University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2019-06-06 “A Steady Opposition to Every Evolution of Radicalism”: Western Conservatism in Civil War Era Indiana Wiley, Andrew Wayne Wiley, A. W. (2019). “A Steady Opposition to Every Evolution of Radicalism”: Western Conservatism in Civil War Era Indiana (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110493 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY “A Steady Opposition to Every Evolution of Radicalism”: Western Conservatism in Civil War Era Indiana by Andrew Wayne Wiley A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN HISTORY CALGARY, ALBERTA JUNE, 2019 © Andrew Wayne Wiley 2019 Abstract This dissertation examines conservatives in Indiana politics from the 1820s to the 1870s. During the Civil War Era, northern conservatives helped push Abraham Lincoln into the White House in 1860, and then forced an end to Reconstruction in 1877. While many historians have examined their motivations, they often lump conservatives in the northeast states with those in the West. Due to the state’s population makeup, conservatives never lost their political punch in Indiana, making the state an ideal location to study western conservatives. Since they were so influential, every political party appealed to them. A broad examination of conservatives in Indiana between the 1820s and the 1870s reveals one key difference between western and northeastern conservatives. Although they shared a common reverence for the Union with other conservatives, those in the west were hardline racists devoted to white supremacy. They supported Indian removal while helping pass laws that prohibited African American migration. Once the Whig Party collapsed in the early 1850s conservatives, fearful of disunion, backed Democrats in 1856 and staved off a Republican victory. When the South threatened to push slavery westward, threatening white supremacy in the new western territories, western conservatives sided with Republicans and helped elect Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln turned the Civil War into a war for emancipation, conservatives drifted towards the Democrats, forcing Republicans to water down their emancipationist rhetoric. Once the war ended, conservatives once again threatened to leave the Republican Party over African American citizenship and suffrage. Republicans explained Reconstruction as a strictly southern phenomenon that left white supremacy in the North intact. After Republicans passed the 15th Amendment and ensured African American suffrage, Indiana conservatives started leaving the party. Their racism forced ii Republicans to make concessions that ultimately led to the end of Reconstruction. Although they revered the Union as much as other conservatives, they wanted a Union with white supremacy. iii Preface Portions of this dissertation were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic, and the 2017 annual meeting of the Midwestern History Association. Neither organization published any material. iv Acknowledgments I could never say enough to acknowledge all those who have helped me along the way in writing but this is my feeble attempt. Of course my Grandmother and my Mother who were always there with me, and also my great friend Allen who convinced me to start as an undergraduate and never stop until I reached my dream of a PhD in history. Of course I am grateful to Dr. Frank Towers my supervisor for his patience, wisdom, and advice through this entire process. Also every member of my dissertation committee, Dr. Nicole Etcheson, Dr. Jewel Spangler, Dr. Joe Anderson, Dr. Joshua Goldstein, and Dr. Stephen Maizlish for their comments and timely advice. I can never forget Dr. John (Jack) Kaufman-McKivigan who mentored me when I was an undergrad at IUPUI and later hired me as an editorial assistant at the Frederick Douglass Papers. I can also never forget my mentors at Indiana State: Dr. Christopher Olsen, Dr. David A. Nichols, and pretty much the entire department for their support, encouragement, and kind words. I also want to thank Dr. Mark Cheathem my editor at the Papers of Martin Van Buren along with the staff and the history faculty at Cumberland University who have been patient with me while I worked there and finished this dissertation. There are also many thanks to the archivists and librarians at the Indiana State Library, the IUPUI Library, the Eli Lilly Library at Indiana University, the Indiana Historical Society, and the Filson Historical Society who went above and beyond to always ensure I had the materials requested and could finish my research on time. Lastly, I want to thank the many friends outside academia for the kind words and encouragement, especially those that helped make Calgary a home. v For Grandma and Allen vi Table of Contents Abstract: ii-iii Preface: iv Acknowledgments: v Dedication: vi Table of Contents: vii Introduction: 1-30 Chapter 1: Economics to Sectionalism: Western Conservatives to 1850, 31-88 Chapter 2: “The Great Conservative Party”: Conservatism becomes the Middle Ground, 89-136 Chapter 3: “The sectional candidate in the Field”: Conservatives and the Coming War, 137-180 Chapter 4: Clinging to the Republican Party: Emancipation and Indiana Conservatives, 181-231 Chapter 5: Conservative Flight, 232-283 Conclusion: 284-292 Bibliography: 293-309 vii Introduction On an episode of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Glenn Beck, a self- proclaimed conservative pundit, lamented Donald J. Trump’s success in the 2016 presidential campaign. Beck was a longtime conservative commentator who grew up with the conservatism of Ronald Reagan. As a candidate in 1980, the future fortieth President and his party ran on a platform with a specific set of principles. The United States had hit a rough patch and a slight majority of Americans laid the country’s problems at the feet of big government. Reagan’s supporters argued big government interfered with private enterprise; Democrats had vested too many powers in the federal government. They wanted free trade, lower taxes, less government spending, and a strengthened American presence on the world stage. The platform committee summed up their position saying, “We seek to restore the family, the neighborhood, the community, and the workplace as vital alternatives in our national life to ever-expanding federal power.” Beck was a devout follower of those principles; Trump was not nearly as devout.1 In the late summer of 2016, Trump had stormed through the Republican Party primary and won the nomination. He did so while rejecting nearly every piece of the Republican platform of 1980. In fiery speeches, the Republican presidential hopeful had called for tariffs, a border wall, and then pitched angry conspiracy theories about immigrants bringing crime, drugs, and anarchy. He even called for isolationism on the world stage. The United States should withdraw as many troops as it could and possibly abandon its NATO allies in Europe. Beck was perplexed. How could Republican voters support this man over his opponents? Every policy, every speech, and every mannerism seemed anathema to the Republican Party of only a few years before. A distraught Beck even disavowed the term conservative saying, “I don’t even call myself a 1 “Interview with Glenn Beck,” The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, August 24, 2016; The American Presidency Project, “Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1980-July 15, 1980,” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25844 (accessed June 20, 2018). 1 conservative anymore, I don’t even know what it means . .” Beck and those like him were aghast. In their view Trump was radical. Nevertheless he won.2 The debate over Trump’s conservatism continued after he won the presidency. Never Trump Republicans lamented as the new executive slapped tariffs on imports, threatened to tear up trade agreements, separated families who had illegally crossed the border with Mexico. Former President Obama, a Democrat, gave his thoughts on Trump’s conservatism. At a speech in late 2018, the forty-fourth president said: None of this is conservative. I don't mean to pretend I'm channeling Abraham Lincoln now, but that's not what he had in mind, I think, when he helped form the Republican Party. It's not conservative. It sure isn't normal. It's radical. It's a vision that says the protection of our power and those who back us is all that matters, even when it hurts the country. It's a vision that says the few who can afford a high-priced lobbyist and unlimited campaign contributions set the agenda. And over the past two years, this vision is now nearing its logical conclusion. Oddly enough, Obama found some agreement with his longtime opponent Beck.3 Roughly one hundred and sixty years earlier, a previous generation of Americans debated the same issue. By 1856, anxieties about the future of slavery had finished off the Whig Party in the North and, amid the turmoil, northern conservative Whigs searched for a new home. The devoted followers had identified themselves as conservative and they wanted to find a new conservative party. Thinking these conservatives were the key to victory, politicians in the free states called themselves and their party the one true conservative entity in the race. Republicans, Democrats, and Know-Nothings made stump speeches, published editorials, wrote letters, adopted platforms, and passed circulars branding their party conservative.