[AuH2ORepublican]

Polk was pro-slavery, more so than Clay, so I would think that abolitionists would support Clay over Polk. However, enough voted for Birney to keep Clay from winning.

I don’t think any abolitionist president was elected between JQ Adams in 1824 and Lincoln in 1860 (with the possible exception of Van Buren in 1836). It wasn’t exactly a time of principled national politicians.

[LS]

1) Right on both counts, BUT, in 1844 Clay had a famous letter where he so straddled the fence that it alienated people on both sides. At least Polk was honest---but remember, Polk was viewed as "safe" because he was a westerner. No true southerner could get elected president at that time. Technically, VB owned a slave who had run away years earlier, and Monroe's family owned slaves, but the only southerner to become president after Monroe was Tyler---a VP.

2) True for the same reason as above. See my opening chapter in the new book out Tuesday, "Martin Van Buren has a Nightmare and Creates the Political Parties . . . in the 1820s," in Seven Events that Made America America. VB wanted to crush all discussion, pro or con, about slavery and did so with patronage or bribes. Sounds just like Sestak.