Rutherford B. Hayes, The Whigs, and Cracks in Anti-Abolitionism
Neither party in the early-1840s supported anti-slavery. The Democratic party certainly held no interest in reforming that system. The Democrats (led by Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and James K. Polk) were interested in westward expansion and the extension of slavery. Their Southern constituency ensured the Democratic party would defy civil rights into the twentieth century. Only through the Whig party could anti-slavery make any political inroads in the 1840s. As discussed in a previous post, William Slade made a strong case for slavery’s end. Former president John Quincy Adams was also a vocal anti-slavery congressional representative. But, they were a minority within the Whig party. Hayes’s Uncle Sardis Birchard, who was a devout Whig and anti-abolitionist, was a more typical party supporter.
Sardis drew young-Rutherford to the Whig party, but Rud also fell victim to hero worship, particulary of Daniel Webster who, along with Henry Clay, dominated the party. In Hayes’s description of Webster, we discover Hayes’s desired values:
The majesty of pure intellect shines forth in him. In speaking, he betrays no passion, no warmth, but all is cold and clear that falls from his lips. He can be aroused … But he is habitually calm and passionless. Yet there is a charm about the greatness of his intellect and grandeur of his mien which holds one suspended upon his lips.
Hayes was well acquainted with Webster’s style; he withdrew a collected volume of Webster’s speeches from the Kenyon library three times as a student. And like Webster, Hayes rarely fell victim to passion in his decisions. He valued intellectual consideration and emotionless response. This will become clear as we move forward in our character study of the 19th president. But, in 1840, he had not developed his views on slavery enough to even consider a passionate response.
In that year, a third party (the Liberty party) nominated James G. Birney for president. Birney, who eventually worked alongside Hayes defending freedom seekers in Ohio, was not able to muster .5% of the total vote. He was not on the ballot in most states and received most of his votes in New York and Massachusetts. Abolitionism, or even anti-slavery, did not register as a political stance many Americans were willing to take. Hayes reflected this attitude. Image: Old Kenyon Hall at Kenyon College, contemporary to when Hayes attended.
We can infer that Rutherford maintained a derisive view of abolitionists. In his Junior year, he set out to describe each of his classmates, in alphabetical order, for his journal. When he made it to E.C. Hodgkin, he noted, “A devoted Christian; a tolerable smart fellow. An Abolitionist, but an honest one.” While confronted with a smart, religious abolitionist, Hayes felt compelled to relay his notion that abolitionists must be dishonest overall. This explanation from a young college student conjures our modern tendency to disagree with, and perhaps hate individuals who hold opposing political views. Yet, when confronted with someone whom we might respect from the other side, we exempt them from our developed prejudice.
Yet, as we’ve studied in previous posts, there was a difference between an abolitionist and an anti-slavery stance. And, perhaps, there were cracks in Hayes’ views on slavery since he withdrew Yaradee: A Plea for Africa from the Kenyon library, which was a book supporting the colonization of freedmen to Africa. If Hayes had no interest in abolition, perhaps colonization piqued his imagination. At least, he proved willing to study its merits.
***
Historians have weighed in on Kenyon College and its evolution as an institution, especially in its relationship with the institution of slavery. The next entry will attempt to answer an important historiographical question related to Kenyon and it supposed Southern faculty.