Myth of a Martyr David Broderick and the Making of an Anti-Slavery Hero UNDERGRADUATE WIENER OF THE JOSEPH MULLINS PRIZE IN HISTORY Gerald R. Morlidge “Citizens of California: A Senator lies dead in our midst. He is wrapped in a bloody shroud, and we to whom his toils and cares were given are about to bear him to the place appointed for all the living.”1 With these words, Colonel Edward D. Baker addressed the crowd who came to hear him speak in San Francisco on September 18, 1859. His speech was the final stage of a saga that climaxed several days before when a United States Senator was struck down in a duel against the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. But the bullet that took David Broderick’s life also represented the moment in which a man became a myth. Baker’s words placed the memory of his friend into a greater context as not just a politician who served the people, but as a politician who belonged to the people. The imagery of Baker’s words was clear; Broderick’s body and memory now belonged to the people of California to carry forward. Almost immediately after his death from the wound he received, if not from the very moment that Chief Justice David Terry’s bullet entered his chest, the story of David Broderick evolved from a political disagreement into political mythology. While the chain of events that led to the fateful duel itself were widely reported by the local San Francisco press, deeper understanding of what Broderick stood for remained clouded, and a narrative was constructed in which the California Senator became an anti-slavery martyr. But was Broderick really an anti-slavery martyr? Looking at his legislative actions, his Senate speeches, and the eulogies of his Congressional colleagues, such a claim is brought into doubt. Instead one finds that Broderick’s opposition to slavery originated in his beliefs in 1. Edward D. Baker, Oration of Colonel Edward D. Baker: over the dead body of David C. Broderick, A Senator of the United States, 18th September, 1859 (New York: De Vinne Press, 1889), Internet Archive. Accessed October 20, 2015. https://archive.org/ details/orationofcolonel00bake, 5. 36 Gerald R. Morlidge free-labor and popular sovereignty. When his stance against the expansion of slavery was combined with the manner in which he died, however, the memory of David Broderick provided the perfect image for Republican Party leaders to use in the 1860 presidential election. In the nearly one hundred and sixty years since his death, several attempts have been made by historians to develop an understanding of the man that David Broderick was. One such attempt was made by Jeremiah Lynch in his 1911 book, A Senator of the Fifties: David C. Broderick of California. Looking back at the histories and reminiscences that were published in the previous fifty years by California historians, Lynch sets out to correct what he felt was the faulty telling of early San Francisco history. Basing his account on surviving documents and interviews with people who had known Broderick, he comes to the conclusion that his political life in California can be seen through the lens of the greater North and South political divide that was deepening in national politics during the 1850s.2 Broderick, as a New York raised politician, represented the ideals and politics of Northerners, including a belief in anti-slavery. As such, every interaction he had and challenge he faced came from Southern, pro-slavery politicians.3 However, Lynch focuses his analysis primarily on Broderick’s political campaigns and interactions, choosing to only gloss over his legislative works. What Lynch leaves out was picked up in detail many years later in 1969 when David Williams published his Broderick biography entitled David C. Broderick: A Political Portrait. While also covering his life and campaigns, the majority of Williams’s book is focused on analyzing Broderick’s political legislation and maneuvering. In doing so, he argues that Broderick was an anti-slavery crusader, as demonstrated by his battles against pro-slavery legislation at both the state and national levels. In approaching his book, Williams, like Lynch before him, believes that previous works have been inaccurate and he thus considers himself to be 2. Jeremiah Lynch, A Senator of the Fifties: David C. Broderick of California (San Francisco: A.M. Roberson, 1911), Preface. 3. For an example, see Lynch, Senator of the Fifties, 78-79. MYTH OF A MARTYR 37 correcting the myths that had evolved as a result of those inaccuracies.4 In 1994, Arthur Quinn shifted the discussion away from Broderick individually and realized that understanding him required also understanding his chief political rival, William Gwin. In his book, The Rivals: William Gwin, David Broderick, and the Birth of California, Quinn takes a more narrative approach to telling the story and focuses on how the Broderick- Gwin political rivalry directly symbolized the national rivalry between Northern and Southern states and politicians. With so many people from all over the United States coming to California during the Gold Rush and bringing their respective regional differences with them, the debates that occurred in Sacramento directly mirrored the debates that occurred in Washington, DC. For Quinn, the battle between Broderick, the anti-slavery Northerner, and Gwin, the pro-slavery Southerner, directly foreshadowed the events of the Civil War. 5 However, Quinn occasionally loses himself in his narrative and will gloss over some aspects of the history in favor of his storytelling. Taking the work of previous authors into consideration, this paper intends to downplay the importance of Broderick’s views on slavery. Instead it places a greater emphasis on his beliefs in free labor and popular sovereignty. Furthermore, while his actions during his lifetime are important in establishing the groundwork from which to build an argument, this paper more heavily emphasizes the story of Broderick as it evolved after his death. To achieve all of these ends, this paper is divided into three parts. Part one establishes Broderick’s thoughts on slavery by focusing on his legislative actions and speeches in both the California State Legislature and the United States Senate. Part two shifts focus to the initial period after his death to examine the remarks and tributes offered by fellow legislators to demonstrate that his stance on slavery was, at the time, of minor importance to his perceived legacy. Part three concludes with how prominent Republicans took hold of Broderick’s memory during the 1860 presidential election to shape an image of him that readily fit into their 4. David A. Williams, David C. Broderick: A Political Portrait (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1969), 259. 5. Arthur Quinn, The Rivals: William Gwin, David Broderick, and the birth of California (New York: Crown Publishers, 1994), Preface v-vi. 38 Gerald R. Morlidge campaign against the Democratic Party. SLAVERY, ANTI-SLAVERY, OR POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY? In his early life, David Broderick was not someone who was expected to become a prominent name in California history. The son of a stonemason, he grew up on the streets of New York City after he lost both his parents and brother at a young age. In his youth, he briefly worked as a stonemason, like his father before him, before finding respect as one of the city’s leading volunteer firemen. Developing an interest in politics, he served as customhouse inspector and later a delegate to the 1846 convention that wrote a new city charter. He was also an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in 1846. With the coming of the Gold Rush, he left for California and reportedly promised several friends that “I shall never return to you, except as a Senator of the United States.”6 Establishing himself prominently in San Francisco, he was elected to the California State Senate as a Democrat in 1850 and became engaged in a lengthy rivalry with the established Democratic politicians of the state, many of whom had come from the South and were collectively known as the Chivalry. This rivalry and his quick rise to prominence transformed the nature of California politics, as political party ceased being the main point of distinction and instead politicians became known as either pro-Broderick or anti-Broderick. In 1856, he fulfilled his promise to his New York friends when he was elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate. Shortly after arriving in Washington DC in 1857, he became a fierce critic of President James Buchanan over a dispute on political patronage and continued to make enemies among Southern Democratic politicians. This continuing conflict with Southern political leaders reached its ultimate climax in 1859 when he was challenged to a duel by California Supreme Court Chief Justice David Terry over public comments in which Broderick had questioned Terry’s honesty, and on September 13, Terry mortally wounded Broderick near 6. His words were remembered by Daniel Sickles, himself later a United States Congressman who served at the same time as Broderick served in the Senate. United States Congress, Remarks, delivered in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, on the announcement of the death of Hon. David C. Broderick, of California, late a member of the Senate of the United States in the Thirty-Fifth Congress, (Washington DC: Lemuel Towers, 1860), Internet Archive. Accessed October 20, 2015, https://archive.org/ details/remarksdelivered00unit, 16. MYTH OF A MARTYR 39 Lake Merced in San Francisco.7 In the story that evolved after his death, Broderick was depicted as a believer in anti-slavery, and this point must be addressed first.