USA > California > History of California, Volume VI > Part 81
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87
718
POLITICAL HISTORY.
said in his message, "I am constrained to believe the result of that vote does not invest you with the requi- site authority." The manœuvring for a division of the state was a failure to secure in its favor a majority of all those voting at the election, as the law required, and those persons who had been induced in the ex- pectation of a different result to bring into the southern counties young negroes, who could be held as minors, had now to return them to the slave states or let them go free. This episode of California history will be treated of separately in a future volume, and I hasten to the conclusion of the Broderick-Gwin con- test.
Broderick returned to Washington filled with that bitterness which possesses a man when he feels him- self treacherously or unfairly dealt with. It was not in his nature to admit himself beaten; and it was ex- ceedingly painful to be baffled at the beginning of his senatorial career by the influence of men in his own party, and even by a man whom he had placed in power.
The first session of the thirty-fifth congress opened with the discussion of the Kansas question. Ever since the establishment of the territory, there had been a struggle between the slave-soil and free-soil inhabi- tants for the control of the future state. A free-state constitution was adopted by the people in 1855 in convention at Topeka. The general government, under the administration of President Pierce, dis- missed the free-state governor and appointed one of pro-slavery views. Voters were imported from Mis- souri to elect pro-slavery legislatures. Free-state men were charged with treason and imprisoned, United States troops keeping guard over them. Another pro-slavery constitution was framed by a convention which met at Lecompton in 1857, under which admis- sion to the union was demanded, and was being argued
719
BLEEDING KANSAS.
in 1858. The condition of Kansas and the questions it involved were in all mouths in and out of congress.54
If there was a subject on which Broderick was more positive than another, it was on that of free labor. He was from the people of the laboring class, understood them, and was ever their ready champion. In the senate of the United States, Stephen A. Doug- las stood alone for a free constitution for Kansas, fraud having been clearly shown in the elections of the pro-slavery legislatures with forcible measures and some bloodshed. Opposed to him was the strength of the senate and President Buchanan. Broderick immediately ranged himself on the popular sover- eignty or Douglas side. In doing so he had two powerful motives, one to champion free labor and an- other to attack his enemies, including the president. Seward called him "the brave young senator."
Broderick was not an orator. Flourishes of rheto- ric and graces of gesture were unpractised by him. But in his blunt way he made some hard hits; too hard, too rude and caustic, for his own personal good.55
54 The question was finally settled by the people in an election held Aug. 4, 1858, when the slave state constitution was rejected by a vote of 11,300 against, and 1,788 in favor. Barber, Hist. Western States, 445.
55 There are portions of Broderick's speeches on the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, which should not be lost to history, and I make here a few extracts: 'In the passage of this bill-the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, by which the Missouri compromise line of 36° 30' was removed in the territories-the people of the north felt that a great wrong had been com- mitted against their rights. This was a mistaken view; the north should have rejoiced, and applauded the senator from Ill. for accepting Mr Dixon's amendment. The south should have mourned the removal of that barrier, the removal of which will let in upon her feeble and decaying institutions millions of free laborers. In the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the rampart that protected slavery in the southern territories was broken down. Northern opinions, northern ideas, and northern institutions were invited to the contest for the possession of these territories. How foolish for the south to hope to contend with success in such an encounter! Slavery is old, de- crepit, and consumptive; freedom is young, strong, and vigorous. One is naturally stationary, and loves ease; the other is migratory and enterprising. There are 6,000,000 of people interested in the extension of slavery. There are 20,000,000 of freemen to contend for these territories, out of which to carve for themselves homes where labor is honorable. Up to the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, a large majority of the people of the north did not question the right of the south to control the destinies of the terri- tories south of the Missouri line. The people of the north should have welcomed the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. I am astonished that republicans should call for a restoration of the Missouri compromise. With
720
POLITICAL HISTORY.
He denounced the president for his attitude toward Kansas, and his encouragement to the Lecomptonites. Speaking of the troubles in Kansas, "I regret," said he, "that I am compelled to differ with him on this question; but, sir, I intend to hold him responsible for it [the condition of Kansas]. I do not intend, be- cause I am a member of the democratic party, to per- mit the president of the United States, who was elected by that party, to create civil war in Kansas.
the terrible odds that are against her, the south should not have repealed it, if she desired to retain her rights in the territories. Has it never occurred to southern gentlemen that millions of laboring freemen are born yearly who demand subsistence, and will have it? that as the marts of labor become crowded they will crowd into the territories and take possession of them ? The senator from South Carolina [Hammond] undervalues the strength and intelligence of these men when he denounces them as slaves. Would a dis- solution of the union give these southern territories to slavery ? No, sir. It is a mistake to suppose it would. A dissolution of the union would not lessen the amount of iminigration, or the number of free white men seeking for homes and a market for their labor. Wherever there is land for settle- ment they will rush in and occupy it, and the compulsory labor of slaves will have to give way before the intelligent labor of freemen. Had the Missouri line been retained, the northern laborer would not have sought to go south of it. But this line having been abolished by the south, no complaint can be made if the north avails herself of the concession. Senators had better con- sider before they talk of dissolution, and first understand if the perpetuity of their beloved institution will be more securely guaranteed by it. The ques- tion of dissolution is not discussed by the people of California. I am not at liberty to say if the people I in part represent are denied by congress the legislation they require, they will consider it a blessing to remain a part of this confederation. The senator from South Carolina very boastingly told us a few days since how much cotton the south exported, and that cotton was king. He did not tell us that the price of cotton fluctuated, and that the south was at the mercy of the manufacturers. Suppose, sir, the 16 free states of the union should see fit to enact a high protective tariff, for the purpose of giving employment to free labor, would cotton be king then ? Why, sir, the single free state of California exports the product for which cotton is raised to an amount of more than one half in value of the whole exports of the cot- ton of the slave states. Cotton king! No, sir. Gold is king. I represent a state, sir, where labor is honorable; where the judge has left his bench, the lawyer and doctor their offices, and the clergyman his pulpit, for the purpose of delving in the earth; where no station is so high and no position so great that its occupant is not proud to boast that he has labored with his own hands. There is no state in the union, no place on earth, where labor is so honored and so well rewarded; no time and place since the Almighty doomed the sons of Adam to toil, where the curse, if it be a curse, rests so lightly as now on the people of California. Many senators have complained of the sena- tor from South Carolina for his denunciation of the laborers of the north as white slaves, and the mudsills of society. I am glad, sir, that the senator has spoken thus. It may have the effect of arousing in the working men that spirit which has been lying dormant for centuries. It may also have the effect of arousing the 200,000 men with pure white skins in South Carolina who are now degraded and despised by 30,000 aristocratic slaves-holders.' Cong. Globe, 1857-8, App. 191-3; Hayes' Coll., Cal. Pol., ii. 1, 2.
721
LEGISLATURE OF 1859.
The only thing that has astonished me in this whole matter is the forbearance of the people of Kansas. If they had taken the delegates to the Lecompton convention and flogged them, or cut off their ears and driven them out of the country, I would have ap- plauded them for the act." Referring to the frauds by which the Lecompton constitution had been forced upon the people of Kansas, he went further in denun- ciation of the president. "Will not the world," said he, "believe he instigated the commission of those frauds, as he gives strength to those who committed them ? This portion of my subject is painful for me to refer to. I wish, sir, for the honor of my country, the story of these frauds could be blotted from exist- ence. I hope, in mercy, sir, to the boasted intelli- gence of this age, the historian, when writing .a history of these times, will ascribe this attempt of the executive to force this constitution upon an un- willing people, to the fading intellect, the petulant passion, and trembling dotage of an old man on the verge of the grave."
The legislature elected in 185856 was strongly
56 Owing to the neglect of the sec. of the senate to give the full names and districts of numbers for 1859, the list will appear here imperfect. The fol- lowing are the senators, as appears from the journals: James Anderson, Isaac Allen, J. Berry, J. H. Baker, B. T. Bradley, S. A. Ballou, J. C. Burch, G. W. Dent, W. B. Dickinson, A. St. C. Denver, G. A. Grant, E. Garter, D. S. Gregory, H. Griffith, A. S. Hart, S. F. Hamm, W. Holden, L. N. Ketcham, M. Kirkpatrick, C. T. Lansing, J. M. McDonald, S. A. Merritt, J. O'Farrell, R. Pacheco, W H. Parks, S. H. Parker, T. G. Phelps, J. Price, I. N. Quinn, R. A. Redman, C. E. Thom, I. S. Titus, E. D. Wheeler, C. H. S. Williams. Prest, J. Walkup; prest pro tem., W. B. Dickinson; sec., E. C. Palmer; asst sec., John T. Pennington; enrolling clerk, John C. Reid; engrossing clerk, Wm S. Letcher; sergt-at-arms, James W. Hawkins; asst sergt-at-arms,, G. P. Saunders.
The assembly consisted of Wm P. Rodgers, Alameda; W. W. Cope, John A. Eagon, Amador; James Burdick, C. W. Lightner, Charles E. Mount, Cal- averas; H. W Dunlap, Colusa and Tehama; Benjamin S. Hines, Contra Costa; H. C. Sloss, J. S. Tipton, William Coleman, Ogden Squires, George M. Condee, George N. Douglass, Alfred Briggs, George A. Douglas, El Do- rado; James M. Roane, Fresno, Tulare, and Buena Vista; Manuel Torres, Marin; Andrew J. Gregory, George H. Crenshaw, Mariposa and Merced; Mariano Malorin, Monterey; Wm B. Matthews, Napa; Wm R. Armstrong, John Caldwell, Christopher Cohalon, Philip Moore, George A. Young, Nevada; Wm P. Barclay, Philip Lynch, Wm C. Stratton, W. P. Wing, Placer; R. B. Ellis, James E. Sheridan, Charles Duncombe, A. R. Jackson, Sac .; G. N. Whitman, San Bernardino; A. S. Ensworth, San Diego; G. C. Holman, Thomas Lospeyre, San Joaquin; Walter Murray, San Luis Obispo; David W.
HIST. CAL., VOL. VI. 46
722
POLITICAL HISTORY.
Lecompton as to the federal administration, and Gwin and chivalry as to California. It passed resolutions when it met in 1859, condemning Broderick as not obeying the instructions of the legislature which elected him, and characterizing his remarks in the senate, touching the president, as a disgrace to the nation, and humiliating to the people. It was a pity, seeing the truth contained in them, that the tongue had never learned the subtle niceties of speech by which an insult becomes unanswerable by the victim, and innocence to the speaker; for thereby he would have made his enemies fear, whereas they now only censured, harassed, and plotted against him. From the day when he uttered his fearless invective, he was a marked man; a man devoted to evil doom.57
In 1859 there was another gubernatorial election in California, and Broderick returned to organize the anti-Lecompton wing of the democratic party in his state. He was accompanied by Congressman McKib- ben, also a Douglas democrat; Scott, his colleague, being an administration man. Both factions had their candidates in the field, and the republicans theirs. Before election, however, the Broderick wing had fused with the republicans on Mckibben for con-
Connelly, San Mateo; Eugene Lies, Sta Bárbara; James Springer, E. C. Tully, Sta Clara; Charles R. Street, Shasta; Josiah Lefever, Sierra; Nathan Cutler, Solano; John S. Robberson, Joseph B. Lamar, Sonoma and Mendo- cino; George W. Thomas, Stanislaus; C. L. N. Vaughn, Sutter; Fordyce Bates, Trinity; S. M. Buck, Wm Dow, Robert Howe, G. W. Whitney, Tuol- umne; Harrison Gwinn, Yolo; Francis L. Aud, James L. Slingerland, Mor- timer Fuller, John Whealdon, Charles E. De Long, Yuba; Philip P. Caine, F. E. Cannon, Butte; T. B. Shannon, Plumas: James A. Banks, John W. Cherry, Albert A. Hill, Louis R. Lull, William W. Shepard, S. F .; Wm F. Watkins, Siskiyou. Speaker, Wm C. Stratton; chief clerk, Caleb Gilman; asst clerk, Richard R. McGill; enrolling clerk, Henry C. Kibbe; engrossing elerk, W. Casey; sergt-at-arms, James Moore; asst sergt-at-arms, Julius Shultz.
57 Wilkes relates that when Broderick was in New York, before sailing for Cal. in 1859, and while they were in conversation in the bar-room of the Jones house, at a late hour, two southerners, Paul K. Leeds of N. O. and Richard Renshaw of S. C., interrupted Broderick with insulting sounds, and that when this was repeated, Broderick sprang upon them, and caned them both severely. He was afterward troubled about the affair, and labored to keep it out of the newspapers. It was his opinion that a plot was laid to bring on a duel. Crosby, Early Events, MS., 66-7, expresses the same opinion.
723
NOTABLE CAMPAIGN.
gress. John Currey, formerly a district judge, and a personal friend of Broderick, but who had turned republican, was nominated for governor at his sugges- tion, perhaps with a view to fusion. John Conness was nominated for lieutenant-governor; Samuel A. Booker of San Joaquin for second congressman; Royal T. Sprague for judge of the supreme court; and Edmund Randolph for attorney-general.
The republicans nominated Leland Stanford for governor; James F. Kennedy, lieutenant-governor ; O. L. Shaffer, supreme judge; Mckibben and E. D. Baker for congressmen. The Lecomptonites nominated Latham for governor; John G. Downey, lieutenant-governor; W. W. Cope, supreme judge; attorney-general, Thomas H. Williams; 58 and for congressmen, John C. Burch and Charles L. Scott. Gwin had returned to California, and the campaign opened with these personal and acrimonious attacks, which soon made it evident that the Lecomptonites meant to provoke a resort to the code of the duello.
Said a leading journal: "We speak the convictions which have been forced upon the minds of all men who have read the speeches of Broderick and Gwin, that a bloody termination of this controversy is ex- pected by the friends of both senators, and that it is one for which one or both are prepared. Commencing with Gwin's second speech in the canvass, there has been a pointed avowal of his readiness to 'settle their private griefs in a private manner,' coupled with sneers, insults, and personal affronts on every occasion on which the elder senator has alluded particularly to his younger rival. The organs on that side do not
58 Williams was born in Ky, in 1828, and educated at Centre College, Danville, studying law afterward at Louisville. He came to California over- land in 1850, settling in El Dorado co. After the expiration of his term of office he removed to Sac., where he practised law. When the Comstock lode came into notoriety he removed to Nevada, where he was a member of the legislature in 1864. He purchased a valuable property in Oakland, Cal., which latter became his home. He married Mary Bryant of S. F. in 1856, who died in 1866. They had 6 children, 4 of whom were sons. Sac. Union, Aug. 13, 1859.
724
POLITICAL HISTORY.
disguise the wish to force Broderick into a private encounter. We have had dissertations on the code, on the characteristics of chivalry, on what constitutes an affront, and how far personal responsibility may or may not be evaded. These imputations upon the personal courage and honor of Broderick have been carried on since the Perley affair, and seem fully to corroborate his view of that matter, and that it was arranged by his enemies to provoke a hostile collision."
A Lecompton journal said: "Irritated by the man- ner and substance of Broderick's remarks about him at different points in the state, Senator Gwin, at For- est Hill, ridiculed Broderick most mercilessly, and spoke of him contemptuously, and somewhat offens- ively, without being absolutely insulting in his lan- guage. Broderick about the same time, in another portion of the state, told all he knew about the famous senatorial contest of 1857; and notwithstanding pre- vious contrary insinuations, exculpated Gwin from any serious accusation in the premises. The speech at Forest Hill was delivered before he learned the pur- port of Broderick's revelations at Nevada. Perhaps, had these revelations reached him earlier, his offensive remarks at Forest Hill would not have been uttered. These remarks were made under the impression rest- ing upon Gwin's mind that Broderick designed being personally abusive toward him in his speech at Ne- vada. It turned out that Broderick was not so." 59
The Perley affair, alluded to in the first of the above quotations, occurred on the 29th of June. David S. Terry, who had, in vigilance committee times, been sustained by Broderick against the wrath of the peo- ple, but who now was a devoted follower of Gwin, and consequently a foe to Gwin's rival, said in convention that Broderick's professed following of Douglas meant, not Stephen A. Douglas, the statesman, but Frederick Douglass, the mulatto. This, in the days of slavery, and coming from a pro-slavery man, was an insult.
59 S. F. National, in Hayes' Coll., C'al. Pol., ii. 53
725
PERLEY'S CHALLENGE.
Broderick read the speech at the breakfast-table of the International Hotel, and as he was without doubt expected to do, uttered a remark expressive of his irritation. He said he had upheld Terry as the only honest man upon the bench, but he now took back his former opinion, or words to that effect. At the same table sat D. W. Perley,60 a friend of Terry, whose ears were open to catch Broderick's comments on Terry's speech, uttered sotto voce though they were.
There was hardly ground for a deadly encounter between Perley and Broderick in the remark, but Perley sent a challenge, which Broderick declined, on the ground that Perley was a British subject whose political rights would not be affected by duelling, and also that he was not entitled to have his challenge accepted on account of his inferiority of position. "If I were to accept your challenge," said he, "there are probably many gentlemen who would seek similar opportunities for hostile meetings, for the purpose of accomplishing a political object, or to obtain public notoriety. I cannot afford, at the present time, to descend to a violation of the constitution and the state laws to subserve either their or your purposes." In the same note he intimated that when the cam- paign was over he would not refuse to fight. This language soon becoming known throughout the state gave intenser meaning to the utterances on all sides. In one.of his speeches, Broderick said: "I have given my reasons for not meeting Mr Perley; and I state to you that he had no more expectation of a quarrel with me than I have of killing you all to-night. He was put forward by designing men who desired to get rid of me. The prompting parties themselves had no desire to engage in the affair, so they sent this little wretch to insult me, and if possible, involve me in a difficulty."
60 Perley was a lawyer of Stockton in 1850, but removed to S. F. He ·came from New Brunswick, and did not enjoy a high reputation in the com- munity. His attachment to Terry probably came from the circumstance that Terry had acted as his second in a duel in 1850.
726
POLITICAL HISTORY.
The taunting style of attack and defence assumed by the Lecomptonites stung Broderick to the depths of his silent and gloomy soul; and whatever thoughts he had entertained of preserving a dignified course, and conducting the campaign on important issues, were dissipated. At Weaverville he said, July 28th, in reply to insinuations that he did not hold himself responsible for what he uttered: "If I have insulted Dr Gwin sufficiently to induce him to go about the state and make a blackguard of himself, he should seek the remedy left every gentleman who feels offended." This was the very state of mind to which it was sought to bring him.
Meanwhile the contest raged fiercely. Gwin had taken great credit to himself for his advocacy of the Pacific Railroad bill in congress, and the people of California had been grateful to him for it. His bill introduced in 1852 was for aid in constructing a rail- road and telegraph line from the Pacific to the At- lantic ocean, starting from the bay of San Francisco, passing around it, striking the foothills near Stockton, running down the coast to Walker's Pass, across the Sierra Nevada, and east to Albuquerque in New Mex- ico, having branches thence to St Louis, Dubuque, Memphis, and New Orleans, and providing for a branch to Oregon, on the Pacific end. The history of this undertaking will be presented in its proper place. I give this outline here to show the direction of Gwin's thoughts, as well as of the proposed rail- road.
In December 1855, Senator Weller gave notice of a bill to authorize the postmaster-general to contract for the transportation of the United States mails, in four-horse coaches, tri-weekly, from St Louis to San Francisco. The act was not passed until March 3, 1857, nor was the line put in operation until 1858, when another act gave the contractors a choice of routes. About the same time a mail line was estab- lished from Placerville to Salt Lake, connecting with
727
GWIN AND BRODERICK.
the mail from Salt Lake to St Joseph. The con- tractors, under the act of March 3, 1857, chose the route from Memphis and St Louis, by El Paso, the mouth of the Gila, and San Diego, to San Francisco. The postmaster-general resided in Memphis, a very cogent reason for the choice of this distinctly south- ern route, which by a long and circuitous line reached the populous counties of California from the extreme south-east corner of the state, three times a week, at a cost of $600,000 a year. It was shown by Broder- ick, and some of the western senators, that the route from St Joseph to Placerville was shorter, cheaper, and more convenient than the southern route, and it was asked that the time on the Salt Lake route be shortened eight days by an increase of compensation to the contractors to enable them to put more stock upon the road, and a resolution to that effect was finally passed in June 1858. In the discussion, which became rather warm, Gwin spoke favorably of the Salt Lake route, acknowledging it to be better than the southern one, saying that he "expected to see it run in twenty days."61
In the campaign, however, Gwin attacked Broderick for proposing the removal of the mail line from the southern to the central route, representing his action to be governed by sectional prejudice, making much capital thereby, while lauding himself with little enough modesty for his exertions in behalf of a rail- road, declaring he did not favor one route above another. Gwin stigmatized Broderick as disgraced by his refusal to obey the instructions of the legisla- ture of 1858, directing him to vote for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, asserting that he had been read out of the democratic party for his action. Broderick replied that it was true that Douglas, Stuart of Michigan, and himself had been excluded from democratic caucus for refusing to sup-
61 Hittell, Hist. S. F., 306-7; Gwin, Memoirs, MS., 85; Hist. Nevada, this series, pp. 228-9; Cong. Globe, 1857-58, pt iii., p. 3,002.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.