Politics Versus Principles: The Partisan Response to "Bible Politics" in New York State

POLITICS VERSUS PRINCIPLES: The Partisan Response to "Bible Politics" in New York State Ahn M. Kraut and Phyllis F. Field For most of our national history, party politics has meant two party politics. Historians and political scientists have generally attributed the endurance of a two party system in this large and diverse country to a popular consensus on fundamentals and to the winner-take-all electoral system established in the Constitution.1 Characteristically, American parties have shunned rigid, ideological positions, attempting instead to embrace as broad a spectrum of political viewpoints as possible. This pragmatism has led American parties to be alternately praised for their flexibility or criticized for their lack of principles and "fuzziness" on issues. Occasionally, groups who have considered their own (usually controversial) issues too vital to be sacrificed on the altar of political compromise have challenged the two party system. Dissatisfied with a broad coalitional approach to politics, some disaffected Americans have turned instead to the formation of third parties as a means to achieve their cherished goals. These parties, generally more ideological and uncompromising than their adversaries, have at times seriously disrupted the normal workings of the party system. The tactics adopted by the major parties to contain third partyism and to neutralize its disruptive effects are valuable clues to what has made the two party system so strong and resilient. The following case study analyzes one of the first attempts by the major parties to meet and break a third party challenge. Hardly had a strong national two party system emerged in the late 1830's than its hegemony was threatened by the abolitionist Liberty party, which wished to thrust the highly charged issues of abolition and Our thanks to Professors Joel H. Silbey of Cornell University andJames Brewer Stewart of Macalester College for their thoughtful comments and criticisms. 1A rich literature exists on the evolution of the American party system. Among the most lucid accounts are: Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System (Berkeley, 1969); Seymour Martin Lipset, The First New Nation (New York, 1963), 327-365; and the essays in William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Bumham (eds.), The American Party Systems (New York, 1967). Civil War History, Vol. XXV, No. 2 Copyright © 1979 by The Kent State University Press 0009-8078/79/2502-0001 $00.90/0 102CIVIL WAR HISTORY black rights to the forefront of the political stage.2 Unlike theirWhig and Democratic adversaries, Liberty men stressed that pragmatic political considerations should never be allowed to still the voice of moral principle on issues like slavery. "Whether the candidates of our choice succeed or not is comparatively of little consequence," some insisted. "Our prayer—our agony of solicitude is for the preservation of antislavery integrity. . . ."3 Inspired by the revivalism of the Second Great Awakening, these abolitionists believed it their moral duty to "bring up a false and debased public opinion to the table-land of truth. . . ."4 This "truth," derived from the Bible, led Liberty men to term their brand of politics, "Bible Politics."5 Conscience led them to shun both politicians who refused to denounce slavery and those who even associated with "proslavery" elements. While the number of voters attracted to "Bible Politics" was never large, its threat to the majorparties was real. Both Whigs and Democrats drew important support from the slaveholding South. Persistent discussion of the slavery issue and especially the Liberty party's contention that slavery was a legitimate matter for national—not state— regulation, threatened both parties' intersectional coalitions. Furthermore , the close balance between the political parties at the national level during the period meant that Liberty party votes could potentially act as a balance of power in determining elections. Rightly or wrongly, both parties believed that in 1844, Liberty party candidate James G. Birney had taken enough votes from Whig candidate Henry Clay to give New York State, and the election, to James 2 The most recent book-length account of the Liberty party's history and significance in the antislavery movement is Richard H. Sewell, BallotsforFreedom (New York, 1976), the only such study since Theodore Clarke Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest (New York, 1897). There have...