In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 v Ohio at the Center of the Nation O   the center of the conflicts that arose between Northern and Southern states and within national political parties over the extension of slavery into federal territories. Ohio’s geographic proximity to slave states, the diverse regional and ethnic backgrounds of its residents—many of whom had cultural and economic ties to the South—and the expansion of religious, cultural, and literary institutions meant that Ohioans had distinct views on the sectional tensions at midcentury. These conflicts arose over the question of whether the institution of slavery would be permitted in the federal territories and intensified with Northerners ’ growing fears about the political power of the slaveholding states. When antislavery reformers and politicians, including Ohioan Salmon P. Chase, yoked the two issues together, a powerful movement of political antislavery emerged. The transformation of Ohio’s political landscape led to the political realignment that occurred between  and  and gave rise to the Republican Party. In the process, Ohioans shaped a new political order that struggled to incorporate the interests of the state’s diverse population in a political system that served the interests of Northern free labor.1 The organization of the Liberty Party in Ohio in , by antislavery reformers determined to abolish the institution through political action, helped destabilize a political system that had been anchored by Democrats’ and Whigs’ positions on economic issues. Democrats favored limited federal intervention in the economy, opposed banks, and generally suspected power that seemed increasingly concentrated in manufacturing and business interests at the expense of the individual. Whigs held that government had a role in promoting order and regulating society ; they favored government intervention, including aid for internal improvements and centralized banking. Within Ohio, residents of manufacturing and trade centers who were connected, or wanted to be connected, to transportation routes tended to support Whigs. They were likely to recognize the benefits of a protective tariff and state-sponsored banks for economic growth. Areas with strong ties to New England and areas in which people supported reform movements, including the Western Reserve, also favored Whigs. In rural areas, as well as in urban  areas with high concentrations of immigrants, people tended to support Democrats because they believed that banking threatened individual wealth and that tariffs benefited manufacturers and raised consumer prices. For both parties, but especially for Whigs, agitation over the issue of slavery exacerbated divisions within the state party. Whigs in southern Ohio lived and worked in proximity to blacks and to the slaveholding states, many in communities that accommodated— if not supported—the slave labor system of Ohio’s southern neighbors. Whigs in southern Ohio tended to be more conservative on issues pertaining to slavery and race than their northern Ohio counterparts. While most Ohioans, regardless of where they lived, believed in the racial inferiority of African Americans, Whigs in northern Ohio, though they were not uniformly abolitionists, believed that blacks within the state were entitled to some protection through state law. While some Democrats, especially those in northern Ohio, supported the repeal of the Black Laws, the party generally remained unified over the importance of protecting white labor from black immigration.2 When Whigs carried Ohio in the  election but Democrat James K. Polk was elected president, neither party in Ohio was satisfied. State Democrats had split over the annexation of Texas and state banking issues; a large number had opposed Polk’s nomination altogether and had supported Martin Van Buren, who opposed the annexation, as the party nominee. Ohio Whigs resented the election of Polk, a Southern Democrat, to the presidency and their party’s lack of influence in national politics. Both parties blamed the Liberty Party, which had run a strong campaign by embracing moderation, calling for an end to federal support of slavery rather than for immediate emancipation. The election of  proved a watershed year in state politics because it marked the rise of sectionalism in politics. Four years later, the potential of uniting antislavery forces became clear. Liberty Party founder Salmon P. Chase and Whig Joshua P. Giddings set aside former differences for the sake of “Free Soil.” At the Ohio Free Territory convention in Columbus on July , , the Free Soil Party was formed, proclaiming, “We wage no war against the Slave States. . . . We do not ask that Slavery be abolished by Congressional enactment in any State. But we do demand [that] Slavery shall not lay its foul hands upon us. We do demand that Slavery shall cease to control...

Share