History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 35

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 35

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).

"I ask nothing of you, then, but that you proceed to your end by a direct, frank, manly way. Don't sidle off into a mild resolution of censure, but move the expul- sion which you proposed, and which I de- serve, if I deserve any reproach whatever. All I care for is, that you make a square, stand-up fight, and record your judgment by yeas and nays. I care not how few vote with me, nor how many vote against me; for I know that the latter will repent it in dust and ashes before three years have passed. Understand, once for all, that I dare you and defy you, and that I propose to fight it out on the line that I have held from the day of Lee's sur- render. So long as any man was seeking to overthrow our Government, he was my enemy; from the hour in which he laid down his arms, he was my formerly er- ring countryman. So long as any is at heart opposed to the national unity, the Federal authority, or to that assertion of

( 254 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

the equal rights of all men which has be- come practically identified with loyalty and nationality, I shall do my best to de- prive him of power; but, whenever he ceases to be thus, I demand his restoration to all the privileges of American citizen- ship. I give you fair notice, that I shall urge the re-enfranchisement of those now proscribed for rebellion so soon as I shall feel confident that this course is consistent with the freedom of the blacks and the unity of the Republic, and that I shall de- mand a recall of all now in exile only for participating in the Rebellion, whenever the country shall have been so thoroughly pacified that its safety will not thereby be endangered. And so, gentlemen, hoping that you will henceforth comprehend me somewhat better than you have done, I remain, yours,

"HORACE GREELEY. "New York, May 23, 1867."

It was the patient and earnest study of Mr. Greeley's voluminous editorials on the subject of establishing on a firm basis gen- uinely amicable relations between North and South that so warmed the Democratic heart in all parts of the Union to the "Sage of Chappauqua," the illustrious Tribune journalist and philosopher. These edito- rials breathed a spirit of such lofty patri- otism, such nobility of thought and pur- pose, that animosity and vindictive recol- lection of attack, criticism and virulence in former years were effectually banished, extinguished and obliterated. This is the real solution of the problem how the great Democratic heart became attached to Horace Greeley and why he was so earn- estly supported in his candidacy for the Presidency under circumstances that gave so little assurance of success at the final wind-up.

Of the popular vote Grant polled 3,597,- 070, Greeley 2,834,079, O'Conor 29,408 out of a total of 6,466,165. Indiana gave Grant 186,147, Greeley 163,632, O'Conor 1,417. Mr. Greeley died soon after the election of a broken heart and before the meeting of the electoral college. The minority electors who had been chosen for Greeley

and Brown were entirely at sea as to who should receive their votes. As McClure says, "There were many quibbles raised in the joint convention of the two houses in counting and declaring the vote. Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, objected to the Georgia votes cast for Greeley because he was dead at the time, and various other technical objections were made," but as the vote was accepted it shows 286 for Grant, 42 for Hendricks, 18 for B. Gratz Brown, 2 for Charles J. Jenkins, and 1 for David Davis. For Vice-President Henry Wilson is credited with 286, B. Gratz Brown with 47; scattering, 19.

CARL SCHURZ'S CAMPAIGN IN INDIANA.

Upon the adjournment of the Demo- cratic State convention in 1872 great con- fidence was felt in the outcome of the cam- paign. Politicians of large and varied ex- perience thought that with Greeley at the head of the National ticket and Hendricks at the head of the State ticket Indiana would be carried by at least 25,000 ma- jority. That buoyant feeling prevailed un- til after the unexpected and unlooked for result of the North Carolina election in the month of August. The sagacious leaders began to realize that they had a job on their hands. Able speakers were brought into the State; genuine activity became apparent at headquarters. Re- newed energy was injected into the cam- paign. The managers were elated over the announcement that Carl Schurz had con- sented to come into the State and deliver a series of speeches. I first met Senator Schurz at Indianapolis. He made earnest inquiry as to the condition of affairs, the prospects, points of weakness, etc. He was very much put out over the disarranging of his plans at Terre Haute, where he intended to speak in German. Simply be- cause the campaign managers were de- sirous of hearing him in their own lan- guage he was finally induced to speak in

( 255 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

English. The meeting was a great suc- cess as to attendance and enthusiasm. But Mr. Schurz felt that if he had been per- mitted to speak in German he could have made at least two votes where he pos- sibly made one. Similar experiences were had in other localities. It was quite natural that those actively enlisted in the cause were eager to listen to Mr. Schurz in the language they could understand. His rep- utation as a public speaker and philosoph- ical reasoner heightened this eagerness. He was a wonderfully forceful, logical and convincing speaker. It was a rare treat, a genuine pleasure, to listen to him. There was no rant, no demagogy, no sophistry in his addresses. Loftiness of sentiment and richness of thought permeated his utter- ances, fairly charming those who closely followed his argumentation. In company with Judge J. A. S. Mitchell, of Goshen, I attended one of the Schurz meetings, at Laporte. It was held in Patton's grove and presided over by one of Greeley's stanchest Republican supporters, Judge John B. Niles, a Quaker and a highly es- teemed citizen of the old school. I was at that time part owner and publisher of the Laporte Argus, though a resident of Ligonier. By request of both Liberal Re- publicans and Democrats I formally in- vited Judge Niles to officiate as presiding officer of the meeting. He was asked to go to the grove in a conveyance with the committee, but said he preferred to walk and thus be afforded opportunity to for- mulate mentally some remarks he wanted to make in introducing Senator Schurz. And what a gem the venerable jurist had formulated for the occasion! That it was extraordinary in point of literary and ora- torical excellence was the general com- ment of those best qualified to pass judg- ment on such matters. Judge Mitchell said he never heard anything quite equal to it. Mr. Schurz told me that in all his cam- paigning he had nowhere been so happily and felicitously introduced to a popular

audience as he was on this occasion. Schurz's speech was a masterpiece. It made a wonderful impression upon the large, intelligent and deeply interested audience. The German element was largely represented. At the close of the address an urgent appeal was made that Mr. Schurz make a few remarks in Ger- man. He was reluctant about doing this, having already spoken an hour and a half. I begged of him to gratify these insistent pleaders, and he finally did. The effect was marvelous. Joy united with pride; supreme happiness was depicted upon every Germanic countenance. His well- chosen sentences seemed to reach the in- nermost recesses of every German soul in that beautiful grove. This incident illus- trated more strikingly than words could have done the force of Mr. Schurz's grievance over the Terre Haute affair. I fully comprehended the importance Mr. Schurz attached to addressing people in their native tongue. And what was the effect of this little diversion at Laporte? Well, if one-half of the counties in the State had done as well as Laporte did there would have been no question about Indiana rolling up much more than the conjectured and predicted 25,000 ma- jority.

A few years later I again met Senator Schurz-this time at Goshen, where he delivered a lecture to a delighted audience. It was my good fortune to be with him the greater part of his stay at Goshen. That was during the winter of 1875-6. I was anxious to know how he felt with reference to the next Presidential contest. He was reluctant about committing him- self, but said if he had his way he would make the 1876 campaign a centennial af- fair. Delicately I alluded to Samuel J. Tilden as being worthy of that distinc- tion. To this there was neither assent nor dissent.

I feel that most if not all of the readers of this book will feel deeply interested in

( 256 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

the incident hereinafter related. It per- tains to an experience in the life of Gen- eral Schurz that I wouldn't undertake to explain even if I deemed myself compe- tent so to do, which assuredly is not the case. If the statement that follows em- anated from any other source I would be reluctant about giving it credence. Com- ing, as it does, from General Schurz him- self, I have not the slightest doubt as to its absolute truthfulness and accuracy.

GENERAL SCHURZ AT THE SEANCE

President Johnson's proclamation con- cerning the reconstruction of North Caro- lina so interested General Schurz that he wrote a letter of remonstrance to the President. The latter in reply summoned General Schurz by telegraph to Washing- ton for conference. Impressed with the importance of his mission, but entirely ignorant of President Johnson's plans with regard to the matter, he resolved to re- spond immediately and left his temporary home at Bethlehem, Pa., on the next day, intending to take the midnight train from Philadelphia for Washington. He stopped for the evening at the home of Dr. Tiede- mann of Philadelphia. This gentleman was a friend to whom he was bound by ties of friendship and close association during the revolutionary period of "storm and stress" in Germany. Dr. Tiedemann was the son of a Heidelberg professor. Mrs. Tiedemann was a sister of Colonel Fried- rich Hecker, the well-known revolutionist from Germany, who served with distinc- tion as an officer of the Union forces. Dr. Tiedemann and his wife had lost two ex- ceptionally bright and promising sons in the war, and the wife, a woman of superior intellect and good judgment, had through some spiritualistic friends been led to seek communication with her sons in the spirit land. So satisfactory had been this at- tempt for herself that Dr. Tiedemann, himself a profound thinker and a man well versed in sound world philosophy, began to take a sentimental interest in the

seances by which Mrs. Tiedemann was receiving such comforting messages from her departed sons. Dr. Tiedemann had indulgently permitted such seances at his own home, and it happened that arrange- ments had been made for such a meeting which was to be held on the very night that brought General Schurz as a guest.

The medium on this occasion was a fifteen-year-old daughter of the Tiede- mann's, described by General Schurz as an "uncommonly beautiful, intelligent and high-spirited girl of fifteen," who had shown remarkable qualities as a writing medium. On this evening the usual pro- gram followed at these seances was car- ried through with satisfactory results to all concerned, when General Schurz was urged to call for some spirit and receive a message for himself. He called for the spirit of Schiller. After a minute or two of waiting the girl wrote that the spirit of the poet had come and was ready to answer questions. General Schurz replied that for the purpose of identification he would like some quotation from Schiller's works. The girl then wrote in German: "Ich hoere rauschende Musik. Das Schloss ist Von Lichtern hell. Wir sind die Froehli- chen."

Which, translated, is :

"Gay music strikes my ear. The castle is Aglow with lights. We are the revelers."

All present heard with astonishment, for the words had a familiar ring. It was a characteristic Schiller verse, although no one could identify the lines. Finally it occurred to General Schurz that the quo- tation must be from Wallenstein's Death. He wondered, doubting whether the young girl could possibly have read these lines. Meanwhile some one brought out a volume of Schiller. The lines were found as quoted. This remarkable experience could not be explained and the young girl told General Schurz at the end of the seance that she had never read a line of "Wallen- stein's Tod."

9-History

( 257 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

After this strange attempt to communi- cate with spirits, General Schurz called for the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. The spirit was summoned, and when Mr. Schurz inquired why President Johnson had called him to Washington, the answer came: "He wants you to make an im- portant journey for him." Naturally de- sirous of knowing where he was to go, General Schurz received the answer: "He will tell you tomorrow." Asking whether he should undertake the journey, he was told: "Yes, do not fail." General Schurz here states positively that he was at this time ignorant of the President's plans, which strangely enough had to do with General Schurz's important journey of observation through the South that was undertaken very shortly after this Wash- ington conference. General Schurz ven- tured one more question to the spirit of Lincoln, and that was simply whether the latter had anything more to say. Then came the answer: "Yes: You will be a Senator of the United States."

General Schurz, strongly tempted to laugh, asked from what State ?

Distinctly came the answer: "From Missouri." This ended the interview, leaving General Schurz much surprised, as he had no political aspirations and no sort of business, professional or residential con- nection whatever with Missouri. His legal place of residence was in Wisconsin. Two years later a business transaction took him unexpectedly to St. Louis, where he became interested in the Westliche Post.

In January, 1869, he was elected by the Legislature of Missouri as a Senator of the United States to succeed John B. Hen- derson. He then recalled the seance at the house of Dr. Tiedemann, as did also the friends who had been present when the message came.

In the third volume of his memoirs Carl Schurz relates this episode at aforemen- tioned seance. He makes no comment on the value or reliability of such demonstra- tions, but submits the account of his own experience as a proof of the existence of occult forces whose power and scope we do not yet understand and never may fathom.

( 258 )

[CHAPTER XXXIV.]

RECUPERATION ENSUED SPEEDILY

THE GRANT AND WILSON VICTORY IN 1872 FOLLOWED BY DEMOCRATIC REVIVAL IN 1874

F, during the melancholy days of November, in 1872, any one imagined that the disastrous ending of the Greeley campaign meant the utter annihilation of Democratic hopes and ex- pectations, such delusion was easily dispelled two years later.

Grant's triumphant re-election was not at all gratifying to a majority of the American people. It was an accident due to a number of circumstances fully eluci- dated in preceding pages.

Political reaction soon set in. It was caused partly by the so-called uprising of the farmers against monopoly and partly by the salary grab. The farmers believed themselves grievously wronged, especial- ly by the railroad corporations. The Grange became quite active in the anti- monopoly movement and made its hostility felt effectively in a number of Western States. Wisconsin and Kansas led in this movement.

Popular indignation was aroused by Congress increasing the salary of its mem- bers 50 per cent. This was considered an inexcusable and indefensible raid upon the public treasury. Especially odious was the "back-pay" feature of the act. The Republicans being at the time in absolute control, were properly held responsible for helping themselves too freely to the public money.

In Indiana considerable ill feeling was aroused by the Republican Legislature enacting into law the so-called Baxter bill, at which the so-called "liberal element" took high umbrage. The purpose of the Baxter law was to restrict the sale of in- toxicating liquor. Under its provisions the applicant for a license to operate a

saloon had to present to the Board of County Commissioners a petition signed by a majority of the voters of the locality before being granted a permit. All saloons were required to be closed at 9 o'clock in the evening. This was by some considered an inconvenient early hour. The "liberal element" considered the Baxter law an un- warranted interference with personal lib- erty. It was fathered by a Wayne county Quaker named Baxter. When passed by both houses of the General Assembly, strong pressure was brought to bear upon Governor Hendricks to veto the bill, but he, emulating a Democratic predecessor, Governor Joseph A. Wright, refused to yield to this pressure and appended his signature thereto. While the "liberal ele- ment" did not take kindly to Governor Hendricks' action in the premises, it in- flicted punishment upon the Republican party for putting the bill through the legis- lative department of the commonwealth.

The Greenback movement also made itself felt quite strongly during the early seventies.

The campaign of 1874 did not start out under very auspicious circumstances. March 11 the Democratic State Committee met at Indianapolis. Something had hap- pened that displeased the State Chairman, a most estimable gentleman named Elijah S. Alvord. He tendered his resignation and was succeeded by Joseph E. McDonald. The State convention met July 15 and was called to order by Chairman McDonald. Governor Thomas A. Hendricks was made permanent chairman. He delivered one of his characteristically conciliatory and cap- tivating speeches, in the course of which he gave his reasons for not vetoing the muchly discussed and fiercely assailed

( 259 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

Baxter bill. The main reason assigned was that the Legislature doubtless was clothed with power to regulate the liquor traffic in such manner as to protect society from the evils of intemperance in so far as legis- lative restriction might accomplish that purpose. In the main Governor Hendricks succeeded in satisfying the majority of his hearers that the course he pursued in this matter was prompted by high purposes, and that inasmuch as it was not contended that the bill was unconstitutional, no real justification was at hand to veto a meas- ure intended to lessen the evils of intem- perance and to promote public morals.

STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

1. Thomas B. Byrnes, Vanderburg county.

2. C. F. Taylor, Sullivan.

3. John D. Lyle, Bartholomew.

4. B. F. Smith, Rush.

5. I. P. Gray, Randolph.

6. D. S. Gooding, Hancock.

7. J. J. Bingham, Marion.

8. John T. Scott, Vigo.

9. General M. D. Manson, Montgomery.

10. H. E. Wadsworth, Laporte.

11. Rufus Magee, Cass.

12. William Craig, Wells.

13. Laporte Heefner, Elkhart.

STATE TICKET-NEW BLOOD.

There was a sharp contest for several of the State offices, notably for the Au- ditorship. Young men were very much in evidence. It was that element which brought about the nomination of John Enos Neff, one of the bright young Demo- crats of central eastern Indiana. The nomination of Colonel Shaw for State Treasurer was an appreciated compliment to the soldier element, and the selection of Horace P. Biddle for Supreme Judge did much to bring into the Democratic fold a goodly number of voters then strongly in- clined to detach themselves from the Republican organization. The ticket as nominated was thus constituted :

Secretary of State-John E. Neff, Randolph. Auditor-Ebenezer Henderson, Morgan. Treasurer-Colonel B. C. Shaw, Marion.

Superintendent of Public Instruction-Prof. James H. Smart, Allen.

Attorney-General-Clarence A. Buskirk, Gib- son.

Judge Supreme Court-Horace P. Biddle, Cass.

The campaign of 1874 was not a very lively affair. It took care of itself. Re- publican disaffection was very much in evi- dence. The "liberal element" was bent on rebuking the enactment of the Baxter law. The Granger movement shook the faith of many hide-bound Republicans who for years had been voting the party ticket. This combination of circumstances proved very helpful to Democracy. The October election resulted in a sweeping Democratic victory. The vote for Secretary of State stood: Neff, 182,053; W. W. Curry, 164,955. The majorities for the Demo- cratic nominees were: Neff, 17,099; Hen- derson, 16,059; Shaw, 16,409; Buskirk, 12,796; Smart, 15,944; Biddle, 32,364. All of the Republican two-year State officers elected in 1872 were renominated in con- vention and defeated at the polls. James F. Wildman had his political wounds healed by subsequently being made post- master of Indianapolis, and the Rev. W. W. Curry, an exceptionally bright and able man, was given a position in one of the departments at Washington. He is still in office there, though past ninety years. His attendance at the meetings of the Indiana society at the national capital is said to be remarkably regular. In former years Mr. Curry was considered an able and eloquent champion of universal- ism.

The election of thirteen Congressmen from the reconstructed districts-the number having been increased from eleven to thirteen-brought to the surface some new favorite sons. Among these may be mentioned: Benoni S. Fuller, James D. Williams, Jeptha D. New, Milton S. Robinson, Franklin Landers, William S. Haymond, James L. Evans, Andrew H. Hamilton and John H. Baker. Politically the delegation stood, eight Democrats to

( 260 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

five Republicans. The re-elected Congress- men were Michael C. Kerr, William S. Hol- man, Morton C. Hunter, Thomas J. Cason. In the First district Benoni S. Fuller suc- ceeded William E. Niblack; the Second district sent "Blue Jeans" Williams to Congress; the reconstructed Fourth dis- trict named Jeptha D. New, and Judge Holman was gerrymandered into the Fifth district. Upon his nomination to the Governorship in 1876 Williams resigned his seat in Congress and was succeeded by Andrew Humphreys to fill the unexpired term. Michael C. Kerr was made Speaker of the Forty-fourth Congress, but died not many months after his selection for that exalted position. Nathan T. Carr of Bartholomew county was chosen to fill the unexpired term.

JOSEPH E. McDONALD CHOSEN UNITED STATES SENATOR.

In addition to electing all the candidates for the various State offices by decisive majorities and the handsome gains made in the choice of members of Congress, the Democrats obtained a good working ma- jority in the General Assembly. This part of the result made it possible to replace Hon. Daniel D. Pratt with a Democrat in the United States Senate. But for the fact that Daniel W. Voorhees had unfortu- nately and unwisely voted for the "salary grab" that so strongly aroused popular in- dignation, the "Tall Sycamore of the Wa- bash" would undoubtedly have been made the recipient of that honor. There were a number of candidates in the race, chief among them being Joseph E. McDonald, Daniel W. Voorhees and William S. Hol- man. Up to that time my acquaintance with Mr. Voorhees had not ripened into intimacy, but it was quite pleasant. When the contest was on I thought I would take a hand in it by giving my cherished old friend Holman a little boost. Accordingly I went to Indianapolis. At the Bates House was being fought the preliminary battle for the Senatorial prize. I joined

the throng. Pretty soon Mr. Voorhees espied me in the crowd. Greeting me very cordially, he inquired what had brought me to Indianapolis. With the utmost frank- ness and candor I told him that I had come to the State capital to do my part toward defeating his aspirations to the Senator- ship. At first he seemed utterly dum- founded over this icy declaration. Quickly recovering from a plainly visible surprise, he said in his inimitable way: "And would you mind telling me upon what ground you are opposing me ?" My answer was: "You know very well how wrought up public sentiment is over that unfortunate salary grab episode. To nominate and elect you now to the important office you are seek- ing would amount to and could easily be construed as a deliberate endorsement of your vote for that ill-advised appropriation of public funds. From a party point of view such a course would be absolutely ruinous. Had you taken the proper course in voting on that ill-timed and questionable proposition no power on earth could have prevented your election to the Senatorship from Indiana. Instead of opposing you, I would be here advocating with all my might your elevation to this high office. It is painful to me to say this to one whom so many of the people idolize as they idolize no other public man in Indiana, but truth is truth, and I believe in looking at things from that point of view." He listened attentively. A saddened expres- sion came upon his superb physiognomy. At last he said: "You may be right." With that he walked away. In a half-hour after this conversation came the announce- ment from his headquarters that Mr. Voor- hees had retired from the Senatorial race and desired his friends to rally to the sup- port of Joseph E. McDonald.

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 35

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