USA > New Hampshire > Grafton County > Littleton > History of Littleton, New Hampshire, Vol. I > Part 39
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
The local campaign of 1840 had been marked by few of the ex- travagant features so common in the Central and Western States. The canvass was spirited, of the sturdy fashion of New England ; there was very little speech-making, and that little by a few local leaders. Henry A. Bellows spoke for the Whigs, and Dr. Moore, George Little, and Calvin Ainsworth, Jr., for the Democrats. The coon and log cabin appeared only in story and song. The tariff, bank, sub-treasury, internal improvements, and northwestern boundary were subjects of serious discussion. Retrenchment in public expenditures, and the lavish display of gold spoons and other foreign household utensils and adornments by President Van Buren at the White House were not neglected by a people bred in the simple ways of the fathers. The campaign ended, the spoils of the victory were disposed of at the earliest pos- sible moment by substituting Guy Ely for Simeon B. Johnson in the office of postmaster. This done, the farmers and mechanics, the lawyers and doctors and the clergymen, who had passed sleep- less nights and the wakeful hours of day in misery contemplating the possibility of Van Buren's re-election, were entirely satisfied that no great harm could come to them while they were permitted to receive their mail from the hands of Esquire Ely rather than from those of Esquire Johnson.
Not so satisfied, however, was the Esquire, who had been de- prived of the honors and emoluments incident to the high privi-
388
History of Littleton.
lege of knowing with whom his neighbors were conducting a cor- respondence. He knew that he had served the people faithfully and well, and having acquired a taste, if not a habit, for this sort of service, he again looked to the public to gratify his de- sires in this respect. For some reason he entertained a doubt whether this knowledge was so general that the voters would turn to him unbidden and thrust the position upon his willing shoulders. Accordingly, he made his wishes in the matter known to George Little, and it was not long before the neglect of Littleton by the dominant party was a theme of general conver- sation. It was recalled that the town had had a corporate exist- ence for more than seventy-five years, that its citizens had borne the highest character for honor and ability, and the only recognition she had received during all these years were the po- sitions of Councillor and Register of Deeds, bestowed upon Nathan- iel Rix, Jr., in the thirties. It was time for something more sub- stantial in the way of honors. Political sentiment just then cen- tred about Esquire Johnson on account of his removal from office by the Whigs, and Mr. Little suggested that he was the proper person to present as a candidate for the senatorial nomination. The convention assembled at "Franconia Iron Works," in Feb- ruary, 1841. It was not a full convention, but among the dele- gates were several men who attained distinction in a wider field, while others were noted in subsequent years for activity in local politics. Among such delegates were John S. Wells and Col. Ephraim Cross, of Lancaster ; Dr. Hiram Morgan, Jona- than B. Rowell, 1 and Gen. Samuel P. Adams, of Haverhill ; Daniel Clark and Orin Bronson, of Landaff ; John Caswell, 2 of Lyman ; E. O. Kenney, of Bethlehem ; and Dr. Adams Moore, Franklin J. Eastman, Quintus Cook, and Stephen C. Gibbs, of Littleton. Forty-three ballots were cast for a candidate for Sen- ator, of which Johnson received thirty-one and was nominated. The result at the election in March was: Hiram Duncan, 1749 votes, and Johnson, 3714, or nearly 2000 majority.
When Mr. Johnson entered upon his senatorial duties, his party was somewhat divided in regard to the extent of the power to be conferred on railroad and banking corporations by the Legislature. Isaac Hill, for a quarter of a century the leader of the Democratic party, and who during that period possessed a more autocratic power than has been exercised by any other political leader in
1 He was of Littleton, 1804 to 1831. Son of Jonathan and father of Jonathan Harry, Representative in Congress several terms from the Bloomington, Ill., district. 2 Son of Capt. Nathaniel Caswell, the pioneer.
SIMEON BEAN JOHNSON.
389
Political Annals.
the history of the State, was interested in, and a director of, the Concord Railroad, then building, and desired the widest legislative latitude in regard to the right to take the land of private owners for the use of his railroad. The legislative leaders, including Al- bert Baker, the brilliant Representative from Hillsborough, Caleb and Jeremialı Blodgett in the House, Pickering in the Senate, and many others as well as the great mass of the party, were opposed to granting railroad corporations the right to take land under the power of eminent domain. They also favored the passage of laws establishing the personal liability of stockholders in corporations for the debts of such corporations.
It was under such conditions that Mr. Johnson entered upon the most important of his numerous political positions. He was not a man of fixed principles nor of firmness of character. He was intelligent, complacent, active, and anxious to please or oblige all with whom he associated socially or politically. A type of a class, not uncommon, who have achieved a fair amount of success in their business vocations, but who are without special training or nat- ural qualifications for meritorious public service, who seek polit- ical honors for the little brief authority conferred, and who retire. to private life with regret, without having satisfied their ambition or conferred lasting benefits on their constituents. Such men usually become easy victims to the wiles of designing persons who are seeking special privileges from the law-making power. Sena- tor Johnson's legislative career was not an exception to the rule. He naturally regarded Governor Hill as the foremost Democratic leader of the State, and was easily persuaded by him to vote against the House bill passed by the votes of his party in that body, over the solid vote of Whig opposition.
The defeat of the House bill precipitated a crisis in the Demo- cratic party. Senators who had voted against that measure were assailed with bitterness by the party press throughout the State. Nowhere was the feeling against the action of the majority in the Senate deeper than in this district. A campaign was at once inaugurated to defeat Johnson for renomination, and when the caucuses were held nearly all passed resolutions condemning his action and appointed delegates who would vote against him.1
1 The temper of these primaries is, perhaps, best shown by the action of the caucus held in Bath. The resolutions adopted were drafted by Harry Ilibbard, and indicate the character of those passed in nearly all the towns in the district; they were as follows :
" RESOLVED : That Railroads, Banks and other corporations, they being established with a view to the advantage of individual members thereof, and the stock and profits of the same being private and sole property of the stockholders :
390
History of Littleton.
Even the Littleton delegation, consisting of Caleb Parker, Elisha Burnham, Nathaniel Bishop, and Timothy A. Green, were opposed to their townsman.
The senatorial convention convened at Cobleigh's Inn Feb. 3, 1842, with a full delegation, and refused to renominate Johnson, but bestowed the honor upon Simeon Warner, of Whitefield. The followers of Isaac Hill were not idle. They placed an independent, or right of way, ticket in nomination with John H. White, of Lan- caster, for governor and Simeon B. Johnson for Senator in this district. Mr. Johnson received 469 votes.1 The situation re- mained unchanged during the campaign of 1843. It was conducted with the same candidates and with a like result.
The subsequent, political career of Mr. Johnson was sinuous in the extreme. He became a member of the Liberty, afterward the Freesoil, party when it was formed, and in the bargain which re- sulted in the coalition of that party and the Whigs in 1846 and 1847, lie was elected Representative with Col. Salmon H. Rowell as colleague. He accepted the compromise measures of 1850 as a settlement of the questions involved, and voted for Franklin Pierce in 1852. Events finally forced him into the Republican party, and there he found rest for twelve years. At the election in 1868 he was once more within the folds of the Democratic party, and there remained with varying degrees of contentment for the re- maining two years of his life.
Notwithstanding his unstable political tendencies, he was much respected for probity and kindliness. He was a good magistrate, and served the public many years in that capacity as well as an adviser in probate matters. At a time when banking facilities were not what they now are, lie was a money-lender, - not an ex- tortioner, but one of those useful small capitalists who were content with the legal rate of interest, with a modest fee added for drawing the mortgage or such other papers as might be necessary to secure the investment. The Esquire was identified with the political and financial affairs of the town for forty years, and while he was regarded by many of his townsmen as over-ambitious for
" RESOLVED : That the idea that because these corporations are, or may be said, to be of public utility, they are public institutions and to be treated as such, is against all established law and common sense; that such doctrine, if adopted, would be pro- ductive of evils the most pernicious and incalculable, leaving no security for private property or private rights, and under such a doctrine any corporation or individual might of right take for their own use, without the consent of the owner, the property of any individual at their own caprice."
1 The vote of the Senatorial District was as follows : Simeon B. Johnson, 469 ; Horace Duncan, Whig, 707; Simeon Warner, 2,347.
RICHARD W. PEABODY.
391
Political Annals.
public office, a fair estimate of his services, in point of value to the community, would assign him a place above rather than below that of the average public functionary in the sphere within which he moved.
There were a number of incidents calculated to disturb the political monotony of the time, aside from those connected with the anti-slavery movement and Mr. Johnson's political fortunes. The Whigs were in a majority, when united, and could cast more than two hundred votes when required to bring out their full strength, while the Democrats could hardly muster one hundred and seventy. The building and putting in operation of the Woollen Factory had so far increased the number of voters and ratable polls that in 1840 the town was entitled to send two Representa- tives to the Legislature.1 Ezra Parker, a prosperous farmer and exceptionally intelligent citizen residing at West Littleton, and George W. Ely, scythe manufacturer and son of the old Esquire, were chosen to the position. Capt. Cyrus Eastman was the only Democratic candidate, and was voted for against each of the successful candidates He must have made an active canvass, as Mr. Parker's majority was but seventeen. In 1841 Major Aaron Brackett and Richard W. Peabody represented the town. Mr. Peabody was the first native-born son of Littleton to represent her in the Legislature. He was re-elected the following year and nominated for a third term in 1844. The result of this nomination was a factional quarrel. In the party were many members who desired the honor, then regarded as of greater importance than at present ; and this class, together with their friends, were dissatisfied with the action of the majority in bestowing upon Mr. Peabody the unusual distinction of a third nomination, and made an arrange- ment with the Democrats that resulted in the defeat of Mr. Pea- body by Charles Kellogg, the candidate of the Democrats. This contest survived through another election, and in 1845 two Demo- crats, Capt. Elisha Burnham and Mr. Kellogg, were successful. The defeated candidates were Col. Salmon H. Rowell and George C. Ewing, the last being an unfamiliar name to the present gene- ration. Mr. Ewing was a carriage-maker, and engaged in that business in this town in 1841. He was enterprising in public matters. He joined the lyceum, or debating club, and was soon recognized as one of its most attractive speakers. His friends
1 Representation in the Legislature was based on the number of ratable polls. One hundred and fifty ratable polls entitled a town to one Representative; four hundred and fifty to two; and so on, three hundred ratable polls being the mean increasing number for every additional member. Constitution of New Hampshire, Part Second, Art. 9.
392
History of Littleton.
thought his light should not be hid under the local bushel, and his nomination for this office operated to increase further the dissen- sions among the Whigs, many of whom considered that its honors should be conferred on older residents, even if their other claims were not so meritorious. This faction united with the malcontents of the previous year, and their efforts were successful beyond their anticipations or wishes ; for when the successive ballots were taken and their result made known, it was found that not only had Mr. Ewing gone down in defeat, but all the other candidates of the party had shared his fate. Mr. Ewing was no longer a factor in local politics, as soon after these events he removed from town.
These dissensions among the Whigs promoted the growth of the anti-slavery, or Liberty party. The political conditions in the State were such that a very large majority of these anti-slavery parti- sans had originally been members of the Democratic party ; but here all but Simeon B. Johnson had formerly acted with the Whigs. Probably the same general rule governed the migration of these accessions where the compelling power of principle had not been the controlling motive. Under our form of government, the ma- jority has to bear the burden of all sins of omission and commis- sion in the administration of affairs ; hence there is a constant falling away of the discontented from its mass. Then, too, the self- ish and disappointed politicians always constitute a large element in the ruling party, but it is a timid element and seldom moves from its moorings except under cover of some great popular revul- sion. Here were, in embryo, the forces, the patriotic, the discon- tented, and the selfish, that were soon to marshal under a common banner and wrest power from an ancient party which was re- garded by its leaders as invincible. The convergent forces that wrought the change had their origin in every northern hamlet, and the same conditions from which they sprang prevailed in each, modified only by their environment.
While, as we have seen, the anti-slavery sentiment in Littleton was early manifested and always active and vigilant, it did not find expression in the ballot-box until the presidential election of 1844, when four votes were cast for the electoral ticket placed in nomination by the Liberty party in the State. It is probable that those who would naturally be expected to vote this ticket at the elections held in this State between 1840 and 1844, refrained from doing so for the reason that the Liberty party had not taken sufficiently advanced ground to satisfy the radical views of the fol- lowers of William Lloyd Garrison, who constituted the anti-slavery element in this town at that time. Edmund Carleton's name ap-
393
Political Annals.
peared on the ticket of the Liberty party as a candidate for Coun- cillor in 1842, but did not receive a vote for that office in this town. Nor was he satisfied with the platform of the party at the presi- dential election of 1844, and would not give it the endorsement of his vote, but made up a ticket for electors which bore the names of Daniel Hoit, John R. French, John W. Hutchinson, Joshua Woodward, Benjamin B. Cummings, and Samuel E. Cows, all, like himself, extremists in the cause. At the annual meeting in March, 1845, Mr. Carleton was the Liberty party candidate for State Senator, and, released from the restraints incident to a presidential election and the inevitable loosening of party ties among the defeated, that party cast 29 votes for its State ticket, and the Democrats once more polled a majority over both the old and new antagonists.
The contest of the following year was interesting in many re- spects, not only in the town but in the State. The disaffection engendered in the ranks of the Democracy some years previously, by the disagreement as to the privileges to be granted to railroad corporations, had left many stragglers on the field, and most of these, after devious wanderings, finally strayed into the anti- slavery camp. Daniel Hoit had been the candidate of this party for governor for five successive elections. At the first, in 1841, he received 1274 votes ; at the last, in 1845, 5786, - an increase that probably correctly indicates the progress of the discontent arising from many sources, but principally from the aggressions of the slave power and the threatened war with Mexico, which, it was claimed, was to be waged solely in the interests of the South.
The campaign of 1846 in the State opened under encouraging conditions for the opposition. The Democrats had barely escaped defeat the preceding year. With a plurality of nearly eight thou- sand, their majority was but eighty-seven over the combined oppo- sition, and their representation in the Legislature was largely reduced. The anti-slavery party now presented a strong guber- natorial candidate in the person of Nathaniel S. Berry,1 who had been a prominent and popular leader in the Democratic party. When Isaac Hill was contemplating his railroad campaign in 1842, he endeavored to persuade Mr. Berry to accept a nomina- tion for governor. While sympathizing to some extent with the movement, he was not prepared for so radical a step as this proposition contemplated, and he continued to act with his old
1 Nathaniel S. Berry, then of Hebron, was a tanner, having learned that trade with Peter Bonney in this town.
394
History of Littleton.
political associates until the admission of Texas into the Union as a slave State. His candidacy was well calculated to accomplish the object for which it was designed, - that of drawing votes from the dominant party. There were many Democrats willing to break with their party on the single issue of " no more slave territory," who would not put to hazard all else for which they had contended in many political conflicts by voting for a candi- date of Whig antecedents. The extension of slavery had not then become the only political issue and these men still clung to the old faith, and for that reason it was easy for them to vote for Mr. Berry, who held with them on every question of the past as well as the more important ones of the present and future.
The plan of campaign of the opposition in 1846 was to divide their votes for governor and unite them for the election of State senators and representatives to the Legislature, - a wise arrange- ment skilfully executed.1 There was no election of governor by the people, and the opposition had control of the Legislature and elected Anthony Colby Whig governor, and John P. Hale to the United States Senate.
It does not appear that it was a difficult matter for the opposi- tion in this town to carry out their part of this programme. Simeon B. Johnson was an eminently practical man, and at that time knew what he wanted. With N. S. Berry, John H. White, and other pro-railroad Democrats, he was in full political fellowship with the anti-slavery party, and he proposed and, as the represen- tative of his faction, arranged the deal for a coalition with the Whigs. During these negotiations the Squire did not fail to impress upon the Whigs the fact the selection of any represen- tative from the ranks of the anti-slavery men other than himself would be equivalent to the election of two Whigs, as he was the only member of that party who had formerly been a Democrat. His Whig confrères agreed that this would be the only fair arrange- ment, and promised their undivided support. The anti-slavery men were divided when they came to make a selection ; a con- siderable majority pronounced in favor of Jonathan Lovejoy, while the minority were nearly equally divided between Squire Johnson and William D. Hurlbert. Lovejoy and Hurlbert had, several times, manifested a strong desire to represent the town, but such objections as they had on this occasion to being set aside " for the benefit of an old hunker" were overcome by the assurance that
1 At this election the vote for governor was: Scattering, 568; Nathaniel S. Berry, Liberty, 10,379; Anthony Colby, Whig, 17,707 ; Jared W. Williams, Demo- crat, 26,740.
395
Political Annals.
they should receive their reward in due time. The Whigs gave the share of the spoil to which they were entitled to Col. Salmon H. Rowell, an intelligent, high-minded farmer then residing at the West End. The result of the canvass was the election of Messrs. Rowell and Johnson by a vote of 189 to 137 given to Major Elisha Burnham and 116 to Allen Day, the Democratic candidates. It was the custom then, as long after, to elect representatives and selectmen by voting for each officer on a separate ballot, and after the first trial of strength the defeated party would fail to bring its full strength to the polls, which accounts for the falling off in the vote for Mr. Day, who was really a strong candidate.1
The campaign of the following year was fiercely contested. The defeat of 1846 spurred the Democrats to great efforts to regain lost ground, while the combined opposition were no less determined to keep what they had gained in that contest. The result in the State was the election of Governor Williams with a majority for his party in both branches of the Legislature. In this town there was but slight change other than an increased vote. The Represent- atives of the previous year were re-elected, and during the next three years the only apparent change in the political atmosphere, after the close of the Mexican war and the election of General Taylor to the Presidency, was a gradual subsidence of the aggressive character of the methods of the Garrisonian abolitionists in the prosecution of their work, and a tendency on their part to unite with the more practical Freesoilers for the erection of barriers against the further advance of slavery on American soil.
The Liberty party at its convention held at Buffalo in 1848 formally adopted the name of Freesoil, and was so known until it was swallowed up in the Republican upheaval of 1856. The largest vote it cast in this town was 38, given to John P. Hale, in 1846, for member of Congress. As its normal strength was not above 28, the increased vote on this occasion was probably a thank- offering on the part of a few Whigs in consideration of the aid they had received in defeating the Democrats.
The coalition was successfully maintained through the elections in 1848 and 1849, when Jonathan Lovejoy and John Mason Charlton were the beneficiaries of the contracting parties through an election to the Legislature. The campaign of 1848 was closely contested by the Democratic candidates, Willard Cobleigh and Guy Carleton Rowell, and a large vote polled. On the test vote the
1 The relative strength of the three parties is shown by the vote for governor. Anthony Colby received 164 votes, Jared W. Williams 128, and N. S. Berry 34. The Congressional vote was : Whigs, 162; Democrats, 125; Liberty-ticket, 38.
396
History of Littleton.
coalition cast 216 votes and the Democrats 190. The union of the opposition at this election embraced the entire State ; the Whigs, having no candidate for governor, cast their ballots for Nathaniel S. Berry, the Freesoil nominee.1 The vote for governor was : Berry, 217 ; Williams, 193.
The election of 1849 ended for a time, or until the grand coa- lition of 1856, the fusion of Whigs and Freesoilers. In the last- named party of that year were two factions, each with a candidate for Representative, and so closely divided that they had not been able to unite when the caucuses of the old parties assembled for the nomination of candidates. The Whigs were bound by promises made at the time of the first nomination of Squire Johnson, and renewed when; they accepted Jonathan Lovejoy as a candidate at the solicitation of the Freesoilers, to reward William Dennison Hurlbert for services rendered when Mr. Lovejoy had served the allotted terms. In accordance with the demands of this agreement, and probably with a view of bringing the necessary pressure to bear on the Freesoilers, they nominated Marquis L. Goold and Mr. Hurlbert as their candidates for Representatives. The Democrats, that they might be in a position to avail themselves of the errors of their opponents, nominated Allen Day, and left the other positions to be filled as circumstances might require. The result was that they formed a coalition with the Freesoilers, who favored Levi F. Ranlet, and he and Mr. Day were elected. Delegates were also chosen to the Constitutional Convention of 1850 at this time, and the honors fell to Ebenezer Eastman and Marquis L. Goold, a position accepted by Mr. Goold in lieu of the coveted election to the Legislature which had been denied him by the trading ten- dencies of his fellow-citizens. The demoralization of the Whigs after Mr. Day's election is evinced by the fact that while Mr. Ranlet received 182 votes, Mr. Hurlbert had but 109, and 48 other persons, mostly Whigs, were voted for.
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.