History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 21

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 21

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).

( 156 )

[CHAPTER XXII.]

THE SLAVERY QUESTION AND THE VARIOUS COMPROMISES

NONE OF WHICH SEEMED TO HAVE POSSESSED COHESIVE QUALITY

MONG the difficult problems A which confronted the founders of this Republic in establish- ing a new power among the nations of the earth and mak- ing its government conform to the new ideals that had been evolved in the New World, none were more difficult of solution than the question of slavery and that of the proper spheres of State and Federal authority. Both prob- lems were attacked in the true English spirit of opportunism and compromise- an endeavor to surmount the present diffi- culty and satisfy all parties. It is a note- worthy fact that both these problems were finally solved at the same time and by the same means-the force of arms.

In the earlier days, however, there was greater difference of opinion on the re- spective authority of the State and the Nation than there was on the slavery question. Even during Washington's first administration party lines were drawn be- tween Federalists and anti-Federalists, and more intense partisan bitterness has never existed than was manifested by these two organizations before the close of the eighteenth century.

Slavery, on the other hand, was recog- nized by all as an evil and an anomaly in a free government, and the only differ- ences that existed were as to the best methods of securing its ultimate extinc- tion. The best exposition of the feelings and purposes of the fathers on this ques- tion is given in the address issued by the Democratic legislators of New York State at the close of the session of 1848. It has been termed the "First Gun for Freesoil,"

and was the joint production of Samuel J. Tilden, Martin Van Buren and the latter's son, "Prince" John. By ample quotations it showed that there was no sectionalism in the attitude of the founders of the Re- public in regard to slavery. All consid- ered it as an evil and looked to its ultimate elimination. The only differences of opin- ion were as to the means of bringing about the desired result.

The ethical side was epitomized in the words of Jefferson: "I tremble for my country when. I remember that God is just." Patrick Henry voiced the wish and faith of all in these words: "I believe the time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we can do is to improve the opportunity, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, to- gether with our slaves, a pity for their un- happy lot and an abhorrence of slavery." The practical mind of Washington sug- gested the method of action: "I can only say there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery. But there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by the legislative authority; and this, so far as my suffrage will go, shall ' not be wanting."

The plan of Washington was put into effect. The abolishment of slavery within its borders was conceded to be the affair of each State. But the matter of importa- tion of slaves and the status of the institu- tion in the territories was vested in the general Government. The Federal Con- stitution, which is the organic law of the

( 157 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

Nation, provided that the slave trade might be abolished at the end of twenty years; and it was so terminated by Con- gressional action. Indeed, so careful were the framers of the Constitution to avoid even a recognition of the system that the word "slave" or "slavery" does not appear in it, "because," in the words of Madison, "they did not choose to admit the right of property in man;" moreover, by giving a three-fifths representation for the persons held in servitude, the Constitution lifted the bondmen above the grade of mere chattels, and one of the first acts of Con- gress was to reaffirm the "Ordinance of 1787"-written by Jefferson-prohibiting slavery forever in the territory, ceded by Virginia, north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. In 1793 the first Con- gressional action towards allaying ill- feeling between the States resulted in the enactment of a law providing for the re- turn of fugitives from one State into an- other. This law was popularly known as the "fugitive slave law," although its pro- visions related to fugitives from justice or involuntary servitude.

From the beginning the ethical consid- eration of the question of slavery was complicated by the financial interests in- volved. The respite of twenty years given the African slave trade was a concession to the shipowners and slave traders of the northern cities, and the abolition of slav- ery in the northern States was much facil- itated by the fact that slave labor did not prove profitable in that section. Neither was that kind of labor particularly profit- able at the South until after the invention of the cotton gin. But for the mechanical genius of Whitney, it is possible that the "opportunity" hoped for by Patrick Henry might have arrived during the lifetime of Jefferson, and slavery might have been abolished by the voluntary action of all the States, according to the plan suggested by Washington.

The rapid growth of the cotton industry

having given impetus to slavery in the South, Congress, in its legislation for the Territories, recognized the institution in that part of the country lying south of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. The State of Louisiana was also admitted in 1812 with a constitution authorizing slav- ery. The States just north of the cotton- producing region also found it profitable to raise slaves for sale to the Southern planters. In the meantime an abolition sentiment had been growing in the north- ern States. The North had not only freed its own slaves, but was becoming active in opposition to any further extension of slavery in the Union. Out of this conflict of interests and ethical views a variety of opinions as to the system was developed and tenaciously maintained North and South. The unanimity of opinion held by the founders of the Republic was replaced by a diversity of views in which each sought to justify his own on moral grounds. One class believed in the right of a superior race to dominate an inferior one and boldly asserted that slavery was not only a humane institution, but had divine sanction as a civilizing instrument to elevate the negro from his native state of savagery. This view was held by in- fluential religious organizations at the South and proclaimed from the pulpit and through the press. It was also held by these that the slave was better off than the free negro "running at large." An- other class deprecated the existence of slavery, but contended that since it had been an established institution from the formation of the Union, there should be no interference with it. Still another class held that since slavery existed law- fully in certain States, legal protection of the property rights of the slaveholder was proper and necessary, but that there must be no extension of slavery into new terri- tory. Then there was a fourth class, in- significant in numbers, it is true, but in- sistent in proclaiming its views, which

( 158 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

held that slavery was wholly and totally wrong, "the sum of all villainies," and that, therefore, it had become a public duty to abolish the institution. In the course of the controversy the foremost champions of this last view were William Lloyd Garrison, Joshua R. Giddings, Ger- rit Smith, Wendell Phillips and Owen Lovejoy.

In addition to the moral and economical aspects of the controversy, political com- plications arose. The slaveholding inter- ests demanded that equality of representa- tion should be maintained in the Senate- that is, that for every free State admitted there should be a corresponding one per- mitting slavery. This balance of power had remained until 1820, when Maine and Missouri applied for admission into the Union. Missouri was formed out of the "Louisiana Purchase," to which the North claimed that the provisions of the Ordi- nance of 1787 should be applied. The South, however, insisted that if Maine were admitted as a free State, Missouri should also come in as a slave State. The controversy became very bitter; but the matter was finally adjusted by admitting the two on the basis of the Southern de- mand, but accompanying their admission with a solemn compact that all other terri- tory west of the Mississippi and north of the parallel of the south line of Missouri should be placed under the inhibition of the Ordinance of 1787; that is, it should be forever free. This measure became known as the "Missouri Compromise." Jefferson did not approve of the compro- mise. "I consider it," he said, "the knell of the Union. A geographical line coin- ciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men will never be obliterated." Prophetic words! The ob- literation was secured only through the blood of thousands of Americans.

While agitation and discussion both within and without the halls of Congress

waxed hot and bitter, no action of impor- tance affecting the slavery question was taken until the war with Mexico rendered probable the acquisition of territory from that country. It is true that Texas, having secured her independence, had been on her own request admitted into the Union as a slave State, as also had been Arkansas, but there had been Northern States admitted also. The war with Mexico had, indeed, grown out of the admission of Texas.

Inasmuch as slavery had been abolished in Mexico, the question as to the territory to be obtained from that country involved leaving things as they were, or the estab- lishment of slavery in communities where it did not exist-and anti-slavery feeling in the North was thoroughly aroused. In 1846, when the bill appropriating money for the expenses of the war was before the House of Representatives, David Wilmot, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, offered an amendment providing that slavery should be forever prohibited in any territory that might be acquired as the result of the war. This was the famous "Wilmot Proviso." It was adopted by the House but rejected in the Senate.

In 1848 the Democratic State Conven- tion of New York adopted the principle of the Wilmot Proviso and passed resolutions protesting against the establishment of slavery in any of the Territories. This action of the New York Democracy awak- ened bitter antagonism in pro-slavery circles and resulted in sending a contest- ing delegation from the Empire State to the Democratic National Convention. That convention, after two days' delibera- tion, resolved to admit both delegations from New York, each with half the vote of the State. This proposition was in- dignantly declined by the Van Buren men, whereupon the "Hunker" contestants, headed by Daniel S. Dickinson, though sit- ting in the convention, took no part in the voting. General Lewis Cass was nom- inated for President. Then followed the Freesoil Democratic party with Van Buren

( 159 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

as the nominee for President and Charles Francis Adams for Vice-President. The result was the election of the Whig candi- date, Zachary Taylor.

In the meantime the struggle increased in bitterness. California, rapidly filling up with miners, mostly from the North, was asking for admission into the Union, and the population of Oregon had become sufficient to entitle it to territorial govern- ment. Texas was putting forth claims to part of the ceded territory, and the ques- tion whether slavery should be recognized in territorial governments had become very acute.

The Clayton Compromise, brought for- ward in 1848, proposed to leave the ques- tion of slavery in the territory involved to the decision of the Supreme Court. The Senate approved the compromise, but the anti-slavery House of Representatives re- jected it. Finally, early in 1850, Henry Clay brought forward his compromises, which, after eight months, were enacted into laws, which resulted in the admission of California as a free State; the organiza- tion of Oregon as a Territory with slavery prohibited ; the establishment of territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico without restrictions as to slavery ; the area of Texas reduced, she being paid $10,000,- 000 for the loss of territory; the forbid- ding of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the enactment of a strin- gent fugitive slave law. Neither side was fully satisfied with these compromises and their adoption helped to seal the fate of the Whig party.

Within two years propositions came for organizing a territorial government in the country west of Missouri. These resulted in an enabling act for the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, which was passed in May, 1854. This act, taking the Clay compromises as a precedent for leaving the question of slavery to the verdict of the people of the Territory, repealed the old Missouri Compromise and established the principle of what was by some termed

"popular sovereignty" and by others "squatter sovereignty." Strife between the North and the South for the settlement of Kansas resulted in a civil war in the Territory and was a potent factor in form- ing the Republican party, whose chief tenet was that set forth in the Freesoil convention which nominated Van Buren in 1848, namely, that there must be no slave Territories and no more slave States.

Finally, to cap the climax of causes for irritation at the North, came the "Dred Scott Decision," delivered by Chief Justice Taney, of the United States Supreme Court, in the latter part of the year 1856. Dred Scott was a negro, who had been taken as a slave to Fort Snelling, in the Louisiana Territory, held there for several years, and had there married his wife, brought there in the same manner. They were then taken to Missouri and held as slaves, two children being born to them. In 1854 Dred Scott brought suit for the freedom of himself and family, basing his claim on the fact that they were unlaw- fully held in servitude at Fort Snelling be- cause of the prohibitive clause of the Missouri Compromise. The suit passed through three inferior courts and reached the Supreme Court in December, 1855. It was reargued the next spring, but the de- cision was deferred until after the Presi- dential election of 1856. The decision, concurred in by six of the eight justices of the Supreme Court, was accompanied by an elaborate opinion from the Chief Justice. It held that two questions were involved :

First, was Dred Scott, even if free, be- ing a descendant of Africans imported as slaves, a citizen of the United States, competent to bring suit in the courts? This question the court decided in the negative, and the Chief Justice, in his opinion, declared that at the time the Fed- eral Constitution was adopted, and for a hundred years before, the practice of all civilized nations was based on the theory that the negroes were an inferior race fit

( 160 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

only for bondage, and that "the black man had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

The second question was whether the section of the Missouri Compromise for- bidding slavery in the Louisiana Territory, on which was based the claim for freedom, was constitutional. This question also was answered in the negative, and Dred Scott's claim to freedom was denied. Moreover, the six justices declared that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from any Territory of the United States. It is worthy of note that this declaration is di- rectly opposed to the opinion expressed by Samuel J. Tilden, "That Congress has no power to establish or permit slavery in the Territories."

By a singular coincidence of circum- stances this "Dred Scott Decision" was made absolutely nugatory. Before it was rendered the negro family had been pur- chased by an anti-slavery man and made free; also, in 1854, the Missouri Compro- mise had been repealed. The decision, however, had a powerful effect upon the fate of slavery. It furnished the text for animated and earnest discussion through- out the North, particularly exemplified in the debate between Lincoln and Douglas in the Illinois Senatorial campaign of 1858. This discussion rallied the North to the support of the doctrine promulgated by the Freesoil Democratic Convention in 1848, which was now embodied in the rallying cry of the new Republican party -"No more slave States; no slave Terri- tories."

As a result of fifty years of discussion, controversy and compromises, public sentiment had finally become divided along these lines : (1) Recognition of slavery in the States where it legally existed, but denial of the right to take slaves into the Territories and a demand that no more slave States be admitted into the Union. (2) Slavery being a recognized institution, the question of its introduction to be left to the people of the organized Territories.

(3) Slaves being recognized as property, the slave owner to be protected in taking his slaves where he should choose. It will be seen that the final decision was made without reference to any of these views. Slavery was wiped out of existence as a result of the unreasonableness and arro- gance of the slave power.

The election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency in 1860 was followed by the great Civil War between the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery States. This war finally solved the two great problems . which had confronted the founders of the Nation. The authority of the general Government was made supreme and the right of secession denied. Slavery was abolished, first, partially as a war meas- ure, and, finally and completely, according to Washington's plan, "through legislative action" in the organic law of the Nation by the adoption of the thirteenth amend- ment to the Constitution.

In this connection it is interesting to recall the origin of slavery, and particular- ly its establishment in this country. Slavery is doubtless as old as society. It is founded upon the law of force-that the weaker must submit to the stronger. Justinian, in his Institutes, refers its ori- gin to three sources, viz., captivity in war, purchase of the individual for a price paid himself, and birth from a slave mother. African slavery is traceable to the first and third of these sources.

Slavery was introduced into this coun- try by the sale of twenty negroes in Vir- ginia from a Dutch man-of-war in Au- gust, 1620. So little favor did it find that at the end of fifty years there were scarce- ly 2,000 slaves in the colony. In 1699 the General Assembly passed the first of a succession of acts-twenty-three in all- prohibiting the importation of negro slaves; but every one of these acts was vetoed by the royal Governors, and one of the complaints against the King of Great Britain by the colonists was that he had prevented the people of this country from

6-History

( 161 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

putting a stop to the injurious traffic. It is noteworthy, too, that one of the earliest acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, after the Declaration of Independence, was to pass a law prohibiting the importa- tion of slaves into the State. This was, as a matter of history, the first legislation in the civilized world "setting the seal of reprobation upon that opprobrium of mod- ern civilization," the African slave trade.

It occurred nearly thirty years before Great Britain took like action.

Thus it is seen that the introduction and maintenance of slavery in the colonies was against the wishes and in spite of the op- position of the colonists. It was due to the avarice of British slave traders and of owners of British slave ships, and was akin to the similar selfish policy which led England to make the new world the dump- ing ground for her criminals.

((162 )

[CHAPTER XXIII.]

UNEXPECTED UPHEAVAL IN 1854

AND THE CAUSES THAT LED THERETO-SLAVERY, LIQUOR, KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND GENERAL DISCONTENT

N the year 1854 the Democracy of Indiana held its State Con- vention in the balmy month of May (on the 24th). The at- tendance, as usual, was large. On motion of J. W. Borden, Lieutenant-Governor Ashbel P. Willard was made temporary chairman. Upon taking the chair, he delivered a characteristic speech-one that thrilled the great convention and aroused un- bounded enthusiasm. I

The honor of officiating as permanent presiding officer was conferred upon Sen- ator Jesse D. Bright. The hearty greeting accorded him upon being presented to the convention bore eloquent testimony to the esteem in which he was held by his polit- ical associates.

As Vice-Presidents, these gentlemen were named: Richard Raleigh, Elisha G. English, John L. Spann, A. C. Pepper, James Osborn, J. M. Gregg, John S. Davis, Jacob Walker, A. L. Wheeler, J. C. Van Olman and Mr. Johnson.

Secretaries-James Bradley and C. B. Bentley.

STATE OFFICERS NOMINATED.

For Secretary of State, Nehemiah Hay- den, of Rush county, received 413 votes, to 60 for Wm. R. Bowes, of Laporte.

For Auditor of State, John P. Dunn, of Perry county, was nominated by 395 votes, to 74 for Joseph J. Bingham, of Lafayette.

On motion of B. R. Edmonston, Elijah Newland, of Washington county, was by acclamation renominated for State Treas- urer.

On motion of General James R. Slack, of Huntington, William C. Larrabee was in like manner renominated for Superin- tendent of Public Instruction.

For Supreme Judge, Fourth district, Alvin P. Hovey, of Posey county, was nominated over James M. Hanna, of Sulli- van, by a vote of 272 to 113.

STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

1. B. R. Edmonston, Dubois County.

2. James S. Athon, Clark.

3. Samuel H. Buskirk, Monroe.

4. A. C. Pepper, Ohio.

5. N. H. Raymond, Wayne.

6. William J. Brown, Marion.

7. William E. McLean, Vigo.

8. Joseph J. Bingham, Tippecanoe.

9. Samuel A. Hall, Cass.

10. James Sinclair, Allen.

11. S. L. Rugg, Adams.

FIRST DEFEAT AFTER A DECADE.

After the stunning defeat in 1840, the Democrats of Indiana enjoyed an uninter- rupted succession of victories, beginning with the triumphant election of James Whitcomb to the Governorship, in 1843. Every State election held thereafter sig- nalized a Democratic victory. Four gubernatorial elections resulted in the choice of Democrats-in placing at the head of the State government such faith- ful and efficient public servants as James Whitcomb and Joseph A. Wright, both elected to two successive terms. Notwith- standing the conceded excellence of their administrations, conditions arose that, at the time, were susceptible of being thoughtlessly construed to mean a vote of censure, but which in calmer moment was pronounced one of those strange mani- festations which Mr. Lincoln mildly and considerately termed "wobbling."

A combination of circumstances led to the popular verdict of 1854. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, brought about largely through the efforts of Stephen A. Douglas in the almost desper-

( 163 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

ate hope and expectation of calming the rising storm of slavery and anti-slavery agitation ; a renewal of the intensely bitter fight against the liquor traffic; the rapid spread of that political eruption known as Know-Nothingism, and a liberal sprinkling of indefinable discontent-all these irrita- tions on the body politic contributed to the remarkable upheaval that led to what in effect amounted to a recantation of the verdict of 1852.

Edward E. Moore speaks thus of the manner in which the Fusion movement accomplished its purpose for the time be- ing:

"Governor Wright's administration was signalized by a great agitation. Several local and special acts dealing with the liquor traffic were passed by the Legisla- ture of 1850, and in 1853 a general law, with local option features, was enacted. This latter fell under the condemnation of the courts on grounds of unconstitution- ality, and the people, already impatient because of the evils of the traffic, seemed especially provoked at the result. So in 1854, rallying all the temperance forces of the State, and uniting all elements of op- position to the Democratic party, which at its convention had declared against tem- perance legislation, the temperance people succeeded in electing a full State and legis- lative ticket on a prohibition platform. The enthusiasm was tremendous. And when the Legislature met in 1855 it pro- ceeded to pass a State-wide prohibition law, and the Governor, though a Demo- crat, signed it. But before the task of putting it in operation had proceeded very far this law also was declared unconstitu- tional by the Supreme Court.

"Largely because of the overshadowing importance now assumed by the slavery question the temperance agitation grad- ually subsided, but it never entirely ceased. Through spasmodic movements of differ- ent kinds and the continuous efforts of temperance societies and parties, the agi- tation has been kept continually before the people for more than a hundred years. It began before the days of Statehood. The evils of intemperance were especially marked in its influence upon the Indians. They would barter anything they pos- sessed for the white man's 'fire water,'

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 21

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