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 im- portant 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 un- doubtedly 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 representa- tive 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.