-

ber 27, 1847, and the Cincinnati Weekly Herald, November 3, 1847, both published

the figure 144 to 72.

51 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, November 3, 1847.

52 See Emancipator, September 1, 8, 15, 1847; Henry B. Stanton to Chase,

August 6, 1847, in Chase Correspondence, 467-468.

178    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

rebel, elected to the senate by a coalition of Liberty men, Whigs, and

antislavery Democrats, and thus a living monument to the success

of coalition. That attention never wavered. When the time came

for nominations, Hale was easily selected as the Liberty party's

choice for the presidency. Appropriately enough the vice presiden-

tial post was accorded one of the Ohio coalitionists---Leicester King.

The Buffalo convention should be considered as the climax of

an eight-year struggle by Ohioans to broaden the abolitionist move-

ment. The full desire of those Ohioans, as of the year 1847-the

postponement of any action until the other parties had acted on the

slavery issue in order that a union of all antislavery elements could

be accomplished-was not achieved there. But the meeting did

adopt the plans of the Buckeye men, as of the years 1839-46: the

rewriting of the party platform to include those antislavery issues

which were agitating the nation and for which there was some

readily achieved legislative solution which would attract those

whose views upon slavery were not so extreme as those of the abo-

litionists, and the nomination of candidates who would be consid-

ered political leaders with ideas upon other aspects of government

besides that of slavery. It was a victory, not complete, but well

worth while. As such, it marked the end of old-fashioned political

abolitionism. Thenceforth the Liberty party would respond more

readily to the demands of the period, until finally its membership

merged into the Republican party, which, by reason of war, was

able to accomplish the most sanguine desires of early abolitionists.

To Ohio's liberty party leaders, oft-condemned as self-seeking, must

be given the credit for the foresight which finally brought the party

to a recognition of the fact that in politics the "longest way 'round

may be the shortest way home."

53 Cincinnati Weekly Herald, July 22, 1846.