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

121 ChAPter 10 lincoln’s prophet There was James G. Birney, who did more, perhaps, for the abolition of slavery in the United States than any other man. —pAXtoN HiBBeN Birney was “lincoln’s prophet”—his candidacy in 1840 forecasting the antislavery position the nation would take by electing lincoln in 1860. in quick succession Birney had lost his father and his wife, Agatha, both of whom died in 1839, but he was no more deterred by personal problems than by almost universal political opposition. Nevertheless, it took a public show of animosity from an old friend, perhaps, to push Birney into a hopeless third party presidential campaign. the clash with Henry Clay over slavery may never have propelled Birney into a run for president, especially one that would put him at odds with his former friend and collaborator, but for Clay’s volatile reaction to abolitionist agitation and personal enmity toward Birney. Apparently anxious to continue dialogue with Clay and perhaps gain his support for antislavery initiatives, Birney wrote the senator in 1838, enclosing a copy of “emancipation in the West indies,” by James A. thome and J. H. Kimball , two of the lane seminary rebels. He also enclosed a pamphlet titled, “Correspondence Between the Hon. f. H. elmore and James G. Birney,” which had been published by the American Anti-slavery society, for which Birney served as corresponding secretary. Clay responded with a letter dismissing the West indies study as “far from conclusive on the question of African slavery in the u.s.” He made the point that the situation in england was different, that parliament had the power to emancipate the slaves, “whilst with us the power of emancipation is exclusively possessed 122| Chapter 10 by the slave states.” Referring to the decision in Kentucky against a constitutional convention to reconsider slavery, Clay opined that it “was mainly produced by the agitation of the question of Abolition at the North.” the state was rapidly advancing toward gradual emancipation, Clay wrote, but was thrown back fifty years by the abolitionists. He denied ever favoring immediate emancipation but rather declared he had been for gradual emancipation like that in pennsylvania, by which all born after a specified day were to be free at age twenty-eight. “i do not complain of your opinion that the election of a slave holder to the presidency would be a public calamity, so far as it may be supposed to affect me. i have never yielded my consent to be a Candidate for that office, since the last election; and late events indicate a strong probability that, if i were a Candidate, your wishes are likely to be gratified. But i think that your justice, on reconsideration , must lead you to question of the propriety of a rule which would have deprived the Country of the services of Washington, Jefferson, Madison & Monroe in the highest executive office, and of Marshall in the highest judicial office.” Although commenting in the letter to Birney that his remarks were not for the public press, Clay delivered a speech with similar content on the senate floor as debates on the right of petition were under way in february 1839. Historian Joseph H. Borome observed that his speech was “replete with strictures on the abolitionists and on abolition . then the following year Birney ran for the presidency on the out and out abolition ticket.”1 thus Clay perhaps agitated an opponent and predicted his own defeat over the issue of slavery that occurred in 1844, a defeat caused by the abolition votes Birney gained in New york. Birney always spoke like a prophet and not a statesman, some leaders of the antislavery movement said. skeptics of his electability included wealthy New york merchant lewis tappan, a stiff Calvinist with wild ideas like intermarriage as a solution to racial problems; ohio abolitionist newspaper editor Gamaliel Bailey; and reformist Judge William Jay of New york. the trio was less than impressed with Birney’s approach to politics and reluctant about his nomination as the standard-bearer of any new party.2 less than half the antislavery men favored political action, and several state branches of the AAss, notably New york, ohio, and Michigan, had voted against it. Nevertheless, hot-blooded organizers Alvan stewart, Myron Holley, and Gerrit smith wouldn’t stop trying. When the AAss met in Cleveland on 23 october 1839, Myron Holley proposed two resolutions, one for independent nominations if necessary and a second that stated, “that when...

Share