Minnesota's Role in the Democratic Rift of 1860
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.