Minnesota's Role in the Democratic Rift of 1860

MR, JORSTAD Is a member of the history faculty in St. Olaf College at Northfield. This is his second article on pioneer Minnesota politics to appear in this magazine.

Minnesota's ROLE in the DEMOCRATIC RIFT of iseo

ERLING JORSTAD

AFTER completely dominating the political ter of 1859-60 faced the future with grave scene in Minnesota during the territorial era doubts. In that presidential election year the from 1849 to 1858, the Democratic party was party would send an official delegation to a soundly defeated in the gubernatorial and national convention for the first time. The legislative races of 1859. Not untfl 1899, four state's party men were not only apprehensive decades later, did it recapture the governor after letting the "Democratic banner trail in ship or a substantial majority in the legisla the dust" by losing the governorship, but ture. There is no simple explanation for this they were well aware that the national Dem drastic turn of events. The roots of the Demo ocratic organization likewise faced critical crats' misfortunes in Minnesota, however, problems. One Minnesota Democrat who ex can be traced to the critical years 1859 and pressed his conviction that only Douglas 1860 — years when the whole nation was could "be successful on Election day," facing grave political problems. added, "But I must confess, that it looks The Democratic dynasty of Minnesota re gloomy, from the bad feeling exhibited by ceived its first setback in 1859, when the the Southern members, in the present Con Republican candidate, Alexander Ramsey, gress."- easily defeated the Democratic nominee, Among the constitutional problems over George L. Becker, for the governorship.^ If it which the national Democratic ranks were were to win the next election, the party deeply spht was the question of Congres needed united and vigorous leadership. That sional power to prohibit the extension of this was lacking became obvious at the state slavery in newly opened territories of the nominating convention of January, 1860, Great Plains. Southern Democratic spokes when all hope for unified party action was men argued that, in accordance with the Su shattered. preme Court decision in the Dred Scott case Minnesota Democrats in the early win- of 1857, no legislative body had the right to deprive a citizen of his property without due ' The vote was 21,335 to 17,582. See Minnesota, House Journal, 1860, p. 39. process of law. Since slaves were property, °B. B. Meeker, Thomas Massey, R. G. Murphy, according to Southern lawmakers and the and George Becker to Henry H. Sibley, October 11, court, no legislative body could pass any law 1858, November 21, 1859, January 5, 21, February to prevent the taking of slaves into the new 11, 1860, Sibley Papers, owned by the Minnesota Historical Society. territories. Northern Democrats maintained

June 1960 45 the principle of local option, or squatter sov with instructions that they be reported back ereignty, which would allow citizens of each for adoption by the convention.* new territory to decide for themselves The resolutions expressed generally the whether or not to admit slavery. position of free-soil Democrats, reaffirming Although the question had no direct rele support of the nonintervention platform vance in Minnesota, which constitutionally adopted by the party's national convention prohibited slavery, the state's Democrats, for at Cincinnati in 1856, acquiescing in the reasons not altogether clear, were divided Dred Scott decision, and denouncing equally over the issue. The champion of squatter all attempts to reopen the African slave trade sovereignty. Senator Stephen A. Douglas of and John Brown's "attack upon the peace, Illinois, was warmly supported as a presiden safety and dignity of every State in the Un tial candidate by many Minnesota party men ion." The crucial paragraphs stated "that in 1860. These free-soil Democrats included Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, is the first Henry Hastings Sibley, first territorial dele choice of the Democratic Party of the State gate to Congress and first state governor, of Minnesota, for the Presidency in 1860," Willis A. Gorman, second territorial gover and "that our Delegates to Charleston are nor, Earle S. Goodrich, editor of the St. Paul expected, as an expression of the will of the Pioneer and Democrat and chairman of the Democracy of Minnesota, to support him as state central committee, and Colonel Daniel such, so long as such support may prove A. Robertson, former editor and founder of available to him and for the general interests the Democrat. Douglas was stoutly opposed of the Democratic Party." ^ This apparently in Minnesota by such important figures as represented a prearranged compromise United States Senator Henry M. Rice, his among some of the party leaders whereby brother Edmund Rice, a St. Paul attorney, the anti-Douglas group would pay verbal and Becker, titular head of the party in the tribute to the free-soil sentiments of the ma state. Like Democratic President James jority and agree to support Douglas for at Buchanan and many Southern Senators, least a few ballots in the national convention. members of the latter group opposed any In return the minority delegates would be prohibitory legislation on slavery.^ free to desert Douglas at any time they saw To name a presidential nominee and elect fit to do so. Minnesota's delegates to the Democratic na Gorman immediately seconded Becker's tional convention, which was to be held in motion and argued for the resolutions, stat Charleston, South Carolina, in April, the ing that "his hopes were centered alone in a state nominating convention assembled in harmonious Democracy, and as the resolu the St. Paul Athaeneum at noon on January tions embodied everything he deemed desir 12, 1860. Following a brief session devoted able, he would sacrifice views he entertained. to routine business, the delegates recessed. When they reconvened at 3:00 P.M., they ^One plausible explanation for the spBt is that found the hall crowded with spectators who Sibley and his followers had supported Douglas in stead of Buchanan for the presidency in 1856, while evidently anticipated a fiery session. The re Rice and his group had favored the victorious port of the credentials committee was Buchanan. Neither Rice nor Sibley had changed adopted after lengthy debate and the busi their loyalties since that campaign. See Ruby G. Karstad, "Political Party Alignments in Minnesota, ness of permanent organization was quickly 1854^1860," p. 236, an unpubhshed dissertation disposed of. Then Gorman moved the ap owned by the Minnesota Historical Society; John pointment of a committee on resolutions. No H. Stevens and Edmund Rice to FrankHn Steele, sooner had the motion been adopted than January 13, 19, 1860, Steele Papers, owned by the Minnesota Historical Society; Meeker to Sibley, Oc Becker was on his feet waving a paper which tober 11, 1858, Sibley Papers. contained a set of resolutions. He hoped ' Sf. Paul Pioneer and Democrat, fanuarv 13, they would be referred to the committee 1860. ' Pioneer and Democrat, January 13, 1860.

46 MINNESOTA History DEMOCRATIC convention headquarters at Charleston

FROM HARPER'S WEEKLY, APRIL 21, 1860 for the sake of the party." James M. Cava- In the debate which now raged over the naugh and William W. Phelps, both well- resolutions both Gorman and Cavanaugh known Douglas men, supported him, and for changed sides, but Phelps stood by the orig a moment it looked as though a measure of inal plan. He "thought the course pursued harmony might be achieved on the basis of here was not conducive to harmony. A pro Becker's platitudes. Others objected, how gramme had been marked out which had ever; rival resolutions were proposed, and met the support of the convention. The reso the afternoon session ended in acrimonious lutions subsequently introduced were mis debate. chievous in their tendency." He closed by The evening session was dominated by pleading, "Let us compromise — let us ar Colonel Robertson, who pointed out range the matter," to which a majority of the brusquely that although "there was but one convention members apparently responded Douglas party among the people" of Minne favorably. Robertson's resolutions were de sota, "there were two Douglas parties in the feated, 76 to 39, and Becker's then were Convention," only one of which actually sup adopted 113 to l.e ported the candidate. He submitted a reso The final item on the agenda was the elec lution which proposed "That the entire vote tion of delegates. Of the eight chosen, three of Minnesota be cast for him [Douglas] and were known to be uncommitted to any can that the delegation from this state continue didate. These were Becker, Abram M, Frid to vote for him until a majority of them de ley, and Alonzo J, Edgerton, The remaining cide otherwise." This was the unit rule, bind five — all Douglas supporters —• were Gor ing and unequivocal, which the Douglas man, Cavanaugh, Phelps, Sibley, and J. die-hards, sure of controlling a majority of Travis Rosser. When the convention wearily the delegation, hoped to push through. To adjourned at 2:00 A.M. the most it could the opposition it was an assurance that their claim was that it had preserved the Minne delegates at Charleston would be helpless sota Democratic party as an organization. and gagged. No basic compromise had been achieved, and the ranks remained bitterly spHt.'' "Pioneer and Democrat, January 13, 1860; The Charleston Convention: Statement of a Portion of THE DELEGATES left St. Paul for the na the Minnesota Delegation to Their Constituents, 3-5 (Washington, 1860). tional convention in mid-April and arrived at ^Pioneer and Democrat, January 13, 1860. Charleston on April 21. Upon stepping from

June 1960 47 the train, they entered a world of elegant lution, but for the reconsideration of Frid architecture, polished manners, and aristo ley's election to the credentials committee. cratic traditions. Already the heat was sti With only Edgerton opposing the action, fling and the perfume of late spring flowers Sibley was substituted for Fridley and the hung heavy in the air. It was an abrupt tran meeting was adjourned,'" sition for the Minnesota frontiersmen. To save money, the delegates from the North IN THE MEANTIME another and more west states had rented Hibernian Hall, a violent struggle was taking shape as the con huge, old ramshackle building which they vention delegates gathered. Involved were used both as a caucusing center and for the supporters of Douglas and his major op sleeping quarters. By the time the Minnesota ponents. Senators John Shdell of Louisiana, delegates arrived, offices, desks, and cam James A, Bayard of Delaware, and Jesse D. paign materials had been installed on the Bright of Indiana. This trio, militantly op main floor and several hundred cots on the posed to Douglas but as yet having no can second.^ didate of its own, planned to unite the On April 23 Minnesota Democrats elected Southern bloc with the anti-Douglas delega their officers, Gorman was named chairman, tions of Cahfornia and Oregon to win control Edgerton was elected secretary, and Cava of both the platform and credentials commit naugh was named to represent the state on tees. This was possible since each state was the resolutions committee, Phelps was to be equally represented on the committees, the presented by the delegation for the post of size of its delegation notwithstanding. Thus, vice-president of the convention. Everything though the Douglas faction held a firm ma proceeded smoothly until Fridley asked for jority in the convention at large, its oppo Minnesota's one seat on the credentials com nents hoped to draft a platform on which mittee — an assignment which Sibley seems Douglas himself would refuse to run.'^ to have wanted for himself. Gorman chal On the second day two important deci lenged Fridley by asking his opinion on the sions were made. The first, generally re procedure the committee should follow to garded as a victory for the Douglas forces, settle some disputes which had aheady de was the adoption of a rule "That in any veloped among other state delegations over State which has not provided or directed contested seats. Fridley refused to commit by its state convention how its vote may be himself, stating that he would hsten to both given, the convention will recognize the sides and decide on each case as justly as he right of each delegate to cast his individual could. In the vote which followed only Gor vote." With the exception of Minnesota, the man and Sibley opposed Fridley's election.^ Douglas bloc of Northwest states had been Rosser then brought up the subject of unit bound by their state conventions to follow voting, proposing that Gorman as chairman the unit rule, while most of the Southern be directed to cast a unanimous ballot for states had left their delegates free. There Douglas unless a majority of the state's dele were sizable pro-Douglas minorities in many gates decided to vote for another candidate. of the Southern delegations, and these were Becker objected, and the delegation spht allowed to vote for their preferred candidate four to four on the issue, Phelps casting his vote with the uncommitted trio of Becker, ® Roy Frankhn Nichols, The Disruption of Ameri Edgerton, and Fridley. In the face of this can Democracy, 288 (New York, 1948); AUan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, 2:203, 204 deadlock, Becker rose, and declaring that the (New York, 1950). delegation had no right or authority to bind ° The Charleston Convention, 5. anyone by such an action, left the room, to " The Charleston Convention, 5-7. be followed shortly by Fridley. This cleared " Nichols, Disruption of American Democracy, 295-297; Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 2:205- the road not only for Rosser's unit rule reso 211,

48 MINNESOTA History regardless of pressures from the majority of came clear that he would be satisfied with their colleagues.^^ almost anything else. One lone member of The second and more fateful decision the platform committee advocated simply was the agreement by the leaders of the reaffirming the Cincinnati platform, agreed Douglas forces to the opposition plan of upon four years earher, and as the' wran drawing up the platform before making gling continued, he gained support from the nominations. Thus the crucial battle in the members representing New Jersey and In convention developed over the statement of diana and, for a brief time, from Cavanaugh principles rather than about the nominee. of Minnesota. In a vote on this proposal the The platform committee labored for two Minnesota delegation split, the three un days and two nights, only to emerge with committed members favoring it and the three separate reports on the morning of five Douglas delegates, including Cava the convention's fifth day. The majority re naugh, who was listed as one of its sponsors, port represented the Southern position, up opposing it.i^ holding the duty of the federal government The decisive vote, taken on the seventh to protect slavery in the territories. Douglas day of the convention, approved the minor had clearly stated that he would never run ity report of the platform committee. This on this plank, but as the day passed and included a reaffirmation of the ambiguous various compromises were suggested, it be- Cincinnati platform plus a statement which in effect referred the doctrine of squatter ^° Democratic National Convention, Charleston, sovereignty to the Supreme Court for de Proceedings, 6-9 (Washington, 1860); Nichols, Dis cision. Minnesota voted as a unit for this ruption of American Democracy, 297; Nevins, platform, which carried the convention 165 Emergence of Lincoln, 2:212. " Democratic National Convention, Proceedings, to 138," 9, 19-27; Nichols, Disruption of American Democ A bloc of Southern states, including Ala racy, 297-303; Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Caro 2:213-219; The Charleston Convention, 10. " Democratic National Convention, Proceedings, lina, Florida, and Texas, was determined to 29; The Charleston Convention, 12. withdraw at this point, having failed to se- SLEEPiNG quarters of the Northwest delegates in Hibernian Hall, Charleston

FROM HARPER'S WEEKLY, MAY 5, 1860

June 1960 49 cure a positive proslavery platform. In a the two-thirds rule, the convention dele final effort to prevent the disruption of the gates began to reahze that their continued convention and of the party, the Douglas efforts would be futile. A move for ad forces agreed to drop the reference to the journment was proposed and soon gained Supreme Court and to readopt the Cincin strength. On the eighth day, after fifty- nati platform as it stood. Again the Minne seven ballots had ended in deadlock, the sota delegation was unanimously in favor delegates adjourned for six weeks, and of the proposition. planned to reconvene in Baltimore on June Even this step, however, did not prevent 18. On hearing this news, the Southern the break. Leroy P. Walker of Alabama bolters at Charleston agreed to meet a read a statement protesting the convention's week earher in Richmond.'** denial of Southern rights and then led his delegation out of the hall. Delegates from AFTER the Charleston parley adjourned, the other five proslavery states joined the Sibley spent a week in New York and the procession and assembled for their own other Minnesota delegates went home, trav convention in another hall, assuming the ehng in separate groups. Upon arriving in name "Constitutional Democrats." Later St. Paul, Gorman addressed a spirited rally they were joined by some delegates from at Concert Hall on May 12. Following a Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, and fifty-seven gun salute, the delegation leader Delaware.!^ praised the actions of his faction and con The way now seemed clear for Douglas' demned Becker, Fridley, and Edgerton. nomination, since his group easily com The rally closed by approving the action manded a two-thirds majority of the re of the Douglas 'wing and by singing: maining delegates. The representatives of Secessionists may fly the track. the border states and of New York, how Yet well stand firm and true ever, were determined that the door should And our old friends will welcome back not be shut on further chances of compro When they their faith renew. mise, A delegate from Tennessee proposed With Douglas as our candidate a rule that the nomination should require Our candidate, our candidate. And hail it with a loud hurrah. not only a two-thirds vote of those present, Hurrah! hurrah! hurrah! hurrah! but two-thirds of the original convention. But DAMN those who misrepresent After long debate the motion was passed Our choice for the next President, President, by a vote of 141 to 112. It was at this point Our choice for the next President.''^ that the first vital spht occurred in the Min In June the Minnesota delegation, with nesota delegation, Becker, Fridley, and Ed Robertson substituting for Phelps who had gerton voting for the proposition, and the become ill, went to Baltimore for the show five remaining members opposing it bit down. At the convention, Sibley continued terly. as Minnesota's representative on the cre As the followers of Douglas had feared, dentials committee. The work of that group, this action prevented his nomination, Min nesota voted unanimously for the Little " Democratic National Convention, Proceedings, 31-40; Nichols, Disruption of American Democracy, Giant through the ninth ballot. Then Ed 304-306; Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 2:219. gerton and Fridley broke ranks and voted "Democratic National Convention, Proceedings, for Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. When 43-53; Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 2:219-223; Johnson's name was withdrawn on the thir The Charleston Convention, 12; Pioneer and Dem ocrat, May 13, 1860, The meeting of Southern states ty-seventh ballot, the two Minnesotans was held as planned, but since all except South switched their support to Daniel S. Dickin Carolina had by then elected delegates to appear at son of New York, As ballot followed ballot Baltimore, no action was taken at Richmond. See Nichols, Disruption of American Democracy, 314. and still a victor failed to emerge under " Pioneer and Democrat, May 13, 1860.

50 MINNESOTA History which reported on the fourth day, tipped and the states' votes divided between the balance to Douglas. Since the conven them.'" tion had been adjourned from Charleston The committee presented two reports to to Baltimore "for the purpose of filling up the convention. That of the majority pro the delegations from those States who se- posed to seat the original delegations of ceeded at the former place," the committee Texas, Mississippi, and Delaware, to divide refused to accept any delegates from bolt the seats of Georgia and Arkansas, and to ing states who had not been elected specifi seat the free-soil delegations from Alabama cally to appear at Baltimore. All the states and Louisiana. The minority report called in question except South Carolina had held for readmission of all the bolting delegates new conventions, and though in many cases on the grounds that they had never in fact the original Charleston delegates had sim resigned from the convention. The majority ply been re-elected, their credentials were report was adopted by a decisive vote, and not on this account ruled invalid. In sev almost immediately the Virginia delegation eral cases, notably those of Louisiana and announced that it would withdraw. It was Alabama, rival conventions had been held, followed by delegates from North Caro one dominated by the seceders and one by hna, Tennessee, Maryland, California, and the free-soilers. There, the pro-Douglas cre Oregon. By Saturday, June 23, only a hand dentials committee tried in various ways to ful of anti-Douglas delegates remained. On solve the problem of admitting friends and the second ballot for the presidential nomi excluding enemies. It ruled that in con nation, Douglas received substantially more tested cases the delegation which had cre than a two-thirds majority and became the dentials directed exclusively to the Balti party's candidate. Becker, Edgerton, and more convention should take precedence. Fridley had left the convention before the Some Southern groups held credentials voting began. They joined the other bolters, which authorized their appearance at both meeting in another hall to nominate John Richmond and Baltimore. The committee C. Breckinridge of Kentucky as their presi also decreed that the delegation which en dorsed the Charleston platform "without dential candidate.^" any alteration" should be given the prefer Thus the rift in the national Democratic ence.'* party also divided the Minnesota organiza tion. Douglas and Breckinridge factions Sibley, participating freely in the com throughout the state campaigned against mittee debates, proposed on June 19 "that one another as well as against Lincoln, the the rules of the convention are the rules of Repubhcan nominee, during the autumn the committee in contested cases." He also months of 1860. The filial outcome was not appears to have been largely responsible surprising: 22,069 Minnesotans voted for for the compromise solutions reached in the Lincoln and 11,920 for Douglas, while cases of Arkansas and Georgia, whereby Breckinridge received a scant 748 ballots.2' both newcomers and seceders were seated The Repubhcans doubtless would have swept the North Star State regardless of '^Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 2:266-268; the Democratic rift. The election, however, minutes of Baltunore convention credentials com thoroughly demoralized the state Demo mittee, in Orlando E. Clark Papers, owned by the cratic party. Just as the failure of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. The Minne sota Historical Society has a photostatic copy of national leaders to compromise their differ this item. ences at Charleston and Baltimore contrib " Minutes of credentials committee. uted to the secession of the Southern states "" Nichols, Disruption of American Democracy, 314-320; Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 2:268- in 1861, so the refusal of Minnesota Demo 272; Daily Minnesotian (St. Paul), June 26, 1860. crats to unite helped to mark the end of their ^Minnesota Secretary of State, Annual Report, early domination of state politics. 1860, p. 9-11 (St. Paul 1861).

June 1960 51 Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles, however, for individual use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.