INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

Volums XLVIII DECEMBER,1952 Number 4

The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation,” 1848-1850 Roger H. Van Bolt+ Early in January, 1848, the Indiana politicians met in Indianapolis to canaider the coming presidential campaign. Neither at the state convention of the Whigs nor of the Demo- crats was any effort made to diagnose the general state of political health-both adopted a “wait and see” attitude. The Whigs felt they had reason to be optimistic, for the Polk administration had aroused a respectable number of citi- zens of the state to cry out against the political crimes corn- mit‘ted against the Northwest. The Whig position resolved itself into the task of finding a suitable candidate, which was no easy job for a political party feeling the stress of sectional attitudes. A few of the party members expressed a willing- ness to lay aside local prejudices so the party could unite upon some distinguished individual,’ but this offer in each case was hastily withdrawn when a candidate was suggested who pos- sessed sectional attitudes that were not common to the Indiana Whigs. The party had enjoyed great success in 1840 with a mili- tary man, 80 it was rather natural that Schuyler Colfax sought out the opinions of his friends as to the availability of Zachary Taylor. As early as May, 1847, the South Bend editor received a reply from Godlove Orth of Lafayette on the qualifications of the General. Orth was unwilling to concede much vote-

* Roger H. Van Bolt is Historical Research Specialist Edison Insti- tute, Dearborn, Michigan. This article is a chapter of his $h.D. disserta- tion at the University of Chicago, 1960, Written under the direction of Avery 0. Craven. ‘Godlove S. 0rth.t~Schy ler Colfax, Lafayetb, Febrna 11 1847, in J. Herman Schamnger, ‘&e Letters of Godlove S. 03, doosier Whig,” Indiana Magantur of Hisbey (Bloomington, 1906- ), XXXIX (1948), 886. 332 Indium Magazine of History getting power to militarism, declaring: “The true history of the campaign of 1840 is not yet written, but it was more than Harrison’s military fame that elected him. The corrup- tions of Van Buren’s adminiatration, the feeling of frontier life and frontier settlement, represented as it was in that cam- paign by the National Emblem of the Log Cabin (for all our people East West North & South were once Log Cabin men) did much to elect Harrison. Besides he was somewhat of a statesman and a finished scholar. Do you now know that we are triumphantly pointed to his Bolivar letter as we did to the campaign of Tippecanoe.”’ The same politician, Orth, after a trip through the East in the fall of 1847, had found further reasons for not favoring the Hero of Buena Vista, for he again wrote to Colfax: “I am confirmed by my visit through New York, New Jersey & Penna-in reference to my opinion of Genl Taylor-the feeling against slavery & its further extension is too deeply rooted among the masses for Politicians to run with success any ultra slavite.”* Not all the Whigs shared Orth’s opinions, however, for a few days before the state convention was to be held, the Whigs of Wayne County, a stronghold of the party, endorsed Taylor after condemning the Mexican War and the Texas annexa- tions.‘ When the convention met, the Whig politicians proved re- luctant to endorse any candidate. After they had halted the incipient Taylor movement, the delegates decided to allow the national convention to pass upon the merits of the various candidates, preferring to bide their time with a compromise ticket that sought to satisfy the desires of all the elements of the party. The Michigan City News ridiculed the electoral ticket as a Whig salamagundi of “fish, flesh and As the time for the national convention drew near, the Hoosier Whigs were still undecided as to a presidential candi- date. Winfield Scott, John McLean, Henry Clay, and Zachary Taylor were all being considered. Each had availability and esch had disabilities, as far as the Hoosiers were concerned.

* Orth to Coltax, Lafayette, May 9,1847, ibid; 388. * Orth to Colfax, Gettyabtwg, Pennsylvania, September 9,1847, ibid, 389. ‘Zndiam St& Journal, January 10,1848, cited in ES~Y, Histwy of Indiana (2d ed.; 2 vols., Indianapolis, 1918). I, 48 6 Quoted in the L& Po& County Whig, February 19,1848. The Hoo&w8 and the “Eternal Agitation” 333

Scott, who was relatively untarnished by antislavery views, appealed to the more conservative wing of the party, and he had the added advantage of being outside the party intrigues, yet giving every appearance of being a substantial Whig. McLean was supported by John Defrees, editor of the Indjana State Journal, the central Whig organ, but there were others who felt that McLean was too far removed from the “B’hoys.” Clay had the support of the old Whig elements, but he also had the handicap of a long line of political defeats. As one Whig wrote: “Is it reasonable to suppose that men who have voted against Clay for twenty years will now vote for him? Opposi- tion to Clay is a part of their nature-and however much they dislike the measures of the administration, their hostility to Clay is still greater. Men whose first votes were against Clay and who have always voted against will not change. . . . We enter the contest with certain defeat awaiting us here-and can we under these circumstances make the necessary efforts to maintain even our present position in our state politia”6 The dilemma of the Whig party in Indiana, as one politi- cian saw it, offered an interesting example of the complexities of the political scene in the federal union. The question be- came one of choice between national success or local advantage for the Whig party, for it seem inevitable that one level of the political hierarchy would have to be sacrificed to benefit an- other. Within the state, if party success was achieved by Clay, for example, the factions outside the circle of; his supporters would lose their relative position of influence among the Hooeier Whigs. Orth deliberated over the problem and wrote: “The Legislature of next winter has many important offices to fill, US Senator-Prest. of State Bank-secretary of State &c &c. We can secure the Legislature if we have the right man as our candidate for Pmt. but even then it will require the utmost exertions. With Clay I am sorry to confess it, we would be in a hopeless minority. Shall we then risk our state elections & ascendency for the slight hope of carrying N.Y. .. . Again, the younger portion of the Whigs regard the peculiar friends of Clay as old Hunkers, who are to share all the ‘spoils of office’-and thus they are deprived of one great incentive to action-and their action, young, vigorous, & enthusiastic, gives to a campaign much of its spirit & eclat.”’

6 Orth to Colfax, Lafyette! April 29,. 1848, in Sehauin Letters of Godlove S. Orth,’ Zndmna Maga;nne of Hbtmy, &&,‘‘:! 7 Zbid., 891-92. 334 Indknu Magazine of History

The Indiana State Journal was more blunt in recognizing the growing antislavery element in the state when it listed the specifications for a potential Whig victor in the state: “A large number of our voters are Abolitionists, conscientiously opposed to voting for a slave holder. . . . They held the balance of power in Indiana. They are Whig and will not support the Whig ticket unless free from that objection.”n When the national convention met in Philadelphia, the Indiana delegates on the first ballot gave nine of their twelve votes to Scott ;on the last, they gave Taylor seven votes, Clay one, and Scott four. The nomination of Taylor was not to the liking of the Indiana Whigs, but out of party loyalty many decided to back the military hero. Wincing under the possi- bility of having to face charges of supporting a slaveholder for the presidency, young Whigs like Colfax and Orth expressed the view that the party choice was unfortunate: but both elected to back the Hero of Buena Vista. The Democrats had also held their state convention in Indianapolis in January, with only twenty-one counties of the state reportedly represented to back Cass as the favorite can- didate. The main problem of the Democrats was that of party spirit-apathy seemed to prevail everywhere, and it was up to the Democrats to arouse the electorate to show a little enthu- siasm. The accomplishments of the Twenty-ninth Congress had had little effect on the people: it had stirred up some old problems and brought out some new ones, but even the question of slavery (which waa distasteful to Indiana Democrats), riv- ers and harbors (which was still unsolved), tariff (a party victory), expansion (which certainly had not been a complete failure from the Democratic point of view), patronage (which both locally and nationally was in the hands of the party)- not one of these had evoked much reaction. The approval of Cam for the Democratic nomination was in the best tradition of party loyalty by a state organization that had not found much to get excited about. There were a few, however, who disapproved of Cass. One of these was John Law, who wrote to Martin Van Buren that neither the Whig nor Democratic nomination was satis-

a Indiana State Journal, April 26,1848. 9 Orth to Coltax, Lafayette Julx 11,1848, in Shauin r, “The Lettera of Godlove S. Orth,” Zndtana dagazim of Htstory, XXX%X, 893. Willard H. Smith, “Schuyler Coltax, Whig Editor, 1846-1856,” Zndana kagcLzins of Histwy, XXXIV (1938), 272. The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation” 335 factory; in his opinion, the state was doubtful for the Democ- racy. There were a few party defections in northern Indiana, following the nomination of Cass, but even the Whigs doubted if the discontented members would remain outside the party fold for long.’O For those Whigs and Democrats who felt they could no longer occupy their old political homes, the Free Soil Conven- tion, held in Baltimore in July, offered them refuge. The Free Soil movement in Indiana, born out of the old Liberty party, failed to progress to any great extent beyond this nucleus of its membership, for contrary to their hopes, there was no whole- sale defection among either the Whigs or Democrats, and it proved difficult to develop new leadership among the few who did bolt from the major parties. The greatest proponents of Free Soilism were men who had long been associated with the antislavery movement. The state convention, which met July 26, 1848, drew up resolutions supporting Van Buren and the platform of the Free Soil Buffalo Convention, and set up a test for their future state candidates. An examination of the Free Soil leaders of the state re- veals the character of the party organization and the source of its support. There was, for example, John B. Semans, one of the few Whigs who refused to accept a non-northern candi- date. Semans screamed in an editorial in the Lafayette Journal: “The nomination of Gen. Taylor is a disgrace to the Convention and an insult to the intelligence and virtue of the American people. The Whig party is basely betrayed-aye, sold to the Southern slaveholder. For ourselves we are against the nomination might and main, heart and soul.”ll According to the La Porte County Whig, which had searched its soul as to the nomination and had finally accepted Taylor, the Joud was the only Whig organ that would not make its peace with the party. Semans had opposed the party before, so that this bolt was not a new experience to him. In order to obtain the post of state printer in 1847, he had refused to go into party caucus. Schuyler Colfax had considered purchasing the Journal at that time in order to rid the Whigs of Semans and

10 John Law to Martin Van Buren Vincennee, July 10,1848, Martin Van Buren Papers. Microfilm copy of these apers is at the University of Chicago. Schuyler ColffLx to D. D. Pratt, !bath Bend, June 16,1848, in the Pratt Collection, Indlana State Library, Indianapolis. 11 Quo* in the Amm-kn Freema3 July 18,1848, as cited by Theo- dore C. Smth, The Lberty and Free Sod Pwtzao rn the Nwthwest (New York, 1897), 128. 336 zndiam Magazine of Histmy the embarrassment of having to be associated with a man accused of Fourierism and allied Greeleyisms. The Lafayette editor was in no new position by being at odds with the Whigs when he became an ardent Free Soiler in 1848.12 Another leader of the new party was the former Liberty man, Stephen S. Harding, of Ripley County. After leaving the Whig party in 1840, he had twice been a candidate for the office of lieutenant governor on the Liberty ticket. Although not a Garrisonian abolitionist, Harding had been an ardent antislavery leader in the state for many years and at one time had predicted that in twenty years slavery would be wiped out of existence in the United States. The Indiana State Journal reported on Harding and the second Free Soil Convention, held in Indianapolis in August, 1848, thus: “We attended the Con- vention and heard some of the speeches made. On Tuesday night, Mr. Harding, one of the leading Abolitionists in the State, entertained his audience with a speech of considerable length. In the course of his remarks, for the purpose of mak- ing Van Buren palatable to the Abolitionists, he took the ground that all his former opposition to him and all his politi- cal inequity should be buried with the pastiand that all should now rally around him, because he was now right. He acknowl- edged that it was with some difficulty he got his own consent to go for him-but he finally concluded to do it.”la Still another leader was Stephen C. Stevens of Madison, the Liberty party candidate for governor in 1845, who in his campaign had advocated the abolition of slavery “over the dead bodies of both the old political parties” and “through the doors of twenty thousand churches.”l* Young Lew Wallace became a spokesman for the Free Soilers, but for other reasons. He cared little for either Van Buren or the Free Soil doctrine, as indicated when he later wrote: “NOW,my war upon candidate Taylor was limited to Indiana. He could hope nothing from Democrats. Good strat- egy, on the one hand, pointed to weakening the Whigs, for

12 The letters of Godlove s. orth to schuyler colfax contain nmr- OUB references to Seman~’battlerc with the local Whig factions in Ti pe- canoe County and Lafayette. See Schauinger, “The Letters of dove S. Orth,” Indiana Magazins of His-, XXXIX, 365-400. 1s Indiana State Jourrtncl, August 30, September 1, 1848 in Etta R. French, “Stephen S. Harding: A Hoosier Abolitionist,” Z?uiiancl Mag* zine of History, XXVII (1931), 223. 14William W. Woollen, Bwgra hiecrl and Hbbrkd Sketches Of Early Indianu (Indianapolis, 1883), $55. The Hoosiers and Uce “Eternal Agitation” 357 whom, as a rule, abolition had the fewest terrors. Taylor would be a slave-holder’s president. His election would mean the extension of slavery. That, as anybody could see, was the string to pull with Whigs. I cared nothing for Lewis Cam or for Martin Van Buren. My only thought was to keep Indiana out of Taylor’s column of states. Dignity, honor, self-respect demanded that much of the state.”l6 Wallace’s hatred of Taylor dated from the Mexican War, when the Hero of Buena Vista had condemned the volunteers of the Second Indiana Regiment and inferred cowardice on their part, with the result that the state suffered the stigma of military ineptness for many years after.16 The politicians were quick to attack Taylor on this score, and cries of honor were raised in behalf of the Indiana Volunteers in the Mexican War. Three Indianapolis gentlemen of means supported the Free Soil Banner which Wallace edited during the campaign. One of these financial supporters was Ovid Butler, a leading lawyer of the state and a Democrat. Butler was the law part- ner of Calvin Fletcher, president of the Indianapolis State Bank. Both of these men were active reformers and leaders, supporting many causes.17 These were the leaders in the fore- front of the Free Soil crusade in Indiana. Whether they could disrupt the major parties remained to be seen. Election day in Indiana in 1848 revealed no great up heaval in the fortunes of the Democracy. The Free Soilers, however, proved to be thorns in the side of the Democrats and managed to put Jesse Bright in a bad humor all day. He had left Washington to supervise personally the Jefferson County election in his native town of Madison. As he watched the polls, he roared at the Free Soilers: “G-d damn you-I wish you and they were in Hell. . . . If I had the power I’d send you there.” Bright stood at the ballot boxes all day challenging votes. One of the more sophisticated citizens of Madison ap- praised such actions and wrote: “No doubt the day wiU come, when Indiana will spurn their Hectoring vagabond, and blush for the time when he was her Senator,” and some day the state -~ 1s Lew Wallace, Lew Wallaee: An Autobiography (2 vols., New York, 1906), I, 204. I* R. Carlyle Buley, “Indiana in the Mexican War,” Zdum Mcrgcr- zine of Histmy, XVI (1920), 47-68. 17 Jacob P. Dunn, &eater !ndhna &I .(2 vole., Indianaplia, 1910), 11,1165; Berry R. Sulgrove, ofindpolw and Mc~*onCounty, Indiana (Philadelphia, 1884) ,169, 76. 338 Indhnu Magazine of Hiatory will “vindicate the degeneracy of public & political morals that the regime of Polk has brought about.”18 His prophecy did not come true, for with Cam receiving a plurality of 4,538 votes, and Van Buren 8,100 votes throughout the state, the Whigs remained the party out of power. It is difficult to break down the source of Free Soil strength. The indications are that the party had mustered its strongest vote in the Quaker strongholds of the state, gather- ing fifty-two per cent of its vote in nineteen counties of the state.lg Nevertheless, the Whigs still carried these traditional citadels of party strength. The vote did not have any par- ticular significance other than the fact that it was a sizeable balance to be fought over by the parties in the next elections. Apparently a platform like that formulated at Buffalo was less abhorrent to the citizens of the state than it had been feared. That the slavery question had potential merits as a tool to prod the electorate became even more apparent after the elec- tion, for the political excitement of the year was not yet over. There still remained the task of naming a new senator. The candidates were asked the following questions by the members of the legislature: 1) Do you believe that Congress possesses the power under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the newly acquired territories of New Mexico and California? 2) Will you, if elected to the United States Senate, use your in- fluence and vote for the passage of an act prohibiting slavery in New Mexico and California? Although the Democrats had a clear majority in the legis- lature, Whigs and Free Soilers were fishing about for a mod- erate Democrat whom they could support. The strategy was summed up by one Henry County member of the legislature when he wrote: “For the Senate, the candidates as far as I have been able to learn, are Hannegan, the present incumbent ; Gov. Whitcomb; E. M. Chamberlain and John Law; and among them, I fancy it will be difficult for Whigs and Free Soil men, who are really so, to make a choice. Law undoubtedly approxi- mates nearest to correct principles, but if the Whigs should combine with his friends and elect him, it is probable that in his efforts to restore himself to a good standing with his party,

1s John Lyle King, Npvember 8,1848, Diaries, Indiana Historical SO- ciety Library, InQanapolis. 19 Whig Almanac and United Statce Registsr fw 1847 (New York, 1847), 48. The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation” 339 which he should lose to some extent, he would prove treacher- ous to the men who elect Thus when the candidates replied to the queries, almost all of them except Robert Dale Owen met the requirements of supporting the Wilmot Proviso, which prompted the La Porte County Whig to editorialize on the “Political Summersets of the Indiana Democracy.” Owen remained consistent to his vote of 1846 and would concede only to a joint resolution de- claring the existent free status of the territories. He would not support the proviso.21 Governor James Whitcomb and Edward A. Hannegan both agreed that Congress possessed the power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Whitcomb further agreed to use his influence and vote for the passage of an act to prohibit slavery in New Mexico. Hannegan, however, replied : “Upon all ques- tions of this character, I have ever held my final action open and liable to the control of circumstances. In making the pledges you require I should be completely hampered, and in such a way as might leave me the subject of an awkward di- lemma. It might bring me directly in conflict with the duty of the Representative to obey the Instructions of his constitu- ency; a duty which I have ever held as a cardinal point of political faith. These instructions, to be binding, must be given a majority. Upon the subject involved, in all its bear- ings, should I be elected Senator for the ensuing term, I shall be governed by the instructions of the Legislature of Indiana, whose will it will be my highest pleasure to carry out in ear- nestness and good faith.”2* The Indiana Senator, however much he paid homage to democratic principles, had not an- swered the question of support. The Democrats finally nominated in caucus James Whit- comb and elected him. The Governor, nowl the senatorial in- cumbent, had expressed his views earlier in an address at the opening session of the legislature, declaring that: “Decided as the opinion of the people of Indiana is, against the institution of human slavery, yet, they have ever manifested a determina-

20 Martin L. Bundy to the New Castle Courier, Indianapolis, Novem- ber 6, 1848, in Clarence H. Smith (ed.), “Letters of Martin L. Bundy, 1848-49,” Indiam Magazine of History, XXII (1926) ,86. 91 La Porte County Whig, December 23, 1848; Richard W. hopold, Robsrt Dale Owen (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1940), 249. 2% Frankie I. Jones, “Edward A. Hannegan” (Master’s thesis, De- partment of History, The University of Chicago, 1940), 71. 340 Indium Magazine of History tion not to interfere with the constitutional righta of any of our sister States on this subject. . . . But the present question does not regard slavery in the Stah or in any State. It refers solely to the propriety of its existence hereafter, in a territory now free. This territory has come to us free-it is now free, and in my opinion should remain free, and that every consti- tutional and legal means should be adopted to continue it free.”” It was over the manner in which the territories were to be kept free that conflict arose among the parties. Little con- cern was exhibited in Indiana over the question of whether to allow slavery to go into the territories; Hoosiers put the em- phasis on the method of prohibition. There was, for example, the problem of interpreting the phrase “every constitutional and legal means” which Whitcomb had used in his pledge. Martin L. Bundy, speaking for the Whigs, questioned the meaning of this: “Well, the Governor has fought hard for the station, and endured ‘the winter of his discontent’ with com- mendable fortitude, as well as the ‘wear and tear’ of conscience and political consistency, to which he had been subjected by the Free Soilers ;and now we shall see what ‘legal and consti- tutional means’ do mean, when the object is to exclude slavery from New Mexico and California; whether it be the declara- tory humbug proposed by some wise gentleman of the present legislature simply saying, and no more, that ‘the territory is now free and ought to remain so’; or whether it be that bold and intelligible expression of the illustrious Jefferson, in his memorable Ordinance that ‘slavery shall never &t there.’ ’’t4 This split in the legislature between the Whigs and Demo- crats over the question of slavery extension brought the con- troversy into tha sphere of state politics. The day after the legislature convened, Jacob B. Julian of Wayne County intro- duced a joint resolution on the subject which instructed the senators and representatives in Congress to pass a “Wilmot Proviso.” The Democrats, hoping to gain time to amend the resolution, refused to have it read a second time. This was awompliahed by a strict party vote. On Saturday of the same week, the Whigs again brought the resolution to the floor of the legislature; again the Democrats prevented the Whigs

08 Indiana Hms .loud, 1848, pp. 18-19. 24Martin L. Bundy to New Cantle Go~&r;,Deeember 17, 1848, in Smith, “Letters of Martin L. Bundy, 1848-49, IndicUrrcr Mug&zke of EIiStmy, XXII, 88. The Hoosiera and tite “Eternal Agitation” 341, from instructing the committee to which the resolution had been referred. Until the senatorial election was safely over, the Democrats thought it too dangerous to bring the slavery extension issue onto the floor of the legi~lature.~~ Immediately following the election of Whitcomb, the com- mittee reported on several joint resolutions dealing with slav- ery, all variations on the same thembthe territories acquired by Mexico were now free and ought to remain free, The committee, which was packed with Democrats, argued that it was more expedient for Congress to pass a declaratory resolu- tion than a prohibitory law: either would serve the same prac- tical purpose of deterring slaveholders from carrying slaves into the territories, but a resolution would be much less offen- eive to the South than a Wilmot Proviso. The committee took the position that: “while a prohibitory law is the appropriate form, in the weof slave territory, as for example, the North Western Territory, a declaratory resolution is the proper one in the case of free territory, like New Mexico and California, in the first case, slavery has to be excluded, in the second, it has no existence, and if any action be necessary, it can be only a public declaration of that fact, from an authorized source.’J16 After voting down a motion to recommit with a proviso, the joint resolution passed the House by a vote of 80 to 16. The minority was represented by those who could not com- promise their views on the question. Twelve of those die senters had previously voted for the proviso resolution.*’ After a joint resolution had passed the Senate with amendments, it was laid on the table in the House where it seems to have remained until the legislature adjourned, for there is no record of further action concerning the resolution in the legislative records. The legislature’s actions show the effects of the reahuf- fling of the political cards after the election of 1848. The Free Soil flurry of the past summer, although of small proportions, continued to blow, ruffling the electorate, and party politicians had to be extremely careful, lest it get out of hand and create havoc in the party organization. If it could be kept under control, there was the possibility of political capital in the Free Soil issue for the vote-getting politicians of the state. There

16 Indiana Harcss Jou~,1848, pp. 11,12,66-57. 10 M,88. 11 Zbid., 1424. seemed also to be a spontaneity in the antislavery attitudes of the Hoosier which made caution expedient. The Democracy in Indiana, in its new position as the Pa* out of power nationally, was rather quick to utilize the antislavery feeling in the state. Early in 1849, the party began testing a new formula. The Goshen Democrut, as quoted in the Indiana State Sentinet, claimed that the election of Taylor had made the extension of slavery possible, and hinted that the Whigs and slaveholders had formed an alli- ance. The logical move, the observation continued, would be for the Indiana Democrats and Free Soilers to wash their hands of such interests and combinations.*n The Democracy, for political purposes at least, was ready to cast off from its national paftners and become a sectional party representing more local interests, and the Free Soilers were invited to join it. The result was that at the Democratic state convention in Indianapolis, this plank was inserted in its platform: “New Mexico and California are in fact and in law free Territories, it is the duty of Congress to prevent the introduction of slav- ery within their limits.”zg The convention nominated for governor Joseph A. Wright, a onetime bitter opponent of the proviso, who was now a moderate on the issue. Wright, the church leader and temperance advocate as well as colonization- society leader, varied his tune to meet the situation. The Indiana, and Northwest, Democrats, feeling that the selection of Cass solved the territorial question, turned their attention to the problem of winning back the party deserters of 1848. With this in mind, John L. Robinson, in Congress, attacked his southern colleagues and became a supporter of the Wilmot Proviso. The Jesse Bright lieutenant boasted that he had voted to strike out the slavery proviso in the Oregon Bill and that he would have done the same in the case of New Mexico and California; now that he was compelled to act, there WBS only one way open-to favor the exclusion of slav- ery. Since this solution was unacceptable to the Northwest: “Hereafter he should give no such vote. He would at any time vote for organizing these Territories with the Wilmot Proviso

ZeZndiana State Sentinel, January 2, 1849, quoted in William 0. Lynch, “Anti-Slave Tendencies of the Deqocratic Party of the No+- west, 1848-1850,” Vallcy HiStorseol Rsvaew (Cedar Rapids, IOW~1914- ) ,XI, 2- (1924-1925), 328. 29 NatM Era, January 25,1849, quoted in Smith, Ths Libsrty und Fr66 sd P&&6 & NorthluSSt, 188. The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation” 343 extended over them. He had opposed legislating on the sub- ject ;but his objections were defeated and cancelled; the South themselves had brought the question here; they must now abide its settlement by Congress.”m Another congressman, William W. Wick, observed the changing political tide and decided not to seek reelection to the House. He informed his constituency: “Letters from many of you . . . admonish me that your representative in Congress must no longer vote as I have heretofore voted- some insisting that it is evident that the people of the South are not so earnest in their opposition to the Wilmot Proviso, or other equivalent measure as their politicians have asserted, and more declaring in favor of the propriety and justice of passing the same through Congress, by way of forcing Gen- eral Taylor into a candor which you think he disregarded when a candidate, and by way of imposing on him, as President, the responsibility which, as a candidate, he dodged.”*’ Graham N. Fi‘tch of Logansport, another Democratic congressman, saw fit to attack his southern brethren: “We of the North were willing to make a partial sacrifice of feeling to preserve our ranks unbroken, and thus continue the suprem- acy in our national councils of these great principles for which we have contended. But how with the South? Professed Democrats there deserted us by the thousands, permitting us to be defeated in States upon which we surely relied and giv- ing us others by such meager majorities that the moral effect was that of a defeat. And why this desertion? Not because of the political principles of the opposing candidate, General Taylor were more consonant with their views, but because he was one of themselves a slaveholder ;and they knew that under his administration their ‘peculiar institution’ would be fostered and extended. They sacrificed principles to slavery. And ehall we now reward them for their . . . desertion of us, our Candidate and our principles? Never! Again the representa- tives of the South in Congress encouraged by the late Presi- dential election, aided by a Southern Presidenklect, and by Northern ‘dough-face’ Whigs have during the past eession evinced a determination to permit the passage of no Territorial bill which did not extend slavery. . . . We can meet them in no

so Congresuionul Globs, SO Con& 2 seas., 54-65. Indiana State Ssntinsl, Msrch 17,1849. 344 Indiam Magazine. of Histom other way than by firm determination to prohibit its intro- duction.”’* While the Indiana Democrats were accusing their south- ern CO~WWS of party disloyalty for the sake of their peculiar institutions, they hoped to lure those of Free Soil tendencies back into the party. It is doubtful if the Democratic leaders believed that they could capture the abolitionist core of the Free Soil party-they were interested in the fringe group of ex-Whigs and ex-Democrats. Compounded of party discontent as well as political expediency, this move of the Democrats to proselyte the Free Soilers became more and more vigorous, and soon was so filled with antislavery sentiment that the Whigs denounced their opponents for this rather strange turn in the political scene. Said the State Joumd of its Democratic rival: “The Sentinel now begins to talk of ‘freedom’ and ‘southern dictation’ as glibly 88 though to such language it had long been accustomed. It does not sound beautifully from the lips of those who bowed so submissively to ‘Southern dicta- tion’ and supported Mr. Polk for the Presidency-and who bowed still lower to the same dictation when they supported General Cass, who sold himself to the South! Then how har- moniously it sounds from those who aided in annexing Texas to the Union, with territory out of which to make four more Slave States! They talk of ‘Southern dictation’ who have been its most abject worshippers, and now ask to be thought sincere.”8s The following day, the Democratic organ explained its stand: “No matter how derelict the Democratic party may have been in the pastieven if all the Journal alleges were true-now it has taken ground for freedom. . .why should it be assailed?. . . Why can not it expand its grasp sufficiently wide upon this question to take in aU the people of the West, who begin to feel upon their own limbs, the galling shackles of Southern The appeals of both parties to the wanderers of 1848, even in such strong Free Soil sections as Lafayette, were bringing the strays back into the fold. As a result, the Free Soilers made no parl, nominations in 1849, “inasmuch as both the Democratic and Whig candidates in answer to letters of

~~ ** Zbid., June 2, 1849. *a Ibid., July 11, 1849. *4ZW, July 12,1849. The Hoosiers and the ‘%tern1 Agitation” 345

inquiry declared themselves in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, prohibition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the removal of the seat of the Federal Government to a Free State.”” The Whigs were determined to bring in their share of the vote. As the party in power nationally, they found themselves being attacked as the party of the slaveholder. In an attempt to remove the stigma of their peculiar political position, the Whigs began to ridicule the Democracy’s Free Soil sentiment. Schuyler Colfax, during the congressional campaign of 1849, warned his readers that northern Democratic Free Soilism was a mere dragnet for Locofocoism, and the State Joudraised the question of gain in voting Free Soil : “By doing so you may prevent the election of men who agree with you on every single political question, including the question you place above all others. Is it the part of wisdom thus to act?”s6 The problem resolved itself again into the matter of trying to hold diver- gent forces together. The Hoosier Whigs were now feeling the sectional pull in the national party. An interesting situation developed as a result of party discontent. Caleb B. Smith and his brother-in-law, Samuel W. Parker, both ardent supporters of Taylor in 1848, had long been the Whig rulers in the Whitewater Valley, a Quaker stronghold. Smith, in 1849, hoped for an appointment in the new Whig administration, and although he was one of those frequently mentioned for a cabinet position, he was passed by. Whether it was a result of this disappointment, or whether railroad building offered him a brighter future is not known, but at any rate, he withdrew from politics. As a result, Smith’s brother-in-law, Parker, became the Whig candidate in the district for Congress. Parker’s opponent was George W. Julian, who represented a coalition of Independent Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats. Julian, a former Whig, had been socially as well as politically ostracized by his erstwhile friends after his Free Soil venture the previous year. He was deserted by even his brother, who dissolved their law partnership during the hot campaign sum- mer and joined those who hurled charges of abolitionism at Julian.

86 Cincinnati Globe, July 26, 1849, quoted in Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in ths Northwest, 190. 86 Quoted in Smith, The Liberty and Free Soil. Partks in North- wmt, 189; aee also Smith, “Schuyler Colfax,” Indwna Maganne of His- tory, XXXIV, 272. 346 Zndiunu Magazine of HGtory

Thus the campaign was carried on by Democrats, who could not hope to win by themselves, joined with Free Soilers and independent Whigs. The canvass revived all the campaign oratory of 1848. Parker, the Whig opponent, attempted to outdistance Julian by declaring that he was no “yearling”; he was an abolitionist of twenty-years standing. When the bal- lots were counted, the fusion candidate, Julian, had won by 153 The significance of this campaign lay in its illustration of how the efforts of the politically discontented were able to overturn a political stronghold. The Taylor Whigs alone were left in the party fold, while those unwilling to follow its leader- ship took refuge in a coalition that was more acceptable to the Hoosier political climate. The national party thus did not satisfy local requirements. Whether either the Whig remnant or the coalition would be as strong and as durable as the original remained to be tested. At any rate, the split had made it possible for the Whitewater Democrats, who in the past had had little vote-getting success, to get into power. The antislavery issue had weakened the opposition. In southern Indiana, a situation developed at Cannelton which also illustrated the local as well as the national dilemma of the Whigs. In 1849 a cotton mill was founded in this river town which was expected to link the West and the South to- gether : the factory would utilize southern raw materials and western resources. Among the investors were planters from Louisiana, and capitalists from the East and Louisville. The incorporators were Salmon P. Chase of Ohio and Senator Charles T. James of Rhode Island, and the stockholders in- cluded the Right Reverend Leonidas Polk of Louisiana and Maunsel White, a partner of J. B. DeBow in his Review. Optimists of the day predicted that the seat of cotton manu- facture would move from New England to southern Indiana where coal was plentiful and food cheap. The Cannelton Economist was also founded in 1849, with the express purpose of forwarding the cause of the new industrialism. ItrS pros- pectus described it ag a “weekly journal devoted to the estab- lishment of manufactures in the South and West, to agriculture and the cause of labour.”88 In a day and age when such a

87 Grace Julian ClaTke Gear e W. JuZhn. (Indianapolis, 1923), 79-86; George W. Julian, Poktscaf Reca&eetums Chicago, 1884), 72; Srmth, The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the N Awmt, 190-91,106. S8Thomaa J. de la Hunt, P Counw: A Histmy Indianapolie, 1916), 13035i American Cannel CTCompany, Camelton 6srry County, Zdhm (Louisville, 1850), pcau&n. The. Hoosiers and the ‘%ternul Agitation” 347

position was the exception rather than the rule, the Economist claimed political neutrality. Political parties, it declared, had the same principles but used different means in order to achieve their ends, thus creating “illiberality.” Furthermore, “the great interests of the South and West should not be held in bondage for the mere sake of party gratificati~n.”~~ The political neutrality of the Economist was not main- tained for long. By July, Elisha Huntington, a stockholder in the mill and an ardent Whig, was writing to the newspaper expressing his political views, with which James Mason, the editor of the Economist, agreed. He declared that Free Soil- ism was abolitionism, and although he deprecated the exten- sion of slavery, he saw no reason why the southern states should be dragooned into the same opinion! On the other hand, he stated: “If the South desires by any measures to extend slavery beyond its present limits, she is not only un- wise, but is destined to a bitter disappointment-the West will resist it with the same energy that she would any interferences by the North with Southern institutions, and Southern in- terest~.”~~ This journal demanded that Indiana’s representatives be practical men, concerned with more than just intrigues for the making of presidenta, or discussions of abstract principles. After the congressional election of 1849, the Economist stated its unwillingness to bring the sectional aspects of slavery into the political controversies of the day: “nothing but evil can come out of the agitation of that matter, but we have the fullest confidence, that be it settled as it may, the tranquillity of the country will not be disturbed. In our view, it is at most a wicked abstraction, out of which no good can ever Businessmen who were hopeful of attracting manufactur- ing to Indiana, dependent on capital from other sections, were not particularly interested in political gains, and the agitation over slavery was to them a hindrance, so they chose to dismiss it as a political abstraction. These men were members of a branch of the national Whigs of Indiana. In addition to them, there were others, including some Democrats, scattered about the state who were also unwilling to become involved in politi- cal sectionalism. The Whitewater Valley and Cannelton situations illustrate the opposing reactions to the antislavery movement that re

89 Cannelton, Indiana, Economist, May 6, 1849. 40 Zbid, July 28,1849. 41 ZW,November 10,1849. 348 Indium Magazine of History sulted when a national issue was considered in a local situa- tion. Instead of knitting the party together, the national ques- tions pulled the party apart, sapping its inner strength. To a varying degree, all the parties had taken an excur- sion into antislavery, with varying degrees of success. The Free Soil party, which in 1848 in a national election had gar- nered 8,100 votes, found itself out-promised and oubbargained by the Whigs and the Democrats in 1849. The Democrats had managed to win the governorship with a candidate who had previously attacked the Wilmot Proviso, and it had also gath- ered in nine of the ten congressional seats. The Whigs were reduced to one congressman, Edward W. McGaughey, an old- time campaigner, who was able to defeat Grafton M. Cook- erly, a Democrat of Terre Haute.’z By the time the campaigns, and the year, ended, the Slav- ery question had been discussed widely both on the stump and in the press. Some Whigs still wanted to avoid the “abstrac- tion” which they felt could only lead to trouble; others felt that the party had not gone far enough in taking a stand to remedy the evil of slavery. As for the Democrats, they had used their promises to make rubble of the state Free Soil party. They, however, had not shed any light on the matter of interpreting the phrase, “every legal and constitutional means,” and Martin L. Bundy, who late the year before had expressed concern over these words, probably was still wonder- ing what the Democrats meant by them. Just as the political year had begun with the governor’s message, so it ended with these words: “The question is now presented to the American people, whether this territory shall remain free. It cannot be doubted that the response of the people of Indiana to this mo- mentous question, will be in favor of freedom. Whilst we are in favor of freedom, let us exercise that forbearance towards our political brethren of the slave States of this Union, which characterizes the conduct of the patriot and statesman. Nev- ertheless, it is our imperative duty to assert our rights as members of the same great family, and manfully resist, by all legal and constitutional means, the further advancement of slavery into territury belonging to the General Government. That Congress possesses this power does not admit of a doubt, and the only remaining question to be determined is, whether it is expedient to exercise that right. To decide this question affirmatively, the reflecting mind need only glance over the

~~

42 Whig Alntanac and United States Register for 1850 (New York, 1860), 48. The Hoosiers and the ‘‘Eternul Agitation” 349

history of our beloved country-the rise and progress in the arts and sciences-in manufactures, mechanics, internal im- provements, and every other great element of social and politi- cal happiness in the States of this Union, but too plainly ad- monish us that bounds should be prescribed to the baleful influence of human Governor Paris A. Dunning‘s feelings for the “great family” were being buffeted about by the twin dilemmas of “expediency” and the “reflecting mind” on the one hand, and “forbearance towards his political breth- ren” and “the imperative duty to assert our rights” on the other, posing a difficult problem for a federal state as well as for Dunning.* The disturbing influence of the territorial question in- vaded the halls of the new Congress early in 1850, and the Hoosiers, along with their political brethren north and south, anxiously awaited the outcome. A speakership and clerk fight in the House held up the organization of Congress, serving as a dire warning to all parties that confusion existed throughout the nation. The southern members of Congress were under surveillance by the Northwest as to their future actions. To their embarrassment, the Democrats who had been denounced by the Whigs as supporters of the old “dough face,’’ Cass, now saw Taylor take the noninterference position as to slavery in the territories. The Free Soilers for their part were quick to claim that the Wilmot Proviso was “ignominiously surrendered to the slave power by its professed champions and friend^."^' Early in 1850, the New Albany Democrat expressed sur- prise at the position taken by the Washington Union in its declaration that California did not have the right to proceed with the formation of a state government without the sanction of Congress. The Democrat used these words to denounce the South: “The entire Democracy of the North who supported Gen. Cass for the Presidency, will certainly be astonished by the Union on this subject. If it reflects the sentiments, or foreshadows the course, of the Southern democratic members of Congress, they will have just ground to complain of the breach of faith which it involves. During the Presidential contest of 1848, and since, the Democrats of the North have contended, in opposition to Whigs, free-soilers, and abolition- ists, that the question of slavery was one which should be left

48 Indiolur DOCUW~M~Jo~rmcl, 1849-1860, pp. 88-89. 44 Paris A. Dunnin a Democrat, wag the interim vernor following the election of James &itcomb to the United States &ate. Joseph A. Wright then assumed office late in 1849 following the October elections. 46 Indiana Tru~Denwarat, January 23,1850. 350 Indiana Magazine of History to the people of the territories themselves; and in this their brethren of the South apparently acquiesced. It is true that victory failed to perch on our standard, but this in no degree lessened the obligations by which the democracy of one section of the Union was bound to that of the other. . . . We ask in all sincerity if this is the treatment which the democracy of the North deserve from their brethren of the South, by whom they have stood and for whom they have fought so long? When the question of the annexation of Texas was agitated, did they use a subterfuge and pettifogging to keep her out of the Union. . . . The terms on which the democratic party of the nation sus- tained the Baltimore nominee and the Baltimore platform have been religiously complied with by the Democracy of the North. If others see proper to violate the compact, let the wrong rest on the proper shoulder^."^^ At the same time, the Sentinel, after airing the doubts that existed among the Democrats over the impending Cali- fornia question, proceeded to vent its wrath on the Whigs in the state and the nation: “The two extremes of the state are only an illustration of the .principles of the Federal Whig party. They have faces for all latitudes. Slavery men here, abolitionists there. No common bond of union but love of power, the hankering after the loaves and fishes. When in, the very elements composing it, clash-nor will they, nor can they, mix, more than oil and water. Rotten in every sense, as the leaders are, it is impossible that it should be ~therwise.”~~ The Hoosier Democrats admitted their concern over the “oil and water” in their own party as the territorial issue came to the political foreground. In view of the Democratic drive in the Northwest in 1849 to bring the antislavery ele- ment back into the party fold, it was a case of the kettle call- ing the pot black. The most important development, however, was that during the courae of the political controversy, the Hoosiers revived and played up their distrust of their south- ern colleagues, bringing up again the Texas question of 1844 and reminding the southern wing of the party that it was not yet forgiven for its failure to support Cass in 1848, to which the South countered by threatening to abandon the principles of squatter sovereignty as it might apply to California, thus giving warning that the western interests were again to be rebuked.

46 New Albany Democrat, January 16,1860, quoted in Indk~naStat6 Sentinel, January 31,1860. 47 ZndhStab Sentiwl, January 31,1850. The Hoo8iers and the ‘%tern1 Agitation” 361 Late in January, 1850, Clay announced his compromise program. From South Bend, Schuyler Colfax, a young Whig who represented the element opposed to the “old Hunkers” of the party, expressed the typical Whig reluctance to accept Clay’s solution. He wrote that although he had generally agreed with the “Noble Harry” in the past, he could not a- pouse Clay’s compromise resolutions. The difficulty of corn- promise in this quarter was revealed in Colfax’s statements: ‘Whether this glorious Union is, or is not, at last to be wrecked upon the rocks around us-with men of principle, Honor must be preserved. And in our poor judgment, these resolutions are the olive branch to the South but the hyssop to the North.”*8 In southern Indiana, Richard W. Thompson, who repre- sented the old Whig element, was also fearful of the Clay measures. In a series of letters to the National Intelligmcer signed “Americus,” Thompson declared that the measurea were not as practicable as he would like them to be. He, too, deplored the position taken by the South on California. Thompson felt that the South had been right when it accepted the proposition that it be allowed to do as it pleased as to slavery, but now, the South was wrong.’O Both Colfax and Thompson favored President Taylor’s course of action regarding the compromise, a proposal which had aroused the southern congressmen to accuse the North of aggression. Politically, the Indiana Whigs and Democrats were not far apart on the subject of California. Both agreed that Cali- fornia should be admitted with her constitution as submitted by the people of the territory. In Congress, Graham N. Fitch attacked the “super sensitiveness” of the South on the issue and deplored its action in resisting the asked-for admission of California whose constitution had been formed under the ap- plication of that doctrine and all because her constitution prohibited slavery.6o These were the initial reactions to the compromise proposals. The Indiana politicians had much to do before “finality” could become an accepted fact back home in their constituencies. The Lafayette Courier spoke of “Southern Compromises” when it editorialized : “Demand all, yield noth- ing, are the motives which govern our southern brethren, and

48south Bend, Indiana, St. Jos h’s V&g Re ktm, February 7, 1860 uoted in Smith, “Schuyler Col%,” zndkm dwU&ts of HMtoly, d&,272. 40 National Zntelligencer, February 19, 1850. Congressional Globe, 81 Cong., 1 Sa,Appendix, 138-41. 352 Indiana Magazine of History they appear to be satisfied with nothing but an entire con- cession to all they require.” The Courier also charged the South with abandoning J. W. Forney, the Democrat, in the congressional clerk election, ending with a warning that south- ern behavior would force the North to a just consideration of its rights-at least it should be entitled to an equal participa- tion in the rights and benefits of the federal government. “Possessing the strength it needs only an united action to make her power felt.”61 Another expression of the growing feeling of strength in the North was made by the State Sentinel, which declared it was willing to forgive the failure of the South to sustain the northwestern Democracy in the Oregon claims: “But on the new question, growing out of the acquisition of vast free terri- tories, acquired by war, between the Democracy of the free States and their Southern allies, there lies a mighty question of public policy and human rights, involving both an abandon- ment of conscientious scruples and of the cardinal principles of our own Declaration of Independence. It is easy, therefore, to see that the true Democracy, both North and South, will never yield to the unreasonable demand of less than 400,000 slaveholders of the Union, against the convictions of right of more than sixteen millions of free white citizens-and against the moral sentiment of the civilized world. . . . But they will steadily and sternly resist all unjust claims to settle the free common inheritance with slave laborers, to come into ruinous competition with their own labor. . . . They will resist to the end-and resist at all hazards and successfully. It may be considered singular by some, but we do cherish an idea, that the free States,-the North and the West,-possess some rights under the Constitution, as well as South Carolina. If this be untrue or fanatical,-or if it be abolitionism, why then we have got some new lessons in politics to learn. . . .We have never yet believed, and do not yet begin to believe, that the entire origin, end and aim of the Federal Government was Niggerism, either pro or con. The South has got its negroes : let the South keep them as long as she desires to do so, but deliver us from them, either as freemen or slaves. The true question between the North and the South does not wholly rest in this black point, however. The ‘balance of political power in the Union’ has quite as much to do with it, though this may be chiefly desirable as a means of protection to the nigger

51 Lafayette Couaisl; quoted in the Indiana State Sentinel, February 14, 1850. The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation” 353 interest. The South always heretofore has held the reins of actual power in the general government, and it is not surpris- ing that she now beholds, the ‘sceptre of power departing from Judah,’ with painful emotion. Such however is ‘manifest destiny,’ and it cannot be averted, even by the desperate alter- native which some of her leaders propose, of a dissolution of the Union.” The article concluded by raising the question of whether the Democracy of Indiana and the Northwest would foolishly resign its power into the hands of fanatics North and South.62 With the recognition of its growing importance as a con- ciliatory force, the Northwest became more conscious of its power. It no longer suffered under an attitude of neglect, nor cried for sympathy and understanding as it had in the forties when such legislative matters as river and harbor bills had been vetoed. Now the maturing Northwest was demanding its rights and felt that it had the strength to carry out its will. As Jacob P. Chapman, the editor of the Sentinel, expressed it, the Nofthwest would resist unjust claims made by any other section “and resist at all hazards and SuccessfuIIy.)’ The Whig press also expressed this feeling that the West in the role of peacemaker stood apart from the warring sec- tions. Thompson cried that the West knew only union: “The West is willing to trust both the North and South. Will not the North and South trust her? She will not suffer the rights of either to be invaded.”5a The Economist, a newspaper that claimed political neu- trality, but on occasion leaned to the Whig point of view, also concerned itself with the politicians’ quarrel which it felt the people should know about: “Are the people prepared for a dissolution of these States? Is the great West ready to be sold -her independence sacrificed and the tree of her prosperity uprooted by men of extreme views either Northern or South- ern? If the Union is dissolved, whither is Indiana to go? And where shall we find Kentucky? Who is to have the ‘Father of Waters’? and who the beautiful Ohio whose placid surface never yet was stained with fraternal blood? “It is time that the West do something for the Union. She has everything at stake. The North and the South are mad and apparently irreconcilable, but the West loves them both.”u

62 Zndianu State Sentinel, February 14,1850. 58 National Intelligmer, February 28,1850. 54 Cannelton, Indiana, Economist, March 2,1860. 354 Indium Magazine of History

After Congress had settled down to bargaining, and to listening to the pleas of those who felt a solution could be reached, the Free Soil press, representing those who had been promised so much by the politicians, raised its voice hope- lessly. “Compromise, Compromise, is the incessant cry. And is it any wonder that slavery should triumph when freedom has so many betrayers. Never before in the history of this government has so much political faithlessness been ex- hibited.”55 In Congress, the Indiana representatives felt their way cautiously about the territorial question. Early in the session Fitch had attacked the southern members. Then Willis A. Gorman spoke against the Wilmot Proviso and claimed that it was based upon the wrong assumptions-it was up to the people to decide what was best for their own welfare. He claimed that his constituents wanted the admission of Cali- fornia, the settlement of the Texas boundary, the organiza- tion of the territories with all their rights of self-government left to the people, and the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia.58 The sole Whig member of the delegation, Edward W. McGaughey, seemed to feel that his presence would not help stop the threatened dissolution of the Union, for he wrote to an old Hoosier Jacksonian-turned-Whig, Samuel Judah, of Knox County : “We are still engaged on the Slavery question- The truth is, Congress will do nothing this session and yet it will be one of the longest that has ever sat since the foundation of the Govt I intend to return home about the 10th of next month-I will pare [sic] off with some Southern Loco.”67 By early May, the Hoosier Senators had taken their posi- tion for compromise. Although senior Senator Bright, a mem- ber of the committee of thirteen, did not choose to take the floor to express his views at great length, he did claim that he was “willing to take a great middle conservative course.” This was a fairly typical reaction for many members of his party in the state and also for many of the Whigs. After Jesse D. Bright’s report of the committee, Michael C. Garber of the Courier in his native Madison eulogized Bright’s action thus: “he rises above party and sectional in- fluences. . . . We are for compromise. If that be lost, then we

55 Indiana True Dmarat, March 20,1850. 66 Congressional Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix, 318-21. 57 Edward W. McGaughey to Samuel Judah, Washington, April 18, 1860, in Judah Papere, Indiana University Library, Bloomingtoh The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation” 355 are for the admission of California with her present bound- aries and constitution, and for Territorial Government, for Utah and New Mexico with the Proviso. If the South is not willing to let the question remain as it is now fixed in the constitution; but must seek to amend it, it is the duty of the North to make the amendments on the side of liberty and equality; if there must be a new compact between slavery and freedom, the former must be told that no more slave territory, under any circumstances can be admitted; that not a foot of territory now free shall ever be polluted by the touch of slav- ery. The compact as it is: but if it must be changed, make it safer for freedom.”68 Later in the same month, the Courier again stated its position. It did not view the compromise effort as a mere party measure : “We wish to say that we are bound to no party, sect, or man. We advocated non-intervention in 1848, because it was right. If right then, it is certainly right now; and we are not inclined to abandon a principle adopted in 1848, par- ticularly when that principle is now fortified by the support of such statesmen as Clay and Webster, in addition to that of the Illustrious Democratic statesmen of the age.” Yet it was not ready to adopt the southern position regarding the Pre viso. If the constitution were to be changed, “we wish it to be so changed that there will be no doubt of the power of Con- gress to prevent the spread of a ‘great social evil’ deplored by all good men. If this be Whiggery, then we are a Whig, and a supporter of a Whig measure.”60 Opposition was expressed, however, by the Free Soil con- tingent who claimed that Bright and Whitcomb had gone over to the enemy : “The South holds slavery as the ne plus ultra of qualification of their Representatives, Why should the West, the child of freedom, not demand similar pledges on the cause of human rights? Why should the Davis, Bells, Clays, Butlers of the South assume dictatorship . . . and the North and West sit cowardly and still under the Slaveholders lash? One rea- son is, because the South feels the interest of the purse in the protection of Slavery-The Pistol and Bowie knife are sent with them to the halls of

68 Madison Courier, May 16,1860. 69 Ibid., Ma 24, 1850. The Emmist also sup orted the committee of thirteen. “dthing could be presented on which hr. Hale, Mr. Chase, or Seward would vote. . . . But we confess we were not prepared to see such men as Berrien and Mason in opposition to what seems to u0 all that any Southern man can desire.” Cannelton, Indiana, Economist, May 18, 1860. 00 Indiana T?ue Democrat, May 8,1860. 356 Indiana Magazine of Histmy

A few days later George W. Julian of the Whitewater Valley attacked the southern aggressors who were stretching the compromises of the constitution over a vast area in order to protect slavery. Parties, he declared, in order to maintain their national organizations intact clung to the old issues of the bank and the tariff, but when the question of slavery was made the issue there was but one bond of union that would hold together on the northern and southern sections of each party and that was subserviency on the part of the North to the slave interests.61 Back home in the Whitewater district, Julian’s constitu- ents were becoming aroused on the subject of the compromise. The Wayne County Democrats met and passed resolutions op- posing the extension of slavery into territory then free, and favoring admission of California “unconnected with any other subject.”6a A week later the Free Soil men of “Old Wayne” met and they too resolved that California should be free; they went on record as being opposed to the principle of nonintervention and in favor of the Ordinance of 1787.6a All over the state, political opinions and ideas were being aired which were indicative of the rising tide of public senti- ment. For example, in Madison at a dinner held in honor of Governor John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, the guest of the eve- ning made a speech which the local press reported thus: “He said the Union was safe as long as Indiana and Kentucky would shut out the political surveyors, who wish to run the line that is to separate this great, this glorious Union.”64 The Sentind played an interesting role at this particular time in reporting the reactions in Indiana to the compromise. In the midst of the controversy, the Chapmans, who had so vigorously advanced the cause of the New Democracy in Indi- ana, sold the paper to William J. Brown and his son Austin. Congressman “Done Brown,” a great political friend of Bright, had played both ends against the middle in making promises to southern and northern Democrats alike during the speakership fight in 1849, only to be caught in his political game.66 The Senator was the financial backer of the transac-

61 congressioncrl Globe, 31 Cong., 1 SW., Appendix, 679. 6’ Zndiam TwDemoorat, June 5,1860. 63 Zbid, June 12,1860. 64 Madison Cmriw, May 28, 1850. 66 The Chapmans had agreed to sell the Sentinel to E. W. H. Ellb and John Spann, both faithful members of the Wright wing. Jacob Pa Chapman, himself, occasionally sided with Wright, which put him on & The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation“ 367 tion, according to the correspondence of father and son, and he sent his instructions from Washington to Austin in Indianap- olis who edited the paper. It was the father who determined the policy of the Sentinel. For example, he wrote, “I shall send you occasionally an editorial article without any explana- tion which you will know how to insert without further in- structions.” The elder Brown also sent copy to the printer, Nathaniel Bolton, husband of the Hoosier poetess, for inser- tion. Directed from Washington, and certainly according to the wishes of Bright, the Sentinel followed the dictates of the Democra~y.~~The reshuffling of ownership resulted in a stronger policy. Within a short time the Sentinel declared that : “Now let no democratic free soiler go off in a tangent. With them we intend to have no quarrel, so long as they vote the democratic ticket, support Democratic men and Democratic measures, stand by the old time honored Democratic platform without attempting to tear up the planks and narrow the di- mensions, so that a northern sectional party can only stand on it. The Democratic party is a national party, and we shall quarrel with the man who attempts to make it sectional. “We are opposed to extending Slavery into any territory now free, and although we may differ with many democrats, good and true upon the mode by which this is to be done-with such we shall reason and not quarrel.’’ Any man who believed in a “higher law” or opposed a fugitive slave act was an aba- litionist, not a Democrat. “Take your seats in the Omnibus with the Southern Disunionists,” cried the Sentinel.6T The hope for a solution to the compromise problem on a political level continued to be expressed by the politicians and the press. One of the first politicians to speak was Cyr~s Dunham, Democratic representative from southeastern Indi- ana, who early in June claimed that while Congress had the power to limit slavery, it might not be expedient for it ta do so; he also claimed that he was as conciliatory as a Hoosier dared to be.68 Nathaniel Albertson, Democratic congressman opposite side of the political fence from Jesse D. Bri ht. Shortly after Senator Brow$e pn Anstln had discussed the prop& sale of the paper with local politicians and lawyers, the Browns were annound as the new owners. There is mme evidence that the intended transaction wll~ blocked to revent the Sentinel from falling into the hanap of the W ’ ht faction. 8illiam J. Brown to Auatln €I.Bmy, Washin@on, May%, 1860, Austin H. Brown Papers, Indiana State Library, In&anapolis. esLawrenceburg, Indiana Regeter, December 22, 1849. William J. Brown to Austin H. Brown, Waahmgton, May 28, 31, and dune 8, 1860, Austin H. Brown Papers. 67 Quoted in the Zndianu TW Demoorat, June 19,1860. Congre8aknud Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sw., Appendix, 836-48. 358 Indiana Magazine of History from New Albany on the Ohio River, in a letter to his con- stituents, informed them that he too was ready to accept the compromise. He declared that he went for the principles of 1848. If his constituents, he concluded, desired a “one-idea” representative, they had selected the wrong man.gD In the Senate, Whitcomb, ever cautious, tacked to the political breezes as he sensed their direction. He wrote the editor of the Sentinel, Austin Brown: “Not long since I spoke to the extent of a column or two on the question raised incidentally- whether Southern Senators would not have voted for the ad- mission of California if her constitution had permission. I prefer that you should not republish these remarks for the present.”‘O And Bright, in one of his rather few remarks on the floor of the Senate, declared : “Sir, I am not mistaken when I declare that the sound-thinking, practical men of the great and growing West of all parties, are tired of this eternal agita- ti~n.”~l As for the Whigs, Thompson addressed a letter on June 5 to Indiana’s senators approving their support of Clay’s com- promise measures. He told them that he still preferred Tay- lor’s plan but felt it his duty to support any proposition that would bring peace and tranquillity to the nation. As a clincher for his argument, he defended the Fugitive Slave Law at great length.72 Even Samuel W. Parker, who in the canvass against Julian had claimed that he had been an original Garrisonian, was now reluctant to take a definite stand by expressing his antislavery views. To the charge that he had once espoused emancipation of the slaves in his political past, Parker threat- ened, “If you make the allegation again I will cut your God damned throat.”’* The Cannelton Economist suggested that the full measure be taken against the extremists-exile. It declared that dis- unionists “cannot, when known and understood, live in Indi-

69 Indiana State Sentinel, July 11, 1850. ToJames Whitcomb to Austin H. Brown, Washington, August 29, 1850, Austin H. Brown Papers. 71 Conpessional Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1201-2. There seems to have been an element of truth rn the words of the Senator, for others durin the summer expressed a desire to follow a conservative course. Ea& individual, however, had his own definition of “conservative,” which de- ended on his own inte retation of an “extremist.” For example, the kashville convention hegin June was termed by some to have had prin- ciples as black as those of the fanatics of the North. Canneltm, Indiana, Economist, June 15,1850. 72 Charles Roll Colonel Dick Thontpsvn: The Persistent Whig (Indi- anapolis, 19481, 141. 711 Indiana TmDenwarat, July 10,1850. The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation” 359 ana, and they ought not be permitted to live within the limits of the Republic.”14 During the long summer of 1850, while these politicians and the press were laboring over the more practical aspects of a legal solution to the questions that threatened the federal union, there was a broadening impulse felt by Hoosiers who contemplated the wider implications of the dilemma. It would seem that some Hoosier leaders, political and otherwise, tried to place the situation in a broader context. Governor Wright, for example, was always politically con- scious, but his speech at the inauguration of the Reverend Lucien Berry as President of Indiana Asbury University was at least novel in approach. He urged the faculty of the University to quell the disconcerting course that sectionalism was taking: “I trust you will inculcate in the minds of the young men who shall come hither for instruction, a burn- ing love for the union of these States. It is too common an Occurrence to see our young men in the North and South on examination days, and at school exhibitions, engaged in re- hearsing the beauties of this, or the evils of that section of the country, fostering in the youthful mind a bigoted love for this or that section of the country, at the expense of the other. I have no patience to sit down and hear men talk about this or that section of the Union, or of the peculiar framework of so- ciety in this or that State, in opposition to those of other States. This continually speaking of Northern interest, South- ern interest, Northern population, and Southern population, is an evil that demands a remedy. This Union is not composed of a few cities in the North and South; the people of this Union consist of something else than iron mills and wooden clocks in the North or of rice and cotton bales in the South. We of the West have something to say as to who and what compose this union. . . .The time has now arrived when the influence of the West, in her conservative spirit, should be felt in the settle- ment of all our national questions. . . . Differing as we do in soil, climate, and productions-in habits, manners, and social relations-in local and sectional interest-we can only be one people upon the principles of concession and conciliation. . . . May you renounce all sectional parties-sternly rebuke any and every effort to form a northern party!”76 After diagnoa- ing the ills of the union in a broad context, the governor of-

74 Cannelton, Indiana, Economist, Auguet 10, 1860. 75 Joseph A. Wn ht, An Address Deliusred at the InstauCrttOn of Rev. L. W. Bm,.D.h, a;~Preaidsnt of the Indiana Asburg Univeraitgt, July 16, 1850 (In&anapolie, 1850), 14-16. 360 Indiana Magazine of History fered a political remedy that was a mere palliative for the spreading infection of sectionalism. In a similar fashion, the Madison Courier, fast pulling away from the Bright Democrats and their party solution to the sectional problem, expressed deep fears over the safety of the union, sensing that more than national political organiza- tions were being endangered when it declared that: “Those who look upon the slavery question now at issue between the North and the South as a mere temporary struggle for political quality or political ascendancy, and Abolition as a hobby- horse, on which to ride into power, and afterwards thrown aside as a piece of lumber, no longer serviceable or useful take but a superficial view of a subject that involves the most mo- mentous consequence, to present and future generations. Not only is the Union staked on its issue, but other results, if pos- sible still more vital to the peace and happiness of the United States and of the world at large. It involves a war of extermi- nation between two great races of mankind ; it involves dissen- tions [sic] in the Christian Church, highly injurious to its sal- utary influence, if not fatal it [sic] its existence.” The Courier went on to sound this warning to the Hoosier citi- zenry : “The consideration of the influence of slavery is much more extended than politicians generally view it, and should command serious attention from the Free Laborers of the North.”re A correspondent of George W. Julian also expressed con- cern over the general state of tension created by the politi- cians. Although this gentleman had left Indiana to move West, his attitude is worthy of notice: “Politics engross but little of my attention. To me this spectacle has often been a melancholy one to see communities agitated almost to moral insanity by party spirit, when perhaps the questions at issue were not calculated, in the event of their being carried either way to materially affect the interests of a single individual. At the present day I see, or think I see a strange spirit of infatuation dementing thousands in both North and South. I conceive the cause of the whole commotion to be puritanical cant in the north and gross ignorance in the south. The silly cry of ‘Northern Aggression’ is, as you have clearly shown, so unfounded and foolish that none but a man totally ignorant of p& history, would be fool enough to believe that ever the north has encroached in the least on southern rights. Many of the muthem members have a constituency on whom the light

‘6 Madison Courier, August 2, and June 18,1850. The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation” 361 of education and intelligence has rarely begun to dawn. In the midst of these local Egypta the cry of northern aggressions may have its effect. The white slave of the south, whose fund of intelligence ranges little above the ‘nigger’ he drives is a fit subject to be led by the designing politician into the belief of greatest absurdity. . . why contend for the Wilmot proviso when we all know California can never be a slave country. Why keep up a useless ferment, IL raging commotion about a mere abstraction not connected with any practical result. . . . The mind of man is so constituted that excitement, even from the most trivial cause prevents the judgment from exercising its proper The unusual state of the body politic growing out of the agitation aroused further comment : “With- in the last five years, and more particularly within the last year, unusual excitement and agitation have pervaded the minds of the people-the whole body politic has been convulsed by the conflict of opinions, the declaration and denial of rights. Men have acted as if mad, or laboring under the influence of some strange delusion. Especially has this been the case with many persons living in the southern portions of our Union, where the climate predisposes man to the enjoyment of leisure and the quietness of These examples of the prevailing state of restlessness dur- ing the summer of 1850 indicated the Hoosier politicians’ need for a broader understanding of the growing disturbance. The questions that were being raised in some men’s minds were charged with what historians a hundred years later would label “hyper-emotionalism.” It is interesting to observe that after the irritant which the politicians provided had induced the rash of disquieting opinions, they were prepared to offer another application of the same remedy-by playing more politics they hoped to allay the uncomfortableness felt by these observers who were afraid of the future. Back in Washington, when the provisions of the Compro- mise of 1850 finally came to a vote in Congress, five of the members of the House accepted all of the provisions, four Hoosier representatives opposed the Fugitive Slave Act, and McGaughey, the lone Hoosier Whig in Congress, supported all the provisions of the bill except the Texas boundary settlement. On the compromise as a whole, Julian still remained the sole Hoosier radical in the House. Over in the Senate, Whitcomb

~ 77George Pattison to George W. Julian, Hardin, Calhoun County, Illinois, June 23, 1850, George W. Julian Papers, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. 78 Cannelton, Indiana, Ecmnniat, August 24,1850. 362 Indium Magazine of History approved the bill completely, but Bright failed to vote on the fugitive slave provisions, a fact which the Senator was called upon to explain in the ensuing canvass. The voting revealed that it was the Fugitive Slave Law that proved the real stumb- ling block for Indiana’s congressmen. To a great degree, the popular press reaction to the com- promise in the state followed the pattern established by its representatives in Congress. The popular opposition to the entire compromise held a minority position. The greatest pro- test that arose over the political settlement of the slavery issue came from those who could not condone the Fugitive Slave Law. In this reaction, the Hoosiers were not alone-they were merely voicing the general feeling of many in the Northwest. In order to express their dissatisfaction more vociferously, meetings were held throughout the state during which, for the moment at least, Whigs and Democrats saw eye to eye on the repugnant features of the Fugitive Slave Law. At one such meeting in Greencastle, as reported by the Indiana State Sm tinel, it was resolved: “That it was with pain we witnessed the fearful agitations through which we have just passed. For ten months the national legislature was almost suspended, the wheels of government became nearly motionless. . . . In these agitations we have taken part with neither the abolitionists of the north or the disunionists of the south, but steadily regard- ing the perpetuation of our unparalleled system of govern- ment. .. and ~IIpatriots we hail with just pride and rejoicing the system of compromise measures passed at the last session of congress. . . . Further the resolutions declared that the meeting would not countenance abduction of slaves from slave states and would not permit ‘negro stealing any sooner than horse stealing.’ ”lS Such sentiments as these sounded political warnings for the Indiana congressmen who had approved the OornproMise measures. Some of them were quick to break into print ex- plaining their legislative actions. William J. Brown made a strong plea in favor of the “peace bill,” as he termed it. He condoned the Fugitive Slave Law as a practical measure with which to prove that the peopIe of the North were willing “to sacrifice all upon the altar of constitutional obligation.”8o Congressman Joseph E. McDonald reported in the Lafay- ette Courier that although for him the Fugitive Slave Law was

To Indium State Sentinel, October 12,1850. 80 ZM,October 8,1850. The Hoosiers and Ute “Eternal Agitation” 363 not wholly free from objections, still he had voted for it, ex- plaining: “I have no more sympathy with the institution of slavery than any other man, but while we exist under the same Constitution with slave States, I am decidedly in favor of dis- charging our constitutional obligations towards them, however much I detest the institution which they have made the basis of their socisl [sic] system.”81 Some of the editors of the Hoosier press also lent their support to the compromise. They too sought to explain the fugitive slave provisions, trying to make them more acceptable. A Terre Haute editor declared that : “Something must be con- ceded to the necessities of the times. It was thought by many better to have peace and save the union. It is possible that some of the provisions of the fugitive slave law may seem very stringent. But something had to be yielded, as well as some- thing sustained.”** Equally conciliatory was the Zndhm State JoumZ, central organ of the Whig party. While it did not take a positive posi- tion as to the merits of the Fugitive Slave Law, it made a plea for a fair trial without continued agitation against it: “that the law should be given a fair trial,-and if it only secures the object of the Constitution, without unjust requirements at the hands of the people of the free States, then let it remain as it is.”a’ It is safe to say that these opinions were typical of the majority of the press. While it could speak in a positive tone about the compromise generally, it had to make reservations concerning the troublesome Fugitive Slave Law. Protests were also heard in every part of the state, but these initial outbursta were tempered or withdrawn, after giving the problem sober second thought. The course of the Richmond Pallarlium offers an example of this line of action. After crying that the compromise was a mockery of justice, common sense, and law, and asking, “Why not issue a license to kidnappers,” this newspaper gradually spoke with a calmer voice ; within a short time it was merely challenging the con- stitutionality of the lawf’

81Laiayett.e Courisr, October 18, 1850, quoted in Madison Courier, November 2,1850. 8%Terre Haute, Indiana, Wabvb Courier, November 16, .l850, quoted in Charlea H. Money “The Fu tive Slave Law of 1850 111 Indma,” Indiana Magazine of history, X8I (1921), 171. 8s Indiana State Joud,May 10,1851. 84Richmond Palladitc Se tember 11, November 20, Decemkr 3, 1850, quoted in Mone “%e & ‘tive Slave Law of 1850 in Indiq” Indiana Magdm of &atory, XVE, 173. 364 Indiana Magazine of Histow

The vital opposition minority which continued agitating against the law was composed of members of both parties, for the party lines were being broken by those who opposed as well as by those who approved the compromise. Whether the ap- peals to rise above party loyalty and join hands were made by the proponents or opponents of any issue, they spelled danger to party structure. One of the immediate results of the controversial Fugitive Slave Law was the hierarchical quarrel that developed between Bright and the editor of the Courier, Michael C. Garber. The Indiana senator had assumed that the newspaper wahis per- sonal mouthpiece ; consequently, when Garber denounced the law in the columns of the Courier in October, Bright ro8e up indignantly and proceeded to read Garber out of the Demo- cratic party. In addition to his attack on the Fugitive Slave Law, the editor had reported favorably the action of Gbvernor Wright in state affairs. Both acts were cardinal sins in the eyes of Bright, and he retaliated by creating a new political organ for Madison, The Madisoniun, under the editorship of two of his old political henchmen in the river town.8n Yet the Courier was not occupying an extreme position, as witnessed by its treatment a few days later of the Presby- terian church assemblies for their attacks on the Fugitive Slave Law and for preaching the doctrine of a “higher law.” Garber wrote: “We have expressed our view of the fugitive law. We don’t like it, and we will use our little influence to get it modified, or repealed. But we cannot sanction even by silence, the treasonable language of the assemblies . . . no matter how thickly the ‘cloud of facts’ in connection with the subject of ‘fugitives’ from religious oppression may thicken around us.” And again: “the law must be so modified and framed that white people may not be liable to seizure and ex- tradition, upon proof made in another state.”88 The confusion over the Fugitive Slave Law also affected the successful alliances that had been patched together in 1849. Julian, a thorough-going Free Soil radical, owed his seat in Congress to such an alliance. Although the Democrats of the Whitewater Valley did not love the Negro, they had been per- fectly willing to support Julian, if by so doing they could over- throw the firmly entrenched Whig organization led by Caleb B. Smith. The existence of this particular coalition was en- dangered by the reactions to the law.

~~ 88 William .S. Gar+, “Jesse D. Bri t and Michael C. Garber,” Zndiana Mugcume of Esstory, XXVIII (19 P2), 31-88. ‘0 Madison Cmwier, November 4, December 7,1860. The Hoosiers and the “EtdAgitation“ 366 Julian realized his political life was in danger, for he wrote to his wife: “There is danger d so many and such seri- ous divisions among the Whigs as to encourage the Democrats to set up a man of their own. It may be that the Hunkers of both the old parties will unite against me in favor of Bome Fugitive Slave Law man, in which event the honest men of all parties will rally to me against that law.”87 Not all of the reactions to the Fugitive Slave Law were in a negative direction. On the positive side there was the minor, though important, fact that the schedule of the underground railroad was speeded up.s8 It is difficult to evaluate the role played by the church assemblies in the controversy. Some of them took a vehement stand against the Fugitive Slave Law; others refused to take any stand, saying this matter was outside the province of the church. Both reactions, in the end, resulted in keeping the question constantly in the minds of the people, irritating many but influencing few to change their minds on the matter, al- though occasionally an individual who felt he was being pushed into making a decision, either for or against the law, reacted by withdrawing from the scene. The effects of the efforts of the church assemblies to resolve the problem were neither negative nor positive. Those individuals and groups who favored the compromise appealed to patriotism, good faith, constitutionalism, and ob- servance of law. When the Fugitive Slave Law was being tested in the courts, Elisha Huntington, federal judge, in his charge to the grand jury, expressed the fears of many who were determined that sectional agitation should cease. He declared: “Whatever may be the feelings of the great body of the people in regard to the institution of domestic slavery, they will never be found making war on the rights of others. In the midst of a sectional controversy which has shaken the government to its centre, it has been our boast that Indiana has been faithful to the constitution-her tribunals of justice have ever been unawed and uninfluenced, and it is my firm belief that she will be found faithful to the last.

~ 8’George W. Julian to wif% Washington, December 9, 1850, in “Home Letters of George W. Julian, 1860-1851,” Znqlicma, aeinS of Hutmy, XXIX (1933), 16142. Juhn was aware pf his plitiasu po* but on occasion pereonal feelmg prom ted hun to Ignore 1t. after the passage of the Comppmiae, Pulian wrote to his wife after mak- ing a a eech in Congress a amt Compromise: “It d no doubt make troublegetween me and the%emocrats, but after the passage of the Fu- gitive Slave Bill I was de+dned to my what I thought.” Julian to wife, September 26,1860, absd., 148. *a Will+ M. Cockrum, History of t+ Undslground R&d (Oak- land Ciw, Inhana, [c] UU), 24 et paseom. 366 Indiana Magazine of History

“Gentlemen, there are too may [sic] indications of a corn- ing stom, and although the spec [sic] in the horizon may now be no larger than a man’s hand, it portends a crisis in public affairs which will test the stability of our public institutions. Threatened resistance to the law of Congress and inflamma- tory appeals to the misguided passions of a portion of the people of the North have placed weapons in the hands of those in the South who seek to overturn the government. Where this is to end God only knows; but our path of duty is plain. We must stand by the rights of others as we stand by our own. -We must observe the laws and we must enforce our observ- ance where they are resisted-we must keep our faith not only with each other, but with the citizens of other States.”sg The Judge spoke for a group of influential and highly respected citizens of the state representing both parties. Some of these men were past their political prime and had become leaders in business and banking; among them were Oliver H. Smith, Charles Test, James Raridan, and Charles Dewey. Many similar statements were heard in Indiana during the winter of 1850-1851,but the Judge had struck squarely upon the troublesome dilemma: Slavery was an institution to the Hoosier about which he had “feelings”; those who were ma- terially interested in the institution had “rights.” Typical of those who supported the compromise, the Judge was not will- ing to allow “feeling” to enter the courtroom. It had proved impossible, however, to keep “feeling” out of the state constitutional convention. Indiana’s delegates had met on October 4,1850,to begin their long sessions in revising the fundamental laws of the state. Although the Compromise of 1850 was of no immediate concern to this convention, James Raridan, a Wayne County Whig, suggested that resolutions favoring the compromise be passed, and thus touched off a heated debate. Some of the members of the body refused to become involved, claiming that they had not had time to gauge the opinions of those they represented, but from November 30 to December 4, the convention argued over the resolutions. John U. Pettit of Lafayette cried out that Raridan’s action was an “allopathic dose of political medicine,” and although he per- sonally favored the Compromise, Pettit claimed the resolutions were politically inspired and therefore had no business on the floor of the convention. Raridan answered that the resolu-

99 Cannelton, Indiana, Eaowmiut, December 14,1860. The Hoosiers and the “Eternal Agitation” 367 tions related to no political parties except the Union and the anti-Union party.” The debates revolved about several issues : Was it within the province of the convention to discuss the resolutions? Were they political or not? Was the union in danger? Was the Compromise of 1850 really what it claimed to be-a com- promise? By placing the issue on the basis of Union vs. anti- Union, it behooved the delegates to express their views care- fully, lest they be misinterpreted, and lead to accusations of disunionist sentiment. Consequently, those who opposed the resolutions (and by implication, a portion of the compromise, frequently the Fugitive Slave Law) chose to attack the con- vention’s right to pass any such measures when the purpose of their meeting was to form a new state constitution. Raridan’s strategy was difficult to circumvenb-he had attempted to make a Union meeting of the constitutional convention. The resolutions finally passed the convention by a vote of 90 to 25. The minority represented primarily the southeastern counties of the state: the Whitewater Valley. Although there were five abstainees in the balloting, it might safely be as- sumed that the majority favored the provisions. It was a plebiscite in a sense, testing the slogan that “Indiana knows no North, that she knows no South, that she knows nothing but the Union.” On the last day of the eventful year of 1850, the governor of the state, Joseph A. Wright, in his message to the legisla- ture, made one final plea to the citizens of Indiana when he declared : “Complete unanimity is rarely the incident of human councils. In a confederacy like ours, differing as its members do, in soil, climate, and productions; in habits, manners and social relations ; in local and sectional interests, it could not be expected now, any more than at the birth of our Federal Con- stitution, that any compromise, based upon mutual concessions, should be satisfactory to all. “It is not a practical question whether those measures of peace, recently framed by great and good men, in the same spirit which actuated our fathers in days gone by, are, in every respect, such as meet our unqualified approval. It has been well said, that the lives of the best of us are spent in choosing between evils; and it is often a bounden duty to endure a temporary and incidental evil for a permanent and inherent good.. ..

90 Report of the Debatae and Procm%ngs o the ConventiOn for the Revision of the ConstitutiOn of thd State of Z &no, 1850 (2 vob., Indi- anapolis, 1860), I, 866-67. lld 368 Indianu Magazine of History “As Representatives, as citizens of Indiana, as citizens of the United States, we have difficult, delicate, important duties to perform. Foremost among these is the obligation to oppose, by every lawful means, that spirit of factious fanaticism alike suicidal wherever it has birth, which insidiously assumes the garb, in one sedion of philanthrophy, in another, or State rights. By speech, by action, by concession, by forebearance, by compromise, by the influence of moral suasion and strong power of kindness, by each and all of these means, let us seek to allay the spirit of lawless misrule, that spirit which instals each man’s opinion the arbiter of constitutional rights, or which coolly estimates the value of this Union, and looks with steady eye on a separation of these States, the certain herald of bloodshed and a thousand horrors, a separation to be surely and speedily followed by war, in its most odious form, servile, perhaps, as well as civil,-war among those of the same race, the same name, the same blood. . . . “Indiana takes her stand in the ranks, not of Southern destiny, nor yet of NORTHERN DESTINY. She plants herself on the basis of the Constitution! and takes her stand in the ranks of AMERICAN DESTINY.”P1 Since 1848, the Hoosiers had endured two years of politi- cal strife that had stemmed out of the territorial questions of the rapidly expanding nation. The end of the year 1850 found many people accepting the Compromise, people like the Gov- ernor who felt it their duty to tolerate a temporary and inci- dental evil for a permanent and inherent good. To them Slav- ery, as a legal question, had been settled by a series of statutes. Indiana’s politicians, still in the middle of the conflict, to be sure, preferred to consider themselves out of it, picturing themselves as a great force representing the Union, and scorn- ing those of the North and South who had given way to “mis- guided passions.” Although the majority of the Indiana politicians played their role to the hilt as representatives of a “central state” maintaining a “high, conservative position,” they knew that, after all, they were on the same stage as the other players. If the Union stage collapsed, all the members of the cast would tumble together.

91 Indiana Doemwntrvry Journal, 1850, pp. 115,117.