Indiana Magazine of History

Home , Franklin Landers, Gilbert De La Matyr, Stalwarts (politics), William Henry Barnum, Winfield Scott Hancock

INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY VOLUMELVIII SEPTEMBER1962 NUMBER3 ”~,,,,,,~~,,,,,,,,,,,..,,*,,.,.,~~**.,,,.,,..,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,~,,,*‘*,‘...“~.,,,,,.,‘,,,*‘,‘~~*~~ ”~,,,,,,~~,,,,,,,,,,,..,,*,,.,.,~~**.,,,.,,..,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,~,,,*‘*,‘...“~.,,,,,.,‘,,,*‘,‘~~*~~

The Democratic State Central Committee of Indiana in 1880: A Case Study in Party Tactics and Finance Albert V. Home*

The October, 1880 election for state officers was important to the Democratic party in Indiana, and the Novem- ber, 1880 presidential election in the Hoosier State was doubly important to the national fortunes of the party. Yet the Democracy lost both of these political contests by narrow margins of less than 8,000 votes in a total count of approxi- mately 470,000.1 This occurred despite the fact that in early September of 1880 the state had appeared to key observers as safely Democratic.2 Why did these defeats materialize? Literate and vocal participants, as well as historians, have offered a myriad of explanations about the elements, issues, and mistakes which contributed to this debacle. Stress usually has been placed on national factors : e.g., the supposed political ineptitude of the Democratic presidential candidate, General Winfield Scott Hancock ; the unfortunate appearance of the phrase “a tariff for revenue only” in the party platform; the general disorganization and anarchy within the party following the loss of the disputed election of 1876; and the

*Albert V. House is professor of history at Harpur College, at Ringhamton, of the State University of New York. 1 John B. Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916 (Indianapolis, 1917), 289-290. See also Paul T. Smith, “Indiana’s Last October Campaign,” Indiana Magazine of History, XIX (December, 1!123), 332-345. 2George W. Julian, MS Journal,. 1878-1899,. October 14, 1880, George W. Julian Papers (Indiana Division, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis). Winfield S. Hancock to William H. English, August 22, September 1, 1880; William H. Barnum to English, August 22, 1880, William H. English Papers (Indiana Historical Society Library, Indianapolis). Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated, all letters cited are contained in the English Papers. 180 Indiana Magazine of History decline in both the health and political mastery of Samuel J. Tilden in New Y~rk.~Some writers have credited other national causes such as the energy, money, and imported voters which were supposedly poured into Indiana in the closing weeks of the campaign by the Republican national committee under the direction of its secretary, Stephen W. Dorsey.‘ During the campaign, after the October election, and in the months following the November defeat, many voices in Indiana and neighboring states suggested that the failure had been due largely to the faulty operations of the Democratic State Central Committee of Indiana. This committee had operated under the chairmanship of William H. English, who was also the vice-presidential running mate of General Han- cock on the national ticket.6 The papers of English, which are available for scrutiny, provide a remarkably full picture of the policies, problems, techniques, and financial activities of the state central committee in that highly significant election year. These manuscripts and records make possible a somewhat detailed study of the committee’s operations. Such an analysis throws considerable light on the actual causes of defeat and offers a variety of interesting detail about the tools and tactics as well as the strategy and scope of a state political campaign some fourscore years ago. The electoral arithmetic of the presidential contest in 1880 was remarkably similar to that of 1876.6 The magic figure for victory was still 185 electoral votes since no new -

3 John D. Hicks, The American Nation (New York, 1955), 112; Harrison C. Thomas, The Return of the Democratic Party to Power in 1884 (Columbia University, Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, Vol. LXXXIX, No. 2, New York, 1919), 54. For a discussion of the role of Tilden and his relations with Hancock in the 1880 election see also: Alexander C. Flick, Samuel Jones Tilden, a Study in Political Sagacity (New York, l939), 443-468; Mark D. Hirsch, William C. Whitney, Modern Warwzck (New York, 1948), 153-160; Albert V. House, “Internal Conflict in Key States in the Democratic Convention of 1880,” Pennsylvania History, XXVII (April, 1960), 194-216. ‘Charles R. Lingley and Allen R. Foley, Since the Civil War (New York, 1935), 168; Herbert J. Clancy, The Presidential Election of 1880 (Chicago, 1958), 204. 6 Julian, MS Journal, 1878-1899, August 22, 1880, Julian Papers; Daniel W. Voorhees to English, February 18, 1882; Edward Campbell, Jr. to William H. Barnum, August 19, 1880; William H. Barnum to English, August 22, 1880; Edward Campbell, Jr. to English, August 25, 1880. 6 For further analysis of the continuing elements in the national political picture see House, Pennsylvania History, XXVII (April, 1960), 189-192. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 181

states or census reapportionment had altered the total. By 1880 there was little danger that any of the southern or border states could be stolen again from the Democrats as had probably happened in Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina in 1876. This provided the party with a basic initial advantage of 138 electoral votes practically before the contest began. The addition of New York (35) and Indiana (15) would make a total of 188 votes and victory. Tilden and Hendricks had carried these key northern states in 1876; therefore, they might be presumed to be Democratic in 1880. It is true that the picture had changed somewhat in New York, but it was thought that some truce could be worked out between the John Kelly and Samuel J. Tilden forces to enable the Democrats to achieve the necessary unity. Since Connecticut (6) was no longer considered as probably Democratic even strongly Democratic New Jersey (9), when added to the anticipated votes from New York (35), would not be sufficient. Thus, the fifteen votes of Indiana were crucial.? While a scattering of Democratic electors might be forthcoming from Nevada, Oregon, and California in the Far West, these developments could not be relied upon. Democratic managers agreed that New York and Indiana must be secured in 1880,* but victory in the Hoosier State was especially important because of its October election of state officers. Republican victory in this contest would undoubtedly affect the psychology of the presidential campaign and breed discouragement in Democratic quarters. Usually voter support in Indiana throughout the last half of the nineteenth century was almost equally divided between the two major parties. This perhaps reflected the remarkably even cultural, economic, and regional balance within the State. For a decade and a half before 1875 Oliver P. Morton was the driving and domineering spirit and force of the Re- publicans. In the same period Thomas A. Hendricks was the strongest leader of the Democrats. Following the Civil War Indiana became a bloody political battleground with parties

7 The English Papers contain many letters from leading Democrats in Georgia, Kentucky, Iowa, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and New York in which this thesis is pounded home. See also: W. B. Beach to English, June 29, 1880; Winfield S. Hancock to English, August 6, 11, 20, 26, September 1, 13, 17, 1880. 8 Winfield S. Hancock to English, August 6, 22, 26, September 13, 1880; William H. Barnum to English, August 22, 28, 1880; W. B. Beach to EngIish, June 29, 1880. 182 Indiana Magazine of History alternating in power within the state as the result of a series of very narrow victories at the polls.o Hendricks was a formidable presidential candidate in the Democratic national conventions of 1868 and 1876. In the latter year he was nominated for the vice-presidency as the western representative of the New York-midwestern alliance of the Bourbon Democrats of the North. Some easterners were not happy with this development, since by that date many of them had come to regard Hendricks as something of a renegade Bourbon because of his dalliance with inflation. But the star of Hendricks faded somewhat from the political horizon in the years 1877-1880. He made plain his resentment of Tilden’s studied failure to consult him during the campaign and electoral count of 1876-1877 by announcing that he would never again run on the old ticket of 1876.1° He felt the pressure of the Greenbackers in the Midwest and partially succumbed to their doctrines.11 He made tentative rapprochements with the Kelly forces who were fighting Tilden in New York and generally tried to solidify and expand his presidential support among all western Democrats.12 Back home in Indiana, however, some new faces were appearing in party gatherings, councils, and state 0ffi~es.l~Some of these, such as George W. Julian and Isaac P. Gray, were old Whigs or Democrats who had joined Morton in the Republican party in the Civil War era and had remained until the completion of its historic mission of antislavery had been replaced by Grantism and reactionary Bloody-Shirtism. Others, such as Governor “Blue-Jeans” Williams, of Vin- cennes, and State Treasurer William Fleming, of Fort Wayne, had worked with Hendricks for years but were now carrying party and governmental responsibilities in their own right. In the Indiana elections of 1878 the Democrats won a resounding victory after a campaign in which the Republicans

9 Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916, pp. 225-291. See also the sketches of Oliver P. Morton and Michael Kerr in William W. Woolen, Biographical and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana (Indianapolis, 1883), 130-146, 344-352. loHenry L. Watterson to Samuel J. Tilden, July 2, 1878, Manton Marble Papers (Division of Manuscripts, Library of Congress). 11Horace S. Merrill, Bourbon Democracy of the Middle West, 1865-1896 (Baton Rouge, La., 1953), 100. 12 House, Pennsylvania History, XXVII (April, 1960), 197. 13 Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916, pp. 260-261, 279-285 ; Julian, MS Journal, 1878-1899, August 22, 1880, Julian Papers. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 183

may have been weakened to some extent by Morton's death in the fall of 1877.'' Both the Democratic party and the incumbents of elected and patronage state positions hoped to continue their good fortune. But Hendricks' preoccupation with his presidential ambitions bid fair to confuse the Democratic state machine and to decrease the party's prospects in both 1880 elections. Although it must be remem- bered that the gyrations of national party conventions usually are unpredictable, careful scrutiny of a considerable volume of evidence on the 1880 nominations in Cincinnati strongly suggests that Hendricks did not have a real chance of being nominated for either president or vice-president. He had to share the title of "leader of the West" with others such as the Ohio politicians, Allen G. Thurman, Henry B. Payne, and George H. Pendleton; he had thrown away his chance for the second spot by his vigorous anti-Tildenism of the previous three years ; and he was persona non grata to the great party fund contributors of the East because of his flirtation with the inflationists.lS Yet Hendricks' past services and the tradition of his heroic leadership during the Reconstruction years enabled him to send to the 1880 convention an Indiana delegation pledged to support him for the presidential nomination. This meant that Indiana, a state needed by the Democrats that year, would have no representative on the national ticket unless another Hoosier could be found. Some of the delegates turned first to Senator Joseph E. McDonald, who sought permission to allow his name to be presented for second place from Hendricks, his life-long political colleague.l0 Since this permission was not forthcoming, the convention turned to ex-Congressman William H. English, who was nominated by acclamation." Vice-presidential nominee English was comparatively unknown to many Democrats in 1880. He had served for several terms in the national House of Representatives in the 1850's with a somewhat routine record of cooperation with the southern slavery interests then dominating the party and

14 Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916, p. 281. 15 Zbid., 284. See also House, Pennsylvania History, XXVII (April, 1960), 188-216, especially, 196-197, 214. 16 Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916, pp. 287-288. 17 Official Proceedings of the National Democratic Convention, Held in Cincinnati, O., June 22d, 23d, and 24th, 1880 (Dayton, Ohio, 1882), 136. 184 Indiana Magazine of Historg the national government.I8 With the outbreak of hostilities in 1861, he returned to Indianapolis to establish a highly successful business in real estate mortgages and banking. He cooperated in general with the Lincoln and Morton administrations and deserved the characterization of being a genuine War Democrat. In 1863 he founded the First National Bank of Indianapolis under the new law of that year. Having developed this bank into one of the premier financial institutions of the Midwest, he resigned its presidency on July 25, 1877.18For the next two years or more he consolidated and reorganized his business investments and enjoyed his status of quasi-retirement. English evidently kept an eagle eye on the political picture in Indiana and the nation and very shrewdly evaluated the drift of public opinion in both areas. He sensed the eastern Bourbon Democrats' dissatisfaction with Hendricks and realized that that gentleman was rapidly isolating himself from the national power picture and also losing some of his grip on the party in Indiana.?o As early as November, 1879 English had set the ball rolling for the vice-presidential nomination by means of interviews and the dispatch of thousands of reprints of these interviews to friendly editors around the country.21 By February, 1880 he was negotiating for the chairmanship of the state central committee. In February and March he consulted with William H. Barnum and Samuel J. Tilden about this proposition ;22 later he established contact with Henry L. Watterson for a Kentucky-Indiana pact founding a new (non-Hendricks) Democratic newspaper in Indianapolis and lining up blocs of delegates for a Tilden-English

'8Dictionaq.1 of American Biography (22 vols., New York, 1928- 1958). VI, 167-168. 19 Statement of William H. English to the stockholders and board of directors of the First National Bank of Indianapolis, July 25, 1877, English Papers. 20The following letters support this view: George T. B. Carr to English, November 7, 1879; Norvil Green to English, November 11, 1879; George W. Caruth to Judge W. B. Hoke, December 21, 1879; Lewis J. Gastrell to English, January 5, 1880; Charles R. Jones to English, April 9, 1880. 21See letters listed in Note 20 and also Thomas F. Bayard to English, November 23, 1879. 22 William H. Barnum to English, February 29, 1880. 28 J. J. Cahill to English, February 16, 20, 1880; William H. Barnum to English, March 13, 29, 1880; William H. Barnum to Henry L. Watterson, March 29, 1880; Edward F. Madden to English, Novem- ber 6, 9, 1879. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 185

In May, 1880 he was ready to throw overboard both Tilden and Watterson and allow his name to be associated with General Hanco~k.~‘When the Democratic state convention met on June 9, Hendricks was its president and the delegation to the national convention was pledged to him, but William H. English emerged as the chairman of the state central committee and thus was in charge of that year’s canvass. National Chairman Barnum and Senator Joseph E. McDonald promptly sent letters of congratulation to English.25 Two weeks later the other major phase of his program became a reality with his nomination as Hancock’s running mate. The state central committee was composed (in addition to the chairman) of a representative from each of the state’s thirteen congressional districts.z6 Because they had local roots, its members undoubtedly reflected the current social, political, and economic confusion of a predominantly agrarian region beginning to feel the impact of industrialization. The chairman, however, was a voice from the political past. He had been little more than a bystander in the political arena since 1860. His ideas as to the requirements, activities, and tactics to insure victory at the polls were traditional. Since he alone had excellent relations with the national committee and eastern Bourbon interests, and since it was hoped that he would spend freely of his own considerable fortune to insure his election as vice-president,27 he was generally allowed to run the campaign as he saw fit. A perusal of his papers and of the lists of the state central committee’s expenditures shows that he believed the political techniques of the 1840’s would provide the tried and true formula for

24Henry L. Watterson to English, May 22, 1880; W. H. Munnell to English.-,., Mav 24. 1880. 26 William H. Barnum to English, June 13, 1880; Joseph E. McDonald to English, June 13, 1880. 26 Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916, pp. 284-285 provides the following list (as of June, 1880) of the membership of the Democratic State Central Committee, which was composed of one member from each of the thirteen congressional districts: First District, Dr. J. S. Bemis, Perry County; Second District, Dr. H. V. Norvil, Greene County; Third District, 0. 0. Stealey, Clark County; Fourth District, William H. D. Hunter, Dearborn County; Fifth District, Richard Coffee, Brown County; Sixth District, William C. Forrey, Fayette County; Seventh District, James M. Cropsey, Marion County; Eighth District, Joshua Jump, Vermilion Count Ninth District, A. B. Pitzer, Tipton County; Tenth District, A.B. ::ampton, Carroll County; Eleventh District, W. J. Hilligoss, Huntington County; Twelfth District, Charles A. Munson, Allen County; Thirteenth District, H. H. Francis, LaPorte County. 27Edward Campbell, Jr. to William H. Barnum, August 19, 1880. 186 Zndiana Magazine of Historg success. This meant a campaign with plenty of speeches, newspaper propaganda, parades-all stressing the classic Jeffersonian principles and clich6s of economy, honesty, and “constitutional liberty.” The tariff, currency, and labor problems were to be ignored. If all the Democrats were gotten to the polls on election day and Republican attempts to introduce out-of-state imports as voters were checkmated, then victory for the Democrats, English assumed, would result. In Indiana such an operational procedure was inadequate for the Democratic party in 1880. Hoosier farmers had suf- fered declining prices for their crops for too many years to be able to forget economic grievances.28 The Hendricks element in the party organization was not happy at seeing their hero and themselves relegated to the ranks while prewar supporters of James Buchanan and Stephen A. Douglas, as well as some ex-Republicans, took over the operation of the party machine.zD Also, burgeoning labor organizations did not relish being ignored.30 Finally, the state ticket, selected by the convention on June 9, 1880, left something to be desired. Colonel Isaac P. Gray, of Randolph County, was nominated for the office of lieutenant-governor although many knew that he was a stronger campaigner than ex- Congressman Franklin Landers, of Indianapolis, who was the candidate for governor. Gray’s prominence as a Re- publican member of the state senate in 1869 evidently left deeper scars and more doubts in the minds of the delegates than did Landers’ Greenback aberration^.^^ Although such well known figures as William Fleming, of Fort Wayne, and John G. Shanklin, of Evansville, were running for re-election to state offices, this ticket had no great name such as Hen- dricks to lead the way. It did not even have a “Blue-Jeans” Williams, a Michael Kerr (then deceased), or a William S. Holman to stir the spirits of the faithful. By the early summer of 1880 the Democratic central committee had established very modest headquarters in four rooms at the Bates House in Indianapolis. Periodically three other rooms were rented as needed and paid for at the per

28 Merrill, Bozwbon Democracy of the Middle West, 1865-1869, pp. 103, 138. 29Edward Campbell, Jr. to William H. Barnum, August 19, 1880. 30 Marshall Woods to English, June 27, 29, 1880. 31 Stoll, Histom of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916, p. 285. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 187 diem rate of $3 for each extra room Chairman English set up his office here with George F. Parker as secretary and clerk at a salary of $18 per week.33 Parker had been sent from New York by National Chairman William H. Barnum, who regarded him as an experienced and valuable political operator. This arrangement had been discussed as early as February 19, 1880 by correspondence between Barnum and English. At the same time Barnum had advised English to select and train a first-class man as vice-chairman who could take over during the absences of English.34 Upon the selection of the Hoosier as the vice-presidential nominee, Barnum promptly wrote English and invited him to New York for meetings with National Committeeman William L. Scott, of Erie, Pennsylvania, and others before the Hancock notification ceremonies in mid-July. In the same letter Barnum congratulated both himself and English for their foresightedness in arranging for the operation of the state central committee during the chairman’s absence.36 The records of the central committee do not reveal much about the relationship of the Indianapolis headquarters to the various county chairmen, but a limited portion of the story can be reconstructed through odds and ends of documentary evidence. Despite the faint trace of a suggestion that in theory an assessment was levied on each county for the central committee’s operations, most entries make it plain that dollars, printed materials, and speakers flowed in the reverse direction. Vouchers for small amounts ($50 to $200) to county chairmen for campaign expenses, such as C.O.D. express charges on literature shipped by the central committee office, are numerous.3G Three thousand poll books were sent to the county leaders in early August at a total cost of $467.90 including prepaid express Blanks were sent to county chairmen asking them to write in the names and addresses of all Irish voters in their regions; special literature was to be distributed subsequently by mail or by hand, and appropriate speakers were to be dispatched

32 Records of the Democratic State Central Committee [of Indiana], English Papers. Hereafter, these will be cited merely as Records. 33 Ibid. 34 William H. Barnum to English, February 29, 1880. 35 William H. Rarnum to English, June 27, 1880. 36 Vouchers and accounts with William Fleming, Records. 37 Invoice of Carlon and Hollenbeck, August 13, 1880, Records. 188 Indiana Magazine of History to centers of Irish population. Somewhat similar blanks were to be filled out with the names of all Democratic farmers for comparable follow-up action. There is also evidence that the United States pensioners of all types in each county were recipients of special attention by both the state and county In spite of these considerable services and supplies from the central committee, at least one chairman had the temerity to ask Chairman English for a small fund for party expenses, since the man could raise no money in very small and very Republican Ohio County, near Cin~innati.~~ The methods employed by the central committee for raising and spending party funds in 1880 in Indiana were casual and in line with tradition. According to available evidence, no sums were asked or expected of the common man. Instead, holders and aspirants for state office as well as devoted and wealthy party adherents were expected to foot the bill.40 Assessments of up to $2,000 were levied against each major candidate on the state ticket. Contribu- tions were channeled to the treasurer of the committee by whatever means were convenient and available. Collections began on August 4 and continued until October 30,1880. Some collections of contributions when handed in were credited to the efforts of particular nominees and earmarked for their campaigns. T. W. Woolen, the committee treasurer, kept a little black book in which thirty-one entries, varying from $100 to $10,250 for a total of $38,432.30, were recorded. Of this amount, $28,636 was turned in by Chairman English and there is considerable evidence that $15,000 of this figure came from the vice-presidential nominee’s own pocket. In addition, it is possible that he was out of pocket for a variety of incidental expenses. Because of his spot on the national ticket, he probably also made a significant cash contribution to the expenses of the national committee although evidence to that effect is not available. In passing, it is interesting to note that Thomas A. Hendricks was not listed in the records of the central committee as a contributor. It is possible, of course, that Hendricks supplied some funds to contributions listed here and there by lump sum.

38Memo of E. W. Swope, October, 1880, ibid. 39 Wm. H. Dodd to English, August 11, 1880. 40 Record book of contributions and assessments, Records. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 189

The total amounts raised and expended by the Democratic central committee of Indiana in the 1880 campaigns probably did not exceed $50,000.41 This figure is remarkably low even after allowance is made for the price level and the value of the dollar at that time. Modern state committees could do little more than set themselves up in business with such limited funds. Obviously, not many two-dollar bills for voters could be provided for in such a budget. Although bribery funds would probably not be listed in the records, the difficulty the central committee had in raising even the limited total indicated above suggests that cash-for-voters was not a widespread practice among Indiana Democrats in 1880. No evidence was found in either the committee’s records or in English’s correspondence with Barnum and Hancock of any cash being sent from the national committee to the Indiana committee. New York sent many bundles of free literature to the state, but the express charges on these usually were paid from the state party’s treasury. Much help was given to English and his cohorts by the New York headquarters in providing literally dozens of out-of-state speakers for Indiana. The expenses and occasional fees of these speakers were nearly always borne by New York or by a national committeeman from some state other than Indiana.42 This situation reflected the classic Jeffersonian concept of the federal union of the states as one in which each state was the master of its own political fate. Despite the continuous barrage of pleas from English to Barnun and Han- cock for help and the crucial importance of Indiana to the Democrats nationally in 1880, only guidance, speakers, and literature apparently were forthcoming from New York. This illustrates the quite limited and primitive stage of development of what is now one of the strongest of party political institutions. Today national committees and chairmen mobilize and distribute great financial resources with acumen in key

41 This estimate is based upon an analysis of the evidence found in the Records of the Democratic State Central Committee [of Indiana]. Since these records probably are not complete, further research, accounting, and statistical study might produce a more accurate picture. 42For example, National Committeeman P. H. Kelly, of St. Paul, Minnesota, paid the expenses of Ignatius Donnelly, Charles E. Severance, and Erasmus C. Flandrau, who spoke in Indiana in September, 1880. This was revealed in a letter from Winfield S. Hancock to English, August 26, 1880. 190 Indiana Magazine of History states. This was not the practice in 1880, despite the ground- breaking labors of Abram s. Hewitt in that direction while managing the Tilden campaign of 1876.43 On the other hand, there is more than a suspicion that the Republican party’s national command was not harassed by any such limited concept and that, since the days of Lincoln, it had faced the necessities of national party finance and operations in all of their ramifications. While modern political operators at the state level might be amazed at the limited finances and sources of funds available to the Democratic central committee of Indiana in 1880, certified public accountants of the mid-twentieth century would undoubtedly be horrified at the informal and indif- ferent methods employed in making and recording party expenditures in 1880. A practice seemingly existed whereby those against whom assessments were levied could partially or wholly work out their financial responsibility by paying a variety of small bills presented to them by party workers operating under their direction. Subsequently these pay- masters gave the party treasurer vouchers, complete with receipts signed by the party workers or other persons pre- senting the bills. The most spectacular example of this procedure is found in the extensive records (vouchers num- bered 1 to 82) which William Fleming presented to the Democratic State Central Committee in 1880.44 This gentleman, then serving as treasurer of state, had those who received payment from him sign official State of Indiana receipts. This is a shock to the researcher examining the records, since at first glance it appears that Fleming was using state funds to pay off party debts. More probably, however, most of these bills were presented to him while he was at his desk in the capitol ; thus, he merely reached for the receipt blanks which were closest at hand and in generous supply. After all, a receipt was still a receipt regardless of the printed heading. The openness and extensiveness with which he fol- lowed this procedure make it difficult to attribute to it any corrupt implication. One shudders to think of the deluge of charges of corruption which would overwhelm a state treasurer today if an opposition newspaper uncovered such a practice.

43 Flick, Tilden, 303-304. 44Vouchers Nos. 1-82; Journal in account with William Fleming, Records. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 191

State Treasurer Fleming succeeded in paying so many miscellaneous bills that his account shows the central committee owed him $2,770.74 even after deducting his $2,000 assessment. Fleming’s vouchers covered charges for : benches and chairs freighted to the Wigwam for rallys; postal paper- wrappers and postage ; Glee Club transportation ; shirts, belts, and campaign suits; fife and drum corps; county chairmen’s campaign expenses ; telegrams ; the varied services of the publisher of the Deutsch Amerikaner; and finally the cost of a special train to transport Franz Sigel around the state on a speaking tour. The scope and variety of these expenditures suggests that, although T. W. Woolen was treasurer of the central committee, Fleming was the premier paymaster and bursar for many of the routine expenses. The bulk of expenditures which accounting purists might classify as administrative was handled through the office of Chairman English. In addition to the office rent (ap- proximately $1,400 for four months), the salary for secretary and assistant ($360), and poll books ($467.90), four bills for general office supplies and printed circulars totaling $442.30 were Considerable attention to the problems of uniforms and badges for party workers on parade was given by both the national and state committees. In August, 1880 Barnum dispatched two detailed letters to English describing the items of clothing which his sub- committee had recommended to be worn by Democrats on parade in all regions; he also suggested the proper process of selection and the prices to be paid for these articles. This decision was based on a desire to benefit from the price reductions possible with large orders (854 was to be the total cost per outfit) and also to make the uniforms “uniform e~erywhere.”~~This New York attempt to guarantee the homogeneous appearance of all Democrats evidently did not succeed in Indiana; one Charles Lincoln sold 110 uniforms (including torches) to William Fleming for $220 on Septem- ber 2, and Ryan the Hatter of Indianapolis on September 9, 1880 presented a bill to Chairman English for 2,000 campaign suits at a cost of $1,400.47

45 Records, August 1, 23, 27, September 30, 1880. 46 William H. Barnum to English, August 12, 14, 1880. 47 Records, September 2, 9, 1880. 192 Indiana Magazine of History

Telegraph and express charges were other significant administrative expenses of the central committee. Fortunately for Chairman English his cousins James 0. and Norvil Green were prominent executive officers in the International Ocean and Western Union Telegraph companies. These obliging relatives, upon hearing of his nomination for vice-president, promptly sent him “franks” enabling him to send messages over the lines of these organizations free of charge for six months.4* This bonanza undoubtedly reduced the total of all telegraph bills, but the records of the committee include a thirteen-page itemized list of telegraph messages covering the two months from September 4 to November 4, 1880 for a total of $439.03. The records of express charges are incomplete, but apparently three different companies shared in the bundle business of the central committee. Adams Express Company was employed most frequently for local shipments in the vicinity of Indianapolis, with charges varying from 50$ to $5 per shipment. The services of the Ameri- can Express Company were engaged for the distribution of packages to more distant points throughout the state at costs running from $5 to $12 each, while the United States Express Company received all of the out-of-state business and presented statements for services costing from $10 to $18 for each deli~ery.’~A substantial bill of $1,967 for the staging of a “Grand State Rally” in Indianapolis on October 5 and 7 and an undertaker’s $6 charge for “Carriage Hire”50can serve to complete this sampling of administrative expenses for activity in and about the capital city. Although the over-all assumption of Chairman English was that there were more Democratic than Republican voters in Indiana in 1880, he was well aware of the necessity of reassuring the faithful by the printed and spoken word. The former is clearly demonstrated by the variety, volume, and incessant use of newspaper facilities to carry the message of the Democracy to the people. Extensive paid political advertisements and announcements appeared in the Indiana- polis Sentinel from July 27 on at a basic rate of 7$ a line. In the first month 1,163 of such lines were printed, while from August 28 to October 4 (the eve of the state election)

48James 0. Green to English, June 25, 1880. 49 Records, August-October, 1880, passim. 60 James P. Weaver, August 16, 1880, Records. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 193

some 13,323 lines were published at a cost of $932.61.61 For the three weeks just preceding this election some 150 copies of the Evansville Daily Courier and 100 copies of the Evans- ville Daily Democrat were delivered to the doorsteps of supposedly doubtful voters in that city.52 On September 20 William Fleming ordered 1,000 Cincinnati Enquirers delivered for distribution to county chairmen for $50.53 National Chairman Barnum wrote English in August that he had made arrangements with Louis Schade of the Washington Sentinel to send 500 copies of his sheet to Indiana leaders for a period of four months at $1 a copy.54 The Gutenberg Company of Indianapolis, publisher of three different Ger- man language weeklies which appeared on Sunday, Thursday, and Saturday, was given a contract for the weekly distribution of 1,000 copies of each publication for a total of $50 per week.55 This same company and six other German language papers around the state held contracts for the printing and circulation to their regular customers of a total of 20,000 foreign language “supplements or slips” each week. This service cost over $300 per week.5B One contract with a newspaper editor which might have surprised the older and more conservative members of the party was that with Enos B. Read. He distributed for the party from 500 to 1,000 copies of his unusual Sunday weekly, The People, for a contracted price of $50 per thousand.5r This scurrilous and spicy sheet was later described by a local historian as designed to appeal to the “ought to be submerged tenth of the people.’’G8 Another somewhat un- expected development was the cooperation of the Indianapolis Sentinel, which had for some time been the voice of the Hendricks wing of the party. By late September this newspaper had performed a considerable number of services for

5l Records, August 27, October 4, 1880. 52 Zbid., September 20, 1880. 53 Cincinnati Enquirer to William Fleming, September 26, 1880, Records. s* William H. Barnum to English, August 18, 1880. 55 Invoice of Gutenberg Company to the Democratic State Central Committee, Records. 56 Foreign language supplements memorandum, ibid. 37Invoice of Enos B. Read to the Democratic State Central Com- mittee, October 2, 1880, ibid. 58 Jacob P. Dunn, Greater Indianapolis (2 vols., Chicago, 1910), I, 403. 194 Indiana Magazine of History the party, including the printing of posters, circulars, reprints of Hendricks’ speeches, and copies of the paper; thus, it proceeded to bill the central committee to the tune of $14 1.02.60 The committee was, of course, bombarded with requests from editors and owners of various small Democratic journals around the state for small gifts or loans to meet current indebtedness and do a better job for the party during the remainder of the campaign.6o In addition, the Chicago Times, which had a large circulation in northwestern Indiana, was the cause of some concern to the central committee. Ex- Senator James R. Doolittle, of Wisconsin (and Chicago), reported to English in confidence that Wilbur F. Storey, the editor, was “moody and may do us harm.” This was because of Storey’s belief that the southern wing of the Democratic party would overwhelm the northern and western leaders if the party ever achieved national power. Doolittle, recalling that Storey had changed his tune after being helped financially during the 1876 campaign by Tilden money, asked the vice-presidential nominee to explore the possibility of a similar largess to Storey by English or the national committee.61 Since the debacle of the Literary Digest’s presidential poll in 1936, remarkable progress has been made by both commercial and academic analysts in evaluating the factors which influence public preferences for consumer goods or candidates for office. In the realm of political behavior, teams of scholarly interviewers have established a close cor- relation between “interest or a sense of involvement’’ and political action. They have demonstrated that the hard core of both parties is not influenced by the course of the campaign. They have also made clear that many of those who at first are little interested in the issues, programs, and promises usually become concerned in the last days of the contest with the outcome and proceed to vote. Today political parties pour massive sums and energy into political speaking campaigns, including both face-to-face speeches and radio and television

59 Indianapolis Sentinel to English, September 27, 1880. 60 For example, see George F. Shutt to English, July 1, 1880. 6’James R. Doolittle to English, August 16, 1880. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 195 addresses, in order to activate the political predispositions of the reluctant segments of the elect~rate.~~ But the only machinery for evaluating political behavior known to exist fourscore years ago was the hierarchy of party workers. On the lowest levels, their reports of voter interest and reaction served as a guide to political techniques. The size of crowds at parades and speeches was considered an indication of the voters’ intentions although such turnouts may have reflected only curiosity. The basic problems of survival in the 1880’s were uncomplicated and revolved around questions of public policy much simpler than those confronting voters in the twentieth century. In addition, it should be recalled that the Australian ballot had not yet been adopted and that the “channels of communication” from party to people were sharply limited to printed and spoken words. Regardless of how sophisticated moderns may evaluate the effectiveness of campaign speeches, a hurried glance at the extensive data in the records of the Indiana Democratic central committee and at the frantic correspondence between Chairman English and a multitude of prospective speakers reveals that the leaders of the Indiana Democracy regarded the spoken word as the number-one weapon in beating back the Republican challenge. The two months after the ad- journment of the Cincinnati convention in late June, 1880 were devoted to the mobilization and assignment of numerous distinguished speakers for a concentrated campaign of near saturation beginning during the last weeks in August. The theory seemed to be that if the party kept all Democrats busy listening to its speakers, they would not have time or opportunity to listen to the opposition! In light of the uncertain campaign effectiveness of the members of the state ticket, such seasoned and impressive Hoosier campaigners as Thomas A. Hendricks, George W. Julian (an independent ex-Republican) , and the two United States senators from Indiana, Daniel W. Voorhees and Joseph

82 These observations on modern electoral behavior by individuals are based on the data and interpretations to be found in the following sources: Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People’s Choice (New York, 1944), 52-73; Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin, and Warren Miller, The Voter Decides (Evanston, Ill., 1954), 13-27; Robert E. Lane, Political Life (Glencoe, Ill., 1959), 141-142. 196 Indiana Magazine of History

E. McDonald, were put in harness.63 Outside speakers from Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa brought the gospel from the Democracy of other midwestern Carefully selected southern speakers, such as Cassius Clay, of Kentucky, and Wilkinson Call, of Florida, brought the good word from the Southland. Samuel J. Randall and Senator William A. Wallace, leaders of rival segments of the Pennsylvania party, both performed.a5 From the East came General Franz Sigel, of New York, Alex Troup, of New Haven, and that perennial turncoat and political genius, Benjamin F. Butler, of Massa- chusetts, who in that year was wearing the Democratic rega- lia.06 Some of these speakers paid their own way and did not ask fees; others were financed from the joint resources of the national and state committees ; and still others were paid by wealthy individuals who were not The highest fee for an individual speech apparently was $150. Both Generals Butler and Sigel received such recompense, with the added accomodation of a special train for each within In- diana.68 Most combined fees and expenses that had to be paid by the state central committee ran between $50 and $100 each.6s Two of the speakers were regarded so highly by the national committee that they were signed for the duration of the campaign (from mid-August until the November election) for rather fancy fees.'O Both of these men, ex-Senator James R. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, and ex-Congressman George W. Julian, of Indiana, had been either Radical Republicans or had cooperated somewhat with that breed during the war and the early days of Reconstruction. Thus they were at

63 Records, September 13, 27, 1880; Julian, MS Journal, 1878-1890, August 22, October 14, 1880, Julian Papers. 64 Memorandum on out-of-state speakers, October-November, 1880, Records; Winfield S. Hancock to English, August 26, 1880. 55 Memorandum on out-of-state speakers, October-November, 1880, Records. 66 Ibid. 67 Winfield S. Hancock to English, August 6, 26, 1880; Blanton Duncan to English, August 24, 1880. 6* Memorandum on out-of-state speakers, October-November, 1880, Records; John F. Egan, general ticket agent, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Chicago Railway, to English, September 24, 1880. 68 Memorandum on out-of-state speakers, October-November, 1880, Records. 70 Julian, MS Journal, 1878-1899, August 22, 1880, Julian Papers; William H. Barnum to English, August 11, 17, 19, 25, 1880. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 197

least distrusted by old guard Democrats, and Julian was surely resented and possibly despised by this group. But their services in the 1876 campaign for Tilden and their demonstrated capacity to influence independents made them appear indispensable. There must have been considerable uproar, however, in the ranks of the Indiana central committee when it became known that the national committee was paying Julian $1,500 plus most of his expenses for two and one-half months of work. The considerable reliance of Chairman English on national headquarters for financial assistance and guidance in putting together this “maximum effort” speaking campaign is attested to by seven letters from General Hancock” and ten letters from Chairman Barnum in the English Papers.72 These letters were written largely in August and the first two weeks of September, 1880. The majority of General Han- cock’s communications were written in his own hand. Con- trary to traditional political mythology, they reveal the keen mind of a decisive and shrewd political operator. In nearly every one of these missives the general’s opening sentence attempted to reassure Chairman English that all responsible leaders in New York were aware of Indiana’s crucial importance for national Democratic victory and were working full time to achieve that objective. English was probably asking for money in addition to advice, literature, and speakers; but, on his requests for financial help, he received only generalized assurance from Hancock and nothing from Bar- num. Early in August, 1880 English had asked the national committee to provide him with thirteen speakers from thirteen different states to speak in the thirteen congressional districts of Indiana. Hancock went along with this whimsical numbers game and on August 6 sent English a list of fifteen men who might be approached for the a~signment.?~Of the men proposed, only one was from the South (Governor R. B. Hubbard of Texas), three were from the border states of Missouri and Maryland, and the remainder were from the North and the West. Of the latter, one was a prominent

71 Winfield S. Hancock to English, August 6, 11, 20, 26, September 1. 13. 17. 1880. 72 William H. Barnum to English, August 9, 11, 11 (again), 17, 19, 20, 21, 21 (again), 22, 25, 1880. 73 Winfield S. Hancock to English, August 6, 1880. 198 Indiana Magazine of History

Greenbacker and another a German, both from Illinois. In later letters Hancock continued to offer intelligent sugges- tions about additional speakers and promised his services in securing their cooperation if English so desired. The general reported favorable developments everywhere, especially in Maine, and congratulated English on “the vigor shown in your management of the Indiana campaign. . . .”?* Four of the letters addressed by Barnum to English during the planning period for the speaking campaign dealt with the controversial contract with George W. J~lian.~~That gentleman’s cash income since leaving Congress had been meagre, and his very limited personal estate had declined through unfortunate loans and other financial difficulties. During the war and early Reconstruction Julian had been a snarling, opinionated, dedicated supporter of antislavery movements and leaders; but he could not support the Stal- wart Republicanism of Grant, Conkling, Cameron, and company. On August 26, 1876 in Indianapolis he had made a powerful speech, “The Gospel of Reform,” which gave the Tilden campaign a tremendous lift in Indiana and throughout the Over two million copies of this speech, printed by the national committee at the direction of Abrani S. Hewitt, had been distributed widely.77 Although Julian had been a leading Liberal Republican in 1872 and a belated but enthusiastic supporter of Tilden in 1876, he had never affili- ated himself openly and fully with the Democracy. Instead, he was an independent reformer with a conscience and a reputation for sincerity. Barnum explained, one might even say apologized, to English for signing up Julian. He confessed that he “did not like his [Julian’s] stile [sic] & way but under all circum- stances I have concluded we had better shut our eyes & swallow him down. . . .”78 A week later Barnum expanded his explanation by saying that . . . the arrangement was made with Julian . . . against our judgment, but because Julian being an Indiana man we felt his inaction would

74 Winfield S. Hancock to English, August 20, 1880. 75 William H. Barnum to English, August 11, 17, 19, 25, 1880. 70 Grace Julian Clarke, George W. Juliun (Indianapolis, 1923), 366-368. Abram S. Hewitt to George W. Julian, September 14, 1876; Julian, MS Journal, 1869-1878, September 10, 1876, Julian Papers. 77 Julian, MS Journal, 1869-1878, December 10, 1876, Julian Papers. 78 William H. Barnum to English, August 17, 1880. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 199

be damaging because he is considered so able a man, & can do us much good other than your state. The price agreed upon is much less than the price first named. . . .7e Barnum’s other letters to English on the speaking campaign dealt with the hiring of Doolittle and his proposed itinerary. According to this plan Doolittle was to start speaking in Indiana on August 14, go to Maine for the last two weeks before the election in the Pine Tree State, and then return to Indiana and the West.80 Barnum also canvassed the possibilities of more speakers from the South, especially Kentucky. Later, somewhat as an afterthought, he inquired of English as to whether the latter would have any use for “gentlemen of color” as speakers and proceeded to send one the next day with a letter of introduction.81 Although the speaking campaign was their major effort, Chairman English and his central committee did not neg- lect other possibilities for increasing the Democratic vote in 1880. The special attention given to Irishmen, Germans, farmers, and pensioners has been mentioned previously. In addition, communications from the treasurer of the Ohio central committee indicate that English, in letters to the central committees of neighboring states, had offered to pay train fare for any Indiana voters desiring to return home to vote ;82 and actually the Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad did bill English’s committee for “138 people transported to various towns to vote” at a cost of $442.85.83 Very early in the campaign English was faced with the age-old question about the proper treatment of special interest groups, which, although limited in numbers and not genuine segments of the party, might be the balance of power in a close election. Organized labor, a new and somewhat controversial element on the political scene, soon attempted to pro- ject itself into the Indiana campaign. Immediately after the Cincinnati convention Marshall C. Woods, the political direc- tor of the Wage-Mens Amalgamated Union, reported that “his group of over thirty thousand, mostly miners and railroad men, good Republicans and Democrats, although called

79 William H. Barnum to English, August 25, 1880. 80 William H. Barnum to English, August 17, 1880. 81 William H. Barnum to English, August 20, 1880. 82George W. Knecht to English, November 3, 1880. *3 Records, November 2, 1880. 200 Indiana Magazine of History

Communists, stood ready to stage public demonstrations and nail the lies that are being published about your delight in grinding the face of the Poor. . . .”84 Evidently English did not respond promptly to this offer which might have hurt him in the eyes of his conservative backers; two days later Woods sent him another letter virtually demanding a decision as to whether or not Wood’s organization could ex- pect approval and a small sum of about $50 for printing, banners, and other expenses.86 The records do not indicate any payment to this organization. Six weeks later, on August 16, a Kentucky correspondent called the attention of English to a secret labor organization (probably the Knights of Labor) with a strength of twenty thousand in Indianapolis, Terre Haute, Evansville, New Albany, and Jeffersonville. He reported that he had asked National Committeeman W. L. Scott in Pennsylvania to see the officers of this organization of nine hundred thousand members and get their help for the Democratic ticket nationally.86 Again, the records do not reveal any positive action on this suggestion. Late in June, 1880 this same Kentucky correspondent, who evidently had wide political connections with Greenback leaders, tried to have English arrange for the renomination of Dr. Gilbert De La Matyr, a much loved Democratic Green- backer currently representing the Indianapolis district in the Forty-sixth Congress. He visualized this as “the most effective argument . . . in Maine for the fusion ticket, the final withdrawal of Weaver, & a consolidation in Penna., Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. . . . To blunder in a Supreme moment is worse than a crime & I trust you will not do so in Indianap~lis.”~’Early in July a New York Times editorial commented on the embarrassment which this proposal must be causing the conservative-minded, former bank president who was running the campaign in Indiana. The editor of the Times noted that Mr. De La Matyr holds the casting vote in the Indiana delegation, on a vote by States, and in the contingency of the Presidential election being thrown into the House, he would make an awkward enemy. Thus though English may detest his principles and distrust the man, he is compelled to consider him.88

84 Marshall C. Woods to English, June 27, 1880. 85Marshall C. Woods to English, June 29, 1880. 80 Blanton Duncan to English, August 16, 1880. 87 Blanton Duncan to English, June 26, 1880. 8*New York Times, July 6, 1880. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 201

Although the editorial concluded with the statement that “Major Mitchell, the Democratic rival of De La Matyr has finally withdrawn, and the first clause in this disreputable bargain has been carried out,” the deal must have gone awry since the beloved Greenback clergyman was not renominated by the Democrats. The brief sketch of his career in the Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774-19.49 disposes of the problem neatly by stating that Mr. De La Matyr “was not a candidate for renomination in 1880.”89 Twentieth-century registration and voting legislation plus widespread use of voting machines may have greatly reduced the threat of fraudulent voting. In 1880, however, neither of the major parties in Indiana could relax its vigi- lance but was forced to watch the opposition continuously to ferret out and, if possible, forestall schemes for ringers, repeat voting, fraudulent voting lists, and manipulation during the counting of ballots. The closeness of the party totals in Indiana elections was an open invitation to smart political operators to practice their tricks. Tilden had carried Indiana in 1876 by about five thousand votes and the Democrats had won the state elections of 1878 by about fourteen thousand. Thus the importation of new voters, the rigging of election lists, and the hiring of repeating voters, if practiced judicious- ly and strategically, might overcome this narrow margin of Democratic strength-unless the Democrats either stopped such activities by the opposition or adopted similar ones of their own. Very early in the campaign Indiana Democrats were put on their guard by a letter to Chairman English from Judge W. B. Beach. This Rhode Island Democrat reported on June 29, 1880 that a conference had been held that very day in Senator Henry B. Anthony’s private office in Provi- dence, where Republican plans were formed to stop the Democratic boom that was sweeping the country. Following the intelligence furnished by his informer, Beach reported : It was agreed that unless they could carry Indiana in October they must suffer defeat in November-. To carry Indiana they rely on money and importation. They will try to import negroes [sic] from Kentucky We know this has been done to some extent hereto- fore-they intend to win by it this time.90

89 Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774-1949 (Washington, 1950), 1072. 90 W. B. Beach to English, June 29, 1880. 202 Indiana Magazine of History

Echoes of this threat were repeated by other corre- spondents. Chairman Barnum, for example, revealed real concern in two letters to English during August; in one he encouraged close cooperation between Kentucky and Indiana Democrats to “check this outrageous fraud, and if necessary to organize some plan to keep even with them.”g1 In addition, Blanton Duncan, of Kentucky, sent English the details of a plan for extended surveillance by detectives of all Kentucky Negroes who “get off boats, trains, etc. in Indiana.” Every Democratic train conductor and trainman was to be alerted to report each case by letter to the local committees at Evans- ville, New Albany, Jeffersonville, Madison, and Cincinnati. It was expected that this movement would not start until the last week in September, since otherwise it would be too expensive for the Republicans, who were conducting county fund-raising drives in Kentucky for the campaign in Indi- ana.g2 Another threat from ringers, this time from Pennsyl- vania, was revealed on August 21 in a letter to English from Chairman Barnumg3 and on August 24 in one from Lewis C. Cassidy, of Philadel~hia.~~The latter, through informants and detectives, had learned that a delegation, unknown in size but composed of expert election officers and manipulators of fraudulent votes, had left Philadelphia for Indianapolis. Two of these operators, named McGuiness and McDonough, had been identified and personal descriptions, including pockmarks on their faces, supplied. Barnum was sufficiently impressed with the threat to pay the expenses of the detective who had been tracking these men so that he could follow and watch them in the Hoosier State. Finally, on August 24 Blanton Duncan, that perennially suspicious gadfly, called Chairman English’s attention to the national club convention, scheduled for September 15, 1880 at Indianapolis, which might be a cover for the introduction of two thousand new voters. These delegates, coming from various parts of the country, could remain in Indiana just long enough to vote in mid-Oct~ber.~~

91 William H. Barnum to English, August 10, 17, 1880. 02 Blanton Duncan to English, August 16, 1880. 93 William H. Barnum to English, August 21, 1880. 94Lewis C. Cassidy to English, August 24, 1880. 95 Blanton Duncan to English, August 24, 1880. Democratic State Central Committee an 1880 203

The state election of 1880 was the last one held in Octo- ber in Indiana. In fact, until early that year it was thought that recent legislation and constitutional amendments com- bining the state and national elections in November had already eliminated separate state contests. A state supreme court decision, however, temporarily reinstated the usual election date.96 This meant both parties had to engage in strenuous electioneering somewhat earlier than they had planned. Originally the Democrats had hoped to begin in mid-August with major speeches by the two distinguished independents, Doolittle and Julian.97 Doolittle did give a fine oration in Indiana on August 14 for which he received good newspaper coverage,88but Chairman English refused to use any of the state committee’s funds for Julian. So the celebrated reformer merely refused to say a word on a public platform until arrangements were completed for the national committee to pay his fee and some of his expenses. Thus, on the very hot evening of August 24, Julian’s opening blast was delivered at the Wigwam in Indianapolis. It was entitled “The Duty of the Independent Voters.” Two days before its delivery Julian confided to his journal that the speech was as good as his famous 1876 oration and that he felt some satis- faction since “the niggardliness of English is splendidly re- buked, & he now begs me to say something nice about him which I told him I could not do, as my speech is already in print (Associated Press) . . . .))e9 Any dissident party worker who might have grumbled at the fancy fee for George Julian’s speeches in Indiana and elsewhere would surely have changed his tune if he had had an opportunity to read the October 14, 1880 entry in Julian’s journal. Here Julian described his continuous speaking tour of nearly all the major population centers of the state. Dur- ing that tour, which began on September 1 at New Castle and ended on October 11 at Wabash, he delivered variations of his speech to twenty-two different audiences over a span of forty-one days. He traveled by horse and buggy, train, and

98 Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916, p. 289; Win- field s. Hancock to English, August 22, 1880. See also Smith, Indiana Magazine of History, XIX (December, 1923), 335. $17 William H. Barnum to English, August 11, 11 (again), 1880. 98William H. Barnum to English, August 17, 1880; James R. Doolittle to English, August 16, 1880. 99 Julian, MS Journal, 1878-1899, August 22, 1880, Julian Papers. 204 Indiana Magazine of Histoly boat at all hours of the day and night. Throughout most of the period he was wracked with fever and the nervous sleep- lessness which had bothered him for a decade. But crowds of up to fifteen thousand (just acres of people) greeted him at several stops on his trip. He came home without a single doubt as to the result on election day. While Julian and other speakers had been swarming over the state, contending with insects, dust, heat, and ill-health, trouble-serious trouble-had developed at the central committee's headquarters in Indianapolis. On August 22 in his journal Julian recorded rumors that Chairman English's treatment of him had "raised a row between English and his friends which damaged him [English] greatly. . . ."100 On the same day, Rebecca R. Springer, the wife of a Demo- cratic congressman from Illinois and an old friend of Eng- lish, reported the ugly rumors she was hearing about the chairman's conduct of the Indiana canvass. She wrote: The great fear seems to be that you will not assist financially, to the extent required for success. Some democrats from Indiana have been making the assertion that you would rather lose the position than spend the $100,000 necessary for success and gentlemen who do not know you personally are feeling greatly exercised over this matter. Her concluding sentences warned English that his political career was at stake and begged for a letter of reassurance on Indiana.'O' Rumors that all was not well in Indiana spread to Georgia where on August 23 Alexander H. Stephens, an old prewar friend, wrote for information about the Demo- cratic prospects in Indiana.'OZ The most expert, realistic, and complete analysis of the trouble was supplied to National Chairman W. H. Barnum on August 19 by Edward Campbell, Jr., the chairman of the Iowa state central committee. On his way to Pittsburgh on business, Campbell had spent three days in Indianapolis and was alarmed and discouraged by what he saw there. He reported : The democratic masses I found in good shape and enthusiastic, but among the leaders there prevail the most discouraging and disgraceful petty jealousies that I have ever seen among politicians professing to

100 Ibid. 101 Rebecca R. Springer to English, August 22, 1880. 102 Alexander H. Stephens to English, August 23, 1880. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 205 be men-school-boys would be belittled by such work. I wrote very briefly to Mr. Randall hoping to have him meet me here for fuller explanation, but I since learn that he cannot come. I therefore risk putting on paper to you a part of what I wanted to say to him -viz- The managing politicians of the Indiana school are deadly hostile to Mr. English-some of them may be willing to lose the State, but they all complain that Mr. E. has been so long out of the field, that he cannot successful[1] y handle the campaign-, and there seems to be a general misunderstanding regarding the financial work. They supposed Mr. E. would look after this; he depends on your Com- mittee, and nothing is doing in the real work which is absolutely essen- tial to success. The G. B. [Greenback?] element is mad and in the market. The Radicals are prepared for them. Negroes are running in every hour, [sic] Our people are listening to speeches and singing songs, and our leaders & candidates are wrangling about old sins and present jealousies. Your hurried visit there without seeing certain prominent men is severely censured-the blame largely being put on Mr. E. I express no opinion as to where the blame lies for all this trouble- but I do know that unless something is soon done to set things right the State is lost to us. I think if you or Mr. Randall or Mr. Scott would see Mr. English after knowing what I have written, the matter might be adjusted; but the leading men there do not agree with me. They all profess to think that a meeting of your Extv. Com. [Executive Committee] is the only remedy. I wrote to Mr. Ham briefly-but the worst had not then been developed. The State Committee meeting on the 17th confirmed all the doubts started by individual complaints.1o3 Barnum sent this devastating analysis to English by a perceptive and reliable observer. The national chairman ad- mitted he was really overwhelmed with work; yet if needed in Indiana he would come. He also mentioned the interesting fact that “Mr. Dorsey, the Secretary of the Republican Na- tional Committee leaves here tomorrow to make Chicago his headquarters until after your election in October.”’04 Three days later he informed English that General Hancock wanted Barnum to visit Chicago on a matter he considers important & of which I will report you on my return in your place. . . . I shall call on you the first of next week for consultation about your state & I guess I will see all the grumblers so they will not feel neglected. I must confer with you about this home stretch in your State.”J5

103Edward Campbell, Jr. to Barnum, August 19, 1880. See also the news dispatch in the New York Times, July 10, 1880 for a description of the existing dissension and a prediction of the growing conflict within the Indiana Democracy. 104 William H. Barnum to English, August 22, 1880. 105 William H. Barnum to English, August 25, 1880. 206 Indhm Magazine of History

Barnum added further disparaging remarks about “newspaper men clamoring for help” and about Franklin Landers, the gubernatorial Democratic candidate, with whom he had had some experience in 1876. This suggests that, although somewhat concerned, he thought the dissatisfaction was nor- mal and could be smoothed over with a visit and some kind words. A close examination of the evidence, however, makes it plain that the leadership team of the Democracy was in un- easy harness. This did not augur well for the political fortunes of a party soon to be challenged by the new techniques, issues, and campaign tricks of a Republican party organization startled by its defeat in the Maine state elections in early September, 1880. The Republican campaign for the Garfield-Arthur ticket in 1880 was slow in starting.loB The scars resulting from the defeat of the Stalwarts in their bid for a third term for Grant, and the surprise nomination of the Half-Breed Gar- field, who had seemingly deserted his Ohio colleague John Sherman, had not been patched up by the nomination of Chester A. Arthur for vice-president. The Conkling wing did practically nothing to help the ticket during the first two months after the Chicago convention in early June, 1880. Reluctantly on August 5 Garfield came to a meeting with the New Yorkers at the Fifth Avenue Hotel. This conference, which Conkling did not attend although his spokesmen did, produced the first “Treaty of Fifth Avenue,” some eighty years before the celebrated Nixon-Rockefeller “Treaty of Fifth Avenue” in July, 1960. Down to mid-September the Republican strategy was based largely on the old sure-fire formula of “waving the bloody shirt,” along with some dabbling in miscellaneous lesser issues, such as Hancock’s responsibility for the hanging of Mrs. Surratt, the supposed Roman Catholicism of Mrs. Hancock, the Chinese exclusion policy, and Democratic inexperience in national administra- tion.loT Despite some improvement after the Fifth Avenue meeting early in August, the Republican campaign never really

106 An excellent summary of the course and pace of the Republican campaign is to be found in Clancy, Presidential Election of 1880, pp. 167- 205. Much of the account of Republican activities from August to November, 1880 is based on these pages. 107 Clancy, Presidential Election of 1880, pp. 183-191, 200. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 207

got off the ground until the shock of the Maine defeat in September, when a Democratic-Greenback fusion ticket reg- istered astounding victories. Immediately after this disaster the Republican organization sprang to life. The bloody shirt was replaced by a crash program on the Democratic tariff plank.lo8 Speeches, editorials, posters, broadsides, and flyers of every description flooded such key areas as New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. Conkling and Grant set out for Ohio and Levi P. Morton for Indiana. Grant proceeded to take back his previous nice words about Hancock and attempted to deny that the Democratic nominee was a man of action who could lead in his own right.Io9 Money flowed from the pockets of businessmen, many of whom now appeared on the platforms with the Republican speakers. The Democrats simply were unprepared for combat in this new battle arena. They did not have enough leaders and speakers who were well versed in the intricacies of the tariff. They were handicapped by the fact that many in their own ranks were sympathetic to the general idea of protection. They did not have readily at hand adequate answers to the new Republican tactic with its barrage of half-truths and twisted statistics.l1° Whether Stephen W. Dorsey did or did not march his repeaters to the polls in Indiana in 1880 and pay then off in two-dollar bills, available evidence makes it seem probable that Indiana would have been lost to the Democrats anyway. The serious divisions in the party leadership, the skillful attention showered on both labor groups and Greenbackers by the Republicans, and the Democrats’ lack of flexibility in meeting Republican charges that all manufacturing interests would be irreparably harmed by Democratic tariff policy, all undermined the favorable position of the Democrats in Indi- ana in 1880. Just to add to Chairman English’s difficulties the Republicans “procured a complete list of the mortgages held by him in Marion County (Indianapolis) as recorded in the courthouse. They covered two pages of a newspaper and

108 Ibid., 196; William C. Hudson, Random Recollections of an Old Political Reporter (New York, lgll), 112-114. 100 Clancy, Presidential Election of 1880, pp. 201-202. 110 Hudson, Random Recollections of an Old Political Reporter, 114. 208 Indiana Magazine of History made mighty interesting reading for the cynics.”lll Also, Franklin Landers, who was ill equipped for the task, was trapped into joint discussions with Albert G. Porter, the Republican candidate for governor. Porter proceeded to demolish Landers’ pretensions to wisdom and statesman- ship.l12 The Democrats were defeated in the October state elections by pluralities varying from forty-seven hundred to seven thousand for the various candidates on the state ticket. George W. Julian wrote in his journal that he was “perfectly stunned & dumbfounded with disappointment. Universal gloom among democrats succeeded universal joy & exultant confidence. . . .” He favored his journal with these morning- after theories about the causes of the defeat by commenting that the blunders are the following: 1. the nomination of English. 2. the nomination of Landers. 3. the failure to nominate De La Matr [sic] for Congress in this district. 4. the Supreme Court decision in bring- ing on the election in October in this State were all stupid blunders & it is not strange that the combined effect has defeated our ticket.113 The sense of impending doom continued during the re- maining four weeks of the campaign. The loss in Indiana (and Ohio) in mid-October made it more difficult to sustain Democratic enthusiasm. The Republicans, having found a winning formula in Indiana, continued to beat the drum on the tariff issue. In November, Hancock was defeated by a substantial majority in the electoral college although the total of his popular vote was only eight thousand less than that of Garfield. This figure was the approximate margin of the Garfield victory in Indiana. Once again the Democrats were denied the White House, apparently not because of their program and principles but because of their tactical rigidity and inability to unite in the common cause. In no state was this more dramatically illustrated than in Indiana, where the varied political segments were not fused into a common mold. As might be expected, Chairman English was selected as the whipping-boy for the defeat in Indiana. Sixteen months later

111 Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 1816-1916, p. 289. 112 Zbid. 113 Julian, MS Journal, 1878-1899, October 14, 1880, Julian Papers. Democratic State Central Committee in 1880 209

Senator Daniel W. Voorhees found himself misquoted by a Cincinnati Commercial reporter on the question of who was responsible for the loss of the 1880 October election. He felt called upon to dispatch a letter hurriedly to William H. English in which he reassured the chairman that . . . I have none but feelings of friendship for you, and I thought during the canvass, and have thought since that you have been shamefully slandered. Of course as to the details of your management of the canvass I knew nothing at the time and have not sought to know since. My financial operations with the Central Committee consisted in draw- ing on you for $50 on two different occasions for the expenses of special trains to get to my appointments. You promptly honored them, and beyond the use of money thus obtained I know nothing of the pecuniary features of the canvass. I do not believe we lost the State either by your name on the ticket or through your management as Chairman of the State Central Committee. With great respect, I am Very truly your friend. D. W. Voorhees.114 It is difficult to agree with Senator Voorhees’ blanket endorsement of William H. English’s contribution to the 1880 campaign in Indiana. Undoubtedly mistakes were made and opportunities missed, but the detailed survey of the operation of English and his central committee contained in this study suggests that a final answer about the reasons for the Democratic defeat in Indiana is not to be found in the devil theory of history. English had been absent from the firing line of political conflict for two decades. Like many other Democratic public figures such as Samuel J. Tilden, who had reached political maturity in the prewar years, he absorbed the political, social, and constitutional views of that era. These were a blend of Jeffersonianism, Jacksonianism, Southernism, states’ rights, regionalism, and decentralization. The Civil War not only destroyed the federal union as a concept and made obsolete many earlier political and constitutional traditions and values, but it also set in motion a myriad of “national” trends and goals. New economic policies and questions, great population expansion and diversity, and technological changes in the economic bases of society emerged when William H. English was on the political side

“‘Daniel W. Voorhees to English, February 18, 1882. 210 Indiana Magazine of History lines. True, he had participated in some of these altered patterns of American life through his service as a banker, but his political education had not kept pace with the im- plications of these changes for electioneering. All this was known when he was nominated for the national ticket and elected as chairman of the state central committee. Because of his national eminence, extensive eastern contacts, and fat pocketbook he was considered the appropriate man to run the canvass. The fact that he ran an old-fashioned campaign should not have surprised anyone. Nor can he be criticized for not listening to the new voices in the party. He was, after all, a Bourbon holding the fort in a region being subjected to dynamic upheaval. His political arena was a dichotomy of conflicting needs and aspirations. As such, the Indiana Democracy was a perfect illustration of the party’s contradictory weaknesses on the national scene in 1880.