Rum, Romanism, Representation, and Reform: Coalition Politics in Massachusetts, 1847-1853

RUM, ROMANISM, REPRESENTATION, AND REFORM: Coalition Politics in Massachusetts, 1847-1853 Kevin Sweeney From 1850 t? 1852 a coalition of Democrats and Free Soilers controlled the government of Massachusetts. The coalition sent Charles Sumner to the United States Senate, passed a number of progressive reforms, and in 1853 attempted to modify the commonwealth 's seventy-three-year-old constitution. Historians have long recognized the coalition as a progenitor of the Republican party and for this reason have scrutinized its stands on slavery, nativism, prohibition , and related issues.1 Most of these studies have dealt with the coalition in the context of national politics, and in so doing have slighted the intricacies of the commonwealth's politics. The coalition did not originate in a reaction to the Compromise of 1850, and the union among Free Soilers and Democrats did not break down in 1852 because of disagreements over the slavery question. An understanding of the subtle interplay between national and state and local issues is necessary to appreciate the reasons for the coalition's triumph in 1850 and its demise in 1852. Massachusetts during the late 1840's did become a center of both free soilism and conservative unionism. At the same time the commonwealth's voters were struggling with disruptive economic, social, and cultural changes. In 1850 and 1851, when proponents of differing policies on national issues faced each other in state elections, they had to take stands on economic legislation, workingmen's rights, railroads, political reform, and prohibition. By 1853 the framework of state government itself became the issue dividing parties. Each new issue which divided the old parties forced them to add another rickety plank to their platforms. Eventually, the edifice collapsed. An examination of this collapse in Massachusetts can provide insight into the complex dynamics of party reorganization during the 1850's. The Whig party's confident, paternalistic rule of the Common1 G. T. Anderson, "The Slavery Issue as a Factor in Massachusetts Politics from the Compromise of 1850 to the Outbreak of the Civil War," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1944) and William G. Bean, "Party Transformations in Massachusetts with Special Reference to the Antecedents of Republicanism," (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1922). 116 wealth ended abruptly in 1850 when two of its progeny turned on it with vengeance. The free soil issue was the first offspring Whigs lost control over. The outbreak of the Mexican War allowed Whigs to agitate the slavery question under the guise of war opposition. Even though the state organization's stand on free soil did not completely satisfy the dissident Conscience Whigs, the party's embrace of the Wilmot Proviso and free soil rhetoric succeeded in branding the Democrats as the "slave power." In every election, regardless of the office at stake, Massachusetts Whigs aroused antislavery sentiment .2 Unfortunately for the Whigs, the war ended in 1848. The question raised by the Wilmot Proviso ceased to be academic, and Massachusetts Whigs had to curb their free soil rhetoric because party leaders did not want to alienate Whig supporters in the South during a presidential election year. As a result, Whigs in Massachusetts lost one of their few effective, offensive weapons. Later in 1848 Whigs lost between 10,000 and 18,000 supporters when Conscience Whigs and other antislavery Whigs placed their commitment to free soil above their loyalty to Whiggery and joined the Free Soil party. The new party also won the entire Liberty party vote, and support from 6000 to 11,000 Democrats.3 In addition to capturing the committed free soil vote, the new party replaced the Democrats as the leading opposition party in the General Court. Because of this position of importance in state politics it was inevitable that the party would have to take stands on state issues. And, because over half of the Free Soil legislators came from the five western counties, the party's stands on state issues came to embody much of the westerners' resentment toward Boston Whiggery .4 Historian William Bean observed fifty years ago that Free Soilism in Massachusetts not only was a repudiation of the Whig and Democratic positions upon slavery, but also was a revolt on the part...