UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Building an Antislavery House: Political Abolitionists and the U.S. Congress Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1b385471 Author Brooks, Corey Michael Publication Date 2010 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Building an Antislavery House: Political Abolitionists and the U.S. Congress By Corey Michael Brooks A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Robin L. Einhorn, Chair Professor David M. Henkin Professor Eric Schickler Fall 2010 Building an Antislavery House: Political Abolitionists and the U.S. Congress © 2010 By Corey Michael Brooks 1 Abstract Building an Antislavery House: Political Abolitionists and the U.S. Congress by Corey Michael Brooks Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Robin L. Einhorn, Chair This dissertation reintegrates abolitionism into the main currents of U.S. political history. Because of a bifurcation between studies of the American antislavery movement and political histories of the sectional conflict, modern scholars have drastically underestimated the significance of abolitionist political activism. Historians often characterize political abolitionists as naïve idealists or separatist moral purists, but I recast them as practical, effective politicians, who capitalized on rare openings in American political institutions to achieve outsized influence in the face of a robust two-party system. Third-party abolitionists shaped national debate far beyond their numbers and played central roles in the emergence of the Republican Party. Over the second half of the 1830s, political abolitionists devised the Slave Power concept, claiming that slaveholder control of the federal government endangered American democracy; this would later become the Republicans‘ most important appeal. Integrating this argument with an institutional analysis of the Second Party System, antislavery activists assailed the Whigs and Democrats—cross-sectional parties that incorporated antislavery voices while supporting proslavery policies—as beholden to the Slave Power. This analysis thus provided the rationale for creation of the abolitionist Liberty Party and then became its chief rhetorical tool. Liberty partisans cast all elections as contests against the Slave Power and repeatedly forced slavery into political debate by controlling balances of power in many northern locales. Meanwhile, they developed a sophisticated lobbying strategy to exploit Congress as a public forum that could be made to magnify and widely disseminate the Slave Power argument. As northern Whigs and Democrats faced new antislavery electoral pressures and chafed under the Slave Power‘s increasing exactions, Liberty leaders redoubled their efforts to pry antislavery dissidents from the major parties. In the process Liberty men paved the way for a broader anti- Slave Power coalition and helped found the Free Soil Party in 1848. A small but dedicated Free Soil congressional bloc then built on Liberty tactics to further harness congressional debate as a platform for dramatizing the Slave Power‘s control of national policymaking. When the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act roused northern voters and deranged once-stable party allegiances, Free Soil leaders in and out of Congress seized on the opportunity to spearhead a party uniting all opponents of the Slave Power. In helping propel this new Republican Party to northern 2 preeminence by 1856, erstwhile Liberty men and Free Soilers finally foresaw the end of the Slave Power‘s national supremacy, and, ultimately, of slavery itself. i Table of Contents Acknowledgements ii List of Abbreviations Used in Notes iv Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Political Abolition and the Slave Power Argument, 1835-1840 12 The Slave Power and the Speakership: December, 1839 47 Chapter 2: Stoking the ―Abolition Fire in the Capitol‖: Antislavery Congressional 51 Alliances and Liberty Lobbying “A temporary „third party‟”: Antislavery Whig Dissidents in the 1841 79 Speakership Contest Chapter 3: Creating a ―Liberty Power‖: Third-Party Electoral Politics, 1841-1845 83 Chapter 4: ―A Magnificent Abolition Society‖: The Wilmot Proviso and Congressional 113 Slavery Politics “Let the Lines be Drawn”: Conscience Whig Insurgency and the 1847 139 Speakership Contest Chapter 5: Liberty Men and Creation of an Anti-Slave Power Coalition, 1846-1848 142 “Glorious Confusion in the Ranks”: The Free Soil Balance of Power and the 177 Speakership, 1849 Chapter 6: Free Soil Politics and the Birth of the Republican Party, 1850-1855 185 Epilogue and Conclusion 223 Bibliography 235 ii Acknowledgements As I conclude my graduate education and embark on a new chapter in my life—a professorship, marriage, and soon enough a book manuscript—I am overcome with many emotions. Pride and relief rank high among them, but mostly I feel gratitude—deep, deep gratitude for the many people who have helped me reach this point. At Berkeley, I have had an exceptional dissertation committee. Robin Einhorn has been what every dissertation advisor should be—at once challenging and supportive, rigorous and generous. She consciously allowed and encouraged me to grow independently as a researcher, writer, and historian. Her trenchant criticism and friendly advice have dramatically improved my work, and she has taught me important lessons about what it means to be part of a community of historical scholars. David Henkin has been a similarly invaluable sounding board. His critiques (along with incredibly thorough line edits) have made my prose more lucid and my argument more focused. Our discussions have stimulated new lines of argument and reassured me at moments of confusion or self doubt. David instinctively understood how to help me craft the kind of dissertation that I wanted to write. I am deeply indebted for his counsel and friendship. Eric Schickler has been a wonderful outside reader. The very first time I met Eric, I asked him to join my committee. He assented with characteristic warmth. His methodological insights, congressional knowledge, and thoughtful suggestions have made this a better dissertation and me a better historian of American politics. I owe much as well to undergraduate advisors at the University of Pennsylvania. They imparted basic historical research and writing skills, and the senior thesis I completed under their guidance inspired this dissertation‘s second chapter. Lee Benson, the late Edward Carter III, and Mike Zuckerman helped me conceive and execute that senior thesis. My other thesis advisor Robert Engs taught me how to craft a coherent narrative and so much more. A collaborator, friend, and role model, Bob has been a special mentor since I took his seminar on the Republican Party‘s origins as a sophomore. I hope to emulate his good cheer, selflessness, and commitment to teaching throughout my career. Several institutions have provided crucial financial support for my research, including the Gilder-Lehrman Foundation, the Library Company of Philadelphia (along with the Albert M. Greenfield Foundation), the Friends of the Princeton University Library, and the Graduate Division, Institute of Governmental Studies, and Department of History at the University of California, Berkeley. As importantly, Mabel Lee in the Department of History helped me navigate the Berkeley bureaucracy and many times saved me from my own oversights, always with a smile. The assistance of librarians around the country has been indispensable. For unusual kindness and knowledge, I must doubly thank the staffs at the American Philosophical Society, the Clements Library at the University of Michigan, the Library Company of Philadelphia (especially Connie King and Phil Lapsansky), the New York Historical Society, and the Vermont Historical Society, as well as Orson Kingsley at the Henry Sheldon Museum in Middlebury, Vermont, and Darlene Leonard at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York. During the considerable period I resided in Philadelphia, the McNeil Center for Early American Studies provided me with valuable scholarly community and vital access to the Penn library. Many insightful scholars have commented on my work at conferences and in seminars. I offer thanks generally to the members of the Bay Area Seminar on Early American History, the 19th Century Forum at the Center for Humanities at Temple University, and the Society of iii Historians of the Early American Republic. More specifically I thank Stanley Harrold, Jan Lewis, Paddy Riley, Mark Summers, and Elizabeth Varon for formal comments, and especially James B. Stewart for much constructive informal advice. The frequent solitude of graduate history work made it especially important to find friends who understood that experience and could offer insights, advice, and camaraderie over a good book or a hoppy beer. For their comments on key pieces of this dissertation I thank Paddy Riley, Ariel Ron, and especially Miriam Kingsberg, who has gone above and beyond so many times. For sharing their homes or cars (and more) when research, writing, and life required me to shuttle between the East and West Coasts, I thank Candace Chen, Kathryn Eigen, Peter Fishman, Daniel Lee, Caroline Shaw, and especially Ryan Shultzaburger and Sarah Munchel. Ryan and Sarah‘s generosity went beyond