THE POLITICS OF RACE IN A FREE AND A SLAVE SOCIETY: FREE BLACK ISSUES IN THE LEGISLATURES OF ANTEBELLUM OHIO AND TENNESSEE By THOMAS L. FRANZMANN Bachelor of Arts in History Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1983 Master of Arts in History Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1986 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December, 2010 THE POLITICS OF RACE IN A FREE AND A SLAVE SOCIETY: FREE BLACK ISSUES IN THE LEGISLATURES OF ANTEBELLUM OHIO AND TENNESSEE Dissertation Approved: Dr. James L. Huston Dissertation Adviser Dr. Ronald A. Petrin Dr. Joseph F. Byrnes Dr. Robert Darcy Dr. Mark E. Payton Dean of the Graduate College ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation draws heavily upon the pioneering work of the once-upon-a-time “new” political history. The writings of these scholars, simply put, encouraged me to consider the words and actions of historical figures in more systematic and comparative ways across localized levels of activity. Granted I followed a less traveled path of investigating the policy formation process rather than simply grassroots mobilization but this decision was based, in part, on repeated calls in earlier literature for the need to learn more about what transpired at the statehouse, too. Finally, the “new” political historians raised questions about the past relationship between democratic ideals, white racism, and advent of “modern” forms of two-party politics in early America that shaped my decision to revisit themes about antebellum-era party warfare and racial issues. My initial surmise was mere comparison of a northern and southern state would fill lacunae in our knowledge. Analysis of roll-call voting behavior, supposedly, would clinch the case that parties acted either similar or different on racial matters and thereby help resolve outstanding debates on consensus and conflict. Hence, even before the research was fully compiled, I already was engaging in preliminary imaginative exercises of explaining why it was one thing or the other. Given that my initial surveys of roll-call data came from the Ohio legislature in the mid-1840s, moreover, I was predisposed at the onset to entertain the notion that a conflict scenario was the better explanation. iii In retrospect, it is evident I initially began to work the qualitative data to fit this expectation. Only after I began to expand the scope of the investigation did it become increasingly evident that patterns were much more complex and rarely replicated consistently over time. Ultimately, I realized an attempt to explain why parties acted racist or not was a premature endeavor at this point, given that so much additional data was available which had not been examined in depth (and which might alter earlier assessments drawn from samplings of rhetoric or episodic evaluation of isolated roll-call votes). What was needed, it seemed, was a baseline account of what actually happened over an extended period of time in the legislative arena to pinpoint with more exactitude to what degree each party acted in a racist fashion or not, rather than merely assuming such outcomes as a predicate foundation for attempting to explain other things. In other words, I was prepared to attempt to fill the “holes” in our knowledge with educated guesses on cause-and-effect relations, based on the known data. Yet, given that the documentary records held such a rich reservoir of neglected information, it seemed an initial task was to diminish the gaps in our knowledge as much as possible and thereby reduce the extent to which hypothesis and conjecture is necessary in the first place. In short, rather than repeated illustrations of the plausibility of theoretical constructs, it seemed testing of theory with greater rigor was in order. Here, I am merely following the advice of “new political historians” from a half-century ago to recognize the temporal and sociological limits of would-be generalizations, rest firm conclusions on sampled data, and not extrapolate localized findings to proximate things without proper qualification. Hence, despite initial intentions otherwise, I opted to employ a thick iv descriptive approach to the subject matter to establish an empirical foundation with regard to how parties reacted to racial issues across the board as prelude to forthcoming attempts in the future to explain why considerations about racial matters occupied the place within party agendas that they seemingly did. A variety of archivists and librarians provided me essential assistance during the research phase of this project. In particular, I should express my appreciation to the staffs at Oklahoma State University, Vanderbilt University, Fisk University, Harvard University, the University of Illinois, Dana College, the Tennessee State Archives and Historical Society, the Ohio Historical Society, the Cincinnati Historical Society, and the Library of Congress. My thanks also are due to the dean of the graduate school at Vanderbilt University who awarded me funding for travels to Cambridge and Washington, D. C. The various professors that shaped my thinking about the historical craft over the years are too numerous to mention by name. Virtually everyone I studied with has left their mark in some way. I should single out two mentors in particular. First, Dr. James Huston provided invaluable oversight and guidance in pushing me through the final stages of this project, helped to tighten the focus, and challenged me to reconsider sloppy thinking on several occasions. Second, Dr. Samuel McSeveney was instrumental to the initial framing of the study. His meticulous attention to detail also rubbed off. Finally, it was in his seminars that I became a serious student of political history. Especial thanks go out to Dr. Jonathan Atkins of Berry College who generously provided me with his database on slaveholdings among Tennessee legislators. In addition, Dr. William Shade of Lehigh provided crucial insight and critique when he v commented on a conference paper I delivered years ago on the Tennessee scenario. His writings, of course, have made a significant impact, too. The members of the dissertation committee at Oklahoma State University also warrant recognition: Dr. Joseph Byrnes and Dr. Ronald Petrin of the History Department and Dr. Robert Darcy of the Political Science Department. I should mention Dr. Richard Rohrs, too, who loaned me a copy of Joel Silbey’s dissertation years ago and thereby first exposed me to roll-call analysis. It would be remiss, moreover, to not mention the deep debt of gratitude owed to Dr. LeRoy H. Fischer whom cultivated my interest in nineteenth-century America from an early age through my undergraduate days. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the important role of my mother and maternal grandfather in nourishing my early interest in historical inquiry. As a math teacher, my maternal grandmother, in addition, cultivated my interest in quantitative applications and learning in general. Unfortunately, none of them survived to see the end result of their foundational work. Kristie, my sister, and Bret, my brother, have provided invaluable support to this day in too many ways to itemize with brevity. Suffice it to say, I never would have reached this point without their aid. Above all else, though, my deepest appreciation goes to my daughter, Alex, and son, Kris, who often endured with good cheer my absenteeism as their father to work on this manuscript, yet sustained me nonetheless throughout with their encouragement, companionship, and assistance. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.…….……………………………………………………………….1 II. METHODS AND DATA……………………………………………………………..26 III. PERSONAL BACKGROUNDS AND RACIAL VOTING…………………………65 IV. RACIST LAWMAKERS AND CONSTITUENT BASES…..……………………...99 V. THE SECOND PARTY SYSTEM IN TENNESSEE…..…………………………..160 VI. THE SECOND PARTY SYSTEM IN OHIO..…………………………………….229 VII. THE REALIGNMENT OF THE 1850s….………………………………………..304 VIII. CONCLUSION.…………………………………………………………………..369 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………396 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………….451 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Tennnessee Legislature: Voting Scores on Slave Code Issues………………………52 2. Ohio Legislature: Voting Scores on Fugitive Slave Issue……………………………57 3. Regional Voting in Ohio…………………………………………………………….138 4. Regional Voting in Tennessee………………………………………………………141 5. Bloc Voting Alignments in the Tennessee Legislature……………………………..210 6. Tennessee Legislative Parties, Racial Issues, and Rice Indices of Cohesion……….213 7. Tennessee Legislators, Racial Issues, and Two-Polarity Polarity…………………..216 8. Tennessee Democrats and Voting Scores…………………………………………...218 9. Tennessee Whigs and Voting Scores………………………………………………..220 10. Western Reserve Legislators and Voting on Racial Issues………………………...256 11. Ohio Legislative Parties and Rice Indices of Cohesion……………………………292 12. Ohio Democrats and Voting Scores………………………………………………..294 13. Ohio Whigs and Voting Scores…………………………………………………….295 14. Ohio Legislature, Racial Issues, and Two-Party Polarity………………………….299 15. Democrats (1854-1861): Voting Scores and Rice Indices…………………………321 16. Republicans/Whigs (1854-1861): Voting Scores and Rice Indices………………..323 17. Bloc Voting Alignments and Two-Party Polarity (1854-1861)……………………325 18. Two-Party Polarity: Racial and Slavery Extension Roll Calls……………………371 viii LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 19. Slavery and Free Black Issues in Tennessee Compared (1837-1859)…………….373