USA > Indiana > History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916 > Part 25
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122 | Part 123 | Part 124 | Part 125 | Part 126 | Part 127 | Part 128 | Part 129 | Part 130 | Part 131 | Part 132 | Part 133 | Part 134 | Part 135 | Part 136 | Part 137 | Part 138 | Part 139 | Part 140 | Part 141 | Part 142 | Part 143 | Part 144 | Part 145 | Part 146 | Part 147 | Part 148 | Part 149 | Part 150 | Part 151 | Part 152 | Part 153 | Part 154 | Part 155 | Part 156 | Part 157 | Part 158 | Part 159 | Part 160 | Part 161
( 183 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
When an irreconcilable conflict arose between President Buchanan and Senator Douglas with reference to the Kansas- Nebraska question, Democratic sentiment in Indiana was not slow in asserting itself on the side of Douglas in championing what was then known as "popular sov- ereignty"-the right of the people of a Territory applying for admission into the Union to decide for or against the intro- duction of slavery. By lending assistance to the slave power in the effort to estab- lish slavery in Kansas, any number of those who in 1856 had voted for Buchanan and Breckinridge became pronounced opponents of the Buchanan administration in its attempt to foist the Lecompton con- stitution on the people of Kansas Terri- tory. The administration policy, however, had strong support in the two United States Senators, Jesse D. Bright and Gra- ham N. Fitch, in Governor Willard, in John L. Robinson, and other Federal officeholders, besides that always formid- able element which believes in "standing by the party, right or wrong."
The convention was called to order by Joseph W. Chapman, member of the State Central Committee. Two distinguished gentlemen were put forward for the permanent chairmanship of the conven- tion-Governor Ashbel P. Willard and Congressman William S. Holman. The vote stood 338 for the Governor and 233 for the Congressman. Willard having been known as an administration man, his triumph afforded undisguised satisfaction to that side of the house. The action of the convention in shaping up the platform casts some doubt upon the accuracy of measurement of strength as to Willard and Holman in the matter of factional alignment.
Much of the convention's time was de- voted to the consideration and discussion of the platform. In course of the ani- mated debate General Lew Wallace, of Montgomery, offered a resolution in favor
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, asserting that "by practical application of that bill the people of a State or a Territory should be, as they are inalienably, invested with the right of ratifying or rejecting, at the ballot box, any constitution that may be framed for their government; and that now and hereafter no Territory should be admitted into the Union, as a State, with- out a fair expression of the will of its people being first had upon the constitu- tion accompanying the application for admission."
Daniel W. Voorhees spoke sustaining the resolutions as they had been adopted, maintaining they were the policy of the administration and contending that the people of Kansas were competent to settle their own affairs. The Indianapolis Sen- tinel, in commenting on this speech, stated that Voorhees was effective and concili- atory, his well-toned declarations carrying conviction to the mind and heart of every Democrat.
W. S. Holman counseled moderation and insisted on the right of the States and Territories to establish and maintain their own institutions.
J. W. Chapman, of Jefferson county, reported for the committee to which the resolution had been submitted as still being in favor of the great doctrine of the Kansas-Nebraska act, that the people should have the opportunity of ratification or rejection, and contending that the same should accompany their application for admission.
O. K. Dougherty, of Morgan county, submitted a minority report reiterating as above, but contending that evidence of such exercise or refusal should accompany the application for admission.
General Wallace then withdrew his mo- tion to lay the report of the majority and minority on the table and moved that his original resolution be submitted therefor, which carried 317 to 199.
( 184 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
The report as amended was adopted, as follows: 378 ayes to 114 noes :
"Resolved, That we are still in favor of the great doctrine of the Kansas-Nebraska bill; and that by a practical application of that doctrine the people of a State or of a Territory are vested with the right of ratifying or rejecting, at the ballot box, any constitution that may be formed for their government; and that, hereafter, no Territory should be admitted into the Union as a State without a fair expression of the will of the people being first had upon the constitution accompanying the application of admission."
Notwithstanding the fact that such men as Lew Wallace and Judge Holman ex- pressed themselves as well satisfied with the foregoing declaration, there was still marked dissatisfaction over the spirit and phraseology of certain parts of the resolu- tions. This was emphasized by Aquilla Jones, a lifelong friend of Thomas A. Hendricks, in declining to accept a re- nomination to the office of State Treasurer unanimously bestowed on him. In adopt- ing this course, Mr. Jones declared that "one of the vital principles of the Demo- cratic party must have either been omitted or asserted in such a manner as to be susceptible of an equivocal construction."
STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.
1. John Hargrove, Gibson county.
2. Michael C. Kerr, Floyd.
3. Joseph W. Chapman, Jefferson.
4. John L. Robinson, Rush.
5. Lafe Develin, Wayne.
6. Charles W. Hall and John Elder, Marion.
7. Daniel W. Voorhees, Vigo.
8. James H. Stewart, Carroll.
9. O. Everts, Laporte.
10. Samuel W. Sprott, DeKalb.
11. Wilson Smith, Wabash. John R. Elder, chairman.
THE TICKET NAMED.
For Secretary of State-Daniel McClure, Morgan county.
For Auditor-John W. Dodd, Grant county.
For Treasurer-Nathaniel F. Cunningham, Vigo county.
For Superintendent of Public Instruction-Samuel L. Rugg, Allen county.
For Attorney-General- Joseph E. McDonald, Mont- gomery county.
For Supreme Court Judges-Samuel E. Perkins, Marion; Andrew Davison, Decatur; James M. Hanna, Sullivan; James L. Worden, Whitley.
The campaign was marked by consider- able vigor, both parties putting forth strong efforts to carry the State. Though many members of the organization still manifested a disposition to pose as a People's party, the name Republican grad- ually became more agreeable to the rank and file and was finally accepted. The Republican ticket for 1858 was made up of these widely-known gentlemen :
Secretary of State-William A. Peelle, Ran- dolph county.
Auditor of State-Albert Lange of Terre Haute.
Treasurer of State-John H. Harper of South Bend.
Attorney-General-William T. Otto of New Albany.
Superintendent of Public Instruction-John Young, Indianapolis.
Supreme Judges-Horace P. Biddle, Logans- port; Abram W. Hendricks, Madison; Simon Yandes, Indianapolis; William D. Griswold, Terre Haute.
Territorially, these selections could hardly have been better chosen. The ticket was generally pronounced a strong one, even its most pronounced opponents conceding its availability. Placing a capable and popular German living in Terre Haute on the ticket for State Au- ditor was especially adjudged a fine stroke of policy. Nevertheless the ticket went down in defeat-not by heavy majorities, yet sufficiently so to serve all practical purposes. Indiana simply was not yet ready to be placed in the Republican column.
THE OFFICIAL VOTE.
Secretary of State-McClure, 107,409; Peelle, 104,828.
Auditor-Dodd, 107,242; Lange, 105,- 493.
( 185 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
Treasurer-Cunningham, 107,634; Har- EX-GOVERNOR WRIGHT MADE AM- per, 105,416. BASSADOR TO BERLIN.
Attorney-General --- McDonald, 107,291; Otto, 105,757.
Superintendent of Public Instruction- Rugg, 107,910; Young, 105,014.
Judges Supreme Court-
Worden, 107,681; Biddle, 104,582.
Davison, 107,608; Hendricks, 104,- 492.
Perkins, 108,158; Yandes, 104,086.
Hanna, 107,076; Griswold, 104,965.
THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGA- TION.
There was something of a shakeup in the composition of the Congressional delegation, though it could hardly have been designated as partaking of a revolu- tionary character. The new men who came in were James Hughes, William M. Dunn, Wm. S. Holman, Albert G. Porter and Charles Case. Wm. H. English made his last race. Four triumphant elections seemingly satisfied his ambition. He gained quite a reputation as a national legislator during the eight years of his service in the halls of Congress. Political upheavals didn't seem to affect his candi- dacy at any time; a nomination in his case meant an election. After the breaking out of the war he moved to Indianapolis, en- gaged in banking, and in course of time accumulated a large fortune. He would have made an excellent Governor, but never aspired to that office. His eyes were fixed upon the Presidency of the United States, but he did not get farther in this direction than the obtainment of the nomination for Vice-President in 1880, when the gallant Winfield Scott Hancock was defeated for the Presidency by the scholarly James A. Garfield. That result was due to the folly of the Democrats failing to renominate the "old ticket" of 1876. No power on earth could have pre- vented a vindication of the majesty of the ballot through the triumphant re-election of Tilden and Hendricks.
After the election of Buchanan to the Presidency, a general impression prevailed that Indiana would be honored with a Cabinet position. Senator Bright and Governor Wright were under considera- tion. The former naturally preferred to remain in the Senate to being placed at the head of the State Department. Not being overly blessed with the world's goods, Governor Wright decided not to accept the Secretaryship of the Interior, for which he was so eminently qualified. He, however, indicated a willingness to go to Europe in the capacity of Ambassa- dor to Prussia. This was quite agreeable to Senator Bright, as it put the wide ocean between him and the man who had given him so much trouble politically for so long a time. Buchanan made the appointment quite willingly, and Bright, for reasons stated, saw to it that Wright's appoint- ment was promptly confirmed by the Senate. Ambassador Wright made an excellent record as such.
POLITICAL COMPLEXION OF CON- GRESS FROM 1817 TO 1861
FIFTEENTH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1817-March 3, 1819.)
Senate-10 Federalists, 34 Democrats; total, 44. House-57 Federalists, 128 Democrats; total, 185.
SIXTEENTH CONGRESS. (March 4, 1819-March 3, 1821.)
Senate-10 Federalists, 36 Democrats; total, 46. House-42 Federalists, 145 Democrats; total, 187.
SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS. (March 4, 1821-March 3, 1823.)
Senate 7 Federalists, 41 Democrats; total, 48. House-58 Federalists, 129 Democrats; total, 187.
EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS. (March 4, 1823-March 3, 1825.)
Senate-40 Democrats, 8 Whigs; total, 48. House -72 Federalists, 141 Democrats; total, 213.
NINETEENTH CONGRESS. (March 4, 1825-March 3, 1827.)
Senate-38 Democrats, 10 Whigs; total, 48. House-79 Federalists, 134 Democrats; total, 213.
( 186 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
TWENTIETH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1827-March 3, 1829.)
Senate 37 Democrats, 11 Whigs; total, 48. House-85 Federalists, 128 Democrats; total, 213.
TWENTY-FIRST CONGRESS. (March 4, 1829-March 3, 1831.)
Senate-38 Democrats, 10 Whigs; total, 48. House-142 Democrats, 71 Whigs; total, 213.
TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS. (March 4, 1831-March 3, 1833.)
Senate-35 Democrats, 13 Whigs; total, 48. House-130 Democrats, 83 Whigs; total, 213.
TWENTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1833-March 3, 1835.)
Senate 30 Democrats, 18 Whigs; total, 48. House -147 Democrats, 93 Whigs; total, 240.
TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1835-March 3, 1837.)
Senate-33 Democrats, 19 Whigs; total, 52. House-144 Democrats, 98 Whigs; total, 242.
TWENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1837-March 3, 1839.)
Senate-31 Democrats, 18 Whigs, 3 Independ- ents; total, 52. House-117 , Democrats, 115 Whigs, 10 Independents, 1 vacancy; total, 242.
TWENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1839-March 3, 1841.)
Senate 22 Democrats, 28 Whigs, 2 Independ- ents; total, 52. House-103 Democrats, 132 Whigs, 6 Independents, 1 vacancy; total, 242.
TWENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843.)
Senate-22 Democrats, 28 Whigs, 2 Independ- ents; total, 52. House-103 Democrats, 132 Whigs, 6 Independents, 1 vacancy ; total, 242.
TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1843-March 3, 1845.)
Senate-23 Democrats, 29 Whigs; total, 52. House-142 Democrats, 81 Whigs; total, 223.
TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1845-March 3, 1847.)
Senate-30 Democrats, 25 Whigs, 1 vacancy; total, 56. House-141 Democrats, 78 Whigs, 6 Americans; total, 225.
THIRTIETH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1847-March 3, 1849.)
Senate-37 Democrats, 21 Whigs; total, 58. House-108 Democrats, 115 Whigs, 4 Independ- ents; total, 227.
THIRTY-FIRST CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1849-March 3, 1851.)
Senate-35 Democrats, 25 Whigs, 2 Free Soil; total, 62. House-116 Democrats, 111 Whigs; total, 227.
THIRTY-SECOND CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1851-March 3, 1853.)
Senate-36 Democrats, 23 Whigs, 3 Free Soil; total, 62. House-140 Democrats, 88 Whigs, 5 Free Soil; total, 233.
THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1853-March 3, 1855.)
Senate-38 Democrats, 22 Whigs, 2 Free Soil; total, 62. House-159 Democrats, 71 Whigs, 4 Free Soil; total, 234.
THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS.
(March 4, 1855-March 3, 1857.)
Senate-42 Democrats, 15 Republicans, 5 Amer- icans; total, 62. House-83 Democrats, 108 Re- publicans, 43 Americans; total, 234.
THIRTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. (March 4, 1857-March 3, 1859.)
Senate-39 Democrats, 20 Republicans, 5 Amer- icans; total, 64. House-131 Democrats, 92 Re- publicans, 14 Americans; total, 237.
THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. (March 4, 1859-March 3, 1861.)
Senate-38 Democrats, 26 Republicans, 2 Amer- icans; total, 66. House-101 Democrats, 113 Re- publicans, 23 Americans; total, 237.
( 187 )
[CHAPTER XXVI.]
UNDER NEW LEADERSHIP
INDIANA'S DEMOCRACY ENTERS UPON NEW ERA-THOMAS A. HENDRICKS PILOTS THE PARTY DISCREETLY AND SAFELY FOR QUARTER CENTURY
S
IGNS of the times in 1858 pointed unmistakably to the in- auguration of a new era in Indiana politics. The leaven was working. The culmination could not be far in the dis- tance.
Weeks before the assembling of the State convention, fixed by the proper au- thorities upon Wednesday, January 11, 1860, Democrats throughout the State de- termined to take part in the deliberations of this representative body. The friends as well as the enemies of Stephen A. Douglas had become thoroughly aroused and quietly but resolutely resolved to take a hand in deciding who should be entrusted with the leadership of the National De- mocracy, in so far as this could be determined by the Democratic sovereigns of the Hoosier commonwealth. So intense had become the feelings of the warring elements that the carrying of deadly weapons was by not a few considered an essential part of complete and self-justifi- able equipment.
Seven counties had sent double delega- tions. These were Hancock, Jackson, Jennings, Laporte, Lawrence, Randolph and Spencer. The presence of the largest number of accredited delegates yet as- sembled in any State convention rendered expedient and necessary the adoption of a rule that only delegates, candidates for office, members of the press and members of the State Central Committee be ad- mitted to Metropolitan Hall, in which the convention was ordered to be held. The supporters of Douglas had come to an understanding that Judge Robert Lowry, then proprietor of the Goshen Democrat,
must be made permanent chairman of the great convention. Obstacles were in the way, but by judicious management these were removed. Joseph W. Chapman rapped the assembly to order. General Lew Wallace put Lowry in nomination for temporary chairman. This was quick- ly followed by a motion that a permanent instead of a temporary chairman be elected. The convention was thrown into confusion, amidst which Governor Willard sought to sway the vast assembly by his persuasive eloquence. In this he was frustrated by apt rejoinders to his catchy phrases. Pointed reminders that he was not an accredited delegate and therefore not entitled to the floor were fired at him. This elicited an offer from White county to make the Governor one of its delegates. Finally the difficulty found adjustment by the Marion county delegation announcing a vacancy in its ranks and the election of Governor Willard to fill the same. There- upon Governor Willard gained recognition by the Chair and immediately proceeded to nominate for permanent chairman Judge Samuel E. Perkins, of Indianapolis. This motion was presented in the form of an amendment to the pending motion.
Gordon Tanner, of Jackson county, gained the floor and said he "would not try to amend if a direct vote was to be taken between Judge Lowry and Judge Perkins-Judge Lowry, the friend of Stephen A. Douglas, and Judge Perkins as the administration candidate."
Finally the vote was taken. It resulted in 1891 votes for Lowry and 1741/2 for Perkins. A motion to make Lowry's elec- tion the unanimous action of the conven- tion was adopted by acclamation. J. J.
( 189 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
Bingham, of Indianapolis; John B. Nor- man, of New Albany; S. A. Hall, of Logansport, and Geo. E. Greene, of Vin- cennes, were made secretaries of the convention. All of them were editors and stanch supporters of the "Little Giant."
So much time was consumed in the transaction of routine business, the selec- tion of a committee on resolutions, etc., that the convention readily assented to an adjournment to the following morning.
COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS.
Dr. Norman Eddy, Lafe Develin,
Chairman,
A. C. Handy,
A. T. Whittlesey,
G. F. Cookerly,
Dr. W. F. Sherrod,
B. F. Schermerhorn,
Paris C. Dunning, Andrew Ellison,
Marcus Levy,
David Studabaker.
SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Feeling continued to be intense, though more calm. The friends of Douglas felt assured that they had won the battle, but they also felt that they must not rest on their oars nor be found napping.
NEW STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.
1. J. G. Gavitt, Vanderburg county.
2. Michael C. Kerr, Floyd.
3. Thomas R. Cobb, Lawrence.
4. J. J. Schroyer, Dearborn.
5. C. E. Shipley, Delaware.
6. J. J. Bingham, Marion.
7. B. W. Hanna, Vigo.
8. B. F. Schermerhorn, Carroll.
9. Norman Eddy, St. Joseph.
10. A. W. Myers, Whitley.
11. J. S. Shirley, Grant.
A. B. Palmer, Indianapolis, Chairman.
INSTRUCTED FOR DOUGLAS.
Col. John C. Walker, of Laporte, offered the following resolution :
"Resolved, That while we pledge the support of the Democracy of Indiana to the nominee of the Charleston convention, whomsoever he may be, the delegates to that body from this State are instructed to cast their votes as a unit for Stephen A. Douglas, and to use all honorable means in their power to secure his nomination."
United States Marshal John L. Robin-
son moved to amend by striking out the name of Douglas and inserting that of Joseph Lane.
An amendment was offered that each Congressional district appoint its dele- gates with or without instructions; that the convention instruct delegates-at-large, and also all delegates to vote as a unit, a majority determining their attitude. The amendment was lost 160 to 236. The Walker resolution was then adopted- ayes, 265; noes, 129.
This definitely fixed Indiana's attitude with reference to the Democratic Presi- dential nomination. It served as a prelude to the formal declaration embodied in the platform agreed upon and reported by the committee on resolutions. The platform bears evidence of having been carefully considered, sentence by sentence, and as having been constructed by men of ex- ceptional ability. As an entirety it may fairly be pronounced a masterpiece of political pronouncement, in accord with the then dominant sentiment of the In- diana Democracy. From a literary point of view it excelled any of the platforms thitherto adopted by any preceding State convention. The party's preference for Stephen A. Douglas was set forth in this ringing declaration :
"Resolved, That as a statesman of tried character, and a citizen in whom all sec- tions of the Union may confide their interests, as the friend and supporter of our rights at home and our honor abroad, and in the sincere conviction that we will thereby contribute to secure to all sections of the Union, and each of the States, their just and equal rights and their full share in the benefits of our Federal Union, and in no sectional spirit, but in the expansive love of our whole country, the Democracy of Indiana present to the convention of the American Democracy to assemble at Charleston as their choice for nomination as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, the name of Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, and believing him to be the preference of an overwhelming ma- jority of our people, we hereby instruct the delegates this day appointed by us to
( 190 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
that convention to cast their votes in his favor as a unit so long as his name is before the convention, and to use all hon- orable efforts to secure his nomination ; and the delegation is also instructed to vote as a unit upon all questions which may come before that body as a majority of the delegates may determine."
DELEGATES TO NATIONAL CONVENTION.
At Large-Robert Lowry, E. M. Huntington, Samuel H. Buskirk, James B. Foley.
Contingents-James B. Fulwiler, John Mc- Manana, Jeremiah Smith, Joseph P. Edson.
1. Smith Miller and John S. Gavitt.
2. J. B. Norman and S. K. Wolfe.
3. H. W. Harrington and Paris C. Dunning.
4. J. V. Bemusdaffer and C. B. Bentley.
5. Lafe Develin and W. W. Frybarger.
6. W. H. Talbott and J. M. Gregg.
7. Dr. Ezra Read and Henry K. Wilson.
8. L. B. Stockton and Maj. I. C. Elston.
9. G. Hathaway and S. A. Hall.
10. Pliny Hoagland and George W. McConnell.
11. William Garver and John R. Coffroth.
The Eleventh district adopted resolu- tions declaring for Douglas, or some other conservative man entertaining the same views on the Territorial question, if Douglas is not chosen ; and that their dele- gates in no case vote for a man entertain- ing the view that the Constitution of the United States carries or establishes slavery.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.
Electors-at-Large-Cyrus L. Dunham, Jackson county, and John C. Walker, Laporte county.
Contingents-A. A. Hammond and Paris C. Dunning.
1. James M. Shanklin, Vanderburg county.
2. Thomas M. Brown, Floyd.
3. James S. Hester, Brown.
4. Daniel D. Jones, Franklin.
5. William A. Bickle, Wayne.
6. Alexander B. Conduitt, Morgan.
7. William M. Franklin, Owen.
8. William C. Kise, Boone.
9. Robert P. Effinger, Miami.
10. William S. Smith, Allen.
11. Andrew Jackson, Madison.
HENDRICKS NOMINATED FOR GOV- ERNOR.
Colonel Cyrus L. Dunham, who had been appointed Secretary of State by
Governor Willard in 1859 to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Daniel McClure, affiliated with the Bu- chanan wing of the party. As such he became an avowed aspirant to the nom- ination for Governor. Though pronounced in his views as to party policy, he was neither an extremist nor a factionist. He believed in subordinating personal views to the will of the majority; in being "regular." When it became apparent that the Douglas wing was clearly and unmis- takably in the ascendancy, he not only abandoned his candidacy for the Gov- ernorship, but rose in the convention, and in a forceful, eloquent speech moved that Thomas A. Hendricks be nominated by acclamation. This generous action on the part of Colonel Dunham aroused intense enthusiasm and had much to do with creating a harmonious spirit in framing up the ticket in its entirety. Without serious friction the ticket was completed by naming Judge David Turpie, of White county, for Lieutenant-Governor; William H. Schlater, of Richmond, for Secretary of State; Joseph Ristine, of Fountain county, for Auditor; Nathaniel F. Cun- ningham, of Terre Haute, for Treasurer; Oscar B. Hord, of Greensburg, for Attor- ney-General; Samuel L. Rugg, of Fort Wayne, for Superintendent of Public In- struction; Cornelius O'Brien, of Law- renceburg, for Clerk of the Supreme Court, and Michael C. Kerr, of New Al- bany, for Reporter of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Hendricks was the unanimous choice of the supporters of Douglas. Al- ways conciliatory and conservative, Mr. Hendricks, while unequivocally the choice of the admirers of the "Little Giant," was not offensive or even objectionable to the moderate adherents of the Buchanan policy. Resigning the office of Land Com- missioner, which he held part of the time under the Pierce and Buchanan adminis- trations, avowedly for the purpose of re-entering upon the practice of law, he
( 191 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
had freed himself of obligation implied in administration affiliation and was thus unhampered in the expression of whatever views he might hold with reference to party policy. The wisdom of his counsel was made manifest by the selection of Colonel Dunham as an Elector-at-Large, though not at the time altogether appar- ent to the fiery element of the Douglas following. Dunham verified the excellence of Mr. Hendricks' judgment by taking the stump in favor of the regular Demo- cratic ticket and delivering a series of very effective speeches. Strong efforts were made by Senator Bright to induce Colonel Dunham to decline the electorship candidacy and join the Breckinridge forces; but though the ties of friendship between these two men were strong and of long tenure, Colonel Dunham stood firm, and throughout the campaign ap- pealed with fervid eloquence to Democrats to stand unflinchingly by the regular or- ganization.
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.