Reaction to the results of the 1844 election varied. Many saw the number of votes cast for the Liberty Party as insignificant and therefore a sign of the party’s failure. Black Liberty voters in New York either abandoned electoral politics or decided they would support major party candidates in the next election who might advance black suffrage rights—a course of action for which New York City black convention delegates had previously argued. As Wesley writes, “Since [black] leaders knew that their vote was small and that the Liberty Party was not yet strong enough to be influential in the decision [to remove discriminatory black suffrage requirements], some of them were not desirous of fixing their allegiance to this one party. They suggested that they would support candidates in other parties pledged to remove the property limitations.”57 Others, however, read the election results differently, seeing much significance in the near-tenfold increase in support for the third party. That growth in the base of support for the independent party, which presumably reflected only a fraction of the number of African Americans in the nation who would have voted for the party had they had the opportunity to do so, could be tapped to continue building the independent political movement.58
The Liberty Party did play a role in determining the outcome of the 1844 election in at least one state: New York. That year, as the gag rule was finally lifted in Congress under massive abolitionist petitioning pressure, the New York Liberty Party swung the presidential election in the state—but toward the annexationist Polk. While most African Americans ended up voting for the Whig Clay—viewed as the less egregious of the two major party candidates—black independents joined their white counterparts in supporting the abolitionist Birney, knowing full well that his chances of winning were next to none. In the wake of the election, the term “spoiler” may have been used for the first time in relation to a third party (the word is used by supporters of a major party to describe independent candidates who have little or no chance of winning but are capable of “depriving” a major party victory by “taking away” votes, as if the votes belonged to the party to begin with).59 The increase in Liberty Party support in 1844 reflected growing Northern antislavery opinion in the mid-1840s, fueled by public controversy over the gag rule, the annexation of Texas as a slaveholding state, and the fate of the new territories resulting from the Mexican-American War. In this context, political opposition to proslavery forces gained increasing respect in the North. Abolitionism was no longer a fringe movement led by religious zealots and fugitive slaves, but entered the mainstream of political discourse.60
In the South, where African Americans had no political recourse, black men and women applied their own forms of pressure on the slave system. Throughout the 1840s and 1850s, in Virginia, North and South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and Alabama, African Americans asserted their autonomy when they could—destroying tools, coordinating work slowdowns, running away, setting fires, feigning illness, poisoning their masters, and taking up arms.61 It was also in this period that scientific racism began to develop “diagnoses” explaining black resistance to slavery. According to Dr. Samuel A. Cartwright, a Louisiana physician and professor of medicine, African Americans who ran away from plantations suffered from “drapetomania,” while those who showed a lack of motivation for forced labor were infected by “dysaethesia aethiopica,” a condition whose symptoms were particular to the “Negro race.”62 “Rascality” may have more accurately described the actions of New York City’s election registrars and tax officials than African Americans, to whom the term was applied as a symptom of disease: While barely one thousand African Americans had voted in New York in the 1845 election, two thousand were nevertheless being taxed as voters by registrars and tax-collectors.63
In the wake of the 1846 New York State constitutional convention, which declined to change the onerous property and residency requirements for black voters, Gerrit Smith, the leader of the Liberty Party, wrote an open letter to voters of the state. He maintained that the New York State Constitution, as it stood, was denying political representation to the upwards of fifty thousand African Americans living in the state. Local and national black conventions were held, at which delegates expressed their ongoing opposition to the voting requirements targeting African Americans. From October 6–9, 1847, delegates for the National Convention of Colored People and their Friends met in Troy, New York. They resolved to push for the “procurement of political rights” and against “any plan of emancipation involving a resort to bloodshed.” Another black convention held in Boston the following year voted similarly to pursue “moral and political action.” In the midst of these meetings, resistance to legal and institutional control over African Americans took personal forms.64
Embodying the larger fight for self-determination among those in the Northern free black community was Frederick Douglass’s struggle to develop his own voice and organizational base. From the time he met William Lloyd Garrison in 1841, Douglass assumed a moral suasionist position, opposing the mixing of abolitionism with the base politicking of electoral contests and parties. However, he had begun to reconsider his position as he entered one after another debate with his black peers, from Henry Highland Garnet to Theodore S. Wright (each active in antislavery societies advocating moral suasion and independent politics via the Liberty Party). Dialogue, along with further reading in law, political philosophy, and American government, increasingly led Douglass to view the U.S. Constitution as an antislavery document, not a “covenant with the devil,” as Garrison called it. Douglass would later say that “to refrain from voting was to refuse to exercise a legitimate and powerful means for abolishing slavery.”65 His “new reading” of the Constitution—which had been articulated by both Maria Stewart and later argued by Gerrit Smith—would eventually bring Douglass into direct conflict with his former mentor.66
In 1847, Douglass announced to Garrison his intention to start his own newspaper. Garrison was strongly opposed, stating that Douglass would not be able to maintain his lecturing schedule and run a paper (despite Garrison having done so himself for over a decade and a half). Douglass nevertheless organized the financial and logistical support to do so. On December 3, 1847, Douglass established the North Star in Rochester, New York, and it quickly became the most influential black newspaper of the day. Douglass not only denounced slavery in his editorial pages, but used the paper to advocate women’s political rights. In July of 1848, he traveled to Seneca Falls, New York, to attend the first in a series of annual women’s rights conventions. The convention had been organized by abolitionists Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, prompted by Mott’s having been denied a seat several years earlier at an international antislavery meeting in London because she was female. With over 240 people in attendance (40 of whom were men), Douglass took the podium and helped to sway the convention to support a resolution calling for women’s suffrage, the most controversial of a number of women’s rights issues that were being discussed at the convention, including equal access to education, divorce rights, and equal rights to employment. The North Star’s masthead would exemplify Douglass’s radical view: “Right is of no Sex, Truth is of no Color.” Subscriptions to the paper were “two dollars per annum, always in advance.” Douglass, it seemed, was both visionary and practical.67
The positive reception given to the North Star by African Americans brought Douglass into even closer contact with black communities in the North and gave him the space to develop his political voice.68 Not surprisingly, Douglass’s relationship with Garrison was strained. Underlying the growing distance between the two was not only Douglass’s new perspective on the Constitution, but his growing political independence. The former fugitive