History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 12

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 12

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).

several of my colleagues. It seemed to be a careless and somewhat dangerous predic- ament that the Legislatures of the States should continue in many different ways to elect Senators, when Congress had the un- doubted right to prescribe by law a uni- form method of procedure. Copies of these papers were sent to Senators of both parties at Washington. Many letters were received in answer. Some of them ap- proved, others disapproved the grounds taken in argument in the particular case, but all concurred in the necessity of Con- gressional action. Yet such was the po- litical stress of that troubled period, now approaching in the history of our country, that it was not until after the conclusion of the war that Congress enacted this much-needed legislation. On the 26th of July, 1866, an act was passed regulating the mode of choosing Senators by the Leg- islature. Since that time our Senators in Indiana and elsewhere have been elected according to its provisions.

"Mr. W. H. Seward and Mr. William G. Bayard, who were Senators in 1858, Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Lane, who were Sena- tors in 1866, have more than once stated in my presence that it was the Indiana case with its non-election in 1855, and its contested election of 1858, that chiefly im- pelled Congress to take its subsequent ac- tion in the premises. The United States Senate held that the election of Bright and Fitch was valid. Mr. Lane and Mr. Mc- Carty returned from Washington as pri- vate citizens, but they lost nothing in pub- lic estimation by their journey, nor was the action of our Legislature useless or un- profitable. It led to the passage of a gen- eral law on this subject, one of the most important of our statutes at large.

"Although very firmly convinced of the correctness of our opinion upon the ques- tion of the Senatorial election, what gave additional zeal to my action was the cir- cumstance that Graham N. Fitch, the friend of my youth, was deeply interested in the result. He served in the United States Senate until March 4, 1861, taking first rank in that body. He was afterward a colonel in the army; he had the choice of many titles, but he preferred to be called Doctor. That designated his favor- ite pursuit. He was often and long en- gaged in public employments of the high- est character. He entered, indeed he was, so to speak, drafted into the work of the

( 85)

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

lecture-room, taught as a professor in the medical schools of Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Chicago, but always returned to his home-to his office in Logansport. To the profession he had given his first love, and it never grew old or cold; he continued in it almost to the day of his death, not from necessity, but from the love he bore it. His early labors in the active practice were constant and toilsome. He always drove with two horses. I have met him more than once, returning from' some distant night-call in the country, seated in his buggy fast asleep, while his faithful team noiselessly picked their way along the cor- duroy road, seeming loath to disturb the slumbers of their master.

"As a public speaker Doctor Fitch was versatile and attractive. When he took the stump he bade good-by to the physician. There was not the least trace of the mate- ria medica, either in his manner or utter- ances, nothing of either shop or sham. He had read and thought much upon the con- stitutional principles of our government, and had formed his opinions of the proper mode of their development by legislation. He cited with effect and with precision the writings of Jefferson, Jackson and other worthies of the Democratic school, but an authority to be cited by him must always be brief and pointed. A skillful disputant, he had great powers of apprehension and penetration ; he detected in the twinkling of an eye any infirmity or inconsistency in the position of an opponent, and as quickly exposed it.

"In a prolonged series of joint discus- sions with Mr. Schuyler Colfax he defeat- ed that gentleman for Congress, the only defeat suffered by him in a long political career. During the Civil War Fitch was authorized to raise a regiment, the Forty- sixth Regiment of Indiana Volunteers, which he subsequently commanded in the field. His recruits were gathered by a public canvass made by him in his own and adjoining counties. Several times I accompanied him in this canvass and spoke from the same stand. His account of the beginning, course and termination of the movement of secession was the most high- ly finished and thoroughly wrought-out discussion of that topic I have ever heard. His exhortation to the sons of Indiana in behalf of the Union and the constitution was irresistible. His regiment was rapid-

ly filled by volunteer enlistments to its full complement. Our young men were anx- ious to go with him."

The strong affection Judge Turpie felt for Dr. Fitch was richly merited. It was based on sterling worth. Friendship be- tween two such men has in it genuineness and sincerity. Had it been lacking in these essentials, it would not have been professed. Both had a decided aversion to mere profession, to hollow pretense.

Graham Newell Fitch was born in Le- roy, N. Y., December 5, 1809. He studied medicine in the medical college at Fair- field, N. Y., practiced in Logansport, Ind., was professor in Rush Medical College of Chicago from 1844 to 1849; was presiden- tial elector in 1844, 1848 and 1856; mem- ber of the Legislature in 1836 and 1839; chosen member of Congress in 1848 and re-elected in 1850; served as United States Senator four years, from February 4, 1857, to March 4, 1861. At the outbreak of the rebellion he raised the Forty-sixth Regiment of Indiana Volunteers, making carnest appeals to the young men of his part of the State to rally to the defense of the imperiled Union and the vindication of the supremacy of governmental authority. He deplored secession and deprecated dis- sension. His speeches breathed the spirit of genuine patriotism and contributed largely to solidifying public sentiment in support of the Government. After the war he served as a delegate to the Demo- cratic National Convention that in 1868 nominated Governor Horatio Seymour for President and General Frank P. Blair for Vice-President. He died at Logansport, November 29, 1892.

JOHN PETTIT'S LONG PUBLIC SERVICE.

With absolute truthfulness it may be said that Indiana fairly abounded with men of unusual ability and eminent quali- fication for public service. This circum- stance confirms the view not infrequently

( 86 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

expressed that if a nation wants strong and able men there must be trials and tribulations ; even poverty can hardly be considered a drawback in the development of individual stamina. Certain it is that if there had been three or four times the number of important stations to fill no scarcity of material would have been found to exist to fill them all, and fill them well.

John Pettit came within this category. Born in Sacketts Harbor, N. Y., June 24, 1807, he fitted himself for the law, and after admission to the bar, acted upon Horace Greeley's advice: "Go West, young man, and grow up with the coun- try." He located in Lafayette, Ind., where he began practice in 1838. His public career began with two terms in the Legis- lature. He was appointed United States

District Attorney, and from that position was advanced to three terms in Congress, serving continuously from March 4, 1843, to March 3. 1849. In 1850 he was chosen a delegate to the constitutional convention and helped to frame the present constitu- tion. As an elector he helped to cast In- diana's vote for Pierce and King in 1852, and the following year he was elected United States Senator to fill the latter part of Whitcomb's unexpired term. During the troublous days of the Kansas-Nebraska fight he was appointed Chief Justice of the United States courts in Kansas. After some years of release from public life he was, in 1870, elected a member of the Supreme Court of Indiana, which position he filled with marked ability. He died at Lafayette, January 17, 1877. Judge Pettit was a big man, physically as well as men- tally.

( 87 )

[CHAPTER X.] RE-ELECTION OF GOVERNOR WHITCOMB IN 1846

VENTS of magnitude, of tre- E mendous importance, followed one another in quick succession since the election and inaugura- tion of President Polk. Per- sons who, during the campaign of 1844, derisively asked, "Who the deuce is James K. Polk?" had their minds disabused as to his qualification

and fitness for the high office to which he was chosen over the gifted, eloquent and idolized Henry Clay. Though nominated as a "dark horse," James K. Polk had made an enviable record, as member of Congress from 1825 to 1839, as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, as Speaker of the House during a most ex- citing period of federal legislation, and as Governor of Tennessee. His inaugural ad- dress, replete with sound sentiment, strong common sense, lofty patriotism, and enun- ciation of high purposes, was read with amazement by those who had sought to belittle him and with satisfaction and su- preme pleasure by those who believed him to be worthy of filling the chair vacated eight years before by that other sturdy Tennesseean, Andrew Jackson.

The tariff, as will be remembered, was one of the main issues in the campaign of 1844. Up to this time no clearer or more forceful exposition of the real Democratic position on that question had been made by any public man authorized to speak for the party than that set forth in President Polk's inaugural address. In view of the fact that the views therein expressed were subsequently made the basis of the "Walker tariff," some extracts from the Polk inaugural address will be found both interesting and instructive. Note the sim- plicity, clearness and vigor of this elucida- tion of the Government's authority to levy taxes upon imports :

"One of the difficulties which we have had to encounter in the practical adminis- tration of the Government consists in the adjustment of our revenue laws and the levy of the taxes necessary for the sup- port of Government. In the general proposition that no more money shall be collected than the necessities of an eco- nomical administration shall require all parties seem to acquiesce. Nor does there seem to be any material difference of opinion as to the absence of right in the Government to tax one section of country, or one class of citizens, or one occupation, for the mere profit of another. 'Justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Gov- ernment to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common coun- try.' I have heretofore declared to my fellow-citizens that 'in my judgment it is the duty of the Government to extend, as far as it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair and just protection to all the great interests of the whole Union, embracing agriculture, manufac- tures, the mechanic arts, commerce, and navigation.' I have also declared my opin- ion to be 'in favor of a tariff for revenue,' and that 'in adjusting the details of such a tariff I have sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed and at the same time afford reasonable incidental protection to our home industry,' and that I was 'opposed to a tariff for protection merely, and not for revenue.'

"The power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' was an indis- pensable one to be conferred on the Fed- eral Government, which without it would possess no means of providing for its own support. In executing this power by levying a tariff of duties for the support of Government, the raising of revenue should be the object and protection the incident. To reverse this principle and make protection the object and revenue the incident would be to inflict manifest injustice upon all other than the protected

( 89 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

interests. In levying duties for revenue it is doubtless proper to make such dis- criminations within the revenue principle as will afford incidental protection to our home interests. Within the revenue limit there is a discretion to discriminate; be- yond that limit the rightful exercise of the power is not conceded. The incidental protection afforded to our home interests by discriminations within the revenue range it is believed will be ample. In making discriminations all our home in- terests should as far as practicable be equally protected. The largest portion of our people are agriculturists. Others are employed in manufactures, commerce, navigation and the mechanic arts. They are all engaged in their respective pur- suits, and their joint labors constitute the national or home industry. To tax one branch of this home industry for the benefit of another would be unjust. No one of these interests can rightfully claim an advantage over the others, or to be en- riched by impoverishing the others. All are equally entitled to the fostering care and protection of the Government. In ex- ercising a sound discretion in levying dis- criminating duties within the limit pre- scribed, care should be taken that it be done in a manner not to benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the toiling millions by taxing lowest the luxuries of life, or articles of superior quality and high price, which can only be consumed by the wealthy, and highest the necessaries of life, or articles of coarse quality and low price, which the poor and great mass of our people must consume. The burdens of government should as far as practicable be distributed justly and equally among all classes of our population. These gen- eral views, long entertained on this sub- ject, I have deemed it proper to reiterate. It is a subject upon which conflicting in- terests of sections and occupations are supposed to exist, and a spirit of mutual concession and compromise in adjusting its details should be cherished by every part of our widespread country as the only means of preserving harmony and a cheerful acquiescence of all in the opera- tion of our revenue laws. Our patriotic citizens in every part of the Union will readily submit to the payment of such taxes as shall be needed for the support of their Government, whether in peace

or in war, if they are so levied as to dis- tribute the burdens as equally as possible among them."

Whatever conflict of opinion there may exist with reference to federal taxation, there can be no question as to the views set forth in the foregoing extracts always having served as a guidance to Democratic legislation in framing laws to raise reve- nue for carrying on the machinery of the general government.

The public mind during this time was largely engrossed with "burning ques- tions" relating to the Mexican war, the annexation of Texas, the Oregon dispute, etc. Opinions differed widely. In regard to Mexico and Texas, the slavery question became an important factor. Those who were radically opposed to the opening of any more slave territory were irreconcil- ably against the annexation of Texas. Those who were content with the policy of admitting into the Union territories in pairs, one with slavery and the other with- out, generally favored the annexation of Texas and waging war upon Mexico for a variety of wrongs and outrages perpe- trated by the Mexicans. In Indiana so prominent a Whig leader as Henry S. Lane, who in later years (1856) presided over the first national convention of the newly organized Republican party and who in 1860 was chosen Governor, was not only an earnest and enthusiastic champion of the war against Mexico, but became ac- tively engaged in the enlistment of volun- teers. In his speeches, made to arouse the war spirit of Indiana, he bitterly attacked the Whig leaders who opposed the Mexican war. He personally organized a company, was made major of the regiment of which his company constituted a part, was sub- sequently promoted to the lieutenant- colonelcy, and served gallantly to the end of his regiment's enlistment. In Ohio, on the other hand, many of the Whig leaders were violently opposed to the war with Mexico. The foremost among them, Thomas Corwin, for many years a distin-

( 90 )

HISTORY .INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

guished member of Congress and several times elected Governor of that Common- wealth, vehemently opposed and bitterly denounced the Mexican war. Elected to the United States Senate in 1844, and noted for his eloquence and power of oratory, he created a sensation by deliver- ing a speech on the Mexican war question .in the course of which he exclaimed: "If I were a Mexican as I am an American, I would welcome you with bloody hands to hospitable graves." This unpatriotic dec- laration was deprecated by many of his friends and admirers and had the effect of greatly diminishing and eventually de- stroying the popularity he had enjoyed for so many years.

Governor Whitcomb made an excellent record as chief executive. His persistent, well-directed efforts to repair the injury inflicted upon the State and its credit by the bungling and impracticable methods adopted under Whig administrations met with high appreciation. So, when the time came for naming his successor, there was no diversity of opinion in his party as to the advisability of renominating James Whitcomb for Governor. As his running mate Paris C. Dunning was named. The election in August shows this result :

FOR GOVERNOR.

James Whitcomb, Democrat. .64,104 Joseph G. Marshall, Whig. 60,067

Stephen C. Stephens, Abolitionist. 2,278

The official returns as given in the re-

port of the Secretary of State for 1846 vary from the above. The figures therein given are :

FOR GOVERNOR.

James Whitcomb . 63,945

Joseph G. Marshall 59,933

Stephen C. Stevens. 2,278

Thomas F. Marshall (Clark county only) . . 71

Joseph Harding (Jay county only) 17

FOR LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR.

Paris C. Dunning, Democrat. 62,808 Alexander C. Stevenson, Whig. 59,132

Stephen S. Harding, Abolitionist 2,281

Edward E. Moore, in his "A Century of Indiana," bestows this well-deserved trib- ute upon the recipient of the popular en- dorsement above recorded: "It was during Governor Whitcomb's administration that the compromise with the State's creditors was arived at, whereby the Wabash and Erie Canal, together with the canal lands granted by the Government, and other rights and franchises, were transferred in discharge of one-half of the State's indebt- edness, and new bonds, at a lower rate of interest, issued for the remaining half. With this settlement confidence was re- stored, and the panic having spent its force, prosperity began gradually to re- turn."

December 27, 1848, Governor Whitcomb was elected a Senator of the United States. He thereupon resigned as Governor and was succeeded by Paris C. Dunning, Lieu- tenant-Governor, who served as Governor during the remainder of the term. In 1849 Joseph A. Wright, Democrat, was elected Governor.

( 91 )

[CHAPTER XI.] THE CAMPAIGN OF 1848

THE SLAVERY QUESTION CAUSED A SERIOUS SPLIT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Q UEER circumstances arose in 1848. The two leading parties, Whig and Democratic, came near agreeing, in the main, on the slavery question, although the Whigs generally opposed the war against Mexico and were anything but pleased over the an- nexation of Texas. The campaign was a queer one in this, that the successful aspirant to the Presidency was a slave- holder and that whatever fame attached to his name was acquired in the Mexican war, which most of those who voted for him, especially in the North, had bitterly opposed.

The annexation of Texas had been ap- proved by President Tyler shortly before the inauguration of President Polk. It was an open secret that one of the pur- poses of the war against Mexico was to get a slice of that country with a view to making slave territory thereof. In annex- ing Texas a stipulation was incorporated into the treaty that the "Lone Star State" might be cut up into five separate and dis- tinct States. Had this program been car- ried fully into effect, the slave power in the Union would have been largely in- creased. But it wasn't. Texas was not subdivided, and none of the territory taken from Mexico became "consecrated" to slavery. To guard against the latter con- tingency an amendment to the bill appro- priating $22,000,000 for a treaty of peace with Mexico, commonly known as the "Wilmot Proviso," was tacked on through the instrumentality of such anti-slavery Democrats as David Wilmot of Pennsyl- vania and Judge Brinckerhoff of Ohio, ex- pressly forbidding the introduction of slavery in any part of the territory that

might be acquired from Mexico. Though this amendment, adopted by the House, was never formally concurred in by the Senate, it accomplished its purpose in an indirect manner. The vote in the House was quite decisive, 83 to 64, only three Democrats from the non-slave-holding States voting against it. General Lewis Cass, nominated for the Presidency by the Democrats in 1848, had declared himself in favor of the "Wilmot Proviso," but sub- sequently modified his opinion on that subject, doubtless with a view to pro- pitiating the South. This, however, did not prove helpful to him in the campaign. The anti-slavery Democrats used this change of attitude effectively against him by showing that the "Wilmot Proviso" was but a repetition of the clause prohibit- ing slavery that was put into the ordinance of 1787 by Thomas Jefferson, when the Northwestern Territory was ceded by Vir- ginia to the United States.

The Democratic National Convention met at Baltimore on the 22d day of May, 1848. It was presided over by Andrew Stevenson of Kentucky. The two-thirds vote was adopted by a vote of 175 to 78. Complications had arisen in the State of New York that resulted in sending two delegations to the Baltimore convention, one dominated by Daniel S. Dickinson, the other by Samuel J. Tilden. The latter made a strong representation of regular- ity; the Dickinson delegation represented the administration element. The ill feel- ing between the two factions, one called the "Barnburners," the other the "Hunk- ers," was intensified by the circumstance that Senator Silas Wright, dearly beloved by the New York Democracy, after having declined the nomination for the Vice-

(93 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

Presidency in 1844-made to conciliate the Van Buren element in 1844-was sub- sequently induced to accept the nomina- tion for Governor that year. This ar- rangement had the effect of reconciling the Van Burenites and of carrying the State handsomely for Polk and Dallas as well as for Silas Wright for Governor. Two years later, when put in the field for re-election, Governor Wright met with overwhelming defeat. Responsibility for this humiliation was laid at the door of the "Hunkers." Intense bitterness was engendered, and when the time came for appointing delegates to the national con- vention the "Barnburners" had things pretty much their own way. But the "Hunkers," under the skillful leadership of Daniel S. Dickinson, organized their forces and appointed a contesting delega- tion. They charged the "Barnburners" with being antagonistic to the established policy of the party with reference to the slavery question and as being hostile to the Polk administration. The wrangle over the disputing delegations from the Empire State lasted two days. After an intensely acrimonious debate a motion was finally adopted by a vote of 126 to 124 to admit both delegations, each to cast half of the vote of the State. Though this was deemed a comparative victory for the "Barnburners," they withdrew from the convention, and the "Hunkers" consider- ately declined to participate in the further deliberations of that body.

The leading candidates for the Presi- dential nomination were Lewis Cass of Michigan, James Buchanan of Pennsyl- vania and Levi Woodbury of New Hamp- shire. A few scattering votes were cast for Vice-President George M. Dallas of Pennsylvania, W. J. Worth of Texas, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and W. O. Butler of Kentucky. Necessary to a choice on the first and second ballots, 168; on the third and fourth, 169. Cass received 125 votes on the first ballot, 133 on the

second, 156 on the third, and 179 on the fourth-ten more than necessary. Buchanan's vote was 55, 54, 40, 33; Wood- bury's, 53, 56, 53, 38. Cass was declared duly nominated on the fourth ballot, whereupon the convention took a recess until the evening to place in nomination a candidate for Vice-President. William O. Butler of Kentucky was largely in the lead on the first ballot, receiving 114 votes, as against 74 for J. A. Quitman of Missis- sippi, 24 for John T. Mason of Virginia, 29 for William R. King of Alabama, 13 for James J. McKay of North Carolina and one for Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. A second ballot was ordered and Butler was honored with an unanimous nomination.

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 12

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