INDIANA MAGAZINE of HISTORY Volume LI SEPTEMBER,1955 Number 3

INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY Volume LI SEPTEMBER,1955 Number 3

The Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana, 1855-1856 Roger H. Van Bolt* The fusion of the anti-Democratic elements in 1854 had been accomplished under intense heat ;* the resulting amalgam was yet to be tested for durability. With no elections in 1855 to keep the political fires burning, the manipulators of Fusion- ism were cautiously observing the cooling-down process, wait- ing to see what they had created. The year 1855 would reveal whether the result was a new compound or merely a mixture. Shortly after the fall elections of 1854, while the Demo- crats were still smarting under their defeat by the conglom- eration of antagonisms that had routed them “Horse, Foot, and Dragoon,”2 the Fusionists called an outdoor meeting at Indianapolis for November 1, 1854, to celebrate their victory. Thomas Smith of New Albany was chairman; among the speakers were Henry S. Lane, Samuel W. Parker, Oliver P. Morton, and Godlove Orth. The theme of their speeches was by now a familiar one: to forget all past political affiliations and to forward the new movement. They declared that freedom, temperance, and pure elections should be the watchword of the party. The “people” resolved that the Declaration

*Roger H. Van Bolt is in charge of research and information at Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, Dearborn, Michigan. This article is the concluding chapter of his Ph.D. dissertation, “The Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana, 1840-1856,” completed at the University of Chicago, 1950, under the direction of Avery 0. Craven. Preceding articles are: “The Indiana Scene in the 1840’s,” Indiana Magazine of History (Bloomington, 1905- ), XLVII (1951), 333-356; “The Hoosier Politician of the 1840’s,” ibid., .XLVIII (1952), 23-36; “Sectional Aspects of Expansion, 1844-1848,” ibzd., 119-140; “Hoosiers and the Western Program, 1844-1848,” ibid. 255-276; “The Hoosiers and the ‘Eternal Agitation,’ 1848-1850,” ibid., 331-368; “Indiana in Political Transition, 1851-1853,” ibid., XLIX (1953), 131-160; and “Fusion Out of Confusion, 1854,” ibid., 353-390. * For a discussion of this fusion, see Van Bolt, “Fusion Out of Con- fusion, 1854,” ibid., XLIX, 353-390. 2E. C. Sugg to William English, Troy, January 1, 1855, English Collection, Indiana Historical Society Library, Indianapolis. 186 Indiana Magazine of Histor3 of Independence, the Constitution, the Ordinance of 1787, and the resolutions of July 13 were long enough and broad enough planks with which to build a platform capable of supporting all the American pe~ple.~ When the meeting adjourned, the Know Nothings in the group stayed on to hold a conclave of their state council. After many arguments, they chose Godlove Orth as their candidate for United States senator and Milton Gregg of the New Albany Tribune for state printer. The action of the council indicated trouble ahead for the brittle new party, for the politically experienced realized that organization should come before a search for party spoils. Men like Jacob Chap- man and Michael C. Garber had hoped that strong organization would be developed.‘ When the legislature convened in January, 1855, the new party was given its first opportunity to carry out its political promises. The first obstacle to hurdle was the election of a United States senator. Rather than permit the choice of a Fusionist, the Democrats refused to caucus. Some Fusionists who reasoned that the so-called old liners could not refuse to go into an election felt that the stalemate was temporary. As Orth wrote: “For this would, more than anything else [serve] to drive us together & Keep us together for the next campaign-nor will the Prest. Election swallow up this dereliction of duty as they confidentially hope.”5 A week went by, and with it went the hope of ending the deadlock. Orth’s optimism was gone; now he wrote: “If they [the old liners] had the assurance that a Natl. Whig- who didn’t fuse, don’t fuse, and who is anti-Sam, could com- mand the necessary strength-they would, in my opinion, give him the old line vote-and elect him.”6 Thus in its first

=Indiana Weeklu State Journal. November 4. 1854. Charles Zim- merman, “The Origin and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana from 1854 to 1860,” Indiana Magazine of History, XI11 (1917), 247. 4 Carl F. Brand, “The History of the Know Nothing Party in Indi- ana,” ibid., XVIII (1922), 78-79; Mildred C. Stoler, “The Democratic Element in the New Renublican Partv in Indiana.” ibid.. XXXVI 1940). 186. Garber was edito; of the Madiion Courier and Chapman, an, ad: Nebraska Democrat, edited Chapman’s Chanticleer in Indianapolis. 5 Godlove S. Orth to Schuyler Colfax, Lafayette, February 5, 1855, in J. Herman Schauinger (ed.), “The Letters of Godlove S. Orth, Hoosier American,” Indiana Magazine of History, XL (1944), 62-63. 6 Orth to Colfax, Indianapolis, February 14, 1855, ibid., 63-64. “Sam” was the nickname for the Know Nothing party, derived from its pass- word, “Have you seen Sam today?” Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” ibid., XVIII, 180. Republican Party in Indiana 187 political skirmish with the Democracy the Fusion lost the encounter. As a consequence of this stalemate, Jesse Bright alone represented Indiana in the United States Senate until 1857. In the meantime, the legislature attempted to co-operate on other matters. The temperance advocates of 1854 were still to be satisfied. Early in February, 1855, the general assembly approved an act which prohibited the sale of liquor in the state, following the Maine law principle. The new law passed with a comfortable majority and in the senate, where the Democrats held a slight advantage, seven members of that party supported it. Popular reaction among the “cold water’’ boys was spontaneous. Indiana had again joined the ranks of the reformers. Governor Joseph A. Wright’s faithful correspond- ent, John Hunt, reported that “the people here are Laughing all over their faces on account [of] the passage of the Temper- ence Bill; we have had 2 illuminations. they are becoming intemperate on temperence.”? The so-called Whiskey Democrats were not yet defeated, however. Within a short time, an Indianapolis saloonkeeper named Roderick Beebe opened for business. His immediate arrest made possible a test case. The Indiana Supreme Court received the case in the November term, and Judge Samuel E. Perkins, who had declared the legislation of 1853 unconstitu- tional, handed down the same decision on this temperance bi1l.O Thus the door was opened once again for unhampered liquor traffic. Politically, the Democrats had won another victory, this time in the courts of the state. Their defeat stimulated the temperance advocates to action again, but this time their sphere of activity was within the new party. As a direct result of the Beebe decision, the state temperance convention met in Indianapolis on February 22, 1856. The resolutions of the convention were the same as those of the past, and the advocates declared they would not support for a state political office any candidate who opposed a prohibitory law. The leaders of this convention were familiar

?John Hunt to Joseph A.. Wright, Rjchmond, February 21, 1855, Joseph A. Wright Papers, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. Laws of Indiana, 1855, pp. 209-223. Indiana Senate Journal, 1855, p. 272. 8Beebe v. The State, 6 Indiana Reports, 501-556. The dissenting opinion was delivered by Judge Samuel B. Gookins of Terre Haute, a Wright appointee and Fusionist. For a discussion of the litigation of 1853, see Van Bolt, “Indiana in Political Trhnsition, 1851-1853,” Indi- ana Magazine of Hi&oq/, XLIX, 159. 188 Indiana Magazine of History ones to temperance as well as to other causes. Among them were John W. Dawson, editor of the Fort Wayne Times, a prominent Know Nothing; John D. Defrees, Whig leader and guiding light of the Fusionists; and Andrew L. Robinson, Liberty party man of long standing. After this second defeat the temperance men did not retreat and then strike again with any great degree of force; rather their crusade lapsed into a dormant period and was lost in the growing political turbulence of the sectional conflict. The Democrats, however, by refusing to approve a prohibitory law were seemingly taking a calculated political risk. They kept the good will of the foreign voters, even though their stand had served to reacti- vate one of the elements of the Fusionist~.~ In the closing days of the legislature of 1855, the members attempted once again to revise the banking structure of the state, and again the Hoosier Democrats enjoyed a measure of political success. The bank run of 1854 had exposed the frailties resulting from the mushroom growth of the free banks. As the time for expiration of the charter of the Second State Bank drew near, the politicians stepped in to create a new structure. The new bank bill was promptly vetoed by the governor, whose antibank sympathies were well known. The legislature, however, overrode the veto with the result that a new system went into effect.1° While this new system was an economic success in itself and provided a stable banking structure, the maneuvers attendant on its organization were significant politically. At the instigation of Governor Wright, an investigating committee appointed by the state senate in 1857 revealed some of the machinations of 1855, when politicians had engineered the charter through the legislature in such a way as to secure control of the system. Calvin Fletcher accused Judge Thomas L. Smith of New Albany of offering to renew the old charter for an advance of $10,000. Through the efforts of the lobby headed by Smith, provision was made to sell the bank stock between 9 and 12 A.M. on the day and place specified in the

9 Indianapolis Daily Journal, February 23, 1866; Zimmerman, “Orig- in and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XIII, 249; Charles E. Canup, “Temperance Movements and Legislation in Indiana,” ibid., XVI (1920), 24-27. 10 Laws of Indiana, 1855, pp. 229-251; Indiana Documentary Journal, 1855, pp. 713-716, 717, 727. Republican Party in Indiana 189 official notices, instead of for a thirty-day period, as under the old charter.= The commissioners named in the charter were politicians of both camps. Heading the list were Smith, a politician of long standing in New Albany; Andrew L. Osborn of La Porte, law partner of John B. Niles, the railroad promoter; Jehu T. Elliott, brother-in-law of Martin L. Bundy, an active Whig from New Castle in the Whitewater Valley; Addison L. Roache, who had resigned from the state supreme court the year before; and John D. Defrees, an ardent Whig who had sold the Indianapolis Journal in 1854 and was now managing the fortunes of the Fusion.12 The duties of selling stock in the new bank were dele- gated to sub-commissioners, whose hours of labor were short. In Indianapolis, the books were opened very briefly in the offices of the Indiana and Illinois Central Railroad Company. In a Richmond hotel Phineas M. Kent of New Albany bought more than seventeen hundred shares in the branch in a few minutes, whereupon the commissioner, carpetbag in hand, paid the landlord and departed. Similar methods in other towns allowed a select group of politicians of both parties, by deposit- ing a token payment for each share, to control the new state bank, which they hoped to sell in turn at a premium to legiti- mate bankers.I8 Sale records filed with the state bank revealed that Michael G. Bright was the largest single shareholder. The next largest holders were almost all from New Albany: Washington C. DePauw, Samuel H. Patterson, John S. Davis, and Phineas M. Kent. DePauw had retired as a clerk in the Floyd County Court in 1853, and at the moment was engaged

11 Journal of the Bank Investigating Committee, a Select Committee of the Indiana Senate, 1857 (Indianapolis, 1857), 40-41, 38. See Smith’s testimony in ibid., 120-130. The phrase at issue read as follows: “which books shall be opened between the hours of 9 and 12 A.M. on the days and at the place specified in such notice, and if the requisite amount of stock shall not sooner be subscribed, said books may be kept open between the same hours each day, for the space of thirty days.” Laws of Indiana, 1855, p. 245. 12 George Hazzard, Hazzard‘s Histoly of Henry County, Indiana, 1822-1906 (Military ed.; 2 vols., New Castle, 1906), 11, 1039-1045. Leander J. Monks (ed.), Courts and Lawyers o Indiana (3 vols., Indi- anapolis, 1916), I, 255 260; 11, 674. A Biographcat History of Eminent and Self-made Men of the State of Indiana (2 vols., Cincinnati, 1880), District 6, pp. 27-28; District 7, pp. 252-254; District 13, p. 48. 13 Journal of the Bank Investigating Committee 6, 23, 34, 410, 411- 413. Estimates of the length of time at Indianapoh vary from ten to fourteen minutes. 190 Indiana Magazine of History in sawmilling. Patterson, a shrewd operator and former clock vendor, had manipulated the leasing of the convicts of the state prison some years before. John S. Davis was an ardent Whig and successful criminal lawyer of New Albany. Phineas Kent, originally a Quaker from Vevay, was a sometime ally of the Brights and former partner with John B. Norman in the Democratic New Albany Ledger. The Brights and the New Albany syndicate held almost one-third of the total shares in the new bank.I4 Other politicians shared the spoils. In Logansport, Graham Fitch held over a thousand shares in that branch. Thomas Dowling, an old National Whig, with thirteen hundred shares controlled the Terre Haute branch. Samuel Sample of South Bend, another old-line Whig, bought one hundred shares there. John L. Robinson held four hundred shares in the Rushville branch. In Indianapolis, of the fourteen original stockholders, at least six were newspaper-politicians. Among the Fusionists of 1854 were John Defrees and Erastus W. H. Ellis. The Fusionist state treasurer, William R. Nofsinger, also received a portion of the stock.16 Since the charter did not become operative until 1857, the shareholders had time enough to transfer their holdings at a premium before the remainder of the payment became due. Michael Bright sold his to James F. D. Lanier, formerly of Madison but now a Wall Street financier, at an alleged profit of $14,000.16 Some of those who in 1854 had preached the evils of the Democracy six months later co-operated with their erstwhile political enemies in the devious schemes afoot in the legislature. The entire Fusion effort was not a conspiracy to gain the spoils of office, but the opportunists of

14 Zbid., 285-292 i William W. Sweet, “Washington Charles DePauw,” Dictionary of Ammcan Biography (20 vols., New York, 1943), V, 244; John H. B. Nowland, Sketches of Prominent Citizen: of 1876 (Indianapo- lis, 1877), 180-182; Biographical Historg of. Emanent and Selfwe Men, District 3, p. 9; William W. Woollen, Bzographical and Hzstoncal Sketches of Early Zndiuna (Indianapolis, 1883), 540; Logan Esarey Newspaper Notes, MSS in Indiana University Library, Bloomington. 15 Journal of the Bank Investigating Committee, 285-292. 16 Zbid., 426. Years later, in a masterpiece of understatement, Hugh McCulloch explained the role of these interim owners of the bank: “Their owners, although not ca italists, were men of good standing. Some of them were prominent poyiticians, who expected to be still more prominent; all were respectable citizens of the State, and consequently they were not disposed to sell to non-residents, nor to any persons who would not be able to make the Bank of the State a worth successor of the State Bank.” Hugh McCulloch, Men and Measures of dalf a Century (New York, 1888), 129. Republican Party in Indiana 191

1854, still fighting the Democrats at election time, were showing their hand. They were elements of the still shaky new party, for the Fusionist effort was becoming more than a crusade. The adjournment of the legislature brought to an end the political maneuvers in the general assembly, but the organization of the parties continued throughout 1855. The session had revealed that the politicians were not out of the troubled waters of the previous summer. The Democrats were busy reorganizing their efforts for the coming presidential year while the Fusionists needed to maintain the semblance of political organization they already possessed, meanwhile hoping that structure could be given to the amorphous mass. During 1855 the state Democracy was not very active, since the elections were local in nature. At a meeting in Indi- anapolis in April, the party reiterated its claims of 1854, with particular emphasis given to anti-Know N0thingi~m.l~ The Fusionists had more difficult problems. After the elections of 1854, the once harmonious elements became sus- picious of one another. The Free Soil elements had begun to “feel quite offish” after Milton Gregg was nominated for state printer, while the temperance forces generally lost in- terest once the new law was in the legislative mill. Under the guidance of Joseph G. Marshall of Madison the old Whigs had aspirations of their own for senatorial nominations. Finally, there was the question of what would become of the Know Nothing movement. Among the leaders of 1854 who were in the state capital attempting to weld the Fusion more firmly was Schuyler Colfax, the congressman-elect from South Bend. Some “ ‘outsiders,’ ” he reported from Indianapolis, “ ‘ought to be expected to be preaching concord rather than attempting to sow disunity.’ ”la He was not sure that the Know Nothings might not be the chief opposition of the Fusion. The ex- Whigs themselves, after the initial success, felt that instead of remaining in the background they should come to the fore to manage affairs for the Fusion.

1‘ 1‘ Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Zndi- ana Magazzne of History, XVIII, 185. 18 St. Joseph Valleg Register (South Bend), January 18, 1855, cited in Willard H. Smith, Schuyler Colfax: The Changing Fortunes of a Political Idol (Indianapolis, 1952), 55. This is volume XXXIII of the Indiana Historical Collections. Orth to Colfax, Lafayette, Februar 5, 1855, in Schauinger, “Letters of Godlove Orth, Hoosier American,” Ldz- amMagazine of Histmy, XL, 62-63. 192 Indiana Magazine of History In other states, early in 1855, the hitherto secret Know Nothing order was coming out in the open and was entering the political arena as an out-and-out party. The president of the Indiana state council seemed to feel that this was the course for the Hoosier Know Nothings to follow. He queried: “Will it not be necessary to organize an open Native American party in our State-as they are preparing to do in other States? Or what shall be done in the future-The ‘fusion’ party is necessarily of temporary duration and the Whig Party cannot be galvanized into existance again.”lD A few months later, however, Colfax gave his opinion as to the future course of the factions that were not yet fully anchored to a solid foundation, when he wrote: “ ‘My path is to harmonize, if possible, all the elements of opposition to the Adm’n on one ticket, if they will consent to give us a ticket we can conscientiously support.’ ” Colfax believed that if the antislavery and Know Nothing elements would not be able to work together, so that two tickets became inevitable, it would then be time enough to choose one or the other horn of the dilemma. His own choice was antislavery, “ ‘with the happy assurance that we go into a minority again, which- ever horn we hang upon. There are strong hopes now, however, that [William] Seward, [John] Hale, [Shelby] Cullom, [Samuel] Houston, [Kenneth] Rayner & [William W.] Campbell will all vote the same ticket in 1856. God Grant that the Democracy may run Pierce again. That will help us.’ ”*O In the correspondence of Colfax and Orth, it is possible to observe the differing tactics of these two Fusionist leaders. Orth was more reluctant to sacrifice the Know Nothings to a combination that might be more expedient, since he was a figure of some importance in the movement ; he was prone to consider the value of nativism as a political whip at all levels. On occasion he chided Colfax for not keeping “Sam” alive and kicking in local elections. When South Bend Demo- crats in the spring elections defeated the Fusionists, he reminded Colfax that in Lafayette the lodge met twice a week and initiated from five to ten members at each conclave

19 Orth to Colfax, Lafayette, February 5, 1855, in Schauinger “Let- ters of Godlove Orth, Hoosier American,” Indiana Magazine of &story, XL, 63. 20 Colfax to Alfred Wheeler, A ril 5, 1856, Colfax Papers, Library of Congress, cited in Willard H. Smi& “Schuyler Colfax and the Political Upheaval of 1854-1855,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1914- ), XXVIII (1941-1942), 397. Republican Party in Indiana 193

-and they had elected their ticket by more than two to one. On another occasion, Orth wrote to his friend: “We must not lose sight of the fact, that while there is a strong Anti- Slavery feeling in the State, there is also a strong American feeling-and both must be preserved & united if possible, else both go by the board.”21 In the same tenor, Orth seemed most clearly to define his position in the following statement: “I am in favor of the formation of an open American Party-upon a platform of principles acceptable to our people in Indiana-with a central organ here devoted exclusively to our cause with open State & County conventions-presenting open issues-and the order Kept as now, auxiliary to the Ant. Party-directing its public movements.”Z2 Likewise in the nation the Know Nothings were experi- encing political difficulties. Hoosiers watched closely the developments in Virginia. When Henry A. Wise defeated the Know Nothing candidate in the May elections, the Indiana Democrats cheered loudly and held victory meetings in the state. But in order to maintain the spirit of the order, the Know Nothings also held a meeting, on May 30, at the Bates House in Indianapolis. Among the speakers were the Fusion- ist leaders, Henry s. Lane, Daniel Mace, and David Kilgore. The common cry was that “Sam” in Indiana was not dead in spite of the Virginia election.23 A week later, June 5, an Indiana delegation attended the national convention of the Know Nothings in Philadelphia. After several minor clashes over the admission of certain delegations, the explosion came when the platform was presented. The resolutions declared that the order should “abide by and maintain the existing laws upon the subject of slavery, as a final and conclusive settlement of that subject in spirit and in The Northwest immediately objected to this so-called “twelfth section” of the national council. Indi- ana’s delegation presented a written protest to the convention and thereupon cut itself loose from the national body: “The

21 Orth to Colfax, Lafayette, April 6 and June 23, 1855, in Schauing- er? “Letters of Godlove Orth, Hoosier American,” Indiana Magazine of Hzstory, XL, 65, 66. 22 Orth to Colfax, Indianapolis, February 14, 1855, ibid., 64-65. 23 Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” ibid., XVIII, 187. 34Ibid., 189; Indianapolis Daily Journal, June 15, 1855. 194 Indiana Magazine of History edicts of the National Council, however cononical they may be, will be powerless to change those opinions or to reverse the action of the people of Indiana. Always conservative in their opinions and actions ; always mindful of the Compromises of the Constitution of the United States ; ardently devoted to the American Union, they will see with regret the promulgation of a platform by this body which can have no other effect than to increase the fury of the conflagration which the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill has lighted up.”25 This resolution gained considerable publicity, as a result of which the names of the Hoosier delegates became known. Indiana joined the seceders, consequently gaining the rather amazing distinction of being known as the “Massachusetts of her section”-a novel role for any group of Hoosiers.26 Back in Indiana, when the local councils took action on the stand of the Indiana delegation at Philadelphia, the majority supported it ; however there were a few marked exceptions, notably the councils at Jeffersonville and Evansville, both of which endorsed the Philadelphia platform in its entirety. But the straightforward approach of the Aurora Standard, representing an Ohio River community, was indicative of the general tone of acceptance of the delegation’s action. Its editor declared: “We are sorry to see such a rupture in the party; yet we cannot too highly commend the firmness and faithful- ness of the withdrawing members.-They have done right; and even if their action in this matter should cause the down- fall of the party, they will receive the warmest thanks of Northern men. The time has come when a firm stand must be made against the aggressions of the South, and the Ameri- can party may as well fall in the breach as any other. They have given us an exhibition of fidelity and firmness never bofore exhibited by the members of any party.”27 This inci- dent showed that some Hoosier Americans were ready to become as sectionally minded as the more radical antislavery advocates. While theirs was not a clean break completely

25Zndianapolis Daily Journal, June 20, 1855; Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 190-192. 26 Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Part in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 192-193; M. Evangezne Thomas, Nativism in the Old Northwest, 1850-1860 (Washington, 1936), 176-179. 27 Brand, “History of the Know Nothin Party in Indiana ” Zndi- ana Magazine of HistoTy, XVIII, 193-195; fndianapolis Daily journal, June 27, 1855. Republican Party in Indiana 195

separating all of the Indiana members from the South, still it did serve to clear the path for full-fledged fusion: i.e., Repub- licanism in 1856. The Americans of Indianapolis, at a meeting in council on July 5, 1855, passed a series of resolutions which carried even further the protest against so-called slavery domination. They approved the course of the northern seceders at Philadel- phia and at the same time expressed their sympathy for the misrepresented brethren of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (whose delegates had remained in the convention). The council also called for resistance to slavery extension in Kansas “and all other territories.” Finally, the resolutions declared that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise had released the North from all obligation to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.28 Resolutions such as these reveal that the coalition between the Americans and those of more pronounced antislavery sympathies was becoming more firmly knit. The political discussions of the American party cleavage were still in the air when a state antislavery convention was held in Indianapolis on June 27, 1855. George W. Julian, enemy of Know Nothingism because he thought it was a slaveholders’ conspiracy, delivered an address in which he opposed any co- operation with the Americans. Immediately Stephen S. Hard- ing, the abolitionist leader of Ripley County who had not been able to resist some of the lure of nativism, and Rawson Vaile, one of the editors of the Indianapolis Journal, defended the order. The convention’s attitude indicated rather clearly that its members were involved in Know Nothingism as well as in the antislavery movement.29 The next move in gathering accretions to the Americans and thereby increasing the party’s availability came in the meetings of the state council on July 11 and 12, prior to the July 13 mass meeting of the Fusionists in Indianapolis. By repeating these tactics of 1854 they hoped to inject their decisions into the platform of the larger meeting. Although the Indiana Americans refused to abandon their separate identity as a party, a reshuffling sublimated nativistic

28 Indianapolis Dailg Journal, July 6, 1855. These resolttions were also passed by the Lafayette council on June 25. Brand, History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 193. 29 Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 196; Indianapolis Daily Journal, July 2, 1855. 196 Indiana Magazine of History principles to other party goals. Their platform was extended to include all native-born and naturalized citizens except Roman Catholics. One resolution, however, favored an altera- tion of the constitutional provision which permitted aliens to vote after a residence of six months and a declaration of intention to become a citizen. As to the disturbing sectional question, the Americans favored the restoration of the Mis- souri Compromise and opposed slavery extension. Finally, the party wanted no alterations of the recent prohibitory liquor law. Thus the Indiana Americans repudiated many of the national features of the American party as a whole. This move, however, was not completed without its attendant dis- sension, for at least fifteen county delegations seceded and charges that the abolitionists had gained control of the party were hurled in the press. The cleavages were observed happily by the Democrats, who hoped that this was the first step in a complete disintegration of their opposition; yet the seceders could not be classed as a large group, and the portion that chose to remain was the larger of the At the mass meeting of the “people” of Indiana on July 13, the enthusiasms of 1854 were once again aroused. Many of the same speakers repeated their sentiments before the assemblage. The principal address, however, was delivered by General Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, who had led the seceders out of the Philadelphia American convention. The meeting reaffirmed the antislavery planks of 1854 and went further to condemn the Kansas policy of the national administration. The Fusion resolves were strikingly similar to the Know Nothing program of the day before, for both supported a limited franchise and agreed on slavery and temperance. The only marked difference was that the Know Nothings proscribed Roman Catholics. The Fusionist stand approached the standards of the preconvention call which had been sounded by Schuyler Colfax: “ ‘The watchword now is ACTION and our battle cry, not that stereotyped demagogue catchword, “No North,’’ but the sterner truth, “A North and Northern Rights.” ’ ”sl

so Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 198-200; Indianapolis Daily Journal, July 17, 1855. 31St. Joseph Valley Register (South Bend), June 28, 1855, cited in Smith, “Schuyler Colfax and the Political Upheaval of 1854-1855,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXVIII, 395 ; Indianapolis Daily Journal, July 14, 1855; Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Republican Party in Indiana 197

In the 1855 local elections the Fusionists and Americans usually promoted combined tickets ; only in the southern seced- ing counties did the latter party present a ticket of its own. The sentiment for further erasure of the slight barriers between the groups rose during the year. One newspaper editor proclaimed that he would “rejoice to see the day when Republican, Know Nothing and Know Something can stand openly and unitedly on a truly American Platform.’Jsz While the Americans and Fusionists were drawing closer together, the national Know Nothing party made another effort at a meeting in Cincinnati in November, 1855, to patch up the differences of June. The Indiana delegation supported the majority report on a new platform which was a compromise between the extreme position of the North and South. Noticeably absent, however, were the original seceders from Philadelphia; they were replaced by such New Albany leaders as James C. Moody and Elias Thomasson, who had led the protests in June when the local councils had acted upon the cleavages that had arisen in the national conven- ti~n.~~ While progress had been made in the organization of the opposition to the Democrats during this off year, it cannot be denied that instead of one party, there were now two open political organizations. More important, perhaps, was the fact that the old liners knew where to find the enemy: the “dark lantern” days were passing. The hope of the Demo- crats lay in encouraging the factors dividing the opposition; at the same time, the latter was laboring to nurture and pro- tect the cohesive features of its promising organization. As the political events of the year passed one into the other, Hoosiers were reacting in various ways to the growing sectional consciousness that was gradually eroding the common ground shared by North and South. Sectional consciousness and attitudes toward the South took many forms. For

Indiana,” Indiana Magazine. of History, XVIII, 200-202. Michael C. Garber of the Madison Courier in commenting on the action of the convention claimed that “‘all that the Republican party asks now was contended for by the Democratic party in 1849,’ ” Zimmerman, “Origin and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana,” ibid., XIII, 248. July 13 was the anniversary of the Ordinance of 1787. 32 Indianapolis Daily Journal, July 11, 1855; Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 202-203. 33 Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 204-206. 198 Indiana Magazine of History example, one Hoosier wrote to a fellow politician: “I dislike very much ‘an organization resting on a sectional basis.’ . . . Here lies the danger in the republican movement of the North . . . . I do not recognize the necessity of abandoning all other questions and going to battle on a single idea. . . that brings the North and South in direct and open antagonism with each other, leaving no common ground for the two sections to stand on. Let the north and south once face each other on this naked question, and I care not what men say there is danger to the Union. . . . If we form a party exclusively on the Anti-Slavery issue we can have no hope of peace. There must be a triumph of one section over another on a purely sectional issue, and when trouble comes there can be [no] concession.”34 In a different vein, an Indiana congressman wrote to a friend: “Its really amusing to hear these Southern gentlemen, day after day threatening a dissolution of the Union if we prohibit Slavery in Kansas. When they bluster this way, we always raise a loud laugh on our side of the House & that makes them madder ; & the cool persistence of the North, (the bolters excepted) in voting week after week for their chosen candidate & making no proffers of bargains with either wing of our opponents increases their wrath. They feel that there is a North. . . . “I have not learned to love the Southerners any more since I came here, I can assure you. Jefferson never wrote truer words than, when in his notes on Virginia, he declared that the institution of slavery trained men to be tyrannical. With rare & honorable exceptions, You can see the trait in a marked degree in the Southern members ; They do not argue- they demand. Instead of reasoning, threats are their staple; & their manner is even more offensive than their language. With them, nothing is National but Slavery & a man opposed to its extension denounced as not National-‘Conservative policy’ means with them Slavery-‘Standing by the Constitu- tion’ is not to oppose the aggressions of slavery4 fanatical, treasonable & all that, is their favorite manner of speaking of Northern men who believe in carrying the Declaration of Independence into effect in the Territorie~.”~~

34 Thomas C. Slaughter to Daniel D. Pratt, Corydon, September 7, 1855, Pratt Collection, Indiana State Library. 35 Schuyler Colfax to Charles Heaton, Washington, December 25, 1855 Colfax Letter Book, Northern Indiana Historical Society, South Bend. Republican Party in Indiana 199

Still another Hoosier Whig spoke of his southern brethren: ‘‘I admit. . . the South has somewhat the advantage of the North,-that her Statesmen, as a general thing, have been more able and more distinguished. But slavery has nothing to do with this, unless it be that, in the South, Statesmen have more leisure to prepare themselves for their public duties.” As for the new party in the North, the orator continued: “They have no ideas about slavery and office. If they can only exterminate slavery and all the national men of the North, then they’ll have all the offices. That is the summit of their ambition.”36 These were the observations of men who were opposed to the Democracy in 1855. If the incipient Republican party were to carry the state in 1856, it would be necessary to transmute the incongruities in men’s thinking into a common frame of mind which in turn might become a potent political bludgeon to wield against the South. In a sense the turn of events in Congress was the pre- lude to the political season of 1856. The speakership fight of 1855-1856 revealed the organizational difficulties of the opponents of the Democrats. The seemingly endless balloting which completely stopped the legislative mill caused politicians and citizens alike to ponder the workability of the inchoate factionalism that had grown out of the Kansas-Nebraska fury of the year before. In Washington the anti-Nebraska members from the Northwest favored nominating a candidate and faithfully supporting him to the end. However, according to Schuyler Colfax, scarcely settled in the capital as a first- term congressman, the Republicans of New York, Pennsyl- vania, and New England “wanted to vote around a few ballots for those who concurred with them in all their views, & who would then close in on the prominent Anti N. candidate. So we yielded & there was no n~mination.”~~ After a week of fruitless balloting, the Indiana congressman, along with many more anti-Nebraska supporters, became apprehensive: “I have no doubt but that our friends at home are chagrined at the sneers of our opponents over our dis-

36 Richard W. Thompson, The Political Aspects of the Slavery Ques- tion (Terre Haute, 1855), 34-35, 57. 87 Colfax to Heaton, Washington, December 3, 1855, Colfax Letter Book, Northern Indiana Historical Society. Heaton was an old friend of Colfax from South Bend. Before he left home, Colfax had feared that the “Republicans” could not succeed in electing a “backbone” speaker. 200 Indiana Magazine of History organized condition and inability to concentrate on one man.” Yet, he continued, “I will stay here for three months before I will cast my ballot for any man. . . whose back bone is at all doubtful. . . . So we. . . will stand out as duty to the great Principle on which we were elected requires us to do.”aa Two Hoosiers refused to vote with the Colfax group when Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts became the candidate of the anti-Nebraska men: George G. Dunn, the Bedford ex- Whig, and Harvey Scott of the Terre Haute district, another devoted follower of Henry Clay’s party. Dunn claimed that he could better explain to his constituents a vote for Henry M. Fuller of Pennsylvania than a ballot for Banks. The stand of Dunn illustrated that all anti-Nebraska men of Indiana did not agree.ss The united opposition of 1854 was learning that principles were not enough to enable all the Fusionists who could co-operate at home in the campaign to continue the course in Congress. The Democrats had watched the confusion of the new party with apparent satisfaction. Supporting first William A. Richardson of Illinois and finally William Aiken of South Carolina, the Democracy had presented a solid front. During the balloting, the loyal partisan of the Indiana Democrats, John L. Robinson, had warned English not to support a coalition candidate, for “the moral exhibited to the country by the present condition of affairs in the House is having a most happy effect. It would all be lost if any portion of our friends should help the opposition out of their unenviable dilemma.”4o In the midst of this bewildering situation, the Indiana Democrats held their 1856 state convention on the traditional January 8, the anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans. They chose to make the Republican dilemma an issue. One of the resolutions declared in favor of “the gallant band of Democrats in Congress” who had “so nobly illustrated the

58 Zbid., December 11, 1855. 8QColfax explained that every prominent man in the party had appealed to Dunn but in vain. “He was going up very rapidly, on account of his eloquence, & his conciliatory speeches in our caucuses, but you can judge where he is going now, except with the Loco Focos who of course admire his pluck.” Ibid. Woollen, Biographical and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana, 243-244. After the 133rd ballot, Banks was finally elected, with Scott and Dunn casting their final vote for Lewis D. Campbell, Know Nothing leader of Ohio. Congressional Globe, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., 337. 40 John L. Robinson to William H. English, Rushville, December 23, 1855, English Collection, Indiana Historical Society Library. Republican Party in Indiana 201

National character of the Democratic party,” while the “factions of the opposition, destitute of a common principle to bind them together” were “disunited and discordant.” The Indiana Democracy would surrender nothing to a coalition with “factions opposed to civil and religious liberty, and to the constitution of their country.” Continuing the anti-Know Nothing drive of 1855, another resolution favored the principles of the Compromise of 1850 as embodied in the Kansas- Nebraska Act, and three others appealed to the foreign voters : they attacked secret societies, the prohibitory temperance law of 1855, and proscription of the foreign element from political organizations. The party nominated for governor Ashbel P. Willard, of New Albany, a brilliant but erratic lawyer, whose intemperance gave his fellow politicians grave concern. After John C. Walker of LaPorte had been chosen for lieutenant governor, it was discovered he was not yet old enough to hold office; the party then selected an old-line Whig, Abram A. Hammond of Terre Haute.41 While the Democrats were planning their attack, the new Republicans found a ready-made and exciting issue. Even before the Democratic state convention had met, the first “Kansas” meeting of the year was held in Indianapolis, following appeals from Kansas for aid. At the second meeting, in February, money was raised to buy Sharpe’s rifles; thus another cause was well launched.42 In February the “Free Democrats” held a convention in Indianapolis. Judge John Wright of Logansport, an old hand in the antislavery and temperance movements, introduced a resolution to appoint a committee of seven to raise funds, equipment, and men to go to Kansas to aid in the Free Soil struggle. The members of the committee had supported many causes. Wright, James N. Ritchey, Ovid Butler, Alexander C. Stevenson, and Calvin Fletcher, all respected and prosperous citizens, had supported temperance reform, suppression of vice and gambling, agricultural societies, antislavery societies, John -

41 Indianapolis Daily Journal, January 9, 1856; William E. Henry, State Platforms of the two Dominant Political Parties in Indiana, 1850-1900 (Indianapolis, 1902), 11-12; William R. Holloway, Indianapo- lis, a Historical and Statistical Sketch of the Railroad City (Indianapolis, 1870), 106; Jacob P. Dunn, Indiana and Indianans (5 vols., Chicago, 1919), I, 568; Zimmerman, “Origin and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of Histow, XIII, 250. 42Zndianapolis Daily Journal, January 5, and February 25, 1856; Zimmerman, “Origin and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XIII, 254. 202 Indiana Magazine of History

Freeman, and many other movements to uplift the morals of Indiana. The remaining members of the committee, Henry S. Lane and James H. Lane, were not so familiar. The former was a prominent leader in the Fusion of 1854; the latter, a supporter of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, had declined to campaign again for Congress in 1854 and had emigrated to Kansas in 1855. He had hoped to organize the Democratic party in that state, but after six months the Hoosier Democrat was becoming a radical supporter of the free-state cause. Lane returned East after being appointed senator from Kansas should it be admitted as a state. During this period, the former congressman from Indiana came home. Until the last of May, 1856, when he went back to Kansas, Jim Lane was in the Northwest busily laying the cause of Kansas before the people.43 The meeting of the Free Democrats in Indianapolis sought to unite the opposition to the old liners. Andrew L. Robinson, long a supporter of the antislavery movement, was chairman. The decision of the convention to meet with the People’s party in May, not as Free Democrats but as members of the Peo- ple’s party, brought one of the more radical elements of the Fusion into line. Implementing the Kansas aid plan of the convention, Judge Wright published a letter which offered that “persons wishing to emigrate to Kansas as actual settlers and desirous of procuring Sharpe’s rifles, can be supplied in a few days by addressing me at Logansport, or at the Bates House, Indianap~lis.”~~The action of the committee and the press stirred up much Kansas excitement so that by May 1, when Lane addressed the People’s convention in Indianapolis, the Hoosiers were well informed of affairs in “bleeding Kan- sas.” The slavery question was coming rapidly to the fore- ground again.

48 Indianapolis Daily Journal, February 22, :856. Zimmerman, “Origin and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana Indiana Magazine of Histom, XIII, 254-255. Wendell H. Stephenson, +he Political Career of James H. Lane (To eka, Kansas, 1930), 68-71, and passim; this is vol. I11 of the Kansas &ate Historical Society Publzcations. 44 Indianapolis Daily Journal, February 22, 1856; Zimmerman, “Ori- gin and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XIII, 254-255. That there were those interested in emigrating to Kansas seems very probable. By 1856 the Northwest was mature enough to send its people to the newer West, and Indiana contributed a share in the settlement of Kansas. See William 0. Lynch, “The Flow of Colonists to and from Indiana Before the Civil War,” ibid., XI 1915), 5; according to the Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, bopula- tion, 166, 616, 9,945 residents of Kansas had been born in Indiana. Republican Party in Indiana 203 Meanwhile, the Americans were dutifully attempting to sublimate the radicalism of the party. The so-called “twelfth section” men who were in accord with the seceders of 1855 were gaining strength in the state. Among the delegates who appeared in the Philadelphia convention on February 18, 1856, were the old Whig leader Solomon Meredith; William Sheets, who had succeeded Orth as president of the state council of the Know Nothings; and A. M. Phelps of Warrick County. After the meeting had adjourned, the national council reorganized as a nominating convention. The wrangle over the place of the slavery issue in the party’s policy again brought forth a secession movement, just as it had in 1855. This time, however, the Indiana delegates remained, while almost all those from the other states of the Northwest trooped out of the hall.45 This split further weakened the Americans, and the groundwork was firmly laid for a North and a South Ameri- can party. In the former movement the Indiana Americans were uninterested, while in the latter the old line Whigs of the state found one last refuge. It was thus a question whether the Americans would co-operate with the People’s party of Indiana or maintain a separate identity. One political fact, however, the politicians could not ignore: the American party was becoming sectionalized within the state. The old Whigs of the lower Wabash and the Ohio River with a particular center in New Albany were far apart in their political views from the Whigs of the northern sections. The traditional Whig areas in the southern part of the state, needed so badly to offset the back country Democratic strongholds south of the National Road, were determined to maintain their identity and unite with the Whigs of Kentucky and the Ohio River region. An executive committee of the American party held a preliminary meeting in Indianapolis in April and continued to wrangle on the ticklish question of co-operation with the Peo- ple’s party at the state level. After much disagreement, a circular was issued by the president, William Sheets, sug- gesting that members of the order attend the convention of the People’s party. Repeating the attitude of the party in

46Zndianapolis Daily Journal, February 20 23, 26, 26, 27, 28, 29, and March 3, 1866; Brand, “History of the know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 267-269; Thomas, Nativ- ism in the Old Northwest, 1850-1860, pp. 203-204. 204 Indiana Magazine of History

1854, he declared that the true friends of Americanism were uncompromisingly opposed to the corrupt national administration ;he also urged the restoration of the Missouri Compromise line.46 When the People’s convention met:’ some of the confusion and spirit of the preceding years had worn off. A huge crowd gathered to hear Henry S. Lane, president of the convention, declare that slavery extension was the first great national issue to be settled; Jim Lane described conditions in Kansas as he had seen them. The question of appointing delegates to the Philadelphia Republican convention aroused brief turmoil when some Americans claimed that the meeting could not elect delegates because it was not wholly a Republican convention. One of the less faithful Americans, however, declared that Americanism could wait but the Kansas question could not. A compromise was arranged whereby six delegates-at- large and three from each district were to be sent to Phila- delphia. Only the more vociferous and determined Americans protested ; many must have silently acquiesced. The next test of the framework of the embryonic Hoosier Republican party was the organization of the convention and the selection of officers and candidates. The Whigs had made inroads on their competitors in the party since 1854, and in the convention appointments the anti-Nebraska Democrats received a relatively small share of posts; however, as candidates the bolters from the Democracy seemed to have con- siderably more to offer in the way of availability. The choice for governor was Oliver P. Morton, an anti-Nebraska Demo- crat from Wayne County; William R. Nofsinger, who had been elected state treasurer in 1854 on the anti-Nebraska platform, was also nominated; and the wily Erastus W. H. Ellis, who commanded a large influence in northern Indiana, completed the list of former Democrats on the state ticket. The sole American candidate was John W. Dawson of Fort Wayne, Know Nothing editor. The next point of possible conflict was the platform, which reflected the attempt of the People’s party to broaden

46Zndianapolis Daily Journal, April 3, 1856; Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 272. 47 For a discussion of this convention see Zimmerman, “015 in and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana,” Zndiana Magazine of history, XIII, 257-260. Republican Party in Indiana 205

its appeal. As a party of opposition, its platform attacked those in power, with the exception of its support of the temperance law, which was of the Fusion’s own making. The platform of 1856 carried the extension issue one step further when it opposed the admission of any more slave states out of territories “secured to freedom by the Missouri Compromise” and then added the phrase, “or otherwise.” To accommodate the Americans, a resolution was formulated that favored “naturalization laws of Congress with five years’ probation, and that the right of suffrage should accompany and not pre- cede naturali~ation.”~~ Since the states of the Northwest were all testing major political creations of 1854, the platforms of Ohio and Illinois Republicans offer interesting comparisons with Indiana’s. All three states had much in common geographically, socially, and economically so that the differences among them are quite apparent. The resolutions of the Illinois convention resembled very closely those of Indiana, with one exception: the Illinois leaders were ready to make definite overtures to those who had previously been discouraged. One resolution declared, “We will proscribe no one by legislation or otherwise on account of religious opinions, or in consequence of place of birth.” The Ohio Republicans, however, outdid their neighbors to the west. The general tenor of their platform was much more vindictive and filled with phrases of bitter hatred for the Democracy. It bluntly declared that all territories should be free. As to the problem of support, the Ohio Republicans in- vited the “cordial support of all citizens, whether of native or foreign birth.”49 These platforms show that the state parties expressed a considerable degree of unanimity of principle, if not of mode of expression. The significant difference was in the treatment of the foreign vote. The Indiana People’s party, in order to appeal to the nativists, supported a stringent naturalization measure; its neighbors appealed directly to the foreign voter. Indiana did not have as large a foreign population as did its neighbors ; there was no concentrated German settlement to

48 Ibid., 259. 49 The Illinois platform is in Green B. Raum, Histow of Zllinois Republicanism (Chicago, 1900), 28. For the Ohio platform see Jpseph P. Smith, Histow of the Republacan Party in Ohzo (2 vols., Chicago, 1898), I, 61-62. 206 Indiana Magazine of History compare with Cincinnati or Chicago. Yet the Indiana Demo- crats apparently felt it was worthwhile to try to catch the German vote in the party net. Reactions to the People’s convention varied. The “South” Americans refused to stand by the nomination and a platform that was so strongly “Republican” in character. One American editor blamed William Sheets, the president of the state council, for the failure of the party. He bitterly growled: “The officiating head of the American party in Indi- ana is rotten to the core! He has sold us to our enemies.”6o Such reports as these, however, were exceptional. On the other hand, to such radicals as George W. Julian, the party had not gone far enough in its denunciations. Julian was unable to find a single true antislavery man on the whole ticket. He called the People’s party a “combination of weaknesses, instead of a union of forces.”s1 One of Julian’s friends, Daniel Worth, despondently described the Indianapolis convention thus : “A poor miserable truckling concern without either soul or body. . . . You will mark the fact that our wise-acres at Indianapolis ignored even the name of Republican as well as all antislavery principle. This was done for the benefit of Knownothings and old fossil Whigs who have just emanated from their old political graves where they have been ‘per- severing to rot,’ and are now ready to take office at the hands of antislavery men provided they are not compelled to take more antislavery than they might safely take of arsenic.”62 The old abolitionists who sought a political home among the factions of the new party were sorely disappointed. The People’s convention, however, was antislavery enough in sentiment to frighten away the more conservative elements of the Democratic opposition. The friends of Wil- liam H. English felt that the stand of the party assured them of success in the coming canvass. One wrote confidently, “I see by the proceedings of the peoples Convention that Black Republicanism was triumphant, no elector was appointed for this District. Gregg [the local American editor] has been un- horsed, I think the whole affair a miserable abortion, the

50 Vevay Reveille quoted in Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Zndaam Magazine of History, XVIII, 275. 61 George W. Julian, Political Recollections, 18.40-1872 (Chicago, 1884), 155. sz,‘,‘A Letter of Daniel Worth to George W. Julian and Other Docu- ments, ed. Grace Julian Clarke, Indium Magazine of History, XXVI (1930), 153-154, Republican Party in Indiana 207 policy of nominating a broken down set of renegad Democrats, because they love niggers more than white folks will not win in Indiana. we Shall beat the whole tickett by The tremendous importance attached to national questions in the progress of the state party brought the question of the national Republican conventions into sharp focus. The first meeting of the Republicans was held in Pittsburgh in February. The role of the Hoosiers in this initial assembly is rather vague. According to the various writings of George W. Julian, he played an important role. He did serve as chairman of the committee on organization and was one of the vice- presidents. William Grose of Henry County was appointed to the executive committee, and Oliver P. Morton was a member of the resolutions committee. Julian explained later that the Fusion had “subordinated every question of principle to its desire for political success. The situation was most humili- ating.’’64 This preliminary meeting, which served primarily to formulate more solid propositions upon which a permanent organization could be established, was an impetus to the Philadelphia convention in June. Henry S. Lane was elected president of the second convention. In his address the former Whig extolled the virtues of Henry Clay. Had the Kentuckian been alive, he would have been leading the Republican party, declared Lane. The dis- union cry, he claimed, came from South Carolina “unhung” nullifiers who still had the halter of General Andrew Jackson about their necks. Caleb Smith, another ex-Whig, formerly of Indiana but at this time a resident of Cincinnati, also spoke. This retired legislator called the Republican party the true national party. He was careful to state that his party would not interfere where slavery already existed, yet since the institution was always aggressive, the Republicans were the only party that would maintain the principles of freedom. These

53 J. A. Cravens to W. H. English, Hardensburg, May 9, 1856, Eng- lish Collection, Indiana Historical Society Library. 54 George W. Julian “The First Republican National Convention,” American Histom’cal Revtiew (New York, 1895- ), IV (1898-1899), 314 318; Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventwns 01 1856, 1860, and 1864 (Minneapolis, 1893), 7-14. For local. newspaper descriptions of convention proceedings see Indianapolis Daaly Journal, February 25 and 26, 1856; the account of February 26 reports an “effective speech” by Julian. See also Monks, Courts and Lawyers of Indiana, I, 342; Hazzard’s History of Henry County, Indiana, I, 138; Grose had been an elector for Pierce in 1852 and had been a loyal Democrat until the excitement of 1854. 208 Indiana Magazine of History two Hoosiers permitted the speakers who followed them to express more radical views. One was Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, who spoke of the divine inspiration of the Declaration of Inde- pendence and its mission in America. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts was allowed to shout: “Sir, our object is to overthrow the Slave Power of the country, now organized in the Democratic party of the It is interesting and significant to compare the list of delegates selected at Indianapolis to attend the Philadelphia convention with the list of men who answered the roll call of the credentials committee at the convention. The first and second districts, which were strongholds of the Americans, were represented at Philadelphia by Hoosiers who lived out- side these constituencies ; apparently those appointed did not attend. There were also substitutions in the seventh and eighth congressional districts. The replacements were often men of prominence from other areas in the state. The Indiana delegation was indicative of a mature party leader~hip.~~There was a sprinkling of editor-politicians : William G. Terrell of Lafayette, an ardent ex-Whig ; Thomas H. Bringhurst, Whig editor of the Logansport Journal; Charles D. Murray of Kokomo, another Whig editor; and John Defrees, a member of the platform committee, the leader of the state press as well as of the People’s party. The lone ex-Democrat was the Bright antagonist, Michael C. Garber of the Madison Courier. Another significant group was made up of businessmen- merchants, bankers, and railroad promoters. Defrees was connected with the Central Bank at this time. Henry S. Lane

55 Proceedings of the First Three Republican Conventions, 31, and pp. 15-82 for the entire convention report; Indianapolis Daily Journal, June 19, 20, 21, and 23, 1856, for local report of convention proceedings; see also ibid., June 4, 1856, for an account of Smith’s activities in the Ohio Republican convention. 56 The process of identification of these various delegates is a difficult one, but it has been possible to locate scattered bits of information which seem to clarify the genera: nature of the entire delegation. The list of delegates is printed in Proceedings of the First Three Republz- can Conventions, 41. For biographical information see: Woollen, Biog- raphical and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana, 482, 485-486, 546, 556-558; Dunn, Indiana and Indianans, 11, 995-996; 111, 1404; Monks, Courts and Lawyers of Indiana, 111, 1144. Nowland, Sketches of Promin- ent Citizens of 1876, pp. 170-171; Biographical History of Eminent and SeZfmade Men. District 11, p. 6; District 6! p. 23; District 7, p. 109; District 8, p~.30-31; District 10, p. 12; District 12, pp. 33-34. Hazzard‘s Histow of Henry County, Indiana, I, 144; Indiana State Gazeteer and Business Directory, for 1862 and 1863 (3rd ed.: Indianapolis, 1862, 1863), 256; Indianapolis Daily Journal, June 19 and 23, 1856. Republican Party in Indiana 209 of Crawfordsville was a banker with his father-in-law, Isaac Elston. Daniel R. Bearss of Peru, a Henry Clay Whig, was a retired mercantilist, one of the wealthiest men in the county. Benjamin F. Claypool of Fayette County was president of the state bank in Connersville. Jacob B. Julian of Centerville was a sometime banker and railroad promoter. Henry County sent Martin L. Bundy, a wealthy citizen. From Terre Haute came L. A. Burnett, a leather and hide dealer. Finally, Samuel Hanna was a delegate from the Fort Wayne district. This Allen County Whig was a frontier capitalist and one of the wealthiest men in Indiana. Hanna had begun as an Indian trader and was president of the Fort Wayne and Chicago railroad. A few of the ardent exponents of the various isms were also represented, but they were in the minority. One of these was Jonathan W. Gordon of Indianapolis, whose law practice was such that it had given him ample time to edit the Temperance Chart, a publication appearing under the patron- age of the Sons of Temperance. James Ritchey of Franklin County, who was named to the national executive committee, was another reformer devoted to many causes. Judge William Peaslee of Shelbyville had been an original member of the Know Nothings in the “dark lantern” stage. Taken as a whole the membership indicated Whig entry into the leadership of the National Republicans of Indiana. The respected and prosperous of the now defunct party were gaining control of the new organization. For the most part it was a conservative leadership, replacing the more radical elements that had rushed into the Fusion in 1854. This Whig group, however, did not include the old Whigs of the river counties but came rather from the northern and central sections of the state, the areas in which significant economic and social change was taking place in the fifties. These Hoosiers, who were taking strides to secure political advantage, were to determine the character of the future Republican party of Indiana. With the nomination of John C. Fremont, the Indiana delegation, Republican in fact if not in name, returned home to stump the state in the new party’s first national campaign. Back in Indiana, as a result of the problem of the course of the Americans, the important political question was the matter of support. Before the convention met in Philadelphia, 210 Indiana Magazine of History

John Defrees, chairman of the state central committee, called for a ratification meeting to be held at Indianapolis on July 15, 1856. The Americans, however, decided to await the results of the People’s convention before meeting; consequently they called their gathering for July 16. The decision was of some significance since it seemed to mean that no longer were the Know Nothings, now Americans, attempting to set the pattern for the Fusionist~.~~ The People’s convention on July 15 was little more than a ratification meeting. Henry S. Lane and Stephen S. Harding were among the speakers. The afternoon program included a few Kansas speeches as well as a parade of young men attired as “Border Ruffians” and “Buford’s Thieves.”5s By the time of their state convention on July 16 the Americans had been reduced largely to the position of an irreconcilable minority of the old Whig party. The seceders of the conventions of the previous year had brought many of the Indiana Americans into the People’s party; those left behind were chiefly from southern Indiana. An important leader of the party in Indiana was Richard W. Thompson, who was made permanent chairman of the state party. In June, Humphrey Marshall of Kentucky had written Thompson: “ ‘We must have a separate Fillmore ticket in Indiana. You must go to the Convention-and you must head the movement and go on the Electoral ticket-there is no time for trifling. . . we must not fuse.’ ’’58 The activities of Dick Thompson were reported to the People’s chieftain, Henry Lane, by one of his correspondents : “ ‘We are peculiarly situated here [Terre Haute]. R. W. Thompson is using extraordinary means to prevent an organization upon Fr6mont. . . . He maintains that the Planter has

57 Indianapolis Daily Journal, June 17, 1856; Zimmerman, “Origin and Rise of the Republican Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazzne of History, XIII, 262-263, 265; Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” ibid., XVIII, 276-277. 68 Indianapolis Daily Journal, July 16, 1856 i Holloway? IndiCqnapo- lis, 106-107; Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of Histo XVIII, 277. Zimmerman, “Origin and Rise of the Republican Party inykdiana,” ibid., 263. 59 Humphrey Marshall to Thorn son, June 16,-1856, uoted in Charles Roll, Colonel Dack Thorn son: The l%rszstent Wha (Injianapolis, 1948), 151; this is vol. XXX ofthe Indiana Historical 8oZZections. For an account of the proceedings see Indianapolis Daily Journal, July 17 and 18, 1856. Among the committeemen was George G. Dunn, who after the speakershi fight in the House of Representatives was back with the irreconcilabes; his fusion was at an end. Republican Party in Indiana 211 the same right to occupy the territories with his slaves that the northern farmer has with his horses. Thompson is making desperate exertions to carry his points, he does what he has seldom done before; he is on the streets and at the corners in season and out of season, trying to inveigh old Whigs into his scheme of resuscitating the Whig party.’ ”60 The convention itself was not particularly impressive as compared with the People’s meeting of the day before. Only about one-fourth of the counties were represented, for the Americans had become a sectional party within the state with the chief centers in New Albany, Jeffersonville, Terre Haute, and Vevay. The Democratic pocket and the American pocket were almost the same. A last attempt to endorse Fremont was put down hurriedly, and the support of the state ticket was left open, a policy which amounted to a handicap for Morton and the People’s party. With the conclusion of the meeting the battle lines of the coming presidential campaign were drawn : the Democracy, with Buchanan, had divided opposition. After the convention, Thompson labored to organize Fillmore clubs over the state; only one of these, at Lafayette, was north of the National Road. But the Americans lost more than they gained in press support. Perhaps the greatest blow was the defection of John W. Dawson of the Fort Wayne Times, who was also a candidate on the state People’s ticket.s1 The campaign during the summer and fall of 1856 was a test of the new People’s party. No longer an impetuous up- start nor a purely offensive party, it was now a political organization which was beginning to operate as a responsible group and which had to resort also to defensive actions in the rough and tumble tactics of the canvass. At the state level and in Congress its leaders had the opportunity to carry out the demands and promises of 1854. In the Kansas situation the People’s party in Indiana and the Republicans in the nation had a firebrand that was capable of igniting men’s emotions. Jim Lane, who had promised to carry the truth to every corner of the North, dramatically rushed back to Kansas just before the campaign reached fever pitch. At the end of May, he announced to the electors of Indiana, “ ‘You have heard the late thrilling news

60 J. 0. Jones to Henry S. Lane, June 25, 1856, quoted in Roll, Colonel Dick Thompson, 151-152. 61 Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII, 276-279, 280-281. 212 Indiana Magazine of History from Kansas. I am hastening there, then, either to relieve, or perish with that gallant bleeding people.’ ”62 Whereupon he cancelled a series of speaking engagements that would have taken him to many corners of the state. The numerous letters and dispatches from Kansas that appeared in the press and the speeches of those who had recently returned served to arouse the citizens. Editors gave the latest happenings high priority. Wheeler in South Bend reported to Colfax : “The subscribers were anxious for Kansas News, and I gave them Kansas news. Kansas news would spoil by laying over; Day’s Speech would Schuyler Colfax’s wife was the happy recipient of “Governor Robin- sons Polka,’’ the gift of her husband’s political ally, Nathaniel P. Banks. She commented that the governor was then “suf- fering imprisonment in Kansas at the hands of those vile despots, the border ruffians, for the crime of loving Freedom better than Slavery.”64 In the Whitewater Valley an even more powerful impact of the Kansas affairs was felt, for the news came that a member of a party of Hoosiers who had gone to Kansas had been killed in an attack.65 The political capital in firing the emotions of those who were already enlisted in the ranks of the People’s party was one matter, but when the “fagenders” began to fall under the spell of the Kansas dispatches, the Democracy began to worry. One of Governor Wright’s political friends hoped the excitement would end. “The Kansas troubles afford the theme for about all the declamation of the opposition, and at this moment they effect the creation of some prejudice to our injury. May we not reasonably hope for a conclusion of those disturbances soon?” Then the Democrat expressed an interesting point of view that was not exactly high doctrine in Democratic circles. He wrote : “Anything that Congress would with propriety do ought to be done-Confidence once restored, that Kansas will probably be a free-state, and all is well with the Democracy,

62 Stephenson, The Political Career of General James H. Lane, 71. 6sA. L. Wheeler to Schuyler Colfax, South Bend, June 15, 1856, Colfax Papers, Indiana University Library, Bloomington. 64 Evelyn Colfax to May Heaton, Washington, August 8, 1856, Col- fax Letter Book, Northern Indiana Historical Society. 65 Richmond Palladium, Extra, August 29, 1856, cited in Bernhard Knollenberg, “Pioneer Sketches of the Upper Whitewater Valley,” Indi- ana Historical Society Publications (Indianapolis, 1895- ) , XV (1945), 134. Republican Party in Indiana 213 for the people, I am persuaded would gladly see this constant agitation of the subject of slavery driven out of the Halls of Congress.”66 The campaign centered about the sectional issue, and with the cry of “Black Republicanism” ringing in their ears, the excitement of the people grew as the October state election day approached. The Democrats made the most of the Ameri- can-People’s party split as well as of the fact that most Hoos- iers hated the Negro. In one Democratic neighborhood, in Dubois County, it was reported that several young ladies of the community, dressed all in white, paraded through the streets carrying a banner, “‘Fathers, save us from nigger husbands !’ ”67 Less dramatically but with effective results, the Democrats stressed the theme that the Black Republicans were plotting abolition and the bestowal of full social and political rights upon the Negro. The brunt of the state campaign was borne by Oliver P. Morton, an anti-Nebraska Demo- crat. He was rather evenly matched on the stump with Ashbel P. Willard, who was a brilliant speaker.68 The results of the local campaign were indicative of the events to come in the November elections. Willard carried the state by almost 5,000 votes. Examination of the results in the congressional districts reveals the sectionalism of the state. Morton carried the Whitewater valley and the northern districts. The congressional election resulted in a sizeable increase in the number of Democratic victories. Indiana now had six of the old liners back in Congress, while the People’s party had lost four The People’s party men speculated on the results and the possibilities of victory in November. Schuyler Colfax was

66 A. B. Conduitt to Joseph .A. Wright, Mooresville, June 23, 1856, Wright Papers, Indiana State Library. 67 Julius A. Lemcke, Reminiscences of an Indianian (Indianapolis, 1905), 196. 68 An English visitor who heard Willard in Indianapolis reported that he spoke for almost two hours and never tripped in a sentence or “faltered with a single word.” Furthermore, at 120 feet, the Englishman heard every word. Frederick J. Jobson, America, and American Method- ism (New York, 1857), 117-119. William D. Foulke, Life of Oliver P. Morton (2 vols., Indianapolis, 1899), I, 47-58. 69 Tribune Almanac for 1857, pp. 57-59. Indiana Dommentarg Journal, 1857, 11, 608. The People’s party claimed that the Americans had voted for Willard; however, the later election in November seemed to indicate that the Hoosier Americans had generally supported Morton, but that their combined support was not enough to defeat the New Albany Democrat. Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of Historg, XVIII, 291-292. 214 Indiana Magazine of History not very optimistic. The only hope of winning was for Fre- mont to equal Morton’s vote. With this goal in mind, the party members were canvassing between elections to get the necessary additional 6,000 votes for Fremont. The South Bend congressman did not raise the cry of desertion on the part of the Americans in the state campaign. He realistically observed: “Many think that in the South half of the State a maj of the Fillmore men voted for Willard. If this were so, we could rely on carrying the State; but I am satisfied that about 10,000 of the 15,000 Fillmore men there voted with us. So that their going for their own Prest will injure us net just . . . about 5,000. The odds are therefore decidedly agst. us, but still we shall work. I spent this week in the most be- nighted region-Southwestern Ind.”’O Fillmore men were a thorn in the side of the People’s party, and the Democrats, as the canvass grew more exciting, did not commit any errors that might help close the gap. The Democratic press became friendly to the Americans; the latter also had trouble within their ranks, for three of their state electors deserted the party. Realizing their hopeless position, the Fillmore national leaders held out the possibility that the election would be thrown into the House of Represen- tatives, where Fillmore then would be the compromise choice ; consequently an attempt was made to withdraw the ticket in Indiana. J. R. Thompson of New York came to the Indiana Americans to present his plan ; however Dick Thompson refused to comply with the request. When rumors spread that their ticket had been withdrawn, the Americans issued an appeal to the Republicans to support Fillmore because chances of restoration of the Missouri Compromise line would be greater under a Fillmore administration : “a recommenda- tion from him would have weight, and receive consideration from members of Congress representing all portions of the Union.”T1 This was one possibility. There were others. A few days before the election, the People’s party was not willing to sacrifice anything to the Americans. Schuyler Colfax reported the proposals of the Americans. His attitude toward them was

Wchuyler Colfax to John D. Defrees, Greencastle, October 27, 1856, Colfax Letter Book, Northern Indiana Historical Society. 7lIndianapolis Dailg Journal, December 15, 1856; see also ibid., July 31, 1856; Brand, “History of the Know Nothing Party in Indi- ana,” Indiana Magazine of Histow, XVIII, 281, 286, 287-288. Republican Party in Indiana 215 interesting: “The Fillmore Com. were here Thursday & Fri- day-some of them wanting to save the State-others not. They wanted us to take off five of our electors-put on five Fillmore men & both parties to go for this ticket 8 Fremont and five Fillmore. We were satisfied that we should be weaker with this Fusion than without-as it would alienate all the foreign vote & would not bring more than half the Fillmore vote to us at any rate. We told them we had a future before us & they had not. And our Committee is determined to do nothing to tend to give them power & position. If they want to save the State, they should vote our ticket as practical men, as it is the only one that stands any chance agst B uchanan. “They are getting alarmed in Ky for fear Fillmore will not carry it. Our electoral ticket will poll 6 to 8,000 votes, perhaps more, mainly from their side. We offer with C. M. Clays consent that if they will withdraw their ticket here, we will withdraw ours there, & carry both states agst Buchanan. But they have been fighting Fremont so hard they hate to do it, & will not without giving them electors, which we will not do. If we had cut loose from them entirely last May we should have been stronger now. And now we intend having a victory or a defeat.”12 Opposing all the deals and trades was Richard W. Thomp- son. There were probably many more who felt the same deter- mination to remain Whig to the end. As a result, the Ameri- cans went into the election as a battered, but still sizeable, group who kept the opposition to the Democracy di~ided.’~

‘2 Schuyler Colfax to John D. Defrees, Greencastle, October 27, 1856, Colfax Letter Book, Northern Indiana Historical Society. 73 For many years a belief existed in Indiana that Dick Thom son was paid to kee the American ticket in the field. Brand, “History o!the Know Nothing $arty in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of Histow, XVIII, 28211, mentioned the charges but claimed that no evidence was ever found to support these claims. The fact that Jesse Bright was vigorously supporting Thompson in the claim against the government during the summer of 1856 aided the rumors of a plot; see Julian, Political Recol- lections, 155-156. From a purely circumstantial point of view, the events do raise several questions. Thompson had been employed by the Menominee to recover damages incurred in their removal to the West. The Hoosier lawyer won the case. B a prior agreement Thompson was to receive the customary fee of one-tKird of the award; his share of the $242,000 compensation was thus more than $80,000. George Manypenny, the Indian commissioner, protested and payment was halted. The resulting private bill in Congress, allowing Thompson one-half the amount due, was pushed aside for a long time. In the summer of 1856, Jesse Bright championed Thompson’s claim in the Senate. Bright was on the floor more during the summer of 1856 than at any previous time in his career, 216 Indiana Magazine of History

When the November returns were in, the Hoosier Democ- racy was back in power. Although not a complete rout, it was a comfortable victory. Buchanan received 118,670 votes, while Fremont gathered 94,375. The Americans trailed with 22,386.74 Political behavior is difficult to gauge but several con- clusions seem to have a degree of validity. First, even if there had been no American party, the Democrats would have won, since the combined strength of Fremont and Fillmore would not have been enough to overturn the Buchanan forces in the state. Second, the People’s party apparently failed to gain the Whig vote completely. George Julian charged that along with the Know Nothing refusal to unite, there was the inability to rally the Whigs. Those who had not floated into the American party seem to have preferred Buchanan to Fremont. One ex- Whig, for example, resented the fact that his anti-Nebraska Democrat congressman stuffed a mailbag “full of F [rancis] P. Blairs abolitionism to the formerly Whigs at and in the vicinity. . . . “I am unable to see the consistency of a Whig of 52 now affiliatiating with black republicanism, and cannot account for it on any hypothesis than dishonesty then or now. “As to Knownothingism, it aims such a vital thrust at the democratic principle or capacity of the people for Self government that in my opinion no honest man can for a moment entertain its policy.”76

and each time it was to support Thom son’s private bill. Douglas and Toombs both aided the cause. Roll, &lone1 Dick Thompson, 119-122. The final vote in the Senate was eighteen to sixteen to approve the claim. Congressional Globe, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., 1984, and passim. During the campaign the rumor circulated that a bargain had been made between Bright and Thompson. One of the reports from John Hunt to Governor Wright suggests that the two men were skeptical themselves. “Your R. W. Thompson has shown his hand as you said he would indirectly and the Rumor is that you & Bright for office & Profit have formed a Coalition-if your success requires the aid of many men at the Price paid for Thompson cost and ware & tare of conscience will over balance the Honor & emoluments of office, even if the government should foot the bill.” John Hunt to Joseph A. Wright, Richmond, August 5, 1856, Wright Papers, Indiana State Library. The sudden enthusiasm exhibited by Jesse Bright for an old Whig enemy is difficult to explain; however, this was an age of practical politics and of practical men. 74 Tribune Almanac for 1857, p. 58; Indiana Documentary Journal, 1857, 11, 609. 75 Hiram Craig to W. H. English, Martinsville, March 24, 1856, English Collection, Indiana Historical Society Library; Julian, Political Recollections, 155. Republican Party in Indiana 217

Another neighborhood politician reported similar happenings. “You will find things far different at this point compared to what you formerly encountered. Whigs by the score in this neighborhood, are warmly enlisted for Buchannan. Only those of decided abolition and Know Nothing procliv- ities oppose him. The Democrats here are true with very few exceptions. Our efforts are directed particularly to an ex- posure of the dangerous character of the leaders of the fagenders & their dogmas-especial care being taken to conciliate those Whigs whose prejudices alone hinder them, from acting with the democratic party.”7e The reluctance of the Fusionists was also expressed by John B. Norman of the New Albany Ledger, who wrote: “In this county nine tenths of the Fusion- ists are Fillmore men, and many of them say they will vote for Buchanan in preference to Frem~nt.”~? Third, the increase in the number of Democratic voters led to the charge that anti-Nebraska men of 1854 had drifted back to the old liners. That this happened to any great degree seems doubtful.Ta In addition to real or assumed defections, one of the serious weaknesses of the new party was its organization. John Defrees as state chairman of the People’s party had to a degree resurrected the old tried and not-so-true dogmas of the defunct Whig party. It was on this score that Michael C. Garber, who had been a successful state chairman of the Fusionists in 1854, was bitter. He editorialized : “The gentlemen who engineered the Republican party in Indiana are clever, estimable men, every one of them; but as political leaders they are imbeciles. . . . They have been outgeneraled in every particular. . . . Southern Indiana was indubitably the Republican missionary field. . . [yet it] was given up to the combined enemy without a struggle. . . . You see what has been done with the present leaders; it could not have been worse done without leaders. If more fortunate men cannot be found in the Republican ranks, better to be without leaders or hire some from the Republicans of some of the other

T6A. B. Conduitt to Joseph A. Wright, Mooresville, June 23, 1856, Wright Papers, Indiana State Library. 77 J. B. Norman to W. H. English,. New. Albany, July 12, 1856, English Collection, Indiana Historical Society Library. 78 See Stoler,,, “The Democratic Element in the New Republican Party in Indiana, Indiana Magazine of History, XXXVI, 189-190. 79 Evening Courier (Madison), November 6, 1856, cited in ibid., 192n. 218 Indiana MaQazine of Histm

The radical element of the new Republicans was also dis- satisfied. In the prospectus for a new antislavery journal, The Western Presage, to be published in Indianapolis, Andrew and Solomon Bidwell deplored the fact that the great mass of . the antislavery arguments was framed for the emergency “and so carefully constructed, to avoid giving offense, as to render it entirely impotent against the opposition, and worse than useless as a support to the cause it was designed to sus- tain. “The course which the Republicans have pursued toward the Know Nothing party of Indiana, has also tended greatly to weaken the party of Freedom, by driving from its support thousands of honest men who would otherwise have been with us, while it gained none of the proscriptive vote it turned aside to invite.”80 A final factor which again is immeasurable but un- doubtedly was present to an alarming degree was fraudulent voting, along with liberal naturalization of the foreign-born. In the state elections in particular, the fraudulent votes were larger than usual. One politician declared there was “nothing like it this side of Kansas-Border Ruffians from Ohio, Mich. Ill. & Ky were avalanched upon us by thousands . . . [plus] double, tripple & multiplex voting by the same individuals.”s’ Colfax also claimed that fully 20,000 illegal votes had been cast against his party. Governor Wright in his message to the legislature in January, 1857, and Ashbel Willard in his inaugural address a short time later warned of the effects of the practices of the last election. Wright appealed for stricter election These, then, were the contemporary reactions to the results of the election of 1856. The Democracy was still a firmly entrenched political organization, but it was not as all- encompassing in its power as it had once been. The Republi- cans had committed political blunders, but as a new party they

80 Letter of the Bidwell Brothers and Prospectus, Indianapolis, No- vember 22, 1856, “A Letter of Daniel Worth to George w. Julian and Other Documents,” ibid., XXVI, 155-156. 81 Samuel W. Parker to Ignatius Brown, Connersville, October 22, 1856, Lyndsay Brown Papers, Indiana State Library. 82 Schuyler Colfax to Charles Heaton, Indiana olis, October 24, 1856, Colfax Letter Book, Northern Indiana Historical &xiety; Indiana Dom- mentary Journal, 1857, I, 313-314,375-376. Republican Party in Indiana 219 were within striking distance of political success. The confus- ing temper of the times in the nation was reaching out to rural Hoosier neighborhoods and villages. The People’s party leaders themselves were admittedly in the new party to stay and they were organizing for the future. The initial successes of 1854 had perhaps been a handicap in that the crusading spirit lost some of its drive by 1856. Also in 1854 there had been no responsibilities to a national party program, but in 1856 in some districts, for example, it was difficult to explain Fremont to the voters. It would seem that a great deal of importance should be attached to the natural reluctance to innovation on the part of many who could not divorce themselves from their political memories. A Methodist clergyman from Great Britain who was a guest in the governor’s mansion during the campaign observed: “We have had some insight into American political and public life while here, and facilities for observing party associations and party struggles, such as we could hardly have had, if our entertainer had been a person merely in private life. The governor is a professed Democrat (that is, a moderate reformer) ; so are most of his friends with whom we have conversed on politics in his house; and nearly all of them have made no secret of their being extreme partisans. They have no forbearance towards others who are forward to proclaim political convictions ; and though moderate and tem- perate men in other matters, in politics they are most resolute and determined. Public men, periodicals, and newspapers maintaining sentiments in common with theirs, are out- rageously be-praised, as it seems to us; and their censures appear equally unsparing and overdone. . . .Unflinching adherence to party is principle with them, and to forsake a party is regarded as an act of the greatest di~honour.”~~In such a political climate, the People’s party members, who were now calling themselves Republicans more frequently, had done very well indeed. When the Republican editorial convention which was to meet early in 1857 called for its members to come as “Re- publicans,” the party had arrived in name as well as in fact.84

83 Jobson, Amdcu, and Amedcun Methodism, 116-117. s~lndknapolisDaily Journal, December 20, 1856, 220 Indiana Magazine of History

The political frustrations born many years before had a new outlet in a party whose leaders prophetically spoke to its rivals, “We told them we had a future before us & they had

85 Schuyler Colfax to John D. .Defrees, Greencastle, October 27, 1856, Colfax Letter Book, Northern Indiana Historical Society.