USA > Indiana > A history of Indiana from its exploration to 1850 > Part 40
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
36 For a statement of the principles of the Democratic Party see Vin- cennes Western Sun, Nov. 2, 1844. The leading Democratic paper was the State Sentinel, edited by G. A. and J. P. Chapman. On the Cum- berland Road and Wabash and Erie Canal, see Senator Albert S. White, in Indianapolis Journal, May 7 and May 25, and John W. Davis in the Journal April 27.
475
POLITICS FROM 1840 TO 1852
peal to the Free Soilers to support Clay. He published a letter, purporting to have been by Birney, the Free Soil candidate, which stated that Birney was a Democrat and had entered the race at the suggestion of the Democratic leader in order to hold the anti-slavery vote from Clay. Birney promptly pronounced the letter, known in history as the "Garland" letter, a "forgery."37
Both parties made bids for the emigrant vote. A German paper, the Republican, was started at Cincinnati by the Whigs. Thousands of copies were distributed free to Indi- ana Germans. A German Democratic association was or- ganized in Indianapolis. To the disgust of both parties, the Germans refused to get excited, and went about their business much as if there were no contest going on.38 Cor- responding attempts were made to influence the Irish voters.39
The results of the elections were unfavorable to the Whigs. The August elections returned an equal number of each party to the State Senate, but a majority of ten Whigs to the House.40 The presidential elections in No- vember gave the Whigs 67,867 votes, the Democrats 70,181, and the Free Soilers 2,106, a Democratic plurality of 2,314 and an absolute majority of 208.41
§ 94 POLITICAL DEMORALIZATION
WHEN the General Assembly convened December 2, 1844, a combination of Whigs and Democrats, on the ninth ballot, elected Alexander C. Stevenson, a Whig of Putnam county, speaker over the veteran Whig politician, Milton Stapp.42
37 Indianapolis State Journal, Nov. 2, 1844.
38 Indiana Journal, April 13 and Aug. 24, 1844.
39 Whig Rifle, July 8, 1844.
40 Indiana Journal, Nov. 9, 1844, gives a full list of members, with political affiliations.
41 Indiana Journal, Nov. 30, 1844. The vote is given by counties. There is great difficulty in classifying the members politically. When the General Assembly tried to elect a United States senator later it was found that the House favored a Whig, and the Senate was a tie.
42 Indiana Journal, Dec. 7, 1844.
476
HISTORY OF INDIANA
The election of a United States senator to succeed Al- bert S. White of Lafayette was the principal political duty which fell upon the Assembly of 1844. Early in the ses- sion there began to appear indications that the Senate would refuse to go into joint session for the purpose. The Whigs paid no attention to the rumors until a four-column editorial in the last Sentinel of the year advocated indefinite postponement of the election. The Sentinel urged in favor of the movement that the Whigs had so gerrymandered the State in 1840 that the Democrats did not get a fair pro- portion of the representatives. As proof of the fact they pointed out that they had elected all State officers and eight of the ten congressmen in 1843 and had carried the State for Polk in 1844. In spite of this they had lost the Gen- eral Assembly.43 The Whigs regarded the whole proceed- ings as a bluff until January 9, 1845, when the Senate, by a strict party vote, 25 to 25, Lieutenant Governor Bright giving the casting vote, decided not to go into an elec- tion at all. The Whigs ascribed the action of the Senate to the ambition of Governor Whitcomb to succeed Senator White. The whole subject reflects little lustre on the po- litical morality of either party. The Whigs had threat- ened such a bolt two years before, when Hannegan was elected. A Democratic Assembly had recently enacted a law making it the duty to elect a senator at the session immediately preceding the expiration of the senatorial term.
The August election of 1845 confirmed the Democrats in their prediction that the Assembly would be Democratic. Of the newly elected State senators ten were Whigs and seven Democrats, leaving that body a tie, while in the House there was a clear Democratic majority of ten.44 The Whigs succeeded in electing only two congressmen, Caleb B. Smith in the Fourth District, and E. W. McGaughey in the
43 Indiana Journal, Jan. 1, 1845; the Indiana Journal, Jan. 29, 1845, contains a speech on the subject by John D. Defrees, delivered in the Senate Jan. 6. The speaker goes into the political history of the last four Assemblies.
44 Indiana Journal, Aug. 27, 1845.
477
POLITICS FROM 1840 TO 1852
Seventh, the latter defeating Joseph A. Wright by 151 votes. There was little at issue in any of the contests of the year.
The Whig Party was rapidly waning in strength. There seemed to be a clique of ex-officeholders, high up in the councils of the party, who were determined to rule the party or ruin it. When they failed to nominate their man in convention they brought out an independent candidate, thus insuring Democratic success.45 The Democratic Party likewise was not without its internal dissentions, largely of the same nature. There was the Hunker-Barnburner division; the Bright-Whitcomb jealousy; and the Wright- Hannegan feud. The first of the divisions was between
the conservative wing, represented by Chapman and the Sentinel, and the progressive wing, represented by John W. Davis, S. F. Covington of the Madison Courier, and Morrison, formerly of the Indiana Democrat. The second division, between Whitcomb and Bright, was the first indi- cation of the slavery question in Indiana Democracy. Bright was a pro-slavery slave owner, while Whitcomb was a Free Soiler. The last mentioned dissention was a pri- vate quarrel due to personal political ambitions.
§ 95 THE FREE SOILERS IN INDIANA, 1846-1850
THE year 1846 found the Democrats and Whigs engaged in a gubernatorial struggle, with James Whitcomb a can- didate for reelection on the Democratic ticket and Joseph G. Marshall of Madison heading the Whig ticket. The Whig convention had met at Indianapolis January 9, 1846, and nominated Marshall and Godlove S. Orth on a plat- form referring rather vaguely to the payment of the State debt, so that the reputation of the State might be preserved, and to the control of all of Oregon, which justly belonged to the United States.46 The Democrats met, as usual, on January 8, and nominated Whitcomb and Paris C. Dun- ning of Bloomington, on a platform of many specific
45 See a series of articles in the Indiana Journal, Oct. 8, 15, 29, 1845. 46 Indiana Journal, Jan. 10, 1846.
478
HISTORY OF INDIANA
planks, of which "no banks," "no internal improvements," "no State debts," "an ad valorem tariff," "no State loans," "payment of honest debts," "hard money," "no special bank charters," "no connection between state and church," were a few.47
The campaign was waged on personalities, though, in the history of the State, it would be difficult to point out a campaign in which two cleaner men contended for the office of governor. Whitcomb was attacked most severely for his conduct with reference to his appointments to the su- preme bench, while Marshall was most effectively criticized for his connection with the internal improvement policy.48 Orth withdrew from the race May 4, and the Whig Central Committee substituted Alexander C. Stevenson of Putnam county in his place. Besides the personalities, the "Butler Bill" was widely discussed. Neither party was able to raise any great amount of enthusiasm. Whitcomb was success- ful over Marshall by 4,037 votes; the Free Soilers under Stevens received 2,278 votes, almost entirely, it seems, at the expense of the Whigs.49
The congressional elections of 1847 form a prelude to the presidential campaign of 1848. The Mexican War had absorbed practically all of the political energy of the people since the spring of 1846. The Whigs at once attacked the Polk administration for its conduct of the war. Especially had the President laid himself open to hostile criticism by appointing Democrats to the higher positions in the mili- tary service and for attempting to secure votes against the Wilmot Proviso by a skillful use of his appointive power.50 As a result of their searching criticism the administration was soon thrown on the defensive.
In State politics the Whigs had made a fairly creditable
47 Madison Courier, Jan. 17, 1846. Resolutions of the Democratic Editorial Association.
48 For a good statement of the attack on Whitcomb see Indiana Jour- nal, July 1, 1846, and March 18, 1846. For a statement of the charges against Marshall see Journal, May 13, 1846; see also Journal, April 22 and April 29.
49 Indiana Journal, Aug. 26, 1846.
50 Indiana State Journal, Mar. 24, June 9, 1846.
479
POLITICS FROM 1840 TO 1852
record during the last four years, while the Democratic organization had suffered from the fights over the "Butler Bills," the senatorial elections, the appointments of su- preme judges, and lastly over the Wilmot Proviso struggle in Congress.51
Many of the Indiana congressmen were in political trouble with their constituencies. As a result of the Mexi- can War the National Treasury was empty; so that appro- priations for the improvement of the western rivers, for the continuation of the Cumberland Road, for the harbor at Michigan City could not be made. Several appropria- tion bills for these improvements had been passed by Con- gress in 1845, but had met the veto of the President. The congressional candidates in Indiana, especially in the Ninth District, had argued to their constituents that President Polk would not veto such appropriations voted by Demo- crats. The facts had not borne out their prophecy.52 In the First and Eighth Districts the respective Democratic candidates, Robert Dale Owen and John Petit, were both infidels, for which they were being ruthlessly persecuted by their Whig opponents. Owen was a man of the highest type who gave no occasion for attack, but Petit took pleas- ure in obtruding his religious convictions. For instance, he annually introduced resolutions in Congress to dispense with the chaplain. In the Sixth District there was a three- cornered fight in the Democratic convention. Dr. D. M. Dobson of Owen county, George W. Carr of Lawrence, and John W. Davis of Parke county engaged in a life and death political struggle. Dr. Davis, the only one who could have been elected, withdrew after the third convention had failed to make a nomination. Dr. Dobson was nominated at Bloomfield, July 8. The long fight disgusted the voters and left the party without the organization to make a success- ful contest. In the Seventh District the bitter feud be- tween Senator Hannegan and Joseph A. Wright deprived
51 Platform of the Fifth District, Indiana State Journal. June 23, 1847.
52 Indiana Journal, May 26, 1847.
480
HISTORY OF INDIANA
the latter of the united support of the Democrats, so that he was defeated.
The results of the election were a disapointment to both parties. The combined vote of the Whigs in all the dis- tricts was 67,723, of the Democrats 67,216. Thus although the Whigs carried the State by a majority of 507, they elected only four of the ten congressmen. Had the Whig majority in the Fourth District, where Caleb B. Smith de- feated Charles Test by a majority of 1,368, been prop- erly distributed, it would have elected five more Whig con- gressmen. On the other hand, George G. Dunn and R. W. Thompson were elected on the Whig tickets in the Sixth and Seventh Districts, respectively, by majorities of 292 and 178. The election was very close, with the Whigs enjoy- ing a moral victory.53
The Liberty Party does not seem to have made an active canvass. Meetings were held in the districts and the voters aligned themselves with that candidate who gave most promise of carrying out their principles. Their platform opposed admitting any more slave States, the acquisition of any more slave territory, and the further prosecution of the War with Mexico. On these questions they de- manded the views of the candidates and cast their votes accordingly.54
The opening of the campaign of 1848 found both par- ties in Indiana eager as usual for the contest, but doubtful as to candidates. President Polk had been disqualified by his pro-slavery policy for the race in any of the Northern States. The hostile feeling aroused by the Wilmot Proviso would not be quieted. The course of events thoroughly aroused the anti-slavery Democrats in the North. With- out their support it was impossible to win in Indiana. Of the six Democratic congressmen then representing the State not one had received a majority as high as 500. It was felt by all of them that the pro-slavery program of
53 Indiana State Journal, June 29, July 7, Sept. 10, 1847.
54 Indiana State Journal, June 23, 1847. A Whig platform, Ninth District, is given in the Journal, May 26, 1847.
481
POLITICS FROM 1840 TO 1852
the Polk administration was jeopardizing their political lives. On the other hand, it was felt just as strongly that it was impossible to carry a Southern State on a platform endorsing the Wilmot Proviso. The defeat of the adminis- tration would throw all the national patronage in the State into the hands of the Whigs, thus endangering all the fed- eral officeholders in the State. It was not the first nor the last time that the elective and appointive federal office- holders of the State found themselves at loggerheads. It is hardly necessary to point out that the appointive office- holders were pro-slavery and the elective anti-slavery, at least in policy. The Democratic press, so far as it was not subsidized by public printing and postoffice appointments, was generally favorable toward the anti-slavery policy.
The Whigs were not responsible for any part of the ad- ministration policy in securing new territory for slavery. So long, therefore, as they merely opposed the pro-slavery propaganda of Polk, they held the moral sympathy of the majority of the voters of Indiana. On the other hand, as soon as they faced the problem of a national campaign with its national platform and national candidates, they found themselves in the same predicament as the Democrats. In- diana Whigs were called upon to support a platform and a candidate that could also carry such States as Kentucky and Louisiana. A Whig President could not be elected without the support of many Southern States.
There was only one party with a logical program and that was the Liberty Party, then coming to be known as the Free Soil Party. It opposed the further spread of slavery and the further acquisition of slave territory. But having no reasonable hope of electing any of its candidates, it had no strong appeal to the mass of Indiana voters. Un- der these circumstances the contest took on all the fascina- tion of a game of skill.
The Whigs of Wayne county met on Christmas day, 1847, and condemned by resolution the annexation of Texas and the War with Mexico, but praised the soldiers who fought the war. They endorsed Taylor for the presi-
482
HISTORY OF INDIANA
dency.55 These resolutions might do very well for Indiana, but it was plain they would not serve as a platform south of the Ohio. Furthermore there was a slight contradiction apparent between the candidate and the platform. How- ever, it fairly represents the contradictory nature of the campaign in the State.
The farther-sighted Whig leaders recognized that the Free Soilers held the balance of power in the State, and that few of them would ever vote for a slave-holder. Judge McLean of Cincinnati seemed on that account the most promising candidate. All agreed that he was not the choice of the Whigs of the State, and could not get the vote of the State in the national convention. This prediction was fairly well carried out. In the national convention McLean failed to receive a vote from Indiana. On the first ballot Scott received 9, Clay 2, Taylor 1. On the fourth and last Scott received 4, Clay 1 and Taylor 7 of the votes of the Indiana delegates. An electoral ticket had already been selected and a central committee of fifteen members, one from each congressional district and five from the Fifth.56
The Democrats met as usual at Indianapolis, January 8, and laid their plans for the campaign. There were only twenty-one counties represented. Little enthusiasm was manifested. The two parties seemed much alike in that re- gard. Lewis Cass was their favorite for the presidency.57
The Free Soilers were unable to support either of the old parties and therefore organized for a separate cam- paign. Their State convention was held at Indianapolis, July 26. After the usual work had been attended to, they drew up a set of resolutions declaring that there was no difference between the old parties on the slavery question; that they would stand by the constitution, but would oppose the spread of slavery; that they would stand by the plat- form of the Buffalo convention and would support Van Buren; that the Free Soil platform should be a test in
55 Tri-weekly Journal, Jan. 10, 1847.
56 Tri-weekly State Journal, April 26, May 3, June 16 and Aug. 2, 1848.
57 Tri-weekly Journal, Jan. 10, 1848.
483
POLITICS FROM 1840 TO 1852
supporting State candidates. Ovid Butler and Rawson Vaile of Wayne county and John B. Seamans of Lafayette were the active members of the State committee.58
The conduct of the campaign was not different from that of 1840 and 1844. Cass clubs and Rough and Ready clubs were organized in all parts of the State. Barbecues and joint discussions were common. The Whigs made a feature of a celebration at Fort Harrison, September 5, the thirty- sixth anniversary of Taylor's brilliant feat of arms there.59 Little interest or enthusiasm could be aroused. Taylor was not popular on account of his severe criticism of the Sec- ond Regiment at Buena Vista. Cass was not popular on account of his pro-slavery platform.60 Each party made frantic appeals to the Free Soilers-the Whigs, to quit their party and join the Whig; the Democrats, to stand by Van Buren to the last. The Whigs pointed out to them that it was the defection to Birney that elected Polk. That now every vote for Van Buren helped to fasten slavery in the territories; that Van Buren himself was the original "dough face" and had no principles of his own.61 The Free Soilers stood to their guns in spite of all appeals and the State vote went to Cass by a plurality of 4,538, Van Buren receiving 8,100 votes.62 Of the 11,402 votes cast above the number in 1844, the Free Soilers had gained 6,000. The fruits of the victory, however, went to the defeated Whigs.
The Democrats controlled the General Assembly. A spirited contest at once began for Hannegan's seat in the United States Senate. Governor Whitcomb, Robert Dale Owen, Senator Hannegan and E. M. Chamberlain were the
58 Tri-weekly Journal, Aug. 4. 1848.
59 Tri-weekly Journal, Sept. 15, 1848.
60 "Democrats who have never lifted a finger for the party or its principles and whose integrity is doubtful, and who owe all their super- abundant riches to truckling between the parties, are expecting a rain of soup and are holding their dishes high." Editorial in the State Sen- tinel, quoted by Journal, Sept. 29. On the other hand Editor Defrees of the Journal wrote editorially Aug. 4: "Next Monday is election day and we fear the Whigs are not prepared for it. While our opponents are active and jubilant, you are all asleep."
61 Tri-weekly Journal, Aug. 30, 1848.
62 Daily Journal, Dec. 4, Dec. 19, 1848.
484
HISTORY OF INDIANA
Democratic aspirants. Each was required by the Demo- cratic members to answer the following questions: Has Congress the constitutional power to exclude slavery from the territories so long as they remain a territory? And if such power exists are you in favor of so excluding slavery? These remind one of the propositions which Lincoln, ten years later, put to Judge Douglas, and which the latter feared to answer. All the candidates answered in the af- firmative. They were then asked if they would abide by instructions of the General Assembly, and all assented. They were finally asked if they would go into caucus and abide by the result. Again all answered affirmatively. On the fourth caucus ballot, Whitcomb received 49 votes, Owen 12, Chamberlain 6, Hannegan 10. There were eighty-two of the eighty-seven Democratic members present.63
§ 96 THE LAST STRUGGLES OF THE WHIG PARTY
FROM 1835 to 1852 there was one continuous political campaign in Indiana. Candidates, platforms and politi- cians came and went, but the contest raged without inter- mission. The election of members to the General Assembly took place in August, 1848, the presidential election fol- lowed in November; the election of a United States senator came before the General Assembly in December; in January the parties held their State conventions preparatory to elect- ing a governor in August; during April and May congres- sional conventions were held in the districts to select can- didates for the congressional election in August; during May and June candidates for the General Assembly were selected. The active campaign began about June 1, though the gubernatorial candidates frequently took the field as early as May 1.64
The Whig State convention met in Indianapolis, Jan- uary 3. The usual formalities of a convention were car-
63 Daily Journal, Dec. 6, Dec. 15, Dec. 20, 1848.
64 See itinerary of J. A. Wright, Madison Courier, May 2, June 2, 1849. It might be added that two State-wide referendums, one on a school question and one on calling a constitutional convention, were be- fore the voters at this time.
485
POLITICS FROM 1840 TO 1852
ried out. One of the rules provided that, in voting, each congressional district should cast three votes as determined by all the voters present from that district. A platform was reported by Thomas Dowling of Terre Haute.65 Elisha Embree of Princeton, who had defeated Robert Dale Owen for Congress in 1847 in the First District, was nominated for governor, and Thomas S. Stanfield for lieutenant gov- ernor.
The Democratic convention met at Indianapolis, Jan- uary 8. There were three candidates for governor-Joseph A. Wright of Parke county, James H. Lane of Lawrence- burg and E. M. Chamberlain of Goshen. An agreement was reached among the supporters of the two first-named candidates by which Wright was nominated for governor and Lane for lieutenant governor.66
As soon as Judge Embree, who was then in Washington, heard of his nomination, he at once wrote John D. Defrees, State chairman, declining, stating as his reason that he preferred to serve in Congress, and that he had promised his friends in the First District to be their candidate again. The State chairman immediately called a meeting of the State Central Committee, by whom a new convention was ordered. It met May 3, and nominated John A. Matson of Brookville for governor.67
The Free Soilers, under the name of the "Free Democ- racy," met at Indianapolis January 20. A strong effort was made to have the convention endorse Judge Embree, but without success. The failure of this, perhaps, deter- mined the latter to withdraw from the Whig ticket. The Free Soilers nominated James H. Cravens of Ripley county to head their ticket, with John W. Wright of Cass county as his lieutenant.68 They decided to combine on local tickets with that party which would give them most consideration. In some counties they had run second in 1848, while in many they held the balance of power. They hoped by a
65 Daily Journal, Jan. 5, 1849.
66 Daily Journal, Jan. 10, 1849.
67 Daily Journal, Mar. 12, April 2, May 4, May 28, 1849.
68 Daily Journal, Jan. 20 and 31, 1849.
(32)
486
HISTORY OF INDIANA
skillful use of their votes to secure several seats in the Gen- eral Assembly. In general, they demanded the application of the Wilmot Proviso in organizing new territory. They opposed admitting any more slave States, and they insisted that Congress free itself of guilt by abolishing slavery wherever it had power, especially in the District of Colum- bia.69 The weakness in their campaign was that they were contesting for a State office on a strictly national platform. The same criticism applies with almost equal force to the other parties.
The issue of the struggle turned almost entirely on slavery. The Democrats had supported Cass, who, in his Nicholson letter, had favored spreading slavery as much as possible in order to mitigate its evils. Wright dodged the slavery question as far as he could, usually advocating the non-interference doctrine. On State issues, such as popular education, calling a constitutional convention, pro- viding for biennial assemblies, he felt safer. Matson stood squarely by the Wilmot Proviso. He favored a constitu- tional convention, and especially advocated the popular election of judges and postmasters. In general, the Free Soilers fused with the Democrats. In the Fourth District, a Free Soil candidate, George W. Julian, aided by Demo- cratic votes, was elected to Congress. In the election, the "Van Burenites" supported Wright, leaving the Whig can- didate with his normal Whig vote.70 The feature of the campaign was the strenuous canvass made by Joseph A. Wright. He made over 100 speeches in eighty-one counties, visiting the remotest parts of the State. The average length of each address was two hours.
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.