Sep
25
The Free Soil Party: Its Lasting Impact and Suggestions for American Reform
Filed Under From the Field, Minor Party Influence | Leave a Comment
Lydia Ring is a junior majoring in Politics, with concentration in American Politics, as well as Economics
This post is the third of this season of From the Field. If you have not yet done so, please read this brief post by the series editor introducing our focus for the season.
In the years leading up to the American Civil War, slavery was one of the topics that drew the most attention in national politics. In his book, Liberty Power, Corey M. Brooks suggests that in advance of the 1848 presidential election, the two major parties (Whigs and Democrats) were having difficulty unifying on the issue of slavery and its expansion into the new territories (129). In response, the Free Soil Party was formed in 1848. The new minor party opposed the expansion of slavery. The Free Soil Party only existed for six years before it was absorbed into the newly forming Republican Party. Its agenda may have been too narrowly tailored with its sole focus on the issue of expanding slavery rather than the larger abolitionist cause, causing the party to lose relevance and support following the Compromise of 1850.
Despite the short existence of the Free Soil Party, it offers a valuable lens through which minor parties in America can be considered. An examination of the Free Soil Party reveals that this minor party had a significant impact on the larger political scene and suggests reform related to minor parties today. The Free Soil’s impact on the US party system can be seen in three major areas: its influence in making the issue of slavery important, the end of the Whig Party, and the formation of the Republican Party. Furthermore, a consideration of the Free Soil Party suggests ranked-choice voting as a helpful reform to help third parties today have long-term electoral success.
Regarding the influence of the Free Soil Party, this party first brought the expansion of slavery to the center of national politics, making it a national debate on which any party desiring to remain viable must take a stance. According to the Lawsons in their book, Race and Ethnicity in America, the unsuccessful yet well-known proposition of the Wilmot Proviso in 1946 suggested that the US should not allow slavery in any territories obtained from Mexico, which made the expansion of slavery a relevant debate (443). The Wilmot Proviso gave the Free Soil Party an opportunity to reorganize the party system around positions on slavery. The Free Soil Party took an emerging national debate and made it the defining issue of the time. The pressure imposed by the Free Soil Party in this way had great implications for the political system as a whole. For the existing major parties such as the Whig and Democratic Parties, there was division on this issue. The Free Soil Party’s creation placed existing parties under pressure in this area, leading to major shifts within the US party system as a whole.
Second, the Free Soil Party’s influence can be seen in the demise of the Whig Party following the 1852 election. When the Free Soil Party declared itself and its antislavery stance, natural party sorting occurred. Both Whigs and Democrats who were strongly antislavery abandoned their former party to join this new effort. According to Stephen Buck’s analysis of the national political scene in 1852, as the Free Soil Party gained momentum, the Whig Party “failed to grasp the importance of the slavery issue, instead continuing to focus on economic issues as the real problem” (48). While the Free Soil Party was tapping into the relevance of the slavery debate regarding US territories, the Whigs became increasingly irrelevant due to their inability to take a position on this important issue. The Free Soil Party’s push for debate on the issue of slavery highlighted divisions within the Whig Party on this topic and led to their eventual collapse. Many Southern Whigs joined the Democratic Party, while many Northern Whigs joined the antislavery forces in the North.
Third, the influence of the Free Soil Party is revealed in the unification of many Northern antislavery advocates in the newly forming Republican Party. While the Free Soil Party ceased operations in 1954, it was influential in helping the Republican Party establish itself using this issue of slavery. During the 1950s, the larger political system was characterized by confusion due to a lack of clarity among Whigs and Democrats on the issue of slavery. Buck also argues that “the problem of party identity began to clear during the 1854 campaign as the county Free-Soil Party declared its allegiance to the nascent Republican Party” (50). Now, with the endorsement of the Free Soil Party, the Republican Party could act as a place for antislavery advocates to unite. With this transition, the political system was completely transformed and America’s 3rd party system was created. Today, the Republican Party has evolved into one of the two major parties that dictate national politics.
To help minor parties today avoid the end that the Free Soil Party faced, ranked-choice voting emerges as a helpful reform. Many minor parties today are still struggling to gain sufficient momentum to hold seats in political offices and implement policies related to their platforms. Ranked-choice voting responds effectively to these issues without requiring an amendment to the Constitution or congressional law. When voters have the opportunity to rank candidates, it eliminates the idea of a wasted vote and encourages voters to give third-party candidates a chance. In the first empirical study examining ranked-choice voting, Gutierrez, Simmons, and Transue used survey research to evaluate the extent to which this voting system could boost electoral support for third-party candidates and found a strong relationship between ranked-choice voting and support for third-party candidates (374). The biggest concern with ranked-choice voting is that it has the potential to make political involvement even more confusing and demanding for the average American, which would discourage rather than encourage voter participation. While this reform would require an adjustment period to educate and assist Americans in this new system, the long-term value outweighs the short-term cost.
Promoting minor parties through reform is valuable because it will provide greater representation for political moderates who are currently dissatisfied with the two polarized extremes within the US political system. As explained by a political theory known as DuVerger’s Law, America’s use of single-member districts with plurality elections is expected to produce a two-party system. Research by Morris Fiorina in Unstable Majorities indicates that a polarized two-party system is not helpful because the average American is not as politically extreme as those who are highly involved in politics. This disparity leads to ineffective representation of the vast majority of the American public. Increasing the success of minor parties within the American system will allow for a more effective representation of America’s diverse population.
The Free Soil Party provides a valuable lens for evaluating minor parties in America. While the party was influential in shaping political transitions during the 1840s and 1850s that had enduring impacts, its ultimate failure to become an enduring organization suggests the need for institutional reform. The recommendation of ranked-choice voting offers an opportunity to strengthen minor parties and, through this growth, promote better representation for the average American in today’s party system. While the two-party system is deeply rooted in American politics, change is not impossible. Institutional reform in the form of ranked-choice voting is a promising option for the future success of minor parties and addresses key issues within today’s two-party system.