Introduction

Click HERE for links to biographies of Free Soil Party leaders, members and supporters from Scribner’s Dictionary of American Biography.


Free Soil Party, founded August 9-10, 1848, in Buffalo, New York.  It included members of the “Conscience Whigs” Party, Democrats and members of the Liberty Party.  The motto was, “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men.”  It was a third party, whose main purpose was opposing the expansion of slavery into the Western territories acquired after the war with Mexico.  The party argued that free men on free soil was a morally and economically superior system to slavery.  The party agreed with the Wilmot Proviso, and tried to remove existing laws that discriminated against freed African Americans.  The party was active from 1848 to 1852.  The party’s support came largely from the areas of upstate New York.  The party membership was absorbed by the Republican Party at its founding in 1854. It sent two senators and fourteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives to the Thirty-First congress in 1849.

(Blue, 1987; Blue, 1973; Blue, 2005, pp. 3, 4, 7, 9-13, 35, 54-55, 66, 68-75, 121, 123, 139, 142, 144-145, 146, 170-171, 184, 198-205, 212, 214, 218-219, 236, 245; Duberman, 1968; Dumond, 1961; Earle, 2004; Filler, 1960, pp. 108, 122, 132, 182, 187, 189, 200, 213, 219, 223, 228, 233, 237, 253; Foner, 1970, 1995; Maybee, 1970, pp. 98, 110, 161, 173, 178, 247, 253, 261, 278, 279, 391n29; Mitchell, 2007, pp. 4, 7, 9, 19, 22, 26, 35, 44-47, 53-56, 60-73; Rayback, 1970, Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 50, 133-136, 173, 225, 297-298, 354, 514, 650-651; Sernett, 2002, pp. 124-127, 152; Sewell, 1976; Smith, 1897 Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774-1927 (1928);


Chapter: “Coalition in Massachusetts. Election of Mr. Sumner,” by Henry Wilson, in History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, 1872.

In the year 1848 there were thousands of Democrats who sympathized, for various reasons, with the Free Soil movement, though they gave a reluctant support to General Cass. But when the election was over, and the government had passed from Democratic rule, and the Southern pressure was in some measure lifted by both the removal of the responsibility of power and what was deemed Southern recreancy in deserting General Cass for General Taylor, there were many who hoped that their party would place itself in better position. This was specially manifested in Ohio in the organization of its legislature, in the election of judges, and also in the election of Mr. Chase as United States Senator. In Connecticut the Democrats and Free-Soilers combined in the election of members of Congress; Mr. Booth, who had voted the Free Soil ticket, Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Waldo, who had publicly indorsed the Free Soil platform, being chosen members of the House. In Vermont, too, a similar fusion was effected, and the Democrats passed antislavery resolutions.

The Massachusetts Democratic State convention met in Springfield on the 19th of September, 1849. It consisted of about six hundred members, who adopted with hardly a dissenting voice, and with general applause, resolutions avowing opposition "to slavery in every form and color" ; pronouncing "in favor of freedom and free soil wherever man lives throughout God's heritage"; and declaring that "slavery is a mere municipal regulation," that it " does not exist in the Territories by municipal law," that " Congress has no power to institute it," that " the local laws of our State can never be transported there," that it " can never exist there but by local law sanctioned by Congress." They also declared their opposition to the extension of slavery to the Territories, and in favor of restricting it to the limits within which it exists by the local laws of the States. Those resolutions were drawn up by Benjamin F. Hallett. On his way to the convention he read them to Charles C. Hazewell, then editor of the Boston “Times," and to Mr. Wilson, then editor of the Boston “Emancipator and Republican." Mr. Hazewell was a gentle man of vast historical acquisitions, of extraordinary memory, and of progressive views. He approved of the sentiments of the resolutions; but he asked Mr. Hallett what the Southern Democrats would say to them. To this question that gentleman promptly replied: "I do not care what they say. We have risked everything for them. They deserted General Cass and elected General Taylor. They can take care of themselves and we can take care of ourselves." They were indorsed by the Boston “Post “on the morning after the convention, and the opinion was expressed that the two minority parties could act together on State affairs. There was cooperation in many of the senatorial and representative districts, but it was mainly for local purposes. In Wisconsin, too, there was a like co-operation between the Free-Soilers and the Democrats, the Democratic State convention passing a series of resolutions of the most thorough antislavery character.

The New York Democratic State committee invited the Free Soil State committee to unite with them in calling a union convention for the nomination of a union ticket. In response the committee reiterated their convictions concerning slavery, declared it to be a social and political evil, avowed their attachment to the ordinance of 1787, and stated that they could form no combinations that would require its abandonment. They expressed their gratification that Democrats in other States were taking ground against slavery extension. Not withstanding this reply, the two parties met simultaneously in convention at Rome on the 16th of August. The Democratic convention passed resolutions in favor of the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories and in the District of Columbia, but would not pass any making slavery a test question. The Free Soil convention adopted resolutions embodying the principles of the Buffalo platform. Committees of conference were appointed, but the Democratic convention refused to accept the resolutions of the Free Soil body. And yet the latter, under the lead of John Yan Buren, proposed to merge the two conventions in one. But the proffer was declined, and the two adjourned. The Free-Soilers immediately issued an address to the public in which they arraigned with much severity the course of the Democratic convention.

The Democratic State convention was held at Syracuse on the 5th of September, nominated a State ticket, and, singularly enough in view of what had transpired and of their hitherto unsuccessful efforts at union, proposed that the Free-Soilers should name a portion of the candidates to be voted for, providing, however, that they should be well-known Democrats, and that they should " impose no principle or test " upon the candidates " inconsistent with the resolutions " adopted at Rome by the Democratic convention, conditions that effectually disfranchised the old members of the Liberty party and the forty thousand Whigs who had voted with the Free Soil party.

In the Free Soil, or Barnburner, convention at Utica, both the resolutions and the speeches were antislavery in character, and strong hopes were expressed that the Democratic Party would soon be found occupying that ground. In one of the resolutions adopted it was declared to be “dishonorable to New York if the Democracy of this great Commonwealth should reject the teachings of her Tompkins and her Wright, and refuse to assist in this great work of regeneration, the foundations of which were laid by Thomas Jefferson." “We expect to make the Democratic party of this State," said John Yan Buren, “the great antislavery party of this State, and through it to make the Democratic party of the United States the great antislavery party of the United States." Said Henry B. Stanton: " Here and to-day we are doing up the work of centuries, and God help us to do it well!” He expressed the belief that the people, the masses, could be “trusted on the question of slavery."

But, notwithstanding these distinct and loudly proclaimed avowals of antislavery sentiments, the convention proceeded to the acceptance of the Syracuse proposition for the union of the parties in the ensuing election. Without any security that the sentiments they had just avowed should become the principles of the united party, or any assurance other than their professed ability to convert the Democratic organization to their faith, they entered into an organic union with a party whose past history and current policy were in direct antagonism with the avowed principles and purposes of their own. As might have been expected, the only effect was disastrous. Instead of converting the Democratic Party, they themselves apostatized from their loudly proclaimed faith, accepted the compromise measures of 1850, helped elect and sustained Franklin Pierce, whose administration was the most intensely proslavery on record.

When the Whig majority in the Massachusetts legislature rejected Mr. Wilson's proposition to request Mr. Webster to vote against the pending compromise measures, he declared his determination to co-operate with anybody of men to drive the dominant party from power, and to send to the Senate a statesman who would fitly represent the cherished and distinguishing opinions of the Commonwealth. Avowing himself as opposed to the fusion of parties except on “the basis of the full and complete recognition of the principles embodied in the Buffalo platform," he advocated a “coalition” between the Free Soil and Democratic parties, each party to retain its distinctive organization, principles, and policy. He kept the pledge thus made on the floor of the House of Representatives, and during the spring and summer of 1850 did what he could to secure the co-operation of the masses of these parties. The death of President Taylor, the reactionary course of Mr. Fillmore, the activity of Mr. Webster, the defection of Northern Whigs, and the assured triumph of the compromise measures, seemed to him to make a coalition a necessity and its success a duty. To aid that result he, as chairman of the State committee of the Free Soil party, invited one hundred of the leading Free-Soilers of the State to meet with the committee on the 10th of September. The meeting was held at the Adams House in Boston. Some fifty or sixty were present. It was a meeting remarkable for its large proportion of thoughtful and cultivated men, and men, too, of irreproachable character and unblemished integrity. They were persons who would very naturally think independently, and differ, too, on the new questions that were pressing their claims and clamoring for answers. Mr. Wilson presided, and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to consider the policy of co-operating with the Democrats at the coming election. He expressed the belief that a large majority of the Free Soil party were in favor of a coalition for the purpose of securing a United States Senator for six years, and that, if the State committee and other leading Free-Soilers united upon that policy, it would be successful. It was for the purpose of canvassing the question and ascertaining their views that he had called them together.

The discussion was opened by John G. Palfrey, who expressed his decided opposition to the proposed movement. He thought the value of electing a United States Senator had been exaggerated, that there were doubts of their ability to carry out such a programme, and that the proposed coalition might prove disastrous to their own organization. Charles Francis Adams expressed a similar opposition in language very decided and unequivocal. With similar emphasis and decision did Richard H. Dana, Jr., Samuel Hoar, and Stephen H. Phillips also oppose the proposed coalition. On the other hand, Marcus Morton, William Jackson, Dr. Caleb Swan, and John B. Alley favored it, and augured the best results there from. But, at the suggestion of Mr. Adams, William A. White moved that no action should be taken committing the State committee or the party, but that each member should be left to act according to his sense of duty. His motion received the concurrence of the meeting. A majority of those present were unquestionably opposed to the plan, but a minority believed it could be made a success, and were determined to make the trial. There can be no doubt, however, that, though these men differed in regard to the proposed policy, they were actuated by a common purpose. Among those who favored the proposed action was William Jackson, who had been long an antislavery man, a prominent member of the Liberty party, but who held all parties as matters of secondary importance, to be subordinated to the paramount claims of freedom. He made an earnest speech. Though, he said, he did not expect to live to see the day when the Liberty or Free Soil party would have a majority in the State or the nation, he was anxious that they should throw their votes so that they should be felt, that they should be as faithful to liberty as the slaveholders were to slavery. “I want to make my vote tell," he said, " and it will not do to be too straight and perpendicular for the sake of principle." Dr. Swan, too, a veteran and earnest antislavery man, strenuously advocated the proposed coalition. A campaign paper was started, called the "Free-Soiler," edited by Francis W. Bird, John B. Alley, and Horace E. Smith. It advocated the proposed union on the distinct ground of censuring the action of Mr. Webster, repudiating the compromise measures and the administration, and electing a Free Soil senator. The " Emancipator and Republican," edited by Mr. Wilson, the Dedham " Gazette," by Mr. Keyes, the Worcester " Spy," by Mr. Earle, the Lowell " American," by William S. Robinson, the Northampton " Courier," by Mr. Gere, advocated a coalition upon the same basis.

The Free Soil State convention met in Boston on the 3d of October. The convention was called to order by Mr. Wilson, Amasa Walker was made temporary chairman, and Joseph T. Buckingham was made permanent president. Both Stephen C. Phillips and John Mills sent letters declining to be again candidates for governor and lieutenant-governor. These letters and the question of candidates were referred to a committee of one from each county. The committee reported the names of Mr. Phillips and Mr. Walker as candidates, and they were nominated by acclamation and a rising vote. These nominations were very satisfactory to the party and commanded a hearty support. Mr. Phillips was among the earliest advocates of antislavery in the ranks of the Whig party. He was a successful merchant, of liberal education and culture, a ready, earnest, and forcible speaker, eminently conscientious and practical, and always ready to make personal sacrifices for the cause he espoused. Mr. Walker was also a merchant. Though he belonged to the Democratic Party he was an early and earnest antislavery man. With wealth, practical sagacity, mental culture and acumen, he was an earnest and effective worker in the ranks of the new party.

Charles Francis Adams reported a series of resolutions in which the compromise measures were declared to be " shocking to the best feelings of the human heart," and the Fugitive Slave Act " an insult to humanity, a disgrace to free America, and a dishonor to the civilization of the age "; that to " such a law no obedience can spring from the heart;" and that " no duty is more imperative than that of laboring from this time forward for its immediate and unconditional repeal." Brief and eloquent speeches were made by Julian of Indiana, Free Soil member of Congress, Sumner, Adams, Burlingame, Keyes, Leavitt, Bradburn, and White.

Horace Mann had been selected by the Whigs of the Eighth District to succeed John Quincy Adams. His antislavery opinions were well known when elected, and he had never exhibited any faltering in Congress from the position he had maintained at home. His severe criticism and condemnation of Mr. Webster and his course were, however, very distasteful to his Whig constituents, and he was rejected as their candidate for the pending election. But what had so grievously offended the Whigs recommended him to the Free-Soilers. A District convention was held at Dedham, over which Mr. Adams presided. In his address he said that " there was no question that the striking down of the Representative in this District would be considered by the slaveholders as the greatest triumph yet achieved, because he had the courage to do what no other public man had done. He had boldly taken the great traitor by the throat and held him up to the view of the people of Massachusetts." He said that the present afforded a fine opportunity to “overlook the rigid lines of party," and to extend the hand of fellowship to the men of other parties who agreed with them in “support of great principles." As for himself, he declared his determination never to be a candidate for office "upon a ticket formed by any combination of parties unless it was founded on Free Soil principles." Speeches were made by Edward L. Keyes, Francis W. Bird, and Edwin Thompson. Mr. Mann received the unanimous vote of the convention, and was triumphantly elected by the people.

The Free Soil and Democratic conventions of Middlesex County were held at Concord for the nomination of six Senators on the same day; George F. Farley presiding over the former, and Benjamin F. Butler over the latter. Mr. Farley, on taking the chair, gave a searching review of the Whig party, vindicated the principles of the Free Soil organization, and justified the proposed union of forces for the triumph of the principles of the new party. A committee of conference with the Democrats was appointed. John A. Bolles, William A. White, Chauncy L. Knapp, James M. Stone, and S. P. Adams vindicated the proposed policy for local purposes, for the condemnation of the administration, and the election of a United States Senator pledged to freedom. Mr. Stone gave pertinent expression to the great thought of the movement by saying that he would “use the weapon of the Whig party to strike power out of the grasp of the Democratic Party, and the weapon of the Democratic party to strike power out of the grasp of the Whig party."

Mr. Wilson defined the grounds on which he favored the proposed union. Not State issues, but liberty, afforded the motive that influenced him in his action. By temporarily uniting with the Democrats he hoped to secure the balance of power, and place the Free-Soilers in a position to direct the policy of Massachusetts and place the Old Commonwealth “in the van in the great contest to rescue the government from the grasp of the Slave Power." He wished, above all, to send a true and tried champion of freedom to the Senate of the United States, “to stand side by side with Hale, Seward, and Chase, to fight the battles of liberty for the next six years." Whatever measures might be needful for the glory of the State would receive their support; “but all these measures," he said,” must be subordinate to the great question of the age." In the nomination of Mann and Fowler the Free-Soilers had shown their readiness to unite with Whigs whenever by so doing they could advance their principles. The proffer was accepted by the Democratic convention, the desired arrangement was made in the senatorial and representative Districts, and the nominations, thus made, secured the almost unanimous support of the Free Soil and Democratic parties.

The Free Soil speakers and presses placed their appeal for popular support on the same basis. The views of the masses of the party were well expressed by Mr. Sumner, a few days before the election, in a speech in Faneuil Hall. " It is because," he said, " I place freedom above all else that I cordially concur in the different unions and combinations throughout the Commonwealth, in Mr. Mann's District, of Free-Soilers with Whigs; also in Mr. Fowler's District, of Free-Soilers with Whigs; and generally in senatorial Districts, of Free-Soilers with Democrats. By the first of these, two good men may be secured in Congress, while by the latter the friends of freedom may obtain a controlling influence in the legislature of Massachusetts during the coming session, and thus advance our cause. They may arbitrate between both the old parties, making freedom their perpetual object, and in this way contribute more powerfully than they otherwise could to the cause which has drawn us together." These sentiments, thus fully and frankly expressed by Mr. Sumner, not only embodied the sentiments of the great body of the Free Soil party, but unquestionably contributed largely to his selection as candidate for the senatorship after its success. The coalition triumphed. There was no choice for governor, and decisive majorities were secured in both houses of the legislature. When it assembled in January, 1851, committees of conference were appointed by the Free Soil and Democratic caucuses. With entire unanimity, the Free Soil members authorized their committee, at the head of which was placed the venerable John Milton Earle, to express their entire readiness to elect Mr. Boutwell governor, and to allow Democratic candidates to fill the other State offices, on the sole condition that a Free-Soiler, selected by Free-Soilers, should be elected for the long term to the Senate of the United States. For this they had fought the battle, and for this they were willing to sacrifice everything else. The Democrats acquiesced in the arrangement, though they expressed a preference that Free-Soilers should fill some of the State offices.

But this arrangement was not made without opposition. Mr. Palfrey addressed a letter to the Free Soil members of the legislature in deprecation of the proposed measure, expressing similar sentiments to those he had avowed at the conference. He reiterated the idea that they were overestimating the importance of having a Senator, who must necessarily be in a lean minority, while the risks to the Free Soil party were great, -- too great to be wisely run for a boon of such questionable value. He expressed the conviction that they were on the eve of great changes, and of new combinations in the political world, and that they should keep themselves free from entangling alliances, and hold themselves in a position to profit by any new developments which might be, at any time, expected. Mr. Adams wrote a letter to the Boston “Atlas," expressing concurrence in the views maintained by Mr. Palfrey. He expressed confidence in “the purity of purpose” of the Free Soil party, and, though he might not agree with the majority in the means to the end, he believed “the end we mean to reach is one and the same, -- the predominance of the principles of freedom in the national policy." He confessed that he felt almost as strongly as any of his party the temptation to overlook the difficulties in his desire to secure the results. “Most especially should I be reconciled," he said, " to everything short of the dissolution of the party into old-line Democracy, if it could ring the political knell of one whose course has done more, in my humble judgment, to shake the wavering principles and unsettle the highest policy of Puritan New England than that of any man known in its history."

The Free Soil proposition was accepted. Henry Wilson was made president of the Senate, and Nathaniel P. Banks, Jr., speaker of the House; Mr. Boutwell was chosen governor, Mr. Cushman was made lieutenant-governor, Amasa Walker, the Free Soil candidate for lieutenant-governor, was made Secretary of State, the Free-Soilers had four of the nine councillors, and Robert Rantoul, Jr., proposed by the Democrats, was accepted and elected to the United States Senate for the remainder of the time ending March 4, 1851. Mr. Simmer was unanimously selected by the Free-Soilers, receiving eighty-two votes as their candidate for Senator for the long term, and after a somewhat exciting debate his nomination was accepted by the Democratic caucus. A few Democrats, under the lead of Caleb Cushing, opposed his nomination, as also did the "Morning Post," the organ of the party, and several other Democratic papers. Samuel D. Bradford addressed a letter to the Democratic members of the legislature, in which he warned them of the peril to the party the proposed coalition would bring; and he told them they were standing " on the very brink of political annihilation," and implored them not to disturb the country by sending " a firebrand into the councils of the nation."

Robert C. Winthrop was selected as the Whig candidate for Senator. In the Senate Mr. Sumner received twenty-three votes, Mr. Winthrop fourteen, and Henry W. Bishop one. On the first ballot in the House Mr. Sumner received one hundred and eighty-six votes, Mr. Winthrop one hundred and sixty-seven. As one hundred and ninety-three votes were necessary for a choice, Mr. Sumner lacked five of the requisite number. The recusant Democrats gave twenty-three votes, and there were a few scattering ballots cast. This failure to elect Mr. Sumner caused a deep feeling of disappointment both in and out of the legislature. Conferences and caucuses were held by the Free Soil members almost daily. A committee on organization was appointed, of which Mr. Wilson was chairman. This committee labored with tireless zeal and unfaltering faith. They insisted from the beginning that their candidate could be elected and should be elected, and that no change or compromise should be made. They were sustained by the Free Soil masses and presses and by leading Free-Soilers in and out of the State. Adams, Dana, and Phillips, and others who opposed this alliance with the Democracy, were gratified with the selection of Mr. Sumner as the candidate, hoped for his election, and were opposed to his withdrawal or abandonment.

But, after weeks spent in unsuccessful struggles, some of the Free-Soilers, hoping that some other candidate would be more acceptable, counselled a change. Some of the seceding Democrats intimated that another candidate would command votes that Mr. Sumner had failed to receive. Indeed, Mr. Gushing took occasion to say that Mr. Sumner's cause was “a lost cause." Governor Boutwell, also believing that the contest was hopeless, counselled a change from Mr. Sumner to Stephen C. Phillips. On the 22d of February, Mr. Sumner wrote to Mr. Wilson, requesting him to communicate to the Free Soil members his desire that they should not hesitate to transfer their support to some other candidate faithful to their cause, if success could be thus achieved. In this letter he said: “Abandon me, then, whenever you think best, without notice or apology. The cause is everything; I am nothing."

But the great body of the Free-Soilers were firm, and, not withstanding the fierce opposition arrayed against their candidate, the timidity of friends, the counsels of the governor, and the inflexibility of the “indomitables," as the twenty-three Democrats styled themselves, they still adhered to their candidate. The contest continued until the 24th of April, when, on the twenty-sixth ballot, Mr. Sumner received just the requisite number, and was elected. With that majority was Nathaniel B. Borden of Fall River, an antislavery Whig and former member of Congress, who gracefully yielded to the wishes of a majority of his Whig constituents, as expressed in a memorial, circulated through the tireless efforts of James Buffinton. Of the twenty-three Democrats, it is believed that Israel Haynes of Sudbury finally gave his vote for Mr. Sumner.

The result of the vote was hailed with marked demonstrations of delight, and the Free-Soilers who had doubted the wisdom of the arrangement rejoiced in its success. In the evening an immense meeting was held in State Street, at which congratulatory speeches were made by Thomas Russell, Joseph Lyman, and Henry Wilson. This meeting then moved to the house of Mr. Sumner, but he had retired to the home of a friend in Cambridge, preferring to avoid the anticipated demonstrations of victory. The joyous crowd then went to the house of Mr. Adams, who addressed them, saying: "I am glad of the opportunity to congratulate my friends upon the glorious triumphs of liberty in the election of Mr. Sumner." But Mr. Sumner was by no means ungrateful to his friends for their long and persistent support. In a letter to Mr. Wilson, written on the day after his election, he disowned and warmly expressed his deprecation of the idea of seeming " cold and churlish in thus withdrawing from all the public manifestations of triumph to which our friends are prompted," saying that by so doing he was only following " the line of reserve " he had pursued throughout the contest. To Mr. Wilson's share in the contest he thus referred: “To your ability, energy, determination, and fidelity our cause owes its present success. For weal or woe, you must take the responsibility of having placed me in the Senate of the United States. I am prompted to add, that while you have done all this I have never heard from you a single suggestion of a selfish character, looking in any way to any good to yourself; your labors have been as disinterested as they have been effective."

Opprobrious epithets were plentifully bestowed upon those who planned and participated in the coalition. But the results abundantly vindicated both the principle and the policy of that movement. By it was placed in the Senate of the United States one who has borne a conspicuous part in the councils of the nation and rendered large service to the cause of freedom. By it was elected to the same high station, though for a brief period, Robert Rantoul, Jr., who, though a member of the Democratic Party, was a gentleman of recognized ability and clearly pronounced antislavery convictions, so pronounced that he lost caste with his party and was discarded therefor. It sent, too, or aided in sending, Charles Allen, Horace Mann, Orrin Fowler, and Robert Rantoul, Jr., to the House of Representatives for the XXXIId Congress. Conscious of the purity of their motives and aims, and gratified arid satisfied with the result, the advocates of the coalition turned from the hasty and harsh denunciations of the present, and appealed with assured confidence to the calmer judgments of the future. To those charges of “bargain and corruption” that were then so freely made against the Free Soil leaders Horace Mann replied. Referring to a similar charge, which had been made against the administration of John Quincy Adams, he said: “I believe the same charge against the Free Soil party will have come twenty years hence to the same result, that of conferring honor upon its object and infamy upon its authors.”

Source:  Wilson, Henry, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, Vol. 2.  Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1872, 338-351.