Humboldt State University

AN ANALYSIS OF THE HUMBOLDT TIMES EDITORIAL POLICIES TOWARD SECTIONAL POLITICS FROM 1854 TO 1861

by Carleen Wing

May 1984 INTRODUCTION

The Compromise of 1850 was an attempt to solve sectional disputes regarding the expansion of slavery into the territories of the . An important provision of this Compromise was the admission of to the Union as a free state.

While much has been written about the period preceding the Civil

War from the perspective of northern or southern states, far less

has been said about the view of Californians and almost nothing about Humboldt County attitudes toward the events which culminated in the Civil War in 1861. Part of the reason for this

may be that California was geographically removed from the events

in the eastern part of the nation.

The primary source of news and communication in the County during this period was the newspaper, The Humboldt Times, which

began publishing on a weekly basis on September 2, 1854. Almost

every issue of The Times from 1854 to 1861 contained

information on the sectional conflict, slavery and its expansion

into the territories, and local, state, and national politics as

they related to these issues. On the first page of every issue

until July 14, 1860, The Times bragged of being, "An

Independent Newspaper." This essay will focus first on the

1 2 editors' stated policies toward sectional politics; second, on whether or not the newspaper actually reflected their stated policies; and third, how "independent" the newspaper actually was. It will also be necessary to decide whether the newspaper accurately reflected the views of Humboldt County citizens during this period and if these views were similar to the rest of

California.

Allan Nevins comments that when started to compile his first volume of the History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, "he at once set to work upon the newspaper files; and at once found that they were invaluable. No one could understand the history of the period without them."

Nevins also states "that the press forms an unrivaled source on the study of opinion and for gaining some insight into the spirit of an age."1.

The Humboldt Times was an invaluable source of information for the citizens of Humboldt County. The arrival of a steamer in Humboldt Bay was a big event as evidenced by the large headlines in the newspaper. A local historian notes that

1 Allan Nevins, Allan Nevins on History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975), p. 266. 3

back in the 1850's and 1860's the old Goliath. . . plodded back and forth between here and carrying passengers, freight, and mail. And of great importance to , the ships pursers always brought a big roll of San Francisco newspapers, to be clipped and reprinted in The Humboldt Times. In no other way was Humboldt able to keep abreast of world affair later.until2 the telegraph line opened some years

The newspaper referred constantly to communications problems.

Steamers often bypassed Humboldt Bay and went on to Crescent

City; and even though post offices were established in June 1853 at Union (Arcata), Eureka, Bucksport, and Trinidad, "mails were

very irregular, often received only once in four weeks."3

2 Wallace E. Martin, "Waterfront Yarns," Humboldt Historian, May-June 1976, p. 34. 3 Wallace W. Elliott, History of Humboldt County With Illustrations (San Francisco: Wallace W. Elliott & Co., Publishers, 1881), p. 209. BACKGROUND OF THE HUMBOLDT TIMES AND ITS EDITORS AND PROPRIETORS

During its first seven years of publication, The Times changed locations as well as editors and proprietors several times. The first issue was published in Eureka on September 2,

1854, and in December of the same year the paper was moved to

Union (Arcata). It returned to Eureka in August 1858. In July

1860, The Northern Californian, the only other local newspaper, which had started publication in Union in December 1858, discontinued its publication and merged with The Humboldt

Times.4

The first editor and proprietor of The Times was Edwin D.

Coleman, who came to Humboldt County in 1853 or 1854.5

California census records for 1852 indicate that he lived in

Mariposa County, was 40 years old, and was born in Georgia, but had resided in Alabama prior to coming to California. His occupation at that time was listed as a miner.6 Coleman and

4 Elliott, p. 215; Susie Baker Fountain Papers, Humboldt State University Library, 38:326.

5Elliott, p. 215; David E. Gordon, "Early California Journalism--Humboldt Times Its Semi-Centennial Anniversary," Overland Monthly, October 1904, p. 424.

6California Census Records 1852, 3:165, provided in a letter from the California Historical Society dated May 13, 1983.

4 5 his printing press left San Francisco for Humboldt Bay in May

1854; however, the steamer was shipwrecked en route. Coleman survived, but his press went down with the ship. He returned to

San Francisco and was able to secure another press which arrived here in late August.7 Wallace W. Elliott in his work, History of Humboldt County California, states, "He was a man of nerve and ability, possessed of a good education and a literary turn of mind."8 In the August 25, 1855 issue of The Times, when

Coleman announced his candidacy for the State Assembly from

Humboldt County, he stated "I am .a Democrat, a UNION DEMOCRAT."

But Coleman did not win the election and shortly thereafter announced his intention to leave the County. Before he departed for Washington, D.C., he sold his interest in the paper on

December 29, 1855 to Walter Van Dyke and Austin Wiley.9

From January 5, 1856, to January 23, 1858, during Van

Dyke's and Wiley's proprietorship, Van Dyke served as editor.

Van Dyke was born in New York in 1823 and received his law degree in Ohio. He came to Trinidad. in 1851 and was elected the first

District Attorney of Klamath County.10 In the fall of 1852 he was the successful Whig candidate for the State Assembly from

Klamath County; however, he lost his seat due to a boundary

7 Gordon, pp. 424-425. 8Elliott, p. 215.

9The Humboldt Times, 5 Jan. 1856. 10 From 1851 to 1875 Trinidad was a part of Klamath County. Andrew Genzoli, "Humboldt County Born of Political Bits and Pieces," The Humboldt Historian, July-August 1982, pp. 3-5.

6

dispute and came to Union in 1853 to establish a law practice. In 1854 he was elected the District Attorney of Humboldt County. In the fall of 1861 he was elected to the State Senate as an Independent Union candidate. He left Humboldt County in 1863, continuing his career in law, and ultimately was elected as a Justice of the State Supreme Court in 1898.11 Austin Wiley was born in Illinois in 1828 and prior to coming to California worked as a newspaperman for The St. Louis Republic and The Cincinnati Times. He came to Humboldt County in 1853 and worked for Edwin Coleman as a printer.12 The September 2, 1854 issue of The Times mentions that Wiley was the Secretary of a local Whig Party committee. In 1863 he was elected to the legislature on the Union ticket.13 On January 23, 1858, Van Dyke sold his interest in The Times and Wiley continued as sole proprietor and editor until June 1860. At that time, Walter Van Dyke repurchased The Times along with L. M. Burson.14 Burson, however, remained with the

11Howard B. Melendy, "Pioneers of the Past--Walter Van Dyke," Blue Lake Advocate, 1 Feb. 1962 reprinted in Fountain Papers, 27:379-384; Oscar T. Shuck, ed. History of the Bench and Bar in California (: The Commercial Printing House, 1901), p. 496. 12Blue Lake Advocate, 1 Feb. 1962; Elliott, p. 180. 13From 1863 to 1867 the Republican Party was called the Union Party. Walton Bean, California an Interpretive History (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1968), p. 178. 14 The sources available did not list a first name for Mr. Burson. He was always referred to by the initials "L. M." 7 newspaper for only one month, at which time Stephen G. Whipple joined Van Dyke as editor and proprietor.

Whipple was born in Vermont in 1825 and moved with his family to Ohio while still a child. He had some early training and worked in a newspaper office prior to coming to Trinidad in

1851. He was elected to the State Assembly from Klamath County in 1853 and re-elected as the Democratic candidate to the

Assembly in 1856.15 In 1858 he moved to Union and started The

Northern Californian in December of that year. He published

The Northern Californian until merging it with The Humboldt

Times in July 1860.

On March 30, 1861, Van Dyke again sold his interest in The

Times and Whipple remained the sole editor and proprietor.

15 Blue Lake Advocate, 4 Jan. 1962 and 11 Jan. 1962; The Humboldt Times, 8 Nov. 1856 and 15 Nov. 1856. BACKGROUND ON POLITICAL PARTIES DURING THE 1850S

In order to understand the editorials during the 1850s and

1860s, an understanding of the existing political parties is necessary. The following will provide a very brief explanation of the major political parties during this period. In the early to mid 1850s, the main national political parties were the Whigs, Democrats, and Americans. The American or Party was organized nationally in 1852 from various secret, nativist societies. It was organized in California in 1854.16 The nickname "know nothing" originates from the party's early secret society status--members of the organization claimed to "know nothing" when asked questions about the organization. The party was opposed to foreigners, Catholics, and immigration.17 It also felt that slavery was a continued source of sectional agitation and that Congress had no power to regulate or interfere with slavery in either the States or the territories.

16 Bean, p. 174. 17 Avery Craven, The Coming of the Civil War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), p.346; W. Darrell Overdyke, The Know Nothing Party in the South, (Binghamton, New York: Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., 1950), pp. 34-38; George H. Mayer, The Republican Party 1854-1966 (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1967) p. 27.

8 9

Stephen A. Douglas, a Democrat and author of the

Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, supported the idea of "popular sovereignty" whereby the decision to enter the Union as a free or slave State would be voted upon by the people in the territories.

This act appealed to Southerners because it opened up the possibility of slavery in territories where it had previously been prohibited. The Democrats were considered to be a Southern, pro-slavery party and the Whigs, a Northern anti-slavery party.

These distinctions were not clear-cut however; there were

Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs. These crossovers caused a severe split in the Democratic Party in the late 1850s.

After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Northern

Whigs, Free-Soilers and several smaller political factions joined together to form the Republican Party.18 It was formed nationally in 1854 as a party opposed to the expansion of slavery, but was not organized in California until 1856.

Therefore, in elections in 1855, Know Nothing, Democratic, and

Independent candidates ran for office.19

18 Mayer, p. 26. 19 Royce D. Delmatier, Clarence F. McIntosh, and Earl G. Waters, eds., The Rumble of California Politics 1848-1970 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970), pp. 40-41. ANALYSIS OF THE EDITORIALS AND ARTICLES ON SECTIONAL POLITICS PRINTED IN THE HUMBOLDT TIMES

Edwin Coleman stated in his introductory column in the first issue:

We shall endeavor to maintain a strict neutrality in regard to politics--meaning thereby--that we will not become the tool of any party, clique, or faction, but hold ourselves free to attack corruption, peculation, &c., in officials irrespective of party. We shall from time to time give the opinions of our national men on questions of state and national policy, with our views of the subject. Our interests are identical with that of the people of this county and State, and the Times, while strictly conservative in its character and entirely free from sectional bias, will be found advocating those objects that will most conduce towards their advancement. We are opposed to all isms of the day and shall, to the best of our ability hold up agitators and disorganizers to the execration they deserve.

On reading the issues of The Times during the period that

Coleman was editor, one finds that he did adhere to his stated editorial policy of "attacking corruption, peculation, &c., in officials irrespective of party." In the first issue of the paper, he criticized some California politicians for selling out

"to the party clique or faction who bid the most for (them)" and further concluded that the politicians then became "a mere

10 11 automaton of the party who purchased (them]." In February 1855 he accused David C. Broderick and William M. Gwin, both

Democratic candidates for United States Senator, of corruption and stated that it would be better for the seat to be left vacant.20 He further commented that he would support Henry A.

Crabb, a Whig, if he were a candidate.21 In July he again attacked the Democrats for corruption:

As it is, the best men of the party (Democratic] have repudiated it; hundreds who are democrats, though not uniting with the Know Nothings, will oppose the Bigler ticket. Every honest man unless blinded by prejudice or ignorance will do the same. No one can dispute the democracy of Donelson, Foote, Terry, Murray, Bell, McMeans, and a host of others who are battling against, not democracy, but corruption.

His criticism of President Franklin Pierce was also stinging in numerous editorials. "By his imbecility and vascillations he has forfeited the confidence and cost the respect of the people 23 of every portion of the Union." Coleman's criticism of Whigs and Democrats was so biting that his newspaper was accused by a

San Francisco newspaper, The Times and Transcript, of being a

Know Nothing paper, a charge which he adamantly denied.24 In

20Times, 24 Feb. 1855.

21Though Coleman refers to Crabb as a Whig, Hittel identifies him as a Know Nothing. Theodore Hittel, History of California (San Francisco: N.J. Stone & Co., 1898) p.185.

22Times, 28 July 1855. 23Ibid., 21 Apr. 1855.

24Ibid., 4 Aug. 1855. 12

fact, in several articles, it did appear that he was leaning

toward the Know Nothing Party. On March 31, 1855, he stated: "A

most excellent paper, published in Georgia - The Citizen -

advocates the Know Nothings on the ground of their repudiation of

all questions calculated to agitate the question of slavery," and

in another editorial, Coleman stated:

The so-called American (Know Nothing) party have an arduous duty before them; unless wise counsels prevail it will fail to secure in this State a permanent foothold. They are fortunate in hang so unpopular a man as the competitor for Governor.

However, in the following month, Coleman's attitude toward

the Know Nothings changed; he felt it had become a sectional

party because it no longer prohibited the agitation of the

slavery question.26 In announcing his candidacy for State

Assembly as a Democrat on August 25, 1855, he denounced the Know

Nothings, and two weeks later he denounced "the corruption and

villainy practiced and attempted to be practiced in this county

[by the Know Nothings]. . . ." 27

Coleman's editorial policy stated that The Times would be

"entirely free from sectional bias" and "opposed to all isms of the day and shall, to the best of our ability, hold up agitators and disorganizers to the execration they deserve." However,

25Ibid., 28 July 1855. 26Ibid., 11 Aug. 1855.

27Ibid., 8 Sept. 1855. 13 there was a pro-Southern, anti-abolitionist leaning to The

Times. It appears that Coleman saw only abolitionists as agitators or disorganizers. There are many anti-abolitionist articles and editorials, but not a single reference to pro-slavery advocates as being agitators. In the second issue of the paper, on September 9, 1854, in reference to the

Kansas-Nebraska Act, Coleman stated that "such is the language of the section (referring to the Act] that has been seized upon by the abolitionists to humbug the people." In his condemnation of

President Pierce, he stated that "if abolitionism prevails and the Constitution is trampled under foot, it will be chargeable to the indecision and incapacity of President Pierce."28 In an article on January 6, 1855, Coleman stated in regard to abolitionists: "The truth is, the wretched hypocracy (sic] of these people is in no degree behind their blasphemy against God and their treason to their Country."29

As noted previously, he also changed his attitude toward the

Know Nothing Party when he felt that the abolitionists had taken over the party by nullifying "the provision forbidding the agitation of the slavery question."" On December 22, 1855, he stated, "The insidious encroachments of the abolitionists, under

28Ibid., 21 Apr. 1855. 29Ibid., 6 Jan. 1855.

30Ibid., 11 Aug. 1855. 14 the assumed name of Republicans, have awakened the patriots of the country to a sense of danger that now-threatens it."

Coleman's attitude toward blacks was also derogatory. One

Times article stated:

Southern darkies are all built after the same model; hand like a shoulder of mutton, teeth white as milk, foot of suitable dimensions for a railroad bridge, and a mouth big enough for a depot; have all got 6 toes on each foot, skull like an oak plank, yellow eyes, and nose like a split pear. . . 31

In an article on June 16, 1855 in a reference to black laws in

Massachusetts, it is stated:

a law placing negro children on the same footing in the public schools as white, has been enacted. The wooliest head and the thickest lips had an equal chance for education previous to this time with the whitest skin and the strongest Saxon peculiarities; but now the niggers are really just as good as white folks. The North is to be Africanized. Amalgamation has commenced. New England heads the column. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

When Van Dyke and Whipple took over as proprietors in

January 1856, they stated:

31 Ibid., 6 Jan. 1855. 15

We intend The Humboldt Times to be what it purports, An Independent Newspaper . . . we intend to give our readers . . . the most important political intelligence of the day . . . But we shall refrain from advocating any partizan, [sic] and shall avoid entering into discussions of a partizan [sic] nature.32

While Van Dyke served as editor from January 1856 to January

1858, he followed his editorial policy more consistently than

Coleman. Van Dyke published many unbiased reports on political events of the times--the situation in Kansas; reprints of the speeches of President Pierce and 's inaugural address; reports on the Dred Scott decision; reprints of the state and national platforms of the Democratic, American, and

Republican parties; and reports on local elections and their results. Most editorial comments were made after the elections, not prior to them in an effort to influence the voters. There was one notable exception to this general policy prior to the

1856 Presidential election when Van Dyke stated that the

Democratic Party nomination of James Buchanan and the American

Party nomination of were both good choices. He noted, however, that the Republicans erred in nominating John C.

Fremont because he lacked "long experience in the affairs of the government, sound practical statesmanship, and above all a reputation as a conservative national man, which will inspire confidence throughout the country."33

32 Ibid., 5 Jan. 1856. 33Ibid., 26 July 1856. 16

Van Dykes's editorial comment on President Pierce's final

message typified his non-partisan policy: "It is generally conceded to be an able message. We commend it to our readers as a whole, and let each for himself pass his own judgment upon its

merits."34

Van Dyke favored "good men" regardless of party affiliation as evidenced in several articles. In the November 11, 1856 issue

he stated: "The electors of this county, in the selection of local officers, show a judgment in the choice of good men,

without regard to party." He made a similar editorial statement in the August 8, 1857 issue.

The other type of editorializing done by Van Dyke was of a pro-Union nature. Sectional strife disturbed him greatly. In a

July 19, 1856 editorial entitled "The Crisis," which referred to the current political crisis between the North and the South, he wrote:

Unless a reform is brought about, and the various posts of honor and influence in the government filled with men imbued with principles of religion and morality, and men who act according to the dictates of justice, this Republic will soon follow in the gloomy train of fallen empires, kingdoms, and republics.

Van Dyke saw the election of Buchanan as the solution to the nation's sectional problems. After Buchanan's election in 1856, Van Dyke stated:

34Ibid., 16 Feb. 1856. 17

He is a statesman of moderate conservative views and of long experience. . . . As far as the man is concerned, therefore, the country has much cause to hope that his administration will tend to heal the disordered state of affairs.

He further commented regarding Buchanan's proposed policies:

"Such a course can hardly fail to restore and perpetuate order and good feeling throughout the country."35

On January 23, 1858, Walter Van Dyke sold his interest in the paper to his partner Austin Wiley, who took over as editor, stating:

We calculate to deal justly, but on all subjects which may demand our attention as a journalist, we shall say just what we think is right. We shall endeavor to trace the difference between "impudence" and "independence" and adhere as strictly as possible to the later.

When Wiley took over as editor, there was a marked change in the tone of the editorials and articles in The Times. He certainly did "say just what (he thought was] right", but there is little evidence of his having adhered as strictly to

"independence." Wiley's editorials show that he was a Democrat,

35 Ibid., 11 Apr. 1857. 36Ibid., 23 Jan. 1858. 18 very pro-Douglas, and therefore very opposed to the Lecompton

Constitution and Buchanan. Buchanan, a Democrat, favored the

Lecompton, or pro-slavery, Constitution for Kansas. Senator

Douglas, also a Democrat, believed the Lecompton Constitution violated his principle of "popular sovereignty" as defined in the

Kansas-Nebraska Act, and he and the President were at loggerheads over the issue. Wiley sided with Douglas's supporters, and at the Humboldt County Democratic Party convention held on June 8,

1859, he introduced a resolution to:

reaffirm our adherence to the Kansas-Nebraska Act . . . and that we are inalterably opposed to the intervention by Congress in the domestic affairs of the territories . . . and resolved further that this subject of strife and discord [slavery) should be forever banished from the halls of Legislation, both Congress and State, as was intended by said act. .

In one of his first editorials, Wiley commented in reference to the possible admission of Kansas under the Lecompton

Constitution that President Buchanan "seems disposed to sacrifice the most vital principle of a republican government. . • • " He further stated "that if the heart of the American people remain true to the principles of our republican institutions--which cannot be doubted--this issue must be decided in favor of Douglas and popular sovereignty."38 In another reference to the

37 Ibid., 11 June 1859. 38Ibid., 6 Feb. 1858. 19

Buchanan administration and the Lecompton Constitution, Wiley concluded: "Since our recollection of public affairs, no measure has ever been pushed through which met with such a formidable array of opposition from the party that placed him in power, as has the Lecompton Constitution."39

In numerous articles, Wiley wrote in glowing terms of 40 Senator Broderick of California who was also pro-Douglas.

Upon reporting Broderick's death as a result of his duel with

Judge David S. Terry, Wiley stated, "How much better for Judge

Terry had he imitated the noble example of John Randolph of

Roanoake . . . and fired in the air. As it is he shot a defensless [sic] man, then cooly folded his arms to contemplate the effect of his deadly work."41 In the October 28, 1859 issue; he published Broderick's memoirs and announced that S.G.

Whipple, Walter Van Dyke, and C.S. Ricks had been appointed to a

Humboldt County committee to collect money for a monument for

Broderick to be erected in San Francisco.

Blatant pro-Democratic partisanship appeared in The Times during the state election campaign of 1859. As early as May 28 and June 4, there were articles about the local Democratic Party

Convention to be held on June 8. In the June 11 issue the

39Ibid., 27 March 1858. 40 Ibid., 13 Feb. 1858; 26 Feb. 1859; 23 July 1859. 41 Ibid., 24 Sept. 1859. 20 proceedings of this convention were published, and on July 9 the

Democratic State platform was printed. Wiley stated that the

Democratic County Convention held on August 4 in Eureka was well attended and that "perfect harmony prevailed throughout the proceedings, and the ticket nominated is above reproach, and 42 cannot fail success." The Democratic Party platform was again printed on August 13, 20, and September 3. The first reference to a local Republican meeting appeared on August 13 and it was entitled, "An Advertisement." Note that these were not ads for specific Republican candidates, but simply advance notices of local Republican Party meetings. These

"advertisements" appeared again on August 20 and 27. Articles and meeting notices for the Democratic party had occurred as early as May 28 and were not entitled "advertisements."

Though Wiley actively supported Douglas for President in

1860, there was surprisingly little partisan editorializing by him during the first six months of that year. During that period

Indian hostilities dominated the local scene, and the majority of

Wiley's editorials were on that subject. One of the few editorials regarding the election appeared on February 18, 1860, in which Wiley wrote: "The Democratic County Convention . . adopted a resolution that Stephen A. Douglas is the choice of the

Democracy of Humboldt County for the presidency." He further

42 Ibid., 6 Aug. 1859. 21

stated in the same editorial, "The County has . . . always been strongly in favor of the territorial policy maintained by Mr.

Douglas."

With the June 9, 1860 issue of The Times, Wiley's association with the newspaper ended and Walter Van Dyke and L.M.

Burson took over the ownership of the newspaper. They did not state a specific editorial policy toward sectional or political issues. They stated that Van Dyke had previously been the editor for two years and that both he and Mr. Burson were prominent citizens and their political views well-known.43 An earlier issue Identified Mr. Burson as being a member of the local

Democratic Party. 44Their introductory editorial did state that "it is but reasonable to suppose that any paper, if honestly conducted, will reflect the opinions and sentiments of its editors."45 The newspaper did not state which gentleman would

be the editor or if this job would be jointly shared.

During the one month in which Van Dyke and Burson were editors, it was clear they were pro-Douglas and pro-Union.

However, the Republican Party received fairer treatment than

43 Ibid., 9 June 1860. 44Ibid., 2 Sept. 1854. 45 Ibid., 9 June 1860. 22 during Wiley's editorship. In their first issue there was a lengthy article on the Republican County Convention and the platform it adopted. It was not titled "An Advertisement." In the June 23 issue, there was another lengthy article under the

"Eastern News" column which reported on the National Republican

Convention at Chicago and the nomination of . In the same issue the editors stated that Lincoln's nomination made

Douglas's nomination almost a certainty since "no other Democrat can cope with him in the Northwest." They further concluded that

"If Douglas is nominated, he is the man. . . ."

In a June 30 editorial, the editors criticized the secessionists for trying to make it appear that the majority of the Democrats at the National Convention favored Congressional intervention to protect slavery in the territories whether or not it was wanted by the people in the territories. The editors commented, "Could anything be more contradictory and absurd?"

They further concluded, "Non-intervention is what the great mass of the people of all sections want, and politicians who seek to change that programme [sic] will signally fail."

On July 7, 1860, when The Northern Californian discontinued its publication and merged with The Times, Stephen

G. Whipple took over as co-editor and proprietor from L.M.

Burson. Immediately The Times dropped its six year old banner 23

"An Independent Newspaper." Van Dyke and Whipple stated their

editorial policy to be:

In regard to matters of public or national interest we do not propose to be either silent or neutral, through fear of giving offense. . . . In the discussion of such questions, especially of a political nature, we will however, endeavor at all times to be governed by a spirit of candor and fair dealing and to avoid as far as possible anything like the partizan [sic].

Van Dyke and Whipple were not "silent or neutral" in regard

to matters of public or national interest, nor did they avoid

partisan political commentary. They were co-editors during the

extremely important and eventful nine months immediately

preceding of the Civil War. The editorials and articles in the

newspaper show these men to have been very pro-Douglas; but above

all else, they were pro-Union.

In the July 21, 1860 edition, their editorial concerned the long-awaited nomination of Stephen A. Douglas by the Democrats.

They condemned the secessionists by stating: "Disunion is the object of their leaders and has been since the days of Calhoun, and they will, if they can, break up every political organization that will not yield to their unreasonable demands." At the 1860

Democratic National Convention, the party was split into two factions over the "popular sovereignty" issue. The "regular"

Democrats nominated Douglas as their Presidential candidate while the Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckenridge as their choice. As the election approached, the editors condemned the 24

Breckenridge Democrats more than Lincoln, though there was never any doubt that they did not favor him either. In numerous editorials and articles, there were anti-Breckenridge comments and pro-Regular Democratic Party comments." The editors were anti-Breckenridge because they saw it as a sectional party and

because of its stand against the Kansas-Nebraska Act and "popular sovereignty." In one editorial, they stated:

In the eagerness of some to maintain the right of protecting slave property in the Territories, they entirely overlook that higher and almost sacred right of the people of the Territories "to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

In the September 29, 1860 issue there appeared an article on the Humboldt County Democratic Convention and three resolutions adopted by it: 1) to support the Douglas ticket; 2) to oppose

William Gwin and John Weller for State Senator; and 3) to support a Senate candidate "who is in favor of the doctrine as expounded by Stephen A. Douglas." In the same issue, in an editorial regarding the Convention, they commented: "No one can hereafter mistake the sentiments of the Democracy of this county." A few weeks later, the paper reported on local political meetings and speeches made for Douglas, Breckenridge, and Lincoln. Toward the

46 Ibid., 4 Aug. 1860; 18 Aug. 1860; 25 Aug. 1860.

47 Ibid., 1 Sept. 1860. 25 end of the article appeared the statement, "Upon being called out

W. Van Dyke made the closing speech of the evening, in advocacy of the principles of the Douglas Democracy," 48

In an editorial on November 3, 1860, just three days before the election, the editors' political position was made very clear:

The Republican Party though numerically strong, has no footing worth noting in all the South. As an offset to this party, and maintaining exactly the opposite doctrine on the subject of slavery, we have the Breckenridge Party which . . . would be as powerless in the North as the other is in the South. . . . That party can only be called national whose doctrines and policy can be advocated throughout the land without prejudice or disparagement to any section. . . . Such a party is the regular Democratic party. . . .

The Humboldt County election results appeared on November

10. Douglas received 445 votes, Lincoln 333 and Breckenridge

232.

Humboldt County may have been for the Democrats, but the

Nation wanted Lincoln. Yet after Lincoln's election, the editors supported him, if only because they believed in following the principles of the Constitution. They stated: "the majority, or plurality if you will--acting under the Constitution must be allowed to govern."49 In their March 2, 1861 editorial, Van

Dyke and Whipple wrote in regard to Lincoln's inaugural, "it is threatened that the inaugural . . . shall be prevented by armed bands of traitors." In the same editorial they continued:

48 49 Ibid., 20 Oct. 1860. Ibid., 24 Nov. 1860. 26

We were as much opposed to the election of Lincoln as most men, but we sincerely hope that the men, be they few or many, who shall attempt to prevent his inauguration, by force of arms, may then and there be served with the punishment due to traitors against the best government on this earth.

Following Lincoln's election, the editors took an anti-secession stance on Constitutional, practical, and philosophical grounds as evidenced in numerous editorials and articles.50 An example of their philosophical and Constitutional anti-secession stance appears in a December 22, 1860 editorial which stated: "Although we would not wish to use force to compel any State to remain with us against the universal wish of the people thereof, yet we cannot recognize the right of peaceable secession." In another editorial they concluded: "whether we are born in Vermont, South Carolina, or any other of the States makes no difference, the whole country constitutes our native land."51

With the March 30, 1861 issue, Walter Van Dyke sold his interest in The Times to Whipple who continued as sole editor

50Ibid., 8 Dec. 1860; 22 Dec. 1860; 12 Jan. 1861; 19 Jan. 1861; 16 Feb. 1861; 2 Mar. 1861; 9 Mar. 1861. 51Ibid., 16 Feb. 1861. 27 and proprietor. Whipple's editorial in the same issue was on Lincoln's inaugural address. He continued his support for Lincoln by commenting:

The Inaugural address . . . will be . . . found to be patriotic and conciliatory in tone and statesmanlike in character. Mr. Lincoln seems to be fully impressed with the responsibility of the position he now occupies . . . and very properly addresses himself to the people of the country as their chosen chief magistrate and not to a particular party as a partizan [sic] leader.

In the following weeks, there were reports of "warlike rumors" in the East and the evacuation of Fort Sumter and the subsequent attack on it. Whipple continued his philosophical opposition to secession and in a May 4, 1861 editorial stated, "Secession as a right, under our form of government, is the rankest political heresy. . • " He also condemned Buchanan speculating that, "We also solemnly believe that if the retiring President had been true and watchful of his country's interests . . secession never could have been successfully carried out." In the May 18, 1861 editorial Whipple wrote about the pro-Union meetings that were taking place in the East and noted that "former political enemies" were "joining hands" for the Union cause. He also wrote about the large pro-Union gathering that had taken place in San Francisco the previous Saturday and stated, "Such popular demonstrations at this time cannot but have a beneficial effect." He concluded the editorial by quoting from a speech at one of the rallies: 28

There (pointing to the flag) is a banner that defeat has never tarnished, and I venture the prediction that before six months that glorious banner will wave in triumph from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Northern Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, over a united, regenerated and continental republic.

Whipple then added: "May [the speaker's] prediction be verified say all good men, and may treason never flourish on American soil." CONCLUSION

From the evidence presented in this paper, it is obvious that none of the editors adhered to their stated editorial policies, nor was The Times "An Independent Newspaper" as it purported to be. Coleman, while attacking "corruption" as promised, certainly was not neutral in regard to "sectional bias." From 1856 to 1858, when Van Dyke served as editor, the paper was the least partisan and did print many unbiased news items, but he did some political editorializing and was definitely pro-Union. Wiley was probably-the most blatant in his partisan editorializing, stating numerous times that the Douglas and Broderick Democratic factions' were correct, while the Buchanan administration was leading the nation astray. He was an ardent Democrat and while printing numerous articles regarding Democrats in the 1859 election, he virtually ignored the Republicans and required them to buy advertising space even to get meeting notices published. In a reprint from The Sacramento Union of December 25, 1858, regarding the political affiliation of Northern California

29 30 newspapers, The Times is listed as Democratic.52 Van Dyke and Burson gave the Republicans fairer treatment than their predecessor but were pro-Douglas and pro-Union. When Whipple joined Van Dyke, The Times no longer claimed to be "independent"; however, they did state they intended to "avoid" the "partizan (sic]." Their editorials were primarily anti-Breckenridge and pro-Douglas. After Lincoln's election, however, they supported him as the best hope for the maintenance of the Union. Coleman was the only Southerner among these editors and the paper apparently was not very successful while he was editor. According to David Gordon in an article in Overland Monthly, "within a year it became evident that by sectional intermeddling and unjustifiable business methods, he (Coleman] had alienated the friendship and influence of a class of citizens whose good will was worth fostering."53 He went on to state regarding Van Dyke: "His career in the editorial position was a most gratifying and successful one, and patronage grew to such an extent as to warrant marked enlargement of the paper."54 Van Dyke, Wiley, and Whipple were all originally Northeasterners as were the

52Edward Kemble, A History of California Newspapers 1846-1858, (Los Gatos: The Talisman Press, 1962), reprinted from the Supplement to The Sacramento Union of December 25, 1858., p. 231. 53 Gordon, p. 425. 54 Ibid., p. 426. 31 majority of the residents of Humboldt County.55 All of the editors at one time either ran for or held political offices. Van Dyke and Wiley were both Whigs in the early 1850s but became Democrats in the latter part of the decade. It is difficult to conclude whether The Times reflected the views of the citizens of Humboldt County or whether it influenced their views. It probably did both. In any event, the views of the editors and the view of the populace seemed generally to be in agreement. The Know Nothing Party was strong in the county in the middle 1850s. In the 1855 elections the Know Nothing candidates swept state and local offices. There was "no organization among the Democrats . . . and most of the old line democrats have gone over to the Know Nothings."56 This result was paralleled in California as John Neely Johnson, the Know Nothing candidate, was elected Governor. However, as the Know Nothing Party died out, it was not replaced by the Republicans, at least not in Humboldt County. The Republican Party was not organized in California until March 1856 and probably soon thereafter in Humboldt County. In the 1856 Presidential election Buchanan, the Democrat, won this county by

55Owen C. Coy, The Humboldt Bay Region 1850-1875 (Los Angeles: The California State Historical Association, 1929), pp. 108-109; "Original Census Returns of Humboldt County for the Year A.D. 1860 by William C. Espie Assistant Marshal of the State of California," filed September 19th A.D. 1860 on file at the Humboldt State University Library. 56Times, 8 Sept. 1855. 32

a vote of 204 to Fillmore's 191 and Fremont's 103. Buchanan also won the State of California. Democratic or Independent candidates won other offices in Humboldt County.57 As Van Dyke said in 1857, "In this county, as yet, there is but one organized party. The Democrats have the matter all their own way."58 In the 1857 election, the Democrats swept the county in the state and local elections except for the position of Assessor.59 In 1859, Milton S. Latham, the Democratic candidate for Governor won in the county.60 In 1857 and 1859, the Democratic candidates for Governor were also elected statewide. In the 1860 Presidential election, The Times and Humboldt County supported Douglas, but Lincoln won statewide. However, every county north of San Francisco, except one, was carried by a Democratic candidate (Douglas or Breckenridge) in that election.61 Thus, the vote of Humboldt County citizens paralleled the editorial opinions of The Times and was consistent with the remainder of the state until 1860. There were few, if any, letters to the editors in the late 1850s regarding sectional politics, suggesting a general agreement by the citizens with the newspaper. The newspaper must have been popular with the citizenry since it has stayed in business for nearly 130 years.

57Ibid., 8 Nov. 1856. 58Ibid., 8 Aug. 1857. 59Ibid., 5 Sept. 1857. "Ibid., 7 Sept. 1859. 61Delmatier, p.51. 33

Many other newspapers were established in later years, but none were able to sustain sufficient readership to survive. As evidenced in The Times, as the Civil War approached, the overriding sentiment in Humboldt County was one of loyalty to the Union.

With reference to the geographical distribution of the disloyal element of the population of the State, it is to be noted that in the northern counties demonstrations of hostility to the National Government were infrequent. . . The patriotic newspapers endeavored to create and maintain a vigorous public opinion on the side of loyalty.62

The Humboldt Times was certainly one of those patriotic newspapers.

62John J. Earle, "The Sentiment of the People of California with Respect to the Civil War," Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1907 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908), pp. 128 and 134. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

California Census Records, 1852, 3:165, in a letter to Carleen Wing from the California Historical Society dated May 13, 1983.

The Humboldt Times, weekly issues from September 1854 to April 1861. (Microfilm.)

Original Census Returns of Humboldt County for the Year A.D. 1860 by William C. Espie, Assistant Marshal of the State of California, filed September 19th A.D. 1860, on file at the Humboldt State University Library.

34 35

Secondary Sources

Baker, Jean H. Ambivalent Americans--The Know Nothing Party in Maryland. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press, 1977. Bean, Walton. California An Interpretive History. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. Blue Lake Advocate, 4 Jan. 1962; 11 Jan. 1962; 1 Feb. 1962. Carr, John. Pioneer Days in California. Eureka: Times Publishing Company, 1891. Coy, Owen C. The Humboldt Bay Region 1850-1875. Los Angeles: The California State Historical Association, 1929. Craven, Avery. The Coming of the Civil War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Delmatier, Royce D., Clarence F. McIntosh and Earl G. Waters, eds. The Rumble of California Politics 1848-1970. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970. Earle, John J. "The Sentiment of the People of California with Respect to the Civil War." Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1907. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908. Elliott, Wallace W. History of Humboldt County With Illustrations. San Francisco: Wallace W. Elliott & Co. Publishers, 1881. Fountain, Susie. Susie Baker Fountain Papers. Humboldt State University Library. Gordon, David E. "Early California Journalism--Humboldt Times Its Semi-Centennial Anniversary." Overland Monthly, October 1904, pp. 423-428. Guinn, J.M. History of the State of California and Biographical Record of Coast Counties, California. Chicago: The Chapman Publishing Company, 1904. 36

Hines, Larry. L. "Abraham Lincoln's Presidential Campaign of 1860 on the Pacific Coast." Thesis. Humboldt State College 1964. . "The Image of Lincoln As Developed in the Humboldt Times." Humboldt State College 1963. Hittel, Theodore H. History of California. San Francisco: N.J. Stone & Company, 1898. Martin, Wallace E. "Waterfront Yarns." Humboldt Historian, May-June 1976. p. 276. Mayer, George H. The Republican Party 1854-1966. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1967. Melendy, Howard B. "Pioneers of the Past--Walter Van Dyke," Blue Lake Advocate, 1 Feb. 1962, reprinted in Fountain Papers. Nevins, Allan. Allan Nevins on History. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975. Overdyke, W. Darrell. The Know Nothing Party in the South. Binghamton, New York: Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., 1950. Shuck, Oscar T. ed. History of the Bench and Bar in California. Los Angeles: The Commercial Printing House, 1901. Steenfott, Norton. Eureka, California. Interview, 9 May 1983.