John E. Iglehart Logan Esarey.

A History of Indiana from its exploration to 1922, Volume 2 online

. (page 6 of 43)
Online LibraryJohn E. Iglehart Logan EsareyA History of Indiana from its exploration to 1922, Volume 2 → online text (page 6 of 43)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



CAMPAIGN OF 1856



649



Secretary of
Ooonty State, 1854

Fna Dem.

HarrlBon 1,298 1,804

Hendricks 1^14 1,168

Henry 2,100 888

Howard 762 887

Huntington 887 807

Ja(d»>n 663 1,864

Jaaper 400 438

Jay 719 557

Jefferson 2,661 1,415

Jennings 1,465 755

Johnson 1,186 1^71

Knox 1,209 953

Koscinsko 1,026 744

Lagrange 1,142 863

Lake 547 834

Laporte 1,717 1,421

Lawrence 943 743

Madison 1,165 1,815

Marlon 8,227 2,655

MarshaU 629 634

Martin 429 497

Miami 1,218 1,017

Monroe 611 1,065

Montgomery 1,869 1,755

Morgan 1,424 1,109

Noble .^ 829 585

Ohio 506 849

Orange 662 1,013

Owen 728 814

Parke 1,600 1,095

Perry 773 770

Pike 645 619

Porter 732 618

Poe^ 955 1305

Pulaski 306 406

Putnam 1,887 1,506

RandoU>li 1»581 845

Bipley 1,633 1,218

Rosh 1,479 1,434

Scott 600 728

Sbdhy 1,576 1,771



Governor, 1856


Morton


Willard


1,432


1,642


1,606


1,410


2,486


1,188


1,019


693


1,199


1,211


694


1,565


652


586


884


867


2,476


1,994


1,891


1^26


1,204


1,660


1,109


1,544


1,566


1,029


1,802


683


808


292


2,332


2,222


1,061


1,079


1,321


1,578


3,737


8,642


932


1,044


466


777


1,435


1,632


801


1,138


.2,037


2,109


1,652


1,644


1,257


1,249


405


606


614


1,116


1,066


1,223


1,682


1381


742


1,047


608


802


997


704


883


1,750


856


667


1,766


1,987


1,901


1,233


1JW9


1,721


1,827


1,707


657


710


1,004


2,063



Digitized by



Google



mSTOEY OF INDIANA

It of the state election was favorable to
ats. The General Assembly showed a
majority on joint ballot, though the sen-
tnbUcan. Willard and the entire Demo-
were elected by majorities ranging from
0. Buchanan received 118,672, Fremont
^Hllmore, candidate of the Enow Noth-
The congressional delegation resulting
Locrats and five Republicans.

^118 Election OF 1860

paign of 1856 left politics in Indiana
ed than before. The (General Aissembly
ed by neither party and yet would be re-
Kst two United States senators. No sue-

DBcrefaryoT

State. 1854 Gorenior, 1866

Fna Dem. Morton WOlard

e45 964 1,063 i;295

61 128 182 177

628 876 1483 546

1,469 902 1,789 1,460

588 IJXXS 688 1,618

L 1,267 840 1,127 I488

2,481 I3O6 2,669 2,335

457 861 558 687

757 678 773 741

b 1,226 1,362 1,167 1,747

856 785 943 887

1,883 989 1,811 1,901

1,545 766 1,725 1,168

977 887 1,186 790

I 1,156 1,614 1,021 1,648

3020 1,458 8,8n 1,994

692 678 788 890

545 531 744 762

698 606 788 858

112,189 117,961
drtics are taken from tbe Dwmmmimnf Jimrmi$f
d 1857, cfa. II, 607.



Digitized by



Google



ELECTION OF 1860 651

oessor had been elected to John Pettit in 1855 and
consequently the place had remained vacant Gov-
ernor Wright was a candidate, but the opposing fac-
tion, January 31, in caucus, nominated Bright and
Dr. Graham Fitch of Logansport The Bepublicans
and Americans who controlled the senate, remember-
ing the Democratic precedent of 1844 and 1855, re-
fused to go into joint session. However, on Febru-
ary 5, the Democrats of the two bodies met jointly
and elected Bright and Fitch, who in due time were
given their seats in the United States senate. Both
were pro-slavery men. Leading Democrats made no
effort to defend the legality of the election. The Be-
publicans in general contented themselves with urg-
ing on the quarrel between Bright and Wright over
the senatorship, the fight between Wright and the
free banks, and the continual inter-party bickerings
in the legislature. Any sore Democrat could find op-
portunity for expression in Republican newspapers.

The two houses, at loggerheads politically^ dis-
cussed petty politics, threatened to unseat members
— ^the senate Democrats and the house Bepublicans —
and spent the session without so much as passing
revenue and appropriation bills.

This legislature was no credit to either party and
a disgrace to the state. As soon as the session was
over each member hastened to prove in the press that
he was not to blame for the failure of legislation.
The Democrats began at once to find excuses for an
extra session but none was called. As a result it be-
came necessary to dose the state asylums in April
and send the insane and blind to their homes. How-
ever, after their political ardor cooled off, the vari-
ous trustees opened the institutions, October 1, hav-
ing kept them dosed six months.**

M indlanapoUt JowrtM, Sept 24, 1867. See, also, rarioai
oOcIal Nports in the Documeni§nf Journal of 180&



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



ELECTION OP 1860 658

Slave law, everybody was passionately interested in
the statehood of Kansas.^

All the leading Democratic newspapers of the
state, except the Sentinel, thirty in number, con-
demned the Lecompton bilL^' These became the
Douglas papers and show how largely he controlled
the party in Indiana. Senator Bright, a personal
enemy of Douglas, leading the pronsflavery Demo-
crats, declared he was in favor of congress settling
the question of slavery in Kansas and not going so
far as even to submit the Eomsas constitution to a
vote of its people,** William H. English, of the
Second Indiana district, proposed to give the Blan-
sans five per cent of the proceeds of 2,000,000 acres
of land if they would accept the Lecompton constitu-
tion, but they refused by a decisive vote.**

The Democratic convention which met at Indian-
apolis January 7, 1858, was a struggle for the mas-
tery of the party. Senator Bright and Congressman
James Hughes came from Washington to see that the
administration was upheld. Daniel W, Voorhees
wrote the platform, artfully dodging all doubtful
issues, but Lew Wallace offered a plank from the
floor, endorsing the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which
precipitated an angry struggle.

The anti-slavery Democrats, not satisfied with the
results above, called a mass meeting for Indianapo-

41 Indianapolis /oamsl, Jan. 7, 186a 'The year 18S8 will
see the great battle of freedom en the floor of oongreif, and on
tbe plains of Kansas^ when it will be decided whether a ruthless
minority of Southern slave^iolders shall force a diabolical oon-
stitntion on the free people of Kansas, without even sabmitting
It for their consideration; it will see a great division In the
I>eiDOcratic party north on the question of the admission of
B^ansas with the above constitution."

4s Logansport Pharos, April 28, 186a

M Indianapolis SentinH, July 81, IMH

44 Madison Courier, May 6, 1868.



Digitized by



Google



HISTORY OP INDIANA

iry 22y 1858, which, when met, endorsed
Qd read the Indianapolis Sentinel out of

Lblican mass convention of ^' all those per-
ed to the Lecompton bill" was held March
he platform dealt almost exclusively with
iving the impression that the party intend-
)ff ti^e mistakes of the Democrats,
it interest developed during the campaign.
I little internal harmony in either party,
ile the Bepublican factions were getting
dplined and more friendly, the opposite
leld among the Democrats. The Demo-
B ticket was elected by about 2,500 major-
) congressmen did not fare so welL Some
d lost their way in the pro-slavery atmos-
i/^ashington, rendering themselves unpopu-
le.^ As a consequence the Republicans
ht and the Democrats three, a loss of three

apolis Journal, Feb. 25, 1858. **Re90lved, That the
9 Bentinelf by its preYaricatJons, misrepresentations,
mdes, as well as by its betrayal of Democratic faith,
tice to members of the party, has placed itself out-
democratic organization of the State, and forfeited
i and respect of the party.** The last section of
reconmiended the calling of a convention of the
the Northwest — a movement that would have been
the founding of the Republican party. **Besolved,
mmend to the National Democracy of the Northwest
it an early day of a mass convention at Chicago or
dtable place, and that a conmiittee of correspondence
Minted, to communicate with the democracy of other
e to the calling of such a convention.**
Hughes, represNitative from the Third, was so proud
pton bill that he declared "if every stump in Kansas
, every tree upon her soil a slave driver, and every
e tree a lash to scourge a negro to his daily toil, I
'or the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton



Digitized by



Google



ELECTION OF 1860 655

by the latter. The General Assembly became Bepub*
lican by a small majority in each honse/^

During the years between 1856 and 1860 political
leaders were trying to get their respective parties
ready for the battle of 1860 which all seemed to
recognize would test the continued supremacy of the
Democratic party, which had then controlled the
state since 1843. Democratic leaders were apprehen-
sive. They had seen their old-time majorities of 20,-
000 dwindle down to a mere technicality, the suspen-
sive veto of the governor. Wright, Bright, English,.
Davis, Lane and Pettit had seen the former Demo-
cratic conventions, harmonious and jubilant in vic-
tory and the praise of their captains, gradually
change into discordant groups of bickering, jealous,
half-hearted slackers. The machine built up with
such care and cost by Jacob Page Chapman, James
"Whitcomb, Joseph Wright, Edward Hannegan,
Tilghman Howard, and Dr. Ellis was going headlong
into the ditch with the imperious slave-master from
Madison at the wheel. On the other hand, the young
Republican colt, a cross with Whig, American, anti-
slavery and temperance strains, was cavorting dan-

^f Editor Norman, of the New Albany Ledger, in an excellent
editorial, Nor. 26, 1858, thus summed up the results: ''Since the
rise of the Republican party the northern Democracy have lost,
one after another, nearly all their ancient strongholds. In the
contest of 1866 only two northern States, Pennsylvania and Indi-
ana, gave Buchanan clear majorities. PenuEcrlvania has since
gone over, leaving Indiana alone. It is the position of Indiana
as tbe most reliable northern Democratic State and not any
particular merit of her prominent politicians that attaches more
than ordinary interest to the movements of the Democratic lead^s
within her limits. The same Causes that have spread disaster into
other States have not been unfelt here. The same division of
sentiment which followed the inauguration of the Lecompton policy
of tho administration in other States also took place in Indiana.
It was found impossible to r^ress these dissensions or prev^t
divisions.'*



Digitized by



Google



6 HI8T0BT OF INDIANA

rously, responsive to neither bit nor spur. Bnoe-
lalus needed a rider.

An overwhelming majority of the Democrats of
diana were followers of Douglas^ oonnty after
onty, in the closing days of 1859| at their mass con-
ntions declaring for hinL^* The Whigs were losing
eir American allies in the Bepnblican party for
posite reasons. Persuading themselves that they
Id the balance of power, the Americans early in
60 laid down the conditions on which they would
-operate with the Bepublicans.^ The Republicans
mplied so far with these demands as to summon a
If ass State Convention'' for February 22, 1860.
le name Republican was not used in the call, but
e ticket was officially designated Republican.

The Americans deplored the Abolition tendencies
the radical Republicans. The latter recommended
viper's Impending Crisis to their friends while
3nry S. Lane, speaking from the American stand-
int, called it incendiary.*^ The Democrats used
LS recommendation of Helper pretty effectively for
rhile; but the final result was favorable to the Re-
blicans. It was attempted to show, after the John
own raid at Harper's Ferry, ihat this hare-
ained conduct was the result of reading such litera-
re. The final sympathy, partly due to the fact that
iptain Cook, ihe companion of Brown, was a

«• Obarlet SStmmeniian, '^rlglii and Riae of the RepnbUcan
rty in Indiana," In IndUnm Moffa&ine of Hittorf, XIII» 211, 349.

49 New Albany Tribune, Jan. 18, ISSOl (1) 'That an 'Oppo-
on' conyentlon be called in which BepaWcana, Americans and
liga shaU participate, fnlly, freely, and fairly; (2) that no
D entertaining nltra Tiewa upon the alayery qneation shall be
Qlnated for any office ; (8) that the platform adopted shall .be
ionaly and not sectional, conserratlTe, and not radical; (4)
t the delegates to the national convention shall be instructed
▼ote for Bates, Bell or Corwin for President"

50 Indianapolis Sentinel, Jan. 81 and Feb. 28, 1880i.



Digitized by



Google



ELECTION OP 1860 65T

brother-in-law Af Oovemor Willard, was with Brown
as a martyr. It at least would have been good poli-
ties to put Brown in a mad house.

On January 11, the Democrats held the first state
convention of 1860. Thinking^ perhaps, they might
thereby more easilv Qoi^trol it, the state executive
committee had decided on a delegate instead of a
mass convention. However, Robert Lowry, a Doug-
las man, was elected chairman over Judge Samuel
Perkins, a Bright man, by a vote of 189i^ to 174%.
Later Douglas delegates were seated from seven con-
tested coimties. Hie real struggle came on a resolu-
tion to instruct the Indiana delegation to the national
convention for Douglas, the vote favoring Douglas
265 to 129. For governor the convention nominated
Thomas A. Hendricks, imd for his running mate
David Turpie.** It is doubtful if two better candi-
dates could have been f ouiid. It could be said of each
that he prized his party more highly than any indi-
vidual person. It was understood among the leaders
that if the Democrats were successful Hendricks
should go to the United States senate and Turpie be-
come governor. The platform resolutions endorsed
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Dred Scott decision
and favored the acquisition of Cuba. How any voter
could support both the Kansas-Nebraska bill and the
Dred Scott decision was not explained

With the BepuUicans the one question was, what
would be the attitude on slaveryf They were agreed
that slavery should not be extended; but not as to
whether congress of its own power should exclude
slavery from the territories or whether it should be
left to the voters of a territory to exclude it when the
territory became a state. At first thought the dif-
ference between the plans seemed negligible, but a

81 Indianapolis Journal, Jan. 12, 18» 1800L



Digitized by



Google



658 HISTORY OP INDIANA

second thought disclosed grave possibilities. If they
depended on congress alone then a Democratic ma-
jority might lead to disaster, as had happened in the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. If they trusted
to popular sovereignty then the territory might be
fuU of slaveholders when it applied for admission
and, if it should declare for freedom, it would only
be after a bloody struggle such as was then devastat-
ing E[ansas. It was finally decided to retain both
methods so that if the supreme court declared a con-
gressional act abolishing slavery in the territories
unconstitutional a fighting chance would still re-
main.'* The Americans preferred not to mention the
slavery question at all, while the extreme anti-slav-
ery wing would have condemned the whole institu-
tion. These were the serious questions that con-
fronted State Chairman M. C. Garber and the execu-
tive committee, when they formulated the call for a
convention. Some, and among them the state chair-
man, preferred a strong, straight-forward platform,
made without regard to any faction, but it was point-
ed out that if the party was to live it must be suc-
cessful, so prudence prevailed.^

89 Indianapolis JoumiH, March 2, 1860; New Tork Timen,
March 13, 1860.

B8 Following is the call sent out by State Chairman Garber:
'The people of Indiana who are opposed to the policy of the
present administration of the general government, to federal cor-
ruption and usurpation, to the extension of slavey into the
territories, to the new and dangerous political doctrine that the
constitution, of its own force, carries slavery Into all the terri-
tories of the United States, to the reopenhig of the African slave
trade; and who are in favor of the immediate admission of
Kansas into the Union under the constitution recently adopted
by its people, of restoring the federal administration to a system
of rigid economy and to the principles of Washington and Jeffer-
son, of maintaining inviolate the rights of the States, and of
defending the soil of every State from lawless Invasion, and of
preserving the integrity of the Union and the supronacy of the



Digitized by



Google



ELECTION OF 1860 650

ere seems to have been no factional strife in
invention. Morton had many admirers, who
gladly have backed him for the governorship,
. agreed that Henry S. Lane was the most avail-
andidate.

ne was a rare specimen of the old type of Indi-

itizenship. There is no evidence of his ever

^ had a personal enemy. He had been a soldier

Mexican war and in 1860 was without a rival

political hustings. Moreover it was mutually

1, though not made public, that Morton should

running mate and if successful, Lane should

e United States senator and Morton should

d to the governorship. The preliminaries be-

is arranged, the two men were nominated with-

^position. After selecting candidates for the

ling offices the immense crowd, in session

on the statehouse lawn, because no hall in the

I would hold half the delegates, returned home,

Hon and lawB passed In pursuance thereof against the
cy of the leaders of the sectional party to resist the
r principle as established in the national government, even
expense of its existence; who are exposed to the present
e and reckless administration of the State government
ina and its disregard of the laws in its management of
oniary affairs of the State, and who are in favor of
; the state government to a system of strict economy
ordination to the laws of the State; who are in favor of
sage of laws against the embezzlement of the people's
y the State officers, and who are in favor of an honest
:ratlon of State affairs, are requested to meet in their
re counties on any day to be agreed upon by them and
legates to attend the mass State convention, to be hdd
napolis, on the 22nd of February, 1800, to appoint candl-
ir State offices and to ai^Mhit delegates to attend the
convention, to be held at Chicago on the 13th of June
nominate candidates for President and Vice-President of
ted States. M. G. Gasbkb, Chairman." Chaa Zimmer^
diana MagotHne of RUiory, XIII, 87&



Digitized by



Google



660 marOBT OF INDIANA

satiflfted with tlittir work And Mgur for the contest

Two stronger tldcets nevBr opposed each other
in an Indiana campaign. Lane, TarpiOi Hendricks,
Morton and Harrison, all candidates at this time,
followed each other to the United States senate
wliere fhey served a total of f ortjr jrears. Harrison
opposed Michael C. Kerr for reporter of the supr^ne
conri The former became president and the latter
speaker. Among the congressmen were Albert O.
Porter, a fature governor, Daniel W. Voorhees, who
later spent eighteen years in the United States sen-
ate after haviqg spent eight in the honse, and Schuy-
ler Colfax, who was later a speaker and vice-presi-
dent Thrae candidates not only earned an honest
national reputation for themselves but brought fame
to tiieir state. Finally there were Lincoln and
Douglas on the national tidiets.

As soon as the state oonrantions were over the
voters turned to the national conventions. There
were misgivings among the Democrats as the
Charleston convention dragged along from April 23
to May 3 without a choice. The situation became
alarming when the party divided at Baltimore, where
the northern wing nominated Douglas and the south-
em nominated Breckinridge. It was hoped by Indi-
ana Democrats up to this time that a schism in the
party might be avoided. This would at least give
them a fair chance in Indiana. A mass meeting was
held at Indianapolis, July 18, to ratify the nomina-
tion of Douglas and Johnson.*^ The Brickenridge
supporters, however, did not attend. They were
busUy organising and on July 81, held their ratifica-
tion in Indianapolis. They seem to have made a sin-
care effort to reach an agreement with the Douglas

84 Indianapolis BeniMi, Jolr It, ISSOi



Digitized by



Google



BLBCTION OF 1860 661

mipporterai but the latter had no faith in the einoer-
ity of the former.

Indiana sent an enthusiastic delegation to the Be-
publican national convention at GhicagOi May 16,
irtdch seemed unaninious in support of linoohL The
•ame influence which caused Lane to be nominated
for governor over Morton caused Lincoln to be pre*
f erred by them over Seward Lincoln and Lane were
very much alike, typical of the best citizenship of
pioneer Lidiana. The Indianians took credit for the
nomination of the former Hoosier and on August 29,
at Indianapolis, turned out by thousands to ratify
the nomination. There was a touch of the forties in
their jubilant actions. * * Wide Awakes, ' ' ^ ' Bail Maul-
ers,'' ^'Abe's Boys'' and others came marching with
fife and drum, strange premonition of the approach-
ing tragedy.

One more organization yet remains to be noted
to complete the tcde of conventions in this remarkable
campaign. The Constitutional Unionists, those who
wished to ignore the slavery question, as both parties
had done in 1852, met at Indianapolis, August 16.
There seem to have been about 150 delegates present,
representing the southern part of the state more
fully than ti^e northern. It is substantially true to
say that this party was made up of Americans." An
electoral ticket favorable to John Bell and Edward
Everett was nominated, after a brief statement of
tte political position of the party had been made.**
The Douglas Democrats made strenuous efforts to
secure an alliance with this party, but it seems that
most of them followed the lead of B. W. Thompson,
their most distinguished member, and supported the
Bepubtican local tickets.

u Carl Brand, *naiatory of Know Nothings In Indiana,** Maa,

les.

M Indlanapolia /ounicl, Ang. 16, ISeS.



Digitized by



Google



fflSTOEY OP INDIA]

There were thus four national 1
jidianay each supported by an i
) contest, however, was soon sc
Douglas Democrats and the Be;
ties which had state and cou
)r of the campaign fell on Lai
[ Morton and Turpie who in paii
mssing the issues in joint debate
>d in the dawn of a new day. T
degradation of that day they h
) political spoilsmen had been se
iana had a right to look to the i
y than ever before. There wa
[ almost no personality in the
state election in October the D
aence the timid voter by repres
1 would follow a Republican \
jr, themselves, were sincere or
ciable effect on the voters. Th(
[lonest and unsportsmanlike.*^
The results of the election were
' one. Lincoln received 139,03;
,509; Breckenridge, 12,294; B
,725; Morton, 136,470; Hendric
, 126,292.»*

BT Charles Kettleboronith, "^ndianft on
" 166, seq.f has worked out this subjec
M Indianapolis Journal, Dec. 4 and De
B for the state officers are taken from
).

BLBCTION RETURNS OP 1860 B





m


H


g






b

3


5*




On


<D


8




n.




p




ff






310


.... 842


548
2,487


fB2


[1


.... 2jM


2JXi2



Digitized by



Google



ELECTION OP 1860



663



Usually after an election in the United States
there is a feeling of relief, daring which the partisans



BartlioI<»new ... 1;966

Boiton 248

Bcxme 1,560

Blackfoid 472

Brown 744

CarroU 1,482

Caw 1357

Clark 1,989

Clay 1,356

Clinton 1,437

Crawford 869

Daviess 1,501

Dearborn 2,548

Decatur 1,672

DeKalb 1,372

Delaware 1,051

Dubois 1,437

Elkhart 2,010

Fayette 1.010

Fk^d 1,876

Fountain 1,607

Folton 1,073

Franklin 2,289

Gibson 1,580

Grant 1,213

Greene 1,518

Hamilton 1,151

Harrison 1,876

Hancock 1,399

Hendricks 1,370

Henry 1,828

Howard 897

Huntington 1,388

Jackson 1,725

imiQet 278



1


5


'1


2 <


t




3


B






1,786


1,769


1346


66 34


5,105


375


235


6


8


1,709


1,699


941


649 47


273


275


408


40


9


296


801


729


31


6


1,556


1,590


1,446


5 14


1,862


1,874


1,727


130 34


1,578


1369


1337


250 816


862


889


I3I6


47 51


1,385


1,454


1.437


61


6


841


778


844



Online LibraryJohn E. Iglehart Logan EsareyA History of Indiana from its exploration to 1922, Volume 2 → online text (page 6 of 43)