USA > Indiana > History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916 > Part 32
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
8. R. P. Effinger, Miami. J. M. Dickson, Madison.
9. E. Sturgis, Allen. Adam Wolf, Delaware.
10. General J. R. Slack, Huntington. Samuel W. Sprott, DeKalb.
11. T. J. Merrifield, Porter.
C. H. Reeve, Marshall.
( 233 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.
At Large-John R. Coffroth, Huntington county; Bayless W. Hanna, Vigo.
1. Thomas R. Cobb, Knox county.
2. C. S. Dobbins, Martin.
3. James Gavin, Decatur.
4. John S. Reid, Fayette.
5. Captain John M. Lord, Marion.
6. A. B. Carleton, Lawrence.
7. T. F. Davidson, Fountain.
8. James F. McDowell, Grant.
9. John Colerick, Allen.
10. O. H. Main, Elkhart.
11. Thomas J. Merrifield, Valparaiso.
The State campaign was vigorously con- ducted. A joint discussion between Gov- ernor Baker and Senator Hendricks had the effect of awakening deep interest throughout the State. Each Congressional District was honored with one of these oratorical combats. While Senator Hen- dricks doubtless had a decided advantage over his competitor in his commanding personality and in the graces of oratory, Governor Baker was not to be despised as a campaigner. He was forceful, logical, and persuasive. The writer attended two of these joint discussions, one at South Bend, the other at Auburn. At a little gathering of Democrats, after the South Bend discussion, Senator Hendricks took occasion to remark that Democrats made a great mistake in trying to disparage Baker as a debater or to belittle him in other respects; that Baker had revealed himself as possessed of unusual ability and no little adroitness in turning points to advantage. The debates were marked by the utmost civility and the absence of anything like discourtesy. That these two men learned to esteem and appreciate one another during this oratorical tournament is evidenced by the fact that some years afterward they formed a co-partnership in the practice of law at Indianapolis.
In his campaign speeches Mr. Hen- dricks adhered closely to the definition of constitutional doctrine as set forth in an exceedingly able banquet speech delivered by Attorney-General Henry Stanbery at
Washington, January 8, 1868, in the course of which that eminent jurist-a former Whig and later on a Republican, but at the time a staunch supporter of the Lincoln-Johnson policy - epitomized the living issues in these terse sentences :
"The Constitution as it is; the limita- tion of Federal power within the just and well-defined boundaries of the Constitu- tion and not outside of the Constitu- tion; civil law instead of military law; free elections and constitutions formed by the people of the States, and not by the people of other States, whether in Con- gress or out of Congress."
THE STATE PLATFORM.
As usual, the State platform was drawn out at great length. Terseness and brev- ity have hardly ever commended them- selves to Indiana platform-makers. The idea seems to have become generally prev- alent that unless a platform is somewhere in the neighborhood of a yard in length, something must have been omitted, slighted, or gotten away with. The ideal party platform-maker was Samuel J. Til- den. When he was in command in New York, the platforms put forth by the Em- pire State Democracy were models of di- rectness, brevity and terseness.
The more important planks of the Indiana Democratic platforms are here re- produced as reminders of how Democrats in this State felt three years after the close of the civil war:
"Resolved, That language is not ade- quate to express our abhorrence and con- demnation of the Radical reconstruction policy of Congress-a policy condemned by every consideration of justice and con- stitutional obligation; a policy fraught with the most alarming apprehensions of evil to ten States of the Union, and of destruction to the Union itself; a policy that largely increases taxation; a policy that requires a large standing army, which adds nearly one hundred million dollars annually to the expenses of the Govern- ment, while it beggars the people; a policy the avowed object of which is to continue in power the most venal and corrupt polit-
( 234 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
ical party that ever dishonored any civ- ilization ; a policy vindictively enacted and mercilessly prosecuted with the unconsti- tutional purpose of centralizing and per- petuating all political powers of the Gov- ernment in the dominant Radical party in Congress, and a policy which if not early arrested by the American people, will sooner or later overwhelm our national Government in one common and appalling ruin. We demand the unconditional re- peal of the act of Congress conferring ex- clusive rights or privileges upon any class or classes of citizens at the expense of other classes.
"That the national bank system organ- ized in the interest of the bondholders ought to be abolished, and United States notes substituted in lieu of the national bank currency, thus saving to the people interest alone more than eighteen million dollars a year; and, until such system of banks be abolished, we demand that the shares of such banks in Indiana shall be subjected to the same taxation, State and municipal, as other property of the State.
"That the bonds and other securities of the United States and every description of property should bear equal proportion of taxation for State, county, and municipal purposes, and to that end the bonds and other securities of the United States ought to be taxed by Congress for national pur- poses in amount substantially equal to the tax imposed on property in the several States for local purposes.
"That we are in favor of the payment of the Government bonds in Treasury notes, commonly called greenbacks, except ex- pressly made payable in gold by law, at the earliest practicable point.
"That the unjust and iniquitous tariff laws now in force ought to be repealed, and the tariff adopted looking to revenue only.
"That we are opposed to conferring the right of suffrage on negroes. We deny the right of the General Government to in- terfere with the question of suffrage in any of the States of the Union.
"That we shall ever hold in sacred rec- ollection the dead who freely sacrificed their lives for the defense of our glorious Union, that the present and future gener- ations might enjoy the rich inheritance of a form of government that secures an equality of rights and privileges to all the citizens thereof; that the nation owes to
the surviving soldiers and sailors of the Union the highest marks of praise and gratitude for the great sacrifices they made in the late war, and to those disabled in the service of the Union, and the widows and orphan children of those who fell in battle, or died of wounds, or in the military service of the Union, such personal aid as will enable them to enjoy the substantial necessaries of life.
"That we recognize in the restoration measures of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, a policy which would have given peace, security, and prosperity to the State, and dispelled the dark clouds caused by the vindictive measures of a Radical Congress. The adoption of the President's policy would, in our opinion, have saved the nation the expenditure of untold millions of treasure, lessened the burden of taxation, secured peace to the South, and prosperity to the Union.
"That Major-General Hancock, by his order at New Orleans, reinstating the civil law and dethroning the military despot- ism, has manifested the highest respect for constitutional liberty, for which he de- serves the commendation of all friends of constitutional government, and who revere the noble profession of arms. Like the great and good Washington, this gallant soldier had learned to respect the civil rights of all good citizens, and to declare that in time of peace military tribunals should have no place in our jurisprudence. Eternal honor to the soldier who refused to rise above the laws!
"That we congratulate the Democracy of our sister State of Ohio on the gal- lant political campaign closed on the 8th day of October, 1867-a campaign marked by the highest order of devotion, ability, and effect, and that prominent and close in the association in the minds of our fel- low-citizens of Indiana stands the name of the Hon. George H. Pendleton, identified with the vital measures upon which our party enters the canvass for 1868, together with his ability as a statesman and his high personal qualities. All these entitle him to the commendation of the conven- tion as a true and consistent Democrat, and one who has our entire confidence and preference."
The Presidential campaign engaged popular attention to a far greater extent than did State issues. The latter received
( 235 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
but slight consideration; indeed, it is not quite certain that there were any such.
In somewhat subdued form the Indiana delegation to the Democratic convention was considered instructed to vote for the nomination of Geo. H. Pendleton of Ohio, for the Presidency. "Gentleman George," by which cognomen that estimable citizen and statesman was popularly known, was General Geo. B. McClellan's running mate in 1864 and achieved high reputation as a captivating campaigner. From a pro- nounced hard money champion he devel- oped into a still more pronounced soft
money (greenback) advocate. His "plan" . hausted. Then a stampede thrust the
commended itself greatly to Indiana Dem- ocrats, so when the State convention named delegates to the New York conven- tion the Pendleton boom experienced quite an impetus. But among the delegates were a goodly number of those who looked upon Thomas A. Hendricks as being far more available than they adjudged the gentleman from Ohio to be. A strong Hendricks sentiment developed during the earlier sessions of the New York conven- tion. During the protracted balloting he received as high as 140 votes-nearly as many as had been given Pendleton when Pendleton stock ranged highest. Had Indiana formally agreed to put Hendricks into the race there is but little doubt that he would have been nominated with a whirl. The Bright influence would not permit this to be done. While that wily politician, Jesse D. Bright, ostensibly boosted the Pendleton movement, he was in reality in favor of making Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase the Democratic presidential nominee. The alacrity with which politicians of radical views can flop from one extreme to another has not in- frequently furnished both amusement and amazement to sticklers for consistency. It was common belief that C. L. Vallandig- ham of Ohio, another anti-war propa- gandist, favored the nomination of Chief Justice Chase. The insurmountable ob-
stacle to making a reality of this scheme was Samuel J. Tilden, who was known to be uncompromisingly opposed to any oc- cupant of a judicial position being nom- inated to political office. New York had instructed its delegation to vote for Chief Justice Sanford E. Church, but when dis- covery was made that that eminent jurist couldn't get any votes from other States, New York withdrew the name of Judge Church after the sixth ballot. There was a good deal of fencing. Several days were consumed in ineffective balloting. The patience of delegates was fast being ex- nomination on Horatio Seymour, who did his utmost to escape the ordeal of a presi- dential campaign, chiefly on account of his impaired physical condition, but perhaps still more so by reason of the inner con- sciousness that Democratic success that year was unattainable. Seymour was a grand character, a man of eminent ability, but he was not available presidential tim- ber, and no one understood this better than he himself. Certainty of the ticket's defeat was in a sense invited by the nom- ination of General Frank P. Blair for the vice-presidency. Blair had up to that time been a rank Republican. He was vehement in the denunciation of Republican recon- struction measures and in charging Gen- eral Grant with aiming to crown himself with Caesarism -that if elected, he would never leave the Presidential man- sion alive. The New York World and other influential Democratic papers in vain re- monstrated against such extravagance of speech. Demands for his removal from the ticket were made, but they fell upon deaf ears. At the November election Sey- mour and Blair polled 2,703,249 votes to 3,012,833 for Grant and Colfax. In the electoral college Grant and Colfax had 214; Seymour and Blair, 80. New York gave Seymour an even 10,000 majority, New Jersey 2,880, and Oregon 1,064. These three were the only Northern
( 236 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
States that were carried for Seymour and Blair. While at the October election in Indiana Thomas A. Hendricks polled 170,614 votes, Seymour's vote in Novem- ber was 166,980. Hendricks was beaten by 961; Seymour by 9,572.
For many years there was printed at Indianapolis an able and influential Ger- man weekly paper called "Indiana Volks- blatt." Its publisher was Julius Boetti- cher, a fine gentleman and clear thinker. After the war Mr. Boetticher had his po- litical editorials of a national character written by the Hon. Emil Rothe, of Cin- cinnati, who while a resident of Wiscon- sin used to engage in joint discussions with Carl Schurz.
Rothe was a very able man and a thor- ough Democrat. In a series of articles the nomination of General Winfield Scott Hancock for president and Wm. S. Groes- beck of Cincinnati for vice-president was strongly urged through the columns of the Volksblatt. There is no doubt that a ticket composed of these two great, good, and popular men would have commanded a far more enthusiastic support than did Seymour and Blair. Hancock and Groes- beck was the logical combination for that period in our country's history. But, un- fortunately, logic doesn't always guide the action of political bodies. It surely didn't in 1868.
.While the nomination of Seymour was generally adjudged a spontaneous affair, one of the delegates from Northern Indi- ana, Major Samuel W. Sprott, a red-hot Pendletonite, related upon his return from New York that ten minutes after Sey- mour's nomination banners and transpar- encies with Seymour inscriptions were brought forth in a popular demonstration. To satisfy himself whether these inscrip- tions had just been hurriedly put on can- vass he stepped up to one of the most imposing ones to ascertain by touch of finger whether it was fresh or dry. "Egad,
it's dry !" the Major exclaimed with an expressive twinkle of the eye.
One of the notable characters among the Indiana delegates was Charles H. Reeve of Plymouth. Whatever he favored he backed with energy and zeal. There was nothing of the equivocal in his make- up. And he prided himself a good deal on the originality of his views and the sound- ness of his conclusions. He was a man of unquestionable ability and inflexible in- tegrity, but at times he was also eccentric, and not always consistent. In 1868 he was a "red-hot" champion of Pendleton and a greenback circulating medium, and in 1896 he refused to support Bryan on account of his attitude on the silver coin- age issue. He was for plenty of green- backs in 1868, but averse to a superabund- ance of silver in 1896. In discussing Reeve's eccentricity in these particulars Mr. Hendricks once upon a time smilingly remarked that if Charley Reeve had lived in the days of Christ he (Hendricks) felt certain that the Senator from Marshall would have moved to amend the Lord's prayer. Notwithstanding his eccentrici- ties, Senator Reeve was in many respects a most companionable gentleman and a highly estimable citizen. He took great delight in expressing his views through the columns of the public press. Usually he signed his name to his contributions; at times he would use a pseudonym. He did this when in 1874 he published a com- munication in the Indianapolis Sentinel of March 11 which was headed "Hendricks a Democratic Caesar." In this article Sen- ator Reeve asserted it to be known to the friends of Hendricks that "he lacks firmness and yields to pressure." "His natural kindness induces him to surrender his own better judgment to the importu- nity of his friends." "Had he the firmness of Jackson he would be the idol of the people today."
The article then relates how George H. Pendleton led for the presidential nomina-
(237 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
tion in the New York convention, but that Tammany was scheming against him, the convention being held in Tammany hall. On the fourth ballot the chairman of the Indiana delegation asked they be excused from the hall for a time in order to con- sult among themselves. The chairman led them out and explained the conference was over the proposition of bringing out Hendricks; that Pendleton could not be named and New York would vote en masse for Hendricks. Joseph E. McDonald op- posed the movement, while Voorhees in- sisted upon it peremptorily. A messenger came to the door for the sixth, seventh, and perhaps eighth ballot. No vote was taken by the Indiana delegation, but some one shouted "for Pendleton," and it was so cast. On the next ballot Indiana di- vided between Hendricks and Pendleton. Richard J. Bright, on behalf of the mi- nority, expressed dissent, as the delega- tion had been instructed for Pendleton. New York divided its vote. Some of the delegates accused Hendricks of permitting the use of his name, and claimed that every ballot was being telegraphed him. It was also claimed that Voorhees, Fitch and Niblack wanted a chance at the Senate and Governor's seat, and for that reason were behind the Hendricks movement.
The next day the Indiana delegation, fearing all was lost, the minority consent- ing, cast its vote for Hendricks. Ohio was angered and finally withdrew Pendleton. Seymour, who had been nominated several times, always declining, sat pulling his scraggly hair. Ohio swung to Seymour, as did the other States, and finally Indiana.
RESULT OF OCTOBER ELECTION, 1868. GOVERNOR.
Conrad Baker, Republican. . . .. 171,575 961
Thomas A. Hendricks, Democrat. . 170,614
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR.
William Cumback, Republican. .. 171,711 1,332 A. P. Edgerton, Democrat. 170,379
SECRETARY OF STATE.
M. A. F. Hoffman, Republican. 171,293 967 Reuben C. Kise, Democrat. 170,326
AUDITOR.
John D. Evans, Republican.
171,699
1,383
Jos. V. Bemusdaffer, Democrat.
170,316
TREASURER.
Nathan Kimball, Republican.
.171,576
1,295
James B. Ryan, Democrat.
170,281
ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
D. E. Williamson, Republican.
171,696
1,351
Solomon Claypool, Democrat.
170,345
SUPERINTENDENT PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.
B. C. Hobbs, Republican.
171,606
1,231
J. R. Phillips, Democrat.
170,375
CLERK SUPREME COURT.
T. W. McCoy, Republican
171,618
1,221
Noah S. LaRose, Democrat.
170,397
REPORTER SUPREME COURT.
J. B. Black, Republican
.171,688
1,430
M. A. O. Packard, Democrat.
170,258
CONGRESSIONAL RESULTS.
Majorities. W. E. Niblack, Democrat. .1,496 M. C. Kerr, Democrat 6,434 W. S. Holinan, Democrat. 762 George W. Julian, Republica 116
John Coburn, Republican. 1,032 D. W. Voorhees, Democrat. 128 Godlove S. Orth, Republican .. 667
D. D. Pratt, Republican. ... 2,287
J. P. C. Shanks, Republican. . . 941 William Williams, Republican. . 2,313 Jasper Packard, Republican. ... 1,221
The surprising feature of the October election was the discrepancy between the Republican preponderance in the outcome of the Congressional contests and the in- significance of the Republican majority for Governor and other State officers. That the Republicans elected seven of the eleven members of Congress with so small a difference in the aggregate vote may to some extent have been due to personal popularity or to superiority in campaign- ing, but the stronger probability is that the real factor of the seven to four in- taking was the skillful manner in which the State had been gerrymandered for
( 238 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
Congressional purposes. The dispropor- tion of representation in the Legislature was also in the main ascribable to the free application of the gerrymandering process in apportioning the State for legislative purposes.
The serious aspect of Republican ascendency in the Legislature at that time was the pendency of the 15th amendment to the Federal Constitution providing for the introduction of negro suffrage throughout the Union. In a number of States the proposition to enfranchise the negro through State action had been sub- mitted to popular vote and invariably re- jected. Then it was that the idea of con- ferring the right of suffrage upon negroes by amendment to the Federal Constitution was conceived and in course of time put into effect. A recital of the manner in which this was done will always be an interesting and instructive, though ever humiliating, chapter of political history.
In Indiana a most determined fight was made to prevent the ratification of this amendment. Rather than be made a party to ratification the Democratic members of the Legislature resigned in a body. A special election was ordered by Governor Baker. At this election the course of those who had tendered their resignations was emphatically endorsed by triumphant re- elections. This verdict of the ballot stands out in bold relief as an inextin- guishable protest against the unwisest and most pernicious act committed in time of peace from the beginning of the Republic to the present time.
Oliver P. Morton took his seat as United States Senator March 4, 1867. Having silently, without explanation or justifica- tion, gone clear back on what he so ably espoused in his forceful and incontrovert- ible Richmond speech, he became actively enlisted in the advocacy of the radical measures that had inception in the mer- ciless souls of those who blindly followed the behests of vindictive Thad. Stevens.
The Fifteenth Amendment to the Con- stitution of the United States, which con- ferred the privilege of suffrage on the ne- gro, a provision setting forth that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or pre- vious condition of servitude, was submit- ted by Congress to the Legislatures of the thirty-seven States and declared in effect in a little over a year's time.
The submission was made by the For- tieth Congress on February 27, 1869, and the proclamation of the Secretary of State was dated March 30, 1870. Ratification was voted by the Legislatures of twenty- nine States. New York gave its consent in April, 1869, but rescinded this action January 5, 1870. The first action taken by the Ohio Legislature, on May 4, 1869, was unfavorable. New Jersey, after hav- ing rejected the amendment, gave its ap- proval on February 21, 1871, subsequent to the proclamation.
The States rejecting the amendment were California, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon and Tennessee.
Those States voting acceptance acted on the following dates :
Nevada
March 1,1869
West Virginia
March 3, 1869
North Carolina
March 5, 1869
Louisiana March 5, 1869
Illinois
March 5,1869
Michigan
March
8,1869
Wisconsin
March 9, 1869
Massachusetts
March 12, 1869
Maine
March 12, 1869
South Carolina
March 16, 1869
Pennsylvania
March 26, 1869
Arkansas
March 30, 1869
New York
April 14, 1869
Indiana
May
14,1869
Connecticut
May
19,1869
Florida
June
15,1869
New Hampshire
July
7,1869
Virginia
Oct.
8,1869
Vermont
Oct.
21,1869
Alabama
Nov.
24,1869
Missouri
Jan.
10,1870
Mississippi
Jan.
17,1870
Rhode Island
Jan.
18, 1870
( 239 )
HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916
Kansas
Jan.
19, 1870
Ohio
.Jan.
27,1870
Georgia
.Feb.
2,1870
Iowa
. Feb.
3,1870
Nebraska
Feb.
17,1870
Texas
Feb.
18, 1870
Minnesota
. Feb.
19, 1870
The result of the 1868 election afforded opportunity for the Republicans to sup- plant Thomas A. Hendricks in the United States Senate, in which body that gentle- man had made a record to which his friends and admirers can ever point with pride.
Early in the year 1868 there was in progress a good deal of political maneuver- ing. Under the established custom of political parties an Acting Governor was assumed to be entitled to a nomination for the full term if he desired it. Lieuten- ant-Governor Conrad Baker, upon the election of Governor Morton to the Senate, became Acting Governor. While in the main he enjoyed the kindly feeling and confidence of his party, there was in evi- dence a pronounced sentiment in favor of making Will Cumback the Republican nominee for Governor. His following was ardent and enthusiastic. Mr. Cumback had been a member of Congress and was generally regarded an adroit politician and an effective stump speaker. Realiz- ing that Baker had a cinch on the guber- natorial nomination, Cumback conceived the idea of driving a shrewd little bargain. While in that frame of mind he took his pen in hand and indited the following letter:
(Envelope Marked "Private.")
"Greensburgh, Ind., Jan. 6, 1868.
"Governor Baker: Dear Friend-If I had not a thousand things to demand my attention this week, I would come up and see you. I will therefore venture to make this suggestion: I think Hendricks will be chosen by the Democrats, and he will certainly (if he intends to inspire hope of success among his friends) resign his po- sition. The person appointed by you will, other things being equal, stand the best chance to be chosen by our Legislature.
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.