Antecedents of Fremont and Dayton

John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton are not names that easily come to most minds when discussing America’s political history. Yet, these figures were once potent factors in the political landscape of the United States, their actions indicative of the complex era in which they served. To understand their significance, we must journey back to mid-nineteenth century America, a time of potent debate and explosive realities revolving around topics of slavery, political loyalties, and the expansion of a nation desperately grappling with its identity.

Framing the subject in this larger context allows us to imbue these individuals - and the turbulent times they represented - with the rich detail and gravity they rightly deserve. It is worth noting that our reliance on historical records presents a foundation that is both essential and at times problematic, as these documents are inevitably subject to the vicissitudes of interpretation and the peculiarities of the time and person who authored them. The text at hand, a decidedly assertive critique of Fremont and Dayton’s political actions, is no exception.

John Charles Fremont, whom the source labels as a "Black Republican candidate for President," had a political experience largely characterized by a fleeting but significant service of twenty-one days in the United States Senate. The controversy here arises from his voting behavior surrounding the issue of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, further deepened by his stand on the matter of refunding the African Colonization Society's advanced funds to the United States.

The quote from the article vividly portrays the situation: “Out the 16th of December, 1845, the United States ship Yorktown, Commodore Bell, landed at Monrovia, in Liberia, from the slaver Pons, 750 recaptured Africans, in a naked, starving and dying condition, all of them, excepting twenty-one, being under the age of twenty-one. The United States made no provision for support after they were landed.” Fremont’s decision to vote against refunding the African Colonization Society is openly criticized in the text, presenting an image of a politician whose stance on racial equality and human rights is contentious, at best.

His running mate, William Lewis Dayton, is presented as even more problematic. With a voting record that includes the approval of flogging in the Navy and a vote against the refunding of a $1000 fine to the legendary Andrew Jackson, his reputation as a ‘relic of barbarism’ is one that seemingly belies the era’s increasing focus on human rights and political pragmatism.

Despite his infractions, however, one could argue that Dayton was reflective of a specific, albeit darker, facet of the American reality at the time. The source points out that Dayton once stated, “The questions of free soil and slavery were not the great questions of the Whig party. They constructed too narrow a ledge for that party to stand upon.” Herein exists a man who blatantly prioritized political stability over the shifting societal concerns of his era.

To place them on a pedestal of heavy critique without comprehensively examining the historical context of the time would be an oversimplification. The nation itself was caught in a quagmire of profound ideological conflicts, often driven by systemic paradigms more than personal ingrained beliefs. These behaviors reflect not only the personal orientations of Fremont and Dayton but also the greater societal and political climate within which they operated.

However, the larger takeaway from this analysis of Fremont and Dayton — whether from their policy decisions or their political maneuvers — is the immense impact such individuals can have on the evolution of a nation’s political climate and, indeed, on its history. The strength of their beliefs, the direction of their leanings, and their resulting votes on potentially nation-altering issues have helped shape the America we know today.

In the end, our understanding of the past and the figures that populated it must be seen as a part of a continual dialogue, an ongoing process of historical interpretation and reinterpretation. Whenever we embark on these journeys of exploration, we illuminate not only the subjects we study but also ourselves and the society within which we live. Our understanding of the past, after all, helps us make sense of the present — and gives us clear-eyed wisdom to face the future.

**Citation**:
- Trinity Journal, [Antecedents of Fremont and Dayton,, 1856-08-30]
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/


Original Article:

All the political experience which Fremont, the Black Republican candidate for President, ever had, was a service of twenty one days in the United Stntes Senate.— While there that extremely limited time he voted against a proposition to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, subject to a popular vote, as well as against its unconditional abolishment, lie also voted against refunding to the African Colonization Society the money which it had advanced to the United States, under the following circumstances, as stated in a report to the Senate : “Outlie 16th of December, 1845, the United States ship Yorktown, Commodore Bell, lauded at Monrovia, in Liberia, from the slaver Pons, seven hundred and fifty recaptured Africans, in a nuked, starving and dying condition, all of them, excepting twenty-one, being under the age of twenty one. The United States made no provision for support after they were landed.” I* services of providing for the destitute negroes were not required to be perforined by the Society under their constitution, but the alternative was to leave these recaptured Africans to starve and die, and the Society, therefore, cheerfully took charge of them, rely ing upou the Government of the United States to refund the cost to the Society. “ The question wns discussed at length as to whether the United Stutes would pay these just and legal demands ; and, on the vote being taken for the engrossment of the bill to the third reading, Mr. Fremont’s name is found recorded in the negative—among the extreme Southern men. “ Such are the only political antecedents of the candidate of that party which professes to be si) devoted to the * cause of human feedom.’ Sincere and conscientious antislavery men will be slow to put their trust ami confidence in him, whatever the politicians—who brought him out to subserve fctho.irs.ywn sellish purposes— muy do. ST “ The antecedents of Dayton arc even Worse than those of Fremont. He voted I diite in the Senate in favor of flogging in { he Navy, although humanity cried aloud (wits abolition, lie was among the few Wf ho dung to that ‘relict of barbarism’ which L-.tni been so long a disgrace to the AmcriHt i Hag. lie opposed the refunding to drew Jackson the fine of $1000, imposed Judge Hall, which Jackson had paid at NeV Ui leans, in 1815, under circumstances which caused every patriot to desire that it should be refunded to him, und it was doue by an overwhelming vote. “ The ‘ explorations’of Fremont in Oregon and California were judged of so little importance by Dayton, his associate on the Presidential ticket, that he voted on August 5th, 184M, against an appropriation of $o0.(100 to continue und complete them. *' Smell was the estimation by the Black Republican Vice President of the sole claim to fame which is advanced by the friends of Fremont. Dayton also voted against the Compromise measures introduced into the United States Senate by Henry Clay, 1852, at the imminent risk of disunion and civil war, which would have followed their rejection. On the 8th of August, 1848, Dayton said : I lie questions of freesoil and slavery were not the great questions of the Whig party. They eon strutted too narrow a ledge fee that party to stand upon. “ ■' ngust 10, 1848, the Oregon Bill being {liifnrc the Senate, ‘the question was taken on the amendment embracing the Missouri • (L’oni|iromise, and it was decided, yeas 3!f, Bays 21,’ and in the negative is the vote of Mr Dayton. “ Verily, are not these beautiful antecedents for the lliack Republican nominees.”