History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 22

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 22

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).

and it not only affected their temper, mak- ing them troublesome and dangerous to deal with, but destroyed them physically. Stronger temperance documents than the messages and State papers of some of the early Governors would be hard to find."

The Fusion convention was held Thurs- day, July 13, at Washington Hall, Indiana- polis. Thomas Smith, of Ripley, a former Democratic member of Congress from the Fourth district, had been selected for president of the convention at a prelim- inary meeting, held the night before, presided over by Jacob P. Chapman, with John L. King, of Madison, as secretary.

Smith was a pronounced opponent of slavery extension. Associated with him were a number of other hitherto prom- inent Democrats, among them Oliver P. Morton, Dr. E. W. H. Ellis, Dan Mace, M. C. Garber, H. L. Ellsworth, ex-commis- sioner of patents, Capt. John A. Hendricks and others of that type. Most of these men subsequently became permanently identified with the newly organized Re- publican party.

In taking the chair, President Smith commented on the causes which had called together so vast a concourse of people. "It was," he said, "the uprising of the masses determined to pursue the dictates of their own sense of right rather than the behests of party leaders." He had been a Democrat all his life and was no less a Democrat now. No man had a right to say that the repeal of the Missouri Com- promise was a Democratic measure so far as the sentiments of the majority of the Democrats in the free States were con- cerned. They were opposed to it; it had never been submitted to them; they had not and would not give their sanction to it. Forty-three of the Democratic mem- bers of Congress out of the eighty-nine members from the free States had voted for it. What right had any party to say it was approved by the majority of the Democrats from the free States?

Col. Smith, in the course of his address,

( 164 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

spoke approvingly of the Ordinance of 1787 and its influence on the great North- west. Rev. George B. Jocelyn, a Meth- odist minister, made his first political speech on this occasion, while Hon. H. L. Ellsworth and Capt. John A. Hendricks, both of whom had taken part in the re- cently held Democratic convention, repudiated the platform adopted at that time.

The official vote, as cast in the election of 1854, was:

FOR SECRETARY OF STATE.

E. B. Collins, Dearborn, Fusion ... 98,259 12,623 Nehemiah Hayden, Democrat .. .85,636

FOR AUDITOR OF STATE.

Hiram E. Talbot, Putnam, Fusion. . 91,812

5,604

John P. Dunn, Democrat. .86,208

FOR TREASURER OF STATE.

W. R. Noffsinger, Parke, Fusion. . 97,726 12,134

Elijah Newland, Democrat .. ... .85,592

FOR SUPREME COURT JUDGE.

Samuel B. Gookins, Vigo, Fusion. . . 96,386

11,029 Alvin P. Hovey, Democrat. 85,357

FOR SUPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

Caleb Mills, Fusion. 99,857 14,022 William C. Larrabee, Democrat .... 85,835

Noffsinger received 23,367 votes on bal- lots bearing an incorrect initial. A bitter controversy arose over reputed efforts to prevent his taking the office, but the Gov- ernor issued to him the commission with- out compelling legal action.

It is worthy of note that Alvin P. Hovey, at the time of his nomination for Supreme Judge, was a member of the Supreme Court by appointment of Gov- ernor Wright. Addison L. Roache resigned from that body and was suc- ceeded by Hovey, who entered upon duty May 8, 1854. The Democratic State Con- vention, which met on the 24th day of the same month, nominated Hovey for that position. At the general election that year, October 10, Samuel B. Gookins, nominee of the Fusionists, was elected

over Hovey and served until 1857, when he was succeeded by James L. Worden. Democrat.

Addison L. Roache resigned from the Supreme Court bench May 8, 1854. Alvin P. Hovey was appointed his successor. At the next general election, held October 10, Hovey. who had been given the Demo- cratic nomination, failed of election with the rest of the Democratic ticket.

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION.

Not only did the Fusionists elect their entire State ticket and a majority of the General Assembly, but they also succeeded in electing nine of the eleven members of Congress. Only two of the eleven Demo- cratic Congressional nominees escaped defeat. These were Smith Miller, in the First, and Wm. H. English, in the Second district. In the Lafayette district the Fusionists bodily captured Dan Mace, whom the Democrats had three times sent to Congress, and made him the Fusion nominee-and elected him with a major- ity of 2,519. Among the Democratic Congressional candidates who went down in defeat were Thomas A. Hendricks, in the Sixth district, beaten by 478 votes, and Wm. S. Holman, in the Fourth, de- feated by Will Cumback. Only two of the nine districts that sent Democrats to Congress in 1852 stood firm. These were the First and the Second, re-electing Smith Miller by 813 and William H. English by 586. Two of the eleven-English and Cumback-were natives of Indiana. The delegation was made up of these gentle- men :

1. Smith Miller, Patoka.

2. William H. English, Lexington.

3. George G. Dunn, Bedford.

4. William Cumback, Greensburg.

5. David P. Holloway, Richmond.

6. Lucien Barbour, Indianapolis.

7. Harvey D. Scott, Terre Haute.

8. Daniel Mace, Lafayette.

9. Schuyler Colfax, South Bend.

10. Samuel Brenton, Fort Wayne.

11. John U. Pettit, Wabash.

( 165 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE 1854 CONTEST.

With a view to enabling the discerning reader to gain a fair understanding of what was involved in this contest and brought about such drastic results, the platforms of the opposing parties are herewith reproduced in their entirety :

DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, 1854.

"Resolved, That the Democrats of In- diana fully approve of the principles of the act extending the laws of the United States over and organizing the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas.

"2. Resolved, That we concur in the opinion that it is not properly within the jurisdiction of Congress to determine the provisions of the constitution of a State, further than to require that it be a re- publican form, but on the contrary, that the people do possess the right and power to adopt such form of government as they may deem best suited to their views and wants, and that this right shall be recog- nized as one of the fundamental principles of self-government.

"3. Resolved, That this convention is distinctly opposed to that provision of the Nebraska and Kansas bill commonly known as the Clayton amendment, which made a distinction between native born and foreign inhabitants, who may be resi- dents of the Territories, and feel gratified that the efforts of the democracy have been successful in expunging that odious fea- ture from the act.

"4. Resolved, That intemperance is a great moral and social evil, for the re- straint and correction of which legislative interposition is necessary and proper, but that we can not approve of any plan for the eradication or correction of this evil that must necessarily result in the inflic- tion of greater ones, and that we are there- fore opposed to any law upon this subject that will authorize the searching for or seizure, confiscation and destruction of private property.

"5. Resolved, That we regard all polit- ical organizations, based upon the single idea of temperance reform, as dangerous to the perpetuity of our republican form of government by withdrawing the atten- tion of the people from the great political principles upon which it is founded, and

that we most earnestly appeal to our fellow Democrats throughout the State to adhere, in the selection of members of the Legisla- ture, to the practice of choosing such men as will make these great principles of Democratic policy, under the influence of which this country has been brought to its present elevated and prosperous condition, paramount to all other considerations.

"6. Resolved, That we have full faith and confidence in the wisdom, patriotism and ability of Franklin Pierce, President of the United States, and that we fully approve of the principles laid down in his inaugural message and his message to Congress, and that we most truly and cordially endorse the general policy of his administration as carried out in conform- ity with the principles laid down in said message.

"7. Resolved, That Judge Douglas, of the United States Senate, is entitled to and receives our hearty thanks for so ably advocating the principles of non-interven- tion, as contained in the Kansas and Ne- braska bill, and that we cordially endorse the action of our Senators and Repre- sentatives in sustaining the same.

"8. Resolved, That the Democracy of Indiana, still adhering to the Constitution of the Confederacy, openly and avowedly condemns any organization, secret or otherwise, that would aim to disrobe any citizen, native or adopted, of his political, civil or religious liberty."

PEOPLES' PLATFORM (REPUBLICAN), 1854.

"Whereas, We, the freemen of Indiana, without respect to party, and actuated by a common devotion to our Republic, and a common reverence for its founders, have assembled ourselves together in commem- oration of the passage of the ordinance of July 13th, 1787, consecrating the North- west Territory to freedom; and,

"Whereas, The unanimous adoption of said ordinance by the Representatives of all the States in the Union at that date clearly evinces that opposition to the extension of slavery, to the extent of con- stitutional power, was the fixed policy of our fathers; and,

"Whereas, We regard the recent repeal of the eighth section of the 'Missouri Com- promise' as a gross and wanton violation of the faith of the Union, plighted to a solemn compact, restricting the extension of slavery; therefore,

( 166 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

"Resolved, That we are uncompromis- ingly opposed to the extension of slavery ; and further, that we utterly deprecate and repudiate the platform of principles adopted by the self-styled Democratic convention on the 24th day of May, last, endorsing and approving the Kansas-Ne- braska iniquity.

"Resolved, That we will waive all for- mer party predilections, and, in concert, by all lawful means, seek to place every branch of the Federal Government in the hands of men who will assert the rights of freedom, restore the Missouri Compro- mise and refuse, under all circumstances, to tolerate the extension of slavery into Territories secured to freedom by that compromise.

"Resolved, That we regard intemper- ance as a great political, moral and social evil-a legitimate subject of legislation- and that we are in favor of the passage of a judicious, constitutional and efficient prohibitory law with such penalties as shall effectually suppress the traffic in in- toxicating liquors as a beverage.

"Resolved, That we utterly condemn the abusive attacks which have recently been made from various quarters on the prot- estant ministry of the country. We cherish with gratitude and pleasure the memory of their patriotic zeal in the Revolutionary struggle, and we recognize in the ministry of the country the worthy sons of such illustrious sires."

The anti-liquor movement began during the forties. It had assumed formidable proportions in 1848 and culminated in the election of a Legislature that had the dis- position to deal drastically with the evil of intemperance. Several causes con- tributed to the creation of a pronounced sentiment in opposition to the liquor traffic. Quite a number of men high in office were notoriously intemperate in their habits. Some of them, otherwise held in high esteem, were retired to pri- vate life on account of their fondness for liquor. A man of extraordinary orator- ical powers, chosen to represent Indiana in the Senate of the United States, shot his brother-in-law while both were in a state of intoxication. Malaria was quite common in Indiana, and the popular

remedy was quinine and whisky. In agri- cultural pursuits whisky was considered an indispensable adjunct to harvesting. Snake bites were of frequent infliction, and whisky was the popular antidote. A "bracer" before breakfast was regarded an absolute necessity in many households. There were no internal revenue laws in those days, and a country store without whisky for sale was indeed a rarity. All these usages and practices had their effect. Popular education was too slow a process to lessen the evils of intemperance, so the conclusion was reached that the right course to pursue in the premises was to legislate. This was done. For the same reasons that Governor Thomas A. Hen- dricks approved the drastic Baxter law of 1873, Governor Joseph A. Wright signed the temperance legislation that came to him for approval or rejection during his second term of office. But the Supreme Court, elected by the people in 1852, made short work of this sort of legislation by declaring it to be unconstitutional in its main provisions. The grounds upon which this was done is briefly yet comprehensive- ly set forth in this epitome, carefully formulated by the Hon. James E. McCul- lough, Assistant Attorney-General :

GROUNDS UPON WHICH LAWS WERE DE- CLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

"The local option law was an enactment of March 4, 1853, and the prohibition law was approved February 16, 1855. The said local option law provided for taking a vote by townships annually at the April election on the license question, and that without the consent of a majority of the legal voters of the proper township 'for license,' none could issue. In connection with the affirmative vote a bond was also required by the applicant for license. So much of this act as made the issuing of a license depend upon the favorable vote of the township was held unconstitutional in Maize vs. The State, 4 Ind. 342. The de- cision of the court was based on the ground that the legislation was obnoxious to the sections of the constitution, which respectively provide as follows :

( 167 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

Section 25, Article 1: No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to de- pend upon any authority, except as provided in this constitution.

Section 26, Article 1: The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by author- ity of the general assembly.

Section 22, Article 4: Local laws for the pun- ishment of offenders and for the regulation of county and township business, are expressly for- bidden.

Section 23, Article 4: Whenever a general law can be made applicable all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State.

"The holding of the court, in substance, was that so much of the legislation as made the legality of a license in a town- ship depend upon the vote of the people was to make the taking effect of the law depend upon that vote, which, under the constitution, the Legislature was unau- thorized to do. The court further says: 'If we regard the act of March, 1853, in force from its passage, as is claimed in argument, then we conceive it to be in conflict with Section 26 of Article 1. That section reads : "The operation of the laws shall never be suspended except by au- thority of the General Assembly."' As already indicated, the court also holds the act is in violation of the local law clause of the constitution above quoted.

"In the case cited, while the court holds that the local option feature of the legisla- tion is void, it holds that the statute may nevertheless stand as a license law with the local option feature eliminated. How- ever, in the case of Meshmeier vs. The State, 11 Ind. 483, the court overruled so much of the former decision as held that any of the act in question was valid, and held that the whole act fell in consequence of the local option feature being so con- nected with the other provisions of the act, as that a part could not be held valid and a part invalid.

"The prohibitory law of 1855 was held void in Beebe vs. The State, 6 Ind. 501. The decision in this case may be said to be based upon the ground that the legislation in question is ultra vires the Legislature of the State under the constitution thereof. The court says, on page 510: 'The first section of the first article (of the consti- tution) declares that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under our constitution, then, we have some rights that have not been surrendered, which are consequently reserved and which govern- ment cannot deprive us of unless we shall first forfeit them by our crimes.' Several sections of the constitution are quoted by the court for the purpose of showing that the legislative power of the State under the constitution is not at all unlimited. For instance, the section providing that 'the privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life shall be recog- nized by wholesome laws;' the section against 'passing a law impairing the obli- gation of contracts;' the section against 'any law restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion,' etc.

"These sections were quoted by the court in support of its position to the effect that the Legislature had by no means been given unlimited power over the un- alienable rights of citizens or others within the State, and it is held that among these rights is that of acquiring property, sell- ing or disposing of the same and using the same, and that intoxicating liquors are property, and were so regarded at the adoption of the constitution, and hence the right to manufacture, sell or use the same is one of the rights not taken away by the constitution, nor is power given to the Legislature to take the same away."

(168 )

[CHAPTER XXIV.]

THE KNOW-NOTHING CRUSADE

THE . PROSCRIPTION OF FOREIGN-BORN RESIDENTS AND OSTRACISM OF CATHOLICS

URING the early fifties a new D party sprang up to hinder and harass the progress of national understanding and to defer the solution of the great problem that threatened the security of the American Government. Party strife, resulting from violent con- tentions over State rights and abolition, could not fail but produce political move- ments inimical to sane reasoning and humane thinking. A mistaken sense of patriotism, a gross misconception of the requisites of true American citizenship, produced in these troublous times a pe- culiar organization known as the Know- Nothing party. As its name implies, it fostered sentiments, narrow and provin- cial, hostile to every internal instinct, and incompatible with the spirit of political freedom that characterized the founders of the great American Republic. It was directed first and essentially against Catholic influence, or Romanism, as this alleged danger was called. Its organiza- tion was founded on secrecy, luring the ready followers of formalism, such as en- joy connection with societies whose chief charm lies in rituals, oaths and vows of a more or less doubtful meaning.

Later the Know-Nothings turned their efforts more directly against the foreign- born element of our population. It is but just to acknowledge that many a sincere man was attracted into this circle of agi- tators who posed as the friends of liberty, and incidentally as the champions of the Southern slave. Then, too, not a few of the anti-slavery men supported the Know- Nothings in the hope of hastening the dissolution of the old Whig party and winning support for the Republican party,

which a few years later was preparing to assume control of the Federal Govern- ment. The name of the Know-Nothing party had gradually given way to that of the American party. The organization continued to flourish under this more euphonious appellation without having changed any of its original tenets. Vari- ous demonstrations of ill-will against the foreigners, as well as a number of bloody assaults made on these inoffensive people, aroused strong resentment in certain quarters against these smug defenders of their self-interpreted Americanism.

The fact that foreigners sought protec- tion within the fold of the Democratic party, by whom they were cordially re- ceived, began to arouse the opponents to slavery and the adherents of the Repub- lican party to the danger that threatened their own political security. This unwar- ranted outburst of nativism had to be com- bated by some dignified expression of dis- approval from a respectable source. One of the Republican leaders, Henry Wilson, United States Senator from Massachu- setts, at one time said to have belonged to the now offensive party, turned his whole energy to defeat a measure, submitted by his own Legislature to a vote of the people, which provided that no foreigner should have the right to vote until he had been for two years a citizen of the United States. He and Edward L. Pierce, later the biographer of Charles Sumner, invited Carl Schurz, the great representative of adopted citizenship, to attend a public din- ner given at Boston on the anniversary of Thomas Jefferson's birthday. This par- ticular day was chosen in harmony with the rejuvenated Jefferson States Rights principle that had been revived in defense

( 169 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

of the new fugitive slave law. The real ob- ject of Mr. Schurz's presence was to arouse a demonstration against the nativistic tide and save the State for nobler work. The dinner was held at the Parker House and was attended by the gentlemen already named in this connection, as well as by John A. Andrew, later War Governor of Massachusetts; Governor Boutwell, Frank Bird, Samuel Bowles and others. Denun- ciations of the fugitive slave law and the narrow-minded spirit of nativism were freely uttered by these champions of lib- erty and helped to pave the way for a larger and more striking gathering that took place a few days later, on April 18, 1859, at Faneuil Hall.

Carl Schurz was on this evening the speaker of honor and availed himself of the opportunity to voice in matchless ora- tory the sentiments that made him the ideal son of a great Republic, born though he was on foreign soil. In his memoirs Mr. Schurz apologizes for this wonderful outburst of feeling and excuses it on the plea of youth and the strength of emotions as yet uncurbed in the consciousness of the untold possibilities of civil liberty in Amer- ica. It is to be regretted that the speech may not be reproduced verbatim, as every word breathes loyalty, devotion and a boundless love for the land of his adop- tion.

The first paragraph must suffice to in- dicate the spirit :

"A few days ago I stood on the cupola of your State House and overlooked, for the first time, this venerable city and the country surrounding it. Then the streets, and hills, and waters around me began to teem with the life of historical recollec- tions-recollections dear to all mankind- and a feeling of pride arose in my heart, and I said to myself, 'I, too, am an Ameri- can citizen.' There was Bunker Hill, and Charlestown, and Lexington and Dorches- ter Heights not far off; there the harbor into which the British tea was sunk; there the place where the old liberty tree stood ; there John Hancock's house; there Ben- jamin Franklin's birthplace. And now I

stand in this grand old hall, which has so often resounded with the noblest appeals that ever thrilled American hearts, and where I am almost afraid to hear the echo of my own feeble voice. Oh! no man that loves liberty, wherever he may have first seen the light of day, can fail, on this sacred spot, to pay his tribute to Ameri- canism. And here, with all these glorious memories crowding upon my heart, I will offer mine. I, born in a foreign land, pay my tribute to Americanism? Yes; for to me the word 'Americanism,' true Ameri- canism, comprehends the noblest ideas which ever swelled a human heart with noble pride."

Then follows a clear description of the first train of emigrants that left his home on the Rhine among the famous Seven Mountains, of the deep impressions that the sad farewell made upon his young heart and of the words of love and rever- ence that all spoke when they mentioned "that great and free country where a man could be himself."

He pointed out to his enraptured listen- ers how from the vigorous elements of all civilized nations a new and youthful Na- tion had been created; how this great Na- tion rested on the principle that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- ness. He showed how our political existence lifts the lowliest of the human family from degradation and inspires them with the elevating consciousness of equal human dignity; it accepts "the most con- servative, for it makes a common cause of individual rights;" how the equality of rights becomes a mutual protection among men; "the general identity of interests is the one thing that guarantees the stability of Democratic institutions ;" "equality of rights embodied in general self-govern- ment is the great moral element of true Democracy ; it is the only reliable safety- valve in the machinery of modern society ;" "there is our safety; there, and nowhere else." And we have our difficul- ties. There are many who are incapable

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 22

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