William Hendricks' Political Circulars to His
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
William Hendricks’ Political Circulars to his Constituents : Second Senatorial Term, 1831- 1837” Edited by Frederick D. Hill”” Before the end of his first term in 1831 Senator William Hendricks’ nonpartisan stance was beginning to alienate per- sons in each of the emerging political parties. Some of his opponents in Indiana and elsewhere attempted for more than a year to prevent his reelection in 1830. The Adams-Clay faction condemned him for supporting senatorial confirma- tion of President Andrew Jackson’s appointments. Jackson- ians criticized him for not being a thorough going Jacksonian in legislative matters.l Indiana political parties, however, were loose coalitions for winning elections and controlling patronage rather than organizations of persons holding unique political views. Jack- sonianism consisted of loyalty to a person more than ad- herence to a program. One might easily prefer Jackson to John Quincy Adams or Henry Clay in the White House, yet *An introduction to the political career of William Hendricks and a discussion of political circulars and their use by Hendricks and others were included in the first article in this three part series. See Frederick D. Hill [ed.], “William Hendricks’ Political Circulars to his Constitu- ents: Congressional Period, 1816-1822,” Indiana Magazine of History, LXX (December, 1974), 296-344. The second article in the series was Frederick D. Hill, ed., “William Hendricks’ Political Circulars to his Constituents : First Senatorial Term, 1825-1831,” Indiana Magazine of History, LXXI (June, 1975), 124-80. **Frederick D. Hill is professor of history at Indiana Central University, Indianapolis. Philip Sweetser to John Tipton, May 13, 1829, John Tipton Papers (Indiana Division, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis) ; editorials, Louisville Public Advertiser, February 6, August 23, 1828 ; editorial, Indianapolis Indiana Journal, December 3, 1831; communications, “By their fruits shall ye know them” and “Beware of Woolves in Sheeps Clothing” signed “Jefferson,” Indianapolis Indiana Democrat and State Gazette, May 20, June 10, 1830. 320 Indiana Magazine of History be fully confident of Hendricks’ integrity and ability to repre- sent Indiana in Washington-despite his friendship with Clay. Though hostile expressions aimed at Hendricks can be found in private correspondence and in the press, he was still a popular man in Indiana at the end of his first term. On December 18, 1830, the Indiana General Assembly elected William Hendricks to a second term as United States senator. On the first three ballots he led Congressman Ratliff Boon, the main challenger and an avowed Jacksonian, and others by increasing pluralities; on the fourth he received forty-four votes, two more than needed for election.2 During his second term Hendricks continued as leader of the internal improvement forces in the Senate. He was always chairman of the Standing Committee on Roads and Canals whether committee chairmen were being appointed by the presiding officer or elected by the senators. He also served four sessions on the Committee on Militia and one session each on the Committee on Manufactures and the Committee on Private Land Claims.3 He was in his seat for the opening of every se~sion;~he answered approximately ninty-five per- cent of the roll calls; and he voted with a majority of his colleagues almost seventy-five percent of the time.5 Exercis- ing his independent judgment, however, he dared to oppose both a majority of the senators and the president whenever he believed that a different policy would serve his constituents and the nation better. 2 Dorothy Riker and Gayle Thornbrough, comps., Indiana Election Returns, 181 6-1 851 (Indiana Histo.rica1 Collections, Vol. XL ; Indian- apolis, 1960), 128. 3 Senate Journal, 22 Cong., 1 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 211), 18 (De- cember 7, 1831); ibid., 22 Cong., 2 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 229), 21 (December 10, 1832) ; ibid., 23 Cong., 1 Sess. (US. Serial Set 237), 45 (December 16, 1833); ibid., 23 Cong., 2 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 265), 35 (December 11. 1834) : ibid.. 24 Conn.. 1 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 278). 40-42 (December 16, 17, 1835) ; ;bid., 24-dong., 2 Sess. (U.S. Serial Sei 296), 32, 34 (December 12, 14, 1836). 4Ibid., 22 Cong., 1 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 211), 4 (December 5, 1831); ibid., 22 Cong., 2 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 229), 4 (December 3, 1832) ; ibid., 23 Cong., 1 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 237), 4 (December 2, 1833); ibid., 23 Cong., 2 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 265), 4 (December 1, 1834); ibid., 24 Cong., 1 Sess. (U.S. Serial Set 278), 4 (December 7, 1835); ibid., 24 Cong., 2 Sess. (US. Serial Set 296), 4 (December 5, 1836). These percentages were computed from roll call votes recorded in the Register of Debates, 22-24 Cong. (December 5, 1831-March 3, 1837) and the Congvessional Globe, 23-24 Cong. (December 2, 1833-March 3, 1837). Hendricks’ Circulars 321 As the end of his second term approached, Hendricks’ popularity waned. Politics was becoming increasingly parti- san, and for the first time he openly supported a presidential candidate, Martin Van Buren, Jackson’s heir apparent. While he thus offended Indiana’s Whig supporters of William Henry Harrison, many Democrats remained skeptical of his sin- cerity; and when he tried to conduct a nonpartisan senatorial campaign, it was declared that his “noncommittal course, and his trimming between the political parties of this State, can no longer serve his purposes. He will be unmasked, and his false face rendered useless.”fi Also Hendricks’ more than two decades in high public office had aroused jealousy and per- sonal animosity in various quarters. On December 8, 1836, shortly before senatorial balloting began, handbills alleging that he had defrauded his mother-in-law in a real estate trans- action, were distributed to members of the General Assembly on behalf of Jeremiah Sullivan,? who coveted Hendricks’ Senate seat. On the ninth senatorial ballot Oliver H. Smith was chosen to succeed Hendricks. Noah Noble had led on the first seven ballots while Hendricks ranked third on the first ballot and second on the third, fourth, and fifth. His largest vote, however, was only fifty, and seventy-four were needed to win.8 It is impossible to assess the relative effects of several factors on Hendricks’ defeat. Among the key factors were his support of Van Buren for the presidency when Harrison carried Indiana, his nonpartisan stance in the Senate, his alleged effort to be all things to all men in Indiana, and his rumored unfair business dealings with his mother-in-law. It appears, however, that he accepted this defeat that ended his career in public office with his usual equanimity. Having “been a favored citizen of the state a good while,” he said, he could not complain about the results of the election. He did, however, object to Sullivan’s handbill that he described as 6 Editorial, Vincennes Gazette, quoted in Bloomington Post, Septem- ber 30, 1836; Madison Republican Banner, October 19, 1836; editorial, Indianapolis Indiana Democrat, November 25, 1835 ; communication to [Terre Haute] Wabash Couriev, signed “A Wabash Citizen,” quoted in Indianapolis Indiana Democrat, November 30, 1836. William Hendricks “To the People of Indiana,” handbills dated November 22, December 21, 1837, William Hendricks Papers (Indiana Historical Society Library, Indianapolis). Riker and Thornbrough, Indiana Election Returns, 131. 322 Indiana Magazine of History “calumnious, false & vile like its author~.”~When Hendricks left the Senate in 1837 and retired from public office, he had represented Indiana in Congress longer than any other man. He had sat in the House of Representatives from 1816 to 1822 and the Senate from 1825 to 1837. During these eighteen years in Washington, he gave careful attention to the needs and desires of those who had elected him. According to an anonymous writer, “He left no letter unanswered, no public office or document did he fail to visit or examine on request.”lo Despite shifting alignments in an era of growing political partisanship, Hendricks remained independent, although he supported Van Buren in 1836. Regardless of who occupied the White House or what faction controlled Congress, he con- sistently supported internal improvements built at federal expense; Indian removal to make more land available for settlement and prevent friction between Indians and whites; a liberal federal land policy; a stable monetary system regu- lated by a national bank; a protective tariff; confinement of slavery to states where it already existed; and a strong central government. Sometimes he supported incompatible programs in the hope that if his first choice failed to pass his second one would be enacted. He often settled for less than he and his constituents wanted because he believed that half a loaf was better than none. Admittedly on the national scene Hendricks did not make the impact of such contemporaries as Thomas Hart Benton, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, or Daniel Webster, and he antagonized various people. But Smith, his successor, doubt- less described him accurately when he said, “He was not of the very first order of talents, but made all up by his plain, practical, good sense. He never attempted to speak upon sub- jects he did not understand.”ll As long as he was in Congress, Hendricks continued to inform his constituents about questions of public interest by means of annual political circulars. Public land policy, in- ternal improvements, Indian affairs, and the tariff were perennial topics. Issues confronting the nation for the first ‘3 Hendricks to David G. Mitchell, December 22, 1836, William H. English Papers (Indiana Historical Society Library). 10 The Indiana Gazetteer or Topographical Dictionary of the State of Indiana (Indianapolis, 1849), 122. Oliver H. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches (Cincinnati, 1858), 86.