USA > Indiana > History of Indiana from its exploration to 1922, Vol. I > 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
30 Indiana State Journal, June 29, 1844. "We say this is a question that rises above all party. It means union or disunion ; the free North will never suhmit to it; the free West will not submit to such a tax merely to spread slavery. Our free laborers are in favor of a tariff. The admission of Texas is a step to- ward the abondonment of our tariff system."-Editorial.
31 Jackson's message, 1829, quoted in the Journal April 6, 1844. 32 Indiana State Journal, May 4, 1844.
535
ELECTION OF 1844
this plan Indiana would receive $8,519,823, which, it was urged, would go a long way on the State debt of $12,751,000.33
The Democrats of Indiana were not backward about beginning the campaign in Indiana. As early as July 4, 1843, Senator Lewis Cass visited the State, presum- ably to deliver the oration at Fort Wayne on comple- tion of the Wabash and Erie canal, but really to arouse the Democrats for the approaching struggle.34
The Democratic State convention met at Indian- apolis on the anniversary of the victory of New Or- leans, January 8, for the purpose of organization. An electoral ticket was nominated.35 The general conduct of the campaign was similar to that of the Whigs. There were, however, no joint debates. As indicated above, the party speakers did not usually discuss the same issues.
On the tariff, internal improvement, and bank questions, Polk had acted quite as often with the Whigs as with the Democrats. Governor Whitcomb, who dis- cussed the tariff oftener than any other Democrat, did not oppose the policy so much as he opposed giving its benefit to the manufacturing interests alone. Senator Hannegan, by far the most eloquent speaker in the State at the time, aroused enthusiasm among the young voters by his presentation of the Texas and Oregon questions. Each party had, without success, made an
33 Indiana State Journal, April 6, 1844; also April 13, 1844.
34 His entire speech is given in the Indianapolis Sentinel, July 25, 1843.
35 Logansport Telegraph, Jan. 20, 1844. This ticket was as follows: Tilghman A. Howard, James G. Reed, Dr. Wm. A. Bowles, Dr. Elijah Newman. J. M. Johnson, Samuel E. Perkins, W. W. Wick, Paris C. Dunning, Henry W. Ellsworth, Charles W. Cathcart and Lucian P. Ferry. To these should be added Gov- ernor Whitcomb, Lieutenant Governor Jesse Bright, Senator Han- negan, J. W. Davis, T. J. Henly, R. D. Owen and a few others to make up the list of Democratic orators.
536
HISTORY OF INDIANA
effort in Congress to get appropriations for the Na- tional Road and the Wabash and Erie Canal.36
The Free Soil vote worried both parties. The fol- lowers of Clay made every possible concession without avail. A Free Soil paper, the Indiana Freeman, was established at the capital and a spirited campaign waged. In the last issue of the Indiana State Journal before the election, the Whig chairman, O. H. Smith, published a two-column appeal 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 Cin- cinnati by the Whigs. Thousands of copies were dis- tributed free to Indiana Germans. A German Demo- cratic association was organized 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 Corresponding 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 ma-
36 For a statement of the principles of the Democratic Party see Vincennes Western Sun, Nov. 2, 1844. The leading Demo- cratic paper was the State Sentinel, edited by G. A. and J. P. Chapman. On the Cumberland Road and Wabash and Erie Canal, see Senator Albert S. White, In Indiana State Journal, May 7 and May 25. and John W. Davis in the Journal April 27.
37 Indiana State Journal, Nov. 2. 1844.
38 Indiana State Journal, April 13 and Aug. 24, 1844.
89 Whig Rifle, July 8, 1844.
537
POLITICAL DEMORALIZATION
jority of ten Whigs to the House.40 The presidential elections in November 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
The election of a United States senator to succeed Albert S. White of Lafayette was the principal politi- cal duty which fell upon the Assembly of 1844. Early in the session 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 proportion of the repre- sentatives. 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 General Assembly.43 The Whigs regarded the whole proceed-
40 Indiana State Journal, Nov. 9, 1844, gives a full list of members, with political affiliations.
41 Indiana State 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 State Journal, Dec. 7, 1844.
43 Indiana State Journal, Jan. 1, 1845; the Indiana State Jour- nal, Jan. 29, 1845, contains a speech on the subject by John D. Defrees, dellvered in the Senate Jan. 6. The speaker goes into the political history of the last four Assemblies.
-
538
HISTORY OF INDIANA
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 election 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 political morality of either party. The Whigs had threatened 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 ex- piration of the senatorial term.
The August election of 1845 confirmed the Demo- crats 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 Seventh, the lat- ter 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 independ- ent 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 conserva- tive wing, represented by Chapman and the Sentinel,
44 Indiana State Journal. Aug. 27, 1845.
45 See a series of articles in the Indiana State Journal, Oct. 8, 15, 29, 1845.
539
FREE-SOILISM IN INDIANA
and the progressive wing, represented by John W. Davis, S. F. Covington of the Madison Courier, and Morrison, formerly of the Indiana Democrat. The sec- ond division, between Whitcomb and Bright, was the first indication 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 largely a private quarrel due to per- sonal 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 Whit- comb a candidate for reelection on the Democratic ticket and Joseph G. Marshall of Madison heading the Whig ticket. The Whig convention had met at Indian- apolis, January 9, 1846, and nominated Marshall and Godlove S. Orth on a platform referring rather vaguely to the payment of the State debt, so that the reputa- tion of the State might be preserved, and to the con- trol 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. Dunning of Bloomington, on a platform of many specific planks, of which "no banks," "no internal im- provements," "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 ap-
46 Indiana State Journal, Jan. 10, 1846.
47 Madison Courier, Jan. 17, 1846. Resolutions of the Demo- cratic Editorial Association.
540
HISTORY OF INDIANA
pointments to the supreme 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 sub- stituted 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 suc- cessful 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 military service and for at- tempting 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 credit- able record during the last four years, while the Demo- cratic organization had suffered from the fights over the "Butler Bills," the senatorial elections, the appoint- ments of supreme 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
48 For a good statement of the attack on Whitcomb see In- diana State Journal, 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 State Journal, Aug. 26, 1846.
50 Indiana State Journal, Mar. 24. June 9, 1846.
51 Platform of the Fifth District, Indiana State Journal, June 23, 1847.
541
POLITICAL DEMORALIZATION
Mexican War the national treasury was empty; so that appropriations for the improvement of the west- ern rivers, for the continuation of the Cumberland Road, for the harbor at Michigan City could not be made. Several appropriation bills for these improve- ments had been passed by Congress in 1845, but had met the veto of the President. The congressional can- didates in Indiana, especially in the Ninth District, had argued to their constituents that President Polk would not veto such appropriations voted by Democrats. The facts had not borne out their prophecy.52 In the First and Eighth Districts the respective Democratic candi- dates, Robert Dale Owen and John Petit, were said to be infidels, and ruthlessly persecuted by their Whig opponents. Owen was a man of the highest type who gave no occasion for attack, but Petit took pleasure in opposing the Protestant preachers. For instance, he annually introduced resolutions in Congress to dis- pense with the chaplain. In the Sixth District there was a three-cornered fight in the Democratic conven- tion. Dr. D. M. Dobson of Owen county, George W. Carr of Lawrence, and John W. Davis of Parke en- gaged 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 nomi- nation. Dr. Dobson was nominated at Bloomfield, July 8. The long fight disgusted the voters and left the party without the organization to make a successful contest. In the Seventh District the bitter feud be- tween Senator Hannegan and Joseph A. Wright de- prived the latter of the united support of the Demo- crats, so that he was defeated.
The results of the election were a disappointment to both parties. The combined vote of the Whigs in all the districts was 67,723, of the Democrats 67,216. Thus, although the Whigs carried the State by a ma-
52 Indiana State Journal, May 26, 1847.
542
HISTORY OF INDIANA
jority of 507, they elected only four of the ten con- gressmen. Had the Whig majority in the Fourth Dis- trict, where Caleb B. Smith defeated Charles Test by a majority of 1,368, been properly distributed, it would have elected five more Whig congressmen. 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 enjoying 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 demanded the views of the candi- dates and cast their votes accordingly.54
The opening of the campaign of 1848 found both parties 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. Without 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 the Polk ad- ministration 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
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.
-
543
DEMOCRATIC FACTIONS
endorsing the Wilmot Proviso. The defeat of the ad- ministration would throw all the national patronage in the State into the hands of the Whigs, thus en- dangering all the federal officeholders in the State. It was not the first nor the last time that the elective and appointive federal officeholders of the State found themselves at loggerheads. It is hardly necessary to point out that the appointive officeholders 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 administration 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 na- tional candidates, they found themselves in the same predicament as the Democrats. Indiana Whigs were called upon to support a platform and a candidate that could also carry such States as Kentucky and Louis- iana. 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. Under these circumstances the contest took on all the fascination 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 sol-
544
HISTORY OF INDIANA
diers who fought the war. They endorsed Taylor for the presidency.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. However, 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 con- vention. This prediction was fairly well carried out. In the national convention McLean failed to receive a vote from Indiana. On the first ballot Scott re- ceived 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 mem- bers, one from each congressional district and five from the Fifth.56
The Democrats met as usual at Indianapolis, Janu- ary 8, and laid their plans for the campaign. There were only twenty-one counties represented. Little en- thusiasm was manifested. The two parties seemed much alike in that regard. Lewis Cass was their favo- rite for the presidency.57
The Free Soilers were unable to support either of the old parties and therefore organized for a separate campaign. Their State convention was held at Indian- apolis, July 26. After the usual work had been at-
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.
543
ELECTION OF 1848
tended 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 platform of the Buffalo convention and would support Van Buren; that the Free Soil platform should be a test in 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 Harri- son, September 5, the thirty-sixth anniversary of Tay- lor'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 Second Regi- ment 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 territory; that Van Buren himself was the origins: "dough face" and had
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 ail their superabundant riches to truckling between the parties, are expecting a rain of soup and are holding their dishes high." Edi- torial in the State Sentinel, 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."
546
HISTORY OF INDIANA
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 receiv- ing 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 de- feated 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 Democratic aspirants. Each was required by the Democratic members to answer the following questions: Has Congress the constitu- tional 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 affirm- ative. 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 affirma- tively. 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 politi- cal campaign in Indiana. Candidates, platforms and politicians came and went, but the contest raged with- out intermission. The election of members to the Gen-
61 Tri-weekly Journal, Aug. 30, 1848.
62 Daily Journal, Dec. 4, Dec. 19, 1848.
63 Daily Journal, Dec. 6, Dec. 15, Dec. 20, 1848.
547
ELECTION OF 1852
eral Assembly took place in August, 1848, the presi- dential election followed in November; the election of a United States senator came before the General As- sembly in December; in January the parties held their State conventions preparatory to electing a governor in August; during April and May congressional con- ventions were held in the districts to select candidates 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, January 3. The usual formalities of a convention were carried 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 de- feated Robert Dale Owen for Congress in 1847 in the First District, was nominated for governor, and Thomas S. Stanfield for lieutenant governor.
The Democratic convention met at Indianapolis, January 8. There were three candidates for governor -Joseph A. Wright of Parke county, James H. Lane of Lawrenceburg 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 gov- ernor.66
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.