History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 1

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1104

USA > Indiana > History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916 > Part 1

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.

M. L.

ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 1833 02141 9996

Gc 977.2 St6hi Stoll, John B., 1843-1926. History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916

THOMAS JEFFERSON

ANDREW JACKSON

WOODROW WILSON

THOMAS R.MARSHALL

SAMUEL J. TILDEN

THOMAS A.HENDRICKS

INDIANA COLLECTION

HISTORY of The INDIANA DEMOCRACY

1816-1916

By JOHN B. STOLL HISTORIAN

PUBLISHED BY INDIANA DEMOCRATIC PUBLISHING COMPANY INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, U S A NINETEEN-SEVENTEEN

BLACK GOLD

COPYRIGHTED BY INDIANA DEMOCRATIC PUBLISHING COMPANY INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA NINETEEN - SEVENTEEN

BOOKWALTER-BALL PRINTING COMPANY . ENGRAVERS, PRINTERS AND BINDERS INDIANAPOLIS, U S A

FOREWORD

1068042

URING the three years that I was engaged in writing this book, the early history of Indiana naturally often became the sub- ject of conversation in mingling with educators, legislators, politicians, editors and men engaged in professional and busi- ness pursuits. In all these talks but one individual revealed knowledge of the fact that under the first constitution, in force from 1816 to 1851, the people of the commonwealth were per- mitted to vote for and elect only two State officers-Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. Other State officers were elected by the General Assembly. Judges were appointed by the Governor.

Among all those with whom I conversed relative to these matters, there . was not a single one cognizant of the fact that the first constitution of In- diana never was submitted to popular vote for adoption or rejection, but became the supreme law of the State as drafted by the constitutional con- vention, whose members had been chosen by the voters of the territory.

The idea of a responsible leadership and belief in the efficacy of a rep- resentative government were far more strongly intrenched in the public mind than may be said to have been the case when in later years popular delusion gave emphasis to the theory that ability and power to lead meant curtailment of the right of the people to rule.

Thoughtful perusal of this book will make clear what sort of govern- ment the founders of the Republic had in mind when they established the United States of North America. A clear understanding can be gathered of the principles applied in the formation of this government by closely fol- lowing the historical recital in the opening chapters. No one can intelli- gently peruse the pages of this book without becoming greatly enriched in information that will be found of incalculable value in the exercise of the prerogatives of citizenship and the performance of duty devolving upon an alert and patriotic electorate.

[CHAPTER I.]

POLITICS IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE REPUBLIC

PARTY ALIGNMENTS WERE VARIABLE AND LARGELY PER- SONAL-AFTER THIRTY YEARS LINES BECAME MORE SHARPLY DRAWN AND MORE DISTINCTLY DEFINED

N OMINALLY, the Democratic party, whose history in Indiana it is the purpose of this volume to narrate, is younger by a dozen years than the State itself; but in its principles, al- though not in its name, it traces its lineage to Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Inde- pendence, and in that sense is as old as the Nation. The State of Indiana, and the country in which it is an important commonwealth, have never been without a political party. Wherever the active life of the people has been developed, po- litical parties have always sprung into existence. An absence of political parties would be an indication of passive indiffer- ence to their true interests on the part of the people, or of tyrannical repression on the part of their rulers.

The freest and most gifted nations have the most sharply defined political partisan- ship. It is not a commendable virtue for a citizen to stand aloof from political activity, and it should be a shame rather than a boast for any intelligent person to declare that he does not affiliate with or "belong" to a political party.

Edmund Burke defined a political party as "a body of men united in promoting, by their joint endeavors, the national inter- est in some particular policy or movement in which they are all agreed." The very name "party" indicates that each such body of men represents but a part of the citizens. Therefore, a party possesses the consciousness of only one part of the Na-

tion and has no right to attempt to identi- fy itself with the whole and arrogate to itself all the virtues and patriotism of the people. Convinced that its principles are for the best interests of the public, it may rightfully combat for them and seek to have them prevail, but it has no right to ignore the views of those who differ from it or to seek the utter destruction of other parties. In fact, the experience of popu- lar governments demonstrates that the public interest is best promoted by the ex- istence of two nearly equally balanced po- litical parties.

During the Revolutionary War, which resulted in the establishment of this Na- tion, there were but two parties-those favoring continued allegiance to Great Britain, and those supporting the move- ment for independence. The latter called themselves Patriots, and the others Tories ; while the former designated them- selves as Loyalists and their opponents as Rebels. Doubtless both were sincere, and high authority has defined a patriot revo- lutionist as a "simply successful rebel."

The Confederation in which the Colonies had united to achieve their independence was soon found inadequate to meet the exigencies of an independent Nation. So a convention was called to amend the Arti- cles of Confederation. At once two par- ties appeared. One, including Washing- ton, Hamilton, Franklin and Pinckney, be- lieved a strong central government neces- sary. The other, including Thomas Jeffer- son, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Clinton and James Monroe, feared

(9)

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

that the central government, if too power- ful, would infringe upon the liberty of the people. The former party was called Fed- eralist, and the latter Anti-Federalist. The Federal Constitution, as finally adopted, was a compromise, providing an instrument capable of a double interpreta- tion on the disputed point, and the two parties continued under the new govern- ment. The Federalists gave the Constitu- tion a broad construction with large pow- ers to the Nation, while the Anti-Federal- ists gave a strict construction, which made the States the paramount authority except in specially defined cases. Alexander Hamilton was from the first the leader of the former party, and Thomas Jefferson was soon recognized as the head of the latter. Both men were members of Presi- dent Washington's cabinet. But the Pres- ident's firm conviction of the necessity for a strong central government enabled the Federalists to control the policy of Con- gress during the first twelve years-the formative period of the new government. Besides, through the life tenure of the members of the Supreme Court, Federal- ist views on the construction of the Con- stitution prevailed for many years in the judicial branch of the government.

Jefferson's political sagacity led him early to perceive that an "anti" party would not successfully appeal to the peo- ple, so he sought a party name that should stand for something affirmative. His own idealism in connection with a residence in France made him an admirer of the prin- ciples set forth by the French in establish- ing their Republic. Moreover, there pul- sated throughout this country a feeling of grateful sympathy for France because of the assistance she had rendered us in our war for independence. With shrewd po- litical wisdom Jefferson appropriated this sympathy by using the term which the French had employed and named his party "Republican." The Anti-Federalists had already accused Hamilton of influencing

Washington to favor a government mod- eled after that of England, which, under popular forms, would, they asserted, actually establish monarchical or, at best, aristocratic rule. In fact, in the political bitterness of the times, the Federalists were often by their opponents called mon- archists.

The formal beginning of this Repub- lican party dates from May 13, 1792, when Jefferson, still a member of the Cabinet, addressed a letter to President Washington in which he said: "The Re- publican party, who wish to preserve the government in its present form, are fewer in numbers than the Monarchical Federal- ists. They are fewer, even when joined by the two or three, or half a dozen Anti- Federalists, who, though they dare not avow it, are still opposed to any general government; but being less so to a Re- publican than to a monarchical one, they naturally side with those whom they think pursuing the lesser evil."

This may be taken as the platform of the Jeffersonian Republican party; and no political pronouncement was ever more adroitly worded to appeal to all the dis- satisfied elements of the people. Its as- sumption that the Federalists were pre- paring the way for a monarchy; its ap- parent solicitude for the preservation of the Constitution, and its repudiation of the views of the extreme States' Rights partisan, were calculated to attract not only the actual opponents of the adminis- tration, but the conservative supporters of the new form of government.

Washington's proclamation of neutrali- ty in the war between France and Eng- land brought into prominence a class of active politicians among the sympathizers with the former country. They assumed the name "Democrat" and formed a circle of societies patterned after the Jacobin Clubs of Paris. One of them, indeed, the Charleston Society, actually affiliated with the Paris Clubs. Their prime instigator

(10)

3 1833 02141 9996

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

was the French ambassador, Genet. These societies became quite numerous in the central and southern states. For a time they were very active and extremely vin- dictive in language, branding all who did not agree with them as enemies of "the people." They humored the whims and . passions of the more ignorant masses, as- sumed eccentricities of dress and lan- guage, and expressed contempt for all constituted authority. With the natural instinct of their class to be "agin' the gov- ernment," they sided with the party of Jefferson and called themselves, political- ly, "Democratic-Republicans," and were particularly vicious in abuse of Washing- ton. The Federalists were horrified and the Republican leaders disgusted with their antics; nevertheless, the latter were naturally not averse to receiving the aid of their votes.

With the same spirit which during the Civil War led the two political parties at the North to dub their opponents respect- ively as "Abolitionists" and "Copper- heads," the Republicans in those days had called the Federalists "Monarchists," and now the Federalists retorted by terming the Republicans "Democrats."

These "Democratic-Republicans," how- ever, were not the progenitors of the Democratic party whose illustrious lead- ers later helped to build the greatness of Indiana. Their societies were regarded in those days very much as is the I. W. W. organization at present. A prominent member of the Jeffersonian party, Hon. Edward Livingston, speaking years after of the conditions at that time, stated that gross as were the attacks upon Washing- ton, they came from Bache, Leib and Duane, and the noisy and frequently silly leaders of the professed Democrats; and it is greatly creditable to the Republicans proper that their opposition to Washing- ton's administration was legitimate, and their public utterances were decorous and affectionate toward the President per- sonally.

Although later writers have applied the names "Democrat," "Republican," and "Democratic-Republican" interchangeably to the party of Jefferson, there is abundant evidence that for a quarter of a century the party leaders avoided the name assumed by the imitators of the Jacobin Clubs of Paris, and it is said that Andrew Jackson in those early years de- nounced the appellation "Democrat" as a political slander. At any rate, when Jef- ferson, in his first inaugural, appealing for the support of the entire American people, declared "We are all Federalists, we are all Republicans," he did not men- tion any Democrats. The fact is that the suppression of the whisky insurrection, which those societies were charged with having incited, and, a little later, the threatened war with France, virtually drove them out of existence. It was not until the odium created by the folly and extravagancies of their promoters had been forgotten in the lapse of years, that the term Democratic in its true sense of "rule by the demos"-all the people-was revived in its old glorious Grecian mean- ing and accepted by a political party in this country. And that occurred when the State of Indiana was twelve years old.

The Federalist party, of which Alex- ander Hamilton was the acknowledged leader, had two objectives: First, to form a government strong enough to make and hold a place among the nations of the earth; and, secondly, to create a central authority sufficiently powerful to coalesce the diverse and often conflicting interests of the various states into one general wel- fare. In pursuit of the first objective James Madison was in hearty and active accord with Hamilton, and they worked together effectively, through the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution, and the first two years of Washington's administration-the vital period in the organization of the government. To Madi-

( 11)

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

son was due very largely the framing of the "Compromises of the Constitution"- those phrases on which differing construc- tions could be and have been placed. It was as to the meaning of these phrases that the distinction of "Strict Construc- tionist" and "Broad Constructionist" arose. Jefferson, whose absence from the country as Minister to France from 1785 had prevented him from taking part in the framing or adoption of the Constitu- tion, became, on his return in 1789, the leader of the Strict Constructionists, and on matters of internal policy he was joined by Madison. There were, however, able and patriotic men on both sides of the question-said question being funda- mentally, whether the Federal govern- ment has only limited, strictly defined powers, leaving the States supreme within their respective borders, and, in conse- quence, whether the primary allegiance of the citizen is due to his State or to the Nation. This question was not finally set- tled until it was decided by the arbitra- ment of arms in the Civil War.

It is interesting to note, however, that whatever may have been their theory as to the construction of the Constitution, the six most noted Presidents have not hesitated to exercise the broadest govern- mental and executive authority when, in their judgment, the "general welfare" de- manded it. Washington did this in the whisky insurrection and in his proclama- tion of neutrality in the war between France and England; Jefferson did it in the purchase of Louisiana, and in laying the embargo; Jackson did it in removing the bank deposits, and in suppressing nullification; Lincoln did it in suspending the writ of habeas corpus and in issuing the emancipation proclamation; Cleveland did it in the Chicago strike, and in his notice to England in the Venezuela mat- ter, and Roosevelt did it in the anthracite troubles and in acquiring the Panama canal zone.

The first popular test between the Fed- eralist and Republican parties came in the presidential election of 1796. There were no formal nominations, but a general as- sent that the Federalist candidate for President should be Washington's asso- ciate as Vice-President, John Adams, and that the Republican candidate should be Thomas Jefferson. The electors at that time voted for two candidates. The one having the highest vote became President and the one with the next highest, Vice- President. As to their second choice, the Republicans were divided between Aaron Burr and Samuel Adams-Burr receiving 30 votes and Adams 15. The Federalists were likewise divided-Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina having 59, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, 11. There were also a number of scattering votes, Wash- ington himself receiving one. Of the two chief candidates, Adams received 71 votes and Jefferson 68. Thus Adams became President and Jefferson Vice-President. A. K. McClure, in his book, "Our Presi- dents and How We Make Them," says of this election : "In no modern national campaign have the candidates been so ma- liciously defamed as were those in this contest of the fathers of the republic. Jefferson was denounced as an unscrupu- lous demagogue, and Adams was de- nounced as a kingly despot without sympathy for the people and opposed to every principle of popular government."

The alien and sedition laws enacted dur- ing Adams' administration were an ex- treme exercise of centralized power. They were aimed at the practices of the Demo- cratic societies, but were opposed by Hamilton as uncalled for, unwise, and a fatal political blunder. They tended, as he foresaw, to make the Federalist ad- ministration obnoxious to the people. Washington died during the last days of the year 1799, and the campaign of 1800 was a repetition of that of four years previous, both in the personality of the

( 12 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

candidates and the virulence of the oppos- ing sides. This time each party voted unitedly for its two candidates, giving the opportunity for a tie. The Republicans had 73 electoral votes for Jefferson and Burr, and the Federalists 65 for Adams and Pinckney. As the vote was a tie be- tween Jefferson and Burr, and as each had a majority of the electoral college, the House of Representatives, under the Con- stitution, had to elect one of the two as President, whereupon the other would be- come Vice-President. As the Federalists were "out of it" so far as a candidate of their own was concerned, their Represen- tatives in Congress either abstained from voting, or voted as personal or partisan motives influenced them. The voting was by States, and the contest continued seven days. Hamilton, regarding Jefferson as much the safer man for President, cast his influence in his favor and he finally received the votes of ten States to four for Burr and two blank.

This action of Hamilton aroused the un- dying hatred of Aaron Burr, and was the underlying cause of the challenge to a duel, which the "code of honor" of that day compelled Hamilton to accept, and in which he was killed. Before his death, however, Hamilton had warmly sustained the action of Jefferson in the acquisition of Louisiana, although most of the Fed- eralists, for partisan reasons, denounced the purchase as bitterly as latter-day anti- imperialists have denounced the acquisi- tion of Porto Rico and the Philippines. Indeed, such is the course of politics that had Hamilton lived it is not a violent pre- sumption that he and Jefferson would have been actively co-operating for the good of the country.

Adams took his defeat hard. He packed his goods and left the White House at midnight of March 3. Still time tempers even the asperities of politics. Adams lived to see his son hold important offices under Jefferson and his successors, and

even to be a Republican President. There was, moreover, friendly correspondence between Jefferson and Adams, and both died on the Fourth of July, 1826-the fiftieth anniversary of the day made memorably glorious by their mutual action in the Continental Congress.

Burr resigned the Vice-Presidency, bade farewell to the Senate in a speech that moved even his enemies to tears, em- barked upon a scheme to wrest Mexico from the Spaniards and establish either an independent republic or an empire, was tried for treason on the charge that he intended to seize part of Louisiana in the scheme, and, though acquitted, was thor- oughly discredited, and died in poverty and obscurity .*

The experience at this election led to an amendment of the Constitution estab- lishing the present system of electing the President and Vice-President by separate votes of the electors.

In the administration of his office Jef- ferson practiced the democratic simplicity of manners which he professed. He avoided all pomp and ceremony. The stories of his hitching his horse to the fence on the occasion of his inauguration, and of his receiving foreign ministers in dressing-gown and slippers, are probably as mythical as the tale of Washington and the cherry tree, or of Jackson's smoking

*The retirement of Aaron Burr from the Vice- Presidency before the expiration of his term has been variously treated by historians. Some have entirely ignored it, and some have called it "resig- nation." Parton says he "took leave of the Sen- ate," and gives a dramatic account of the scene when the Senators, moved to tears by Burr's elo- quence, unanimously adopted resolutions extolling his fairness as presiding officer, and proceeded to elect one of their number as president pro-tem to succeed him. The event occurred during execu- tive session March 2, 1805. Burr's motive can only be surmised. He himself quietly attributed it to "indisposition," which might refer to physical illness and might mean that he was "indisposed" to participation in the installation of his hated enemy, George Clinton, the vice-president elect. Possibly he desired the spectacular effect actually produced. But, whatever his motive, or by what- ever name the act be designated, Aaron Burr abso- lutely relinquished the Vice-Presidency two days before his term of office expired.

(13 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

a corn-cob pipe while transacting business with representatives of other nations. But, instead of delivering his inaugural address in person, as Washington and Adams had done, after the manner of the King of England to Parliament, he sent in a written message to be read by the clerk, thus establishing a precedent that was fol- lowed by all of his successors until the time of Woodrow Wilson, who returned to the practice of Washington.

For the elections of 1804, formal nomi- nations were for the first time made. The Republican members of Congress met in caucus and renominated Jefferson for. President, at the same time nominating George Clinton of New York for Vice- President. This was the beginning of the Congressional caucus nominations which continued until the time of Jackson. It was, however, but the nationalizing of a practice that had grown up in several States, by which the members of the Legislatures in their respective party cau- cuses had named candidates for State offices and Congressmen, and sometimes indicated the choice of the State for Presi- dent. The Federalists made no open nomi- nations, but their leaders united on Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina for President and Rufus King of New York for Vice-President. The election showed the complete collapse of the Federalist party. Jefferson and Clinton had 162 electoral votes, while Pinckney and King had but 14.

The early custom had been for the Vice- President to follow as President. Adams had been Vice-President under Washing- ton, and Jefferson under Adams. But as Jefferson's second term approached its close there were indications that he pre- ferred his Secretary of State, James Madi- son, for his successor. There was some demurring in Virginia where the friends of James Monroe, feeling that he had not been treated fairly, urged him for the presidency. The Congressional caucus,

however, was controlled by the friends of Madison, and nominated him for Presi- dent, re-nominating George Clinton for Vice-President. There was considerable ill feeling, especially in Virginia, where the "Quids," led by John Randolph of Roanoke, for a time threatened a serious defection. The trouble, however, was al- layed by the influence of Jefferson, who arranged that Monroe should enter the Cabinet as Secretary of State, and thus be in line as Madison's successor, accord- ing to the new order of promotion. The Federalists again informally accepted Pinckney and King as candidates without nomination, and made a desperate rally to regain power. The result was a slight gain, as they had 47 electoral votes to 122 for Madison.

Like some other Presidents since, who have been chosen in deference to the wishes of their predecessors, Madison did not measure up to the expectations of his friends. He was greater in constructive than in executive ability. Constitutionally a man of peace, he was confronted by con- ditions of war, and his administration seemed on the point of failure when a number of the younger element in Con- gress, led by Henry Clay, John C. Cal- houn, William H. Crawford and Felix Grundy, forced him into a more active policy, including a declaration of war against England-a war, however, for which the country was absolutely unpre- pared, and in which it was saved from utter disgrace only by the heroism of its improvised navy, and the brilliant vic- tory of the volunteers under Andrew Jack- son at New Orleans.

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.

History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 1

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926 Publication date: 1917 Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 1104

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1104