MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

VOLUMEXXXVI September, 1940 No. 3

The Democratic Element in the New Republican Party in Indiana MILDREDC. STOLER A study of the influence in the Republican Party of the insurgent Democrats who joined the new party in the eighteen-fifties is of much interest. In 1856, the Republican presidential candidate had formerly been a Democrat, while in 1860, it was the vice-presidential nominee who had once been a member of the Democratic party. In 1856, Republican newspapers pointed with pride to new recruits from the ranks of their opponents. The issues that caused Democrats to leave their party were the Administration policy on slav- ery and on internal improvements, opposition to the decision of the party on such local issues as the legal prohibition of intoxicating liquor, and various other special questions. Of these, the first named had the greatest potency. The Kansas- Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed the anti-slavery provision of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and thus repudiated the principle that Congress had constitutional authority for pro- hibiting slavery in the territories. It endorsed instead the pnn- ciple that the slavery question should be settled by the people of the territory “subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” Those Democrats who opposed this Act united in 1854 with other groups of Indiana who were opposed to the Democratic party to form the People’s Party, forerunner of the Republican Party in Indiana.’ During the next two years constant efforts were made in Indiana, as elsewhere, to construct from the heterogeneous

1 For n detailed ncamnt of the nnti-Nebraalcn revolt of 1854 in Indian. and Illinoh. ne “Iamrgent Democrats of Indiana and Illinois in 1864.” lndiana Ma-*= of Hie b+v (March. 1987) XXXIII. 1-81. Both thin mtiele and the present article. are slluhtb modified pnrts of the author’s doctoral dissertion (filed in Indiana Univeraity Library). “The lnfluenee 0: the Demoemtic Element in the Republicnu Party of Illinois and In- -a, 1864-1880. 186 Indiana Magazine of History elements of the new Party a permanent organization. Whigs, who furnished the mass of voters, Free Soilers, tem- perance Democrats, anti-Nebraska Democrats, and Know Nothings were united in their opposition to the Democratic party but in little else. The problem was to hold them to- gether. In the work of organizing the new party in Indiana, anti- Nebraska Democrats played a conspicuous part. After the election, Chapman's Chanticleer, edited by Jacob P. Chapman, veteran Democratic editor, politician, and anti-slavery man, pointed out the necessity of a strong party organization: and, when the party held its victory jubilee, he and other former Democrats sought to take the first steps in that direction, but without success.8 Further steps towards organization were taken in the summer of 1855. Although the initiative came from the Whig element this time, the anti-Nebraska Democrats sup- ported the meeting and again occupied strategic positions.' Charles H. Test presided and among the vice presidents were Lucian Barbour and Henry L. Ellsworth.6 Michael C. Gar- ber, editor of the Madison Courier and chairman of the state central committee, was one of the secretaries and Reuben A. Riley was on the resolutions committee. United States Representative and Oliver P. Morton gave ad- dresses. Moreover, James Blake, who had gained experience in directing a campaign as a member of the Democratic state central committee in 1843, was made chairman of the new state committee.6 Two other former Democrats were also placed on the committee. This shower of favors on a minor- ity element in the People's Party indicates the eagerness of

'Oct. 19, 1864. Chapman WM editor of the Democratic organ. the IndiaM StOt. Sentinel from 1841 to 1850. *Indiana Stutc. JuurnaI (weekly), Nov. 4. 1864. Chapman's Chanticley called $0 meeting. The chmrman Thomas Smith. wa9 a Democrat of long stonding having served as state representakvr and senator and three terms an United States representatlve. He was considered one of the best campaigners in the ate. Biographical Directorv of Amtlicnn Congrers (Washington. 1928). 1842. Oliver P. Morton and Reuhen A. Riley made speeches. Morton had been a rising young Democrat. HLs name was men- tioned for the party's next candidate for Congress before he left the party in 1864. William Dudley Foulke, Life of Oliver P. Morton (, 1899). I, 36. 6 Ewning Courier (Madison). July 14. 1866 ; Indianapolis Journal (daily), July. 14. 1856. KTcst was elected as a Whig In 1889 an secretary OK the state senate. but. in 1843. ha wn8 defeated as a Democratic Candidate for Congress. In 1848, he was a delegate to the Democratic state convention and later In the same year was elected secretary OK state by a union of Whig and Independent Dernocratlc votes In the leglb Iature. Indian0 Journal. Nov. 23, Dec. I. 1839. Indaana State SenlmeC (daily). Sept 2. 1854: "Letters of Martin L. Bundy. 1848-49," contributed by Clarence H. Smith. Indiana Magazine of History. XXLI, 87. Ellsworth wa9 a wedthy landowner and had been commissioner of patents for many years. Evening Courier (Madison), Jan. 4, 1859. Barbour had been federal district attorney. elndiana Stale Sentinel (weekly), April 11. 1849. The New Republican Party in Iadhnu 187 the Whig element to hold them in the new party. The Whigs recognized the ability of former opponents as organizers and speakers and realized also that they might attract still other Democrats to join them. Further, the Whigs in the People's Party well knew that votes of insurgent Democrats had given them just the margin that meant victory in 1854 and might bring success again in 1866. On May 1, 1856, the People's Party again held a conven- tion at Indianapolis, this time in response to the summons of the state central committee. Once more the party called upon orators from the Democratic element to sound the key- note of the campaign. Morton, Thomas Smith, E. W. €1. Ellis and William Grose made addresses.' The convention also heard speakers from the Whig and Know Nothing elements of the party. Of the convention appointments, however, the Democratic element received a smaller share than had been accorded them two years earlier. In 1854, they received 25 of the 43 offices (or more than half) while the Whigs re- ceived only 17 and the Free Soilers 1. Two years later, the Democratic insurgents were given only 12 appointments out of 72 (one-sixth) whereas the Whigs received at least 43 (or more than half) and Free Soilers 2.* H. L. Ellsworth served as temporary chairman, but a former Whig had the honor of acting as permanent chairman. One insurgent Democrat served on the committee on permanent organization and three were vice-presidents. Two others were contingent presidential electors and still another two were the final choices as elect- ors. Of far more significance, perhaps, was the fact that only two of the sixteen members of the state central commit- tee were taken from the Democratic element. Although Blake was placed on the committee, he was not chairman. That post went to a former Whig, John D. Defrees.g Evi- dently the Whig element intended to have their turn in the

1 Ewemakg Courier (dally), May 3, 1856. EUI. had becn an .Ctlvc Democrat 161. twenty years and editar of the Goahen Democrat. He had been county and It.k auditor. John B. 8toll. Hkuof the Indiana Democrow. 1828-1911 (IndlamDolk 1917). 106, 119-120. William Crcae had been a Pierce elector and an unsu-iul Demoeratio candidate for Congreoa In 1852. Democralio Phrtm (LOP.nrDOrC). hne 9. 1862: Whig Alma~e.1868. 'These numbers varled from time to time. In 1864 there were nine md In 1868 fifteen whose former politlcal affiiiationn have not bem leuad. Neverthela* tb. above eoncluslon would not be charged. *Ellsworth. Gcorge P. Bud1 of Lawrenceburg. and Jmea Rlaha were d.~-6 dents. E W H Ellis was on the permanent organization committee. E. B. &Ilh and R. A. Rilep'were among the eontingent presidentid electors. John A. Hmdrlch and Cdeb V. Jones were on the final lint of electom md Rltchet wu the ather former Democrat ~hcdon the &ate cdmmittee. Em& CouriSr (Ydmn). M48, 6. 1868: New Albany Ledger (daily), Oct. 80, 1866. 188 Indiana Magazine of Hiatory

organization work as well as in the convention. Garber, having been state chairman in 1854, realized the absolute necessity of a complete and efficient organization. The party had then won a victory under his leadership, but Blake took his place the next year. Blake was a former Democrat but the total number of that element on the committee was re- duced from eight to three. Moreover, in 1856, only two of the Democratic element worked on the committee and the chairman was a Whig. Obviously the Whig element was. as- serting itself. However, the Democratic wing of the party was permit- ted to have three of the nine nominees for state offices, in- cluding the most important. The key position, that of can- didate for governor, went to Oliver P. Morton. W. R. Nof- singer was renominated for treasurer and E. W. H. Ellis was named for auditor. Thus the importance of elevating their Democratic friends to posts of leadership was. still recognized by the Whig element although the Whigs were claiming the share of party honors due them because they contributed the largest number of voters. The Democratic Party was still very strong in the state and it was reclaiming , some of the insurgents of 1854 by its policy of conciliation towards all save the leaders who had bolted the decision of the majority.l0 In view of this trend, the People's Party felt it necessary to keep open the schism in the Democratic Party. One method of doing this was to place Democr8tic insurgents on the ticket. Morton had been popular enough among Democrats in his district to be suggested for the con- gressional nomination in 1854 and had gained a high reputa- tion as a campaign orator in that year. Nofsinger had been elected two years before, and Ellis, state auditor from 1850 to 1852, was a Democratic editor of long experience. These nominations greatly strengthened the ticket, and it was hoped that they would influence still other Democrats to join the party. Three of the candidates for Congress were also men of Democratic antecedents. Will Cumback in the fourth and John U. Petit in the eleventh district were renominated, and John A. Hendricks became the candidate in the thkd district. In the sixth district, Reuben A. Riley was the favorite of

10 lbid.. quoted in Indiana State Jourd (weekly), Jan. 4. 1866: L. A. Smith to William H. English. Cannelton. Ind., Sept. 7. 1866, English Collection. William Hexll'9 Smith Library, Indianapolis. The New Republican Party in Iadiana 189 many delegates, but a former Whig received the nomination.ll Members of the Democratic element were active in the campaign. Morton carried on his campaign for governor from Lake Michigan to the Ohio and was aided by many able speakers. George Schneider and William Bross, anti- Nebraska Democratic editors from Illinois, spoke before au- diences in northern Indiana while E. W. H. Ellis did effec- tive service with his campaign paper, We, The People, which possibly reached seven thousand subscribers every week.u Only in the congressional election was the party suc- cessful. Both the national and state tickets were defeated in Indiana. Of the five successful candidates for Congress only ondohn U. Pettit-was from the Democratic element. However, in four of the districts it was the support of former Democratic voters that elected the People's Party candidates. This can be demonstrated by the calculation of the approxi- pate decrease in the strength of the Democratic vote of 1856 based on estimates derived from the results in 1852. Pettit's district (eleventh) may be taken as an example. The dis- trict's total vote increased by 7292 during the four years be- tween elections. Normally the vote of each party might be expected to increase in proportion to the percentage of the total vote which was its share in 1852. In 1852 the Demo- crats polled 54% of the total vote. If they had received 54% of all the votes cast in 1856, they would have had a total vote of 11,716. Actually they received only 10,443 or an estimated loss of 1273 votes. When the last number is sub- tracted from Pettit's vote presuming that 1273 Democrats or persons voting that ticket in 1852 voted for Pettit in 1856), it is found that he would have had only 9962 votes or less than 10,443 votes actually cast for his opponent. Thus with- out the 1273 votes which the Democrats might normally have expected to be theirs, Pettit could not have won the election. A similar calculation shows that James Wilson in the eighth, dolfax in the ninth, and Samuel A. Brenton in the tenth were victorious only because of the assistance of their Dem- ocratic allies. Other evidence corroborates these conclusions. Colfax acknowledged the support of several hundred Democrats, and

11 Indiana Stub Jotrrnd (weekly), July 3. 1866: Lafayette Jovrrd (ddly), JUb 8. 28. 1866. *E. W. H. Ellis. "Autobioxraphy of a Not&. Pioneer." Idiom Ma#odw of Ria- my. X. 69; Elkhart Times quoted in Indianapolrs Jmnd (ddly). Feb. 8. 1868. 190 Indiana Magazine of Hiatory the Lafayette Jouml, a Republican paper of Whig antece- dents, said that Wilson owed his victory to the “steady de- votion of the Germans to freedom.” In Marion County, also, the Germans were given credit for the victory of the People’s Party.lS In spite of defeat in the national and state elections in Indiana, the party was not greatly depressed. Its leaders turned almost immediately to the task of remedying weaknesses which were all too evident and to preparations for 1860. As Colfax so happily phrased it, they “resolved to turn a canvass into a campaign.”‘’ Lack of a thorough organization was one of the serious weaknesses in 1856. Garber, E. W. H. Ellis, and others urged that an organization reaching down into the townships be worked out at once and that Republican clubs be encouraged to continue their meetings. They warned the party that it would be fatal to delay until just before the next election.’* As the first step, Garber suggested that the Republican editors organize a state central committee and determine a course of action.l8 This was done at Indianapolis on January 6-7, 1857, when W. R. Ellis of the Lafayette Courier, his brother, E. W. H. Ellis of We, The People, Hielscher of the Freie Presse, Garber of the Madison Courier, and a goodly number of editors of Whig antecedents met and tormed the Indiana Republican Editorial Association. Garber presided and was chosen one of two vice-presidents for the next year. The first president was also a former Democrat-E. W. H. Ellis-and Hielscher was made treasurer. Former Whigs controlled the executive committee.1‘ On the second day of the editorial meeting, a Republican state convention met. Former Democrats were much in evi- dence and took a prominent part in the proceedings but no changes were made in the personnel of the state committee.1B The party again met in October of 1857 to nominate candi- dates for judges of the state supreme court. Again the Demo- cratic element had a large share in the work of the convention

UOvrndo J. Holllster. Life of Sehwla Cdfoe (New York 1887) 184. Lafa Jound quoted in Euming Courier (Madison, dmily), Oct. 2i. 1866: Znd’isno Journal (weekli), Od. 23, 1866. 1‘Hollister. op. eit., 106-107. We The Ptopb Dee. 6. 1866; Euming Corcria (Madison). Noo. 1, 8, 1866: ldiana $tat# Journal ‘(weekly), Nov. 27. Lkc. 4. 1866. uEua.sg Coune (Madison), Nov. 15. 26, 1866. 1’lndiocco Stab Joud (weekly), Jan. 8. 16. 1857. Ulbid., Jan. 16. 1867. The New Republican Party in Indiana 191 having three of the committee of seven on nominations and four of a committee of nine on resolutions besides the presi- dent and secretary of the meeting.lg The third convention to be held within fifteen months assembled on March 4, 1858. In some respects, the Demo- cratic element did not receive as great recognition as it had previously enjoyed. They not only had a smaller percentage of the committee membersz0 but they received a lesser share of the nominees for state offices. Apparently, the Whig ele- ment was trying to enforce a rotation of honors and felt that it was their turn to have the greater number of offices on the ticket as well as in the convention. In 1864, they had placed only two nominees on the state ticket whereas the Democratic element was given three and they were the more important offices. In 1856, when there were nine state offices to be filltd, the Democratic wing received three. In 1858, the ratio of 1854 was actually reversed. Three former Whigs were nominated while only two former Democrats received places on the ticketz1 Obviously, the Democratic insurgents were being relegated to a position in the party more in keep- ing with their numbers. Likewise in the selection of candidates for seats in Con- gress, the percentage granted to the Democratic element de- clined. Whereas in 1854, there were four former Democrata among the eleven candidates, in 1856, there were only three. In 1858, the percentage rose slightly but only because the Republicans had but nine candidates of whom three had once been Democrats. And yet they did receive some appoint- ments which gave them considerable influence. Garber be- came chairman of the state central committee again, thus being given the opportunity to demonstrate his ability to

'eEvening Couw (Mdbon). Oct. 7. 1067. 'OThe compoaitlon of the committeen was a8 followm: Plan for voting ...... 6 unidentlfied : 2 Dam. : '2 Whlp. : 1 Fm Soiler Permanent omniution ..... 8 unidentified ; 0 Dun. : 8 Whlgs Nominations ...... 19 unidentlfled: 3 Dem. : 7 Whip. Resolutlons ...... 6 unidentified : 2 Dem. : 12 Whip. : 1 Free Soiler : 1 Rep. Naming central committee.. .. 6 unidentified : 2 Dem. : 8 Whlgl State central committee...... ll unidentified : 3 Dem. : 17 WhLgn : 1 Pha Soiier :2 hD. It is not probable that very many of the unidentified were former Democrat4 so it is apparent that the Whim had a large percentage of the committee members. For an account of this convention. .ee IndiaMpoiis Jovrnd (ddy), March 6, 111118. a Albert Lange. a German from Tern Haute. WM nominee for auditor and John Young, President of Northadern Christian University rt Indianapolls. WM nominated for superintendent of public instruction. Both hd been Democrat. until 1866. Charles C. Oakey. Greater Tcrrs IIauts and Vigo Countv (Chicago. 1908). I. 144; Indknapolis Journal (&Ib).April 6, 1868: John Young to .Stephen A. Dooplu. Indianapolis. April -. 1868. Douslam Coliection. Unlvvlitp of Chlupo. 192 Indiana Magazine of HiSW succeed where the Whig chairman had failed.22 Garber had been chairman in 1854 when the fusionists were victorious, but then he had the assistance of eight other anti-Nebraska men whereas in 1858 only two others were placed on the com- mittee with him.23 Very important also was the appointment of OIiver P. Morton as both temporary and permanent chairman of the convention. In his address upon taking the chair, he gave the keynote of the ensuing campaign, a theme which had already dominated Republican thinking for two years, namely the alleged aggressions of the slaveholders. To the complaints made against the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and the ac- tivities of the “border-ruffians” in 1856, he added the Dred Scott decision and Buchanan’s statement that slavery existed in Kansas by virtue of the Con~titution.~~He characterized the Supreme Court as sectional and a “tool” of the slave power and demanded that it be reorganized in order to allow the North the number of judges truly representative of its population. A second problem confronting party leaders was that of securing votes normally given to other tickets. Thus far the party had been greatly concerned with this question. This was a necessity since victory was attainable only by the union of all the elements of opposition to the Democracy together with accessions from that party as well. After the election of 1868, Garber and Theodore Hielscher believed that the party should confine itself to purely Republican principles and cease to be a fusion party. They felt that the attempt to get the Ameri- can or Know Nothing vote had weakened rather than strengthened them in the recent election.zs Nevertheless, when the Democratic Party again lost some members in 1858 (this time over the question of whether or not the Le- compton Constitution submitted to Congress by the pro-slav-

PCarber wrote in the Evening Courier (Madison). Nov. 6. 1858. “The nentlunen who engineered the Republican party in Indiana are clever, estimable men. wew one of them: but as polkical leaden they are Imbeciles. . . . They have been outgeneraled In wery particular. . . . Southern Indiana was Indubitably the Republican missionav field . . . [yet It] WM given up to the combined enemy without a struggle. . . . You nee what haa been done with the present leaders: it could not have been worie done without leaders. If more fortunate men cannot be found In the Reaublican ranks. better to be without leaden or hlm iome from the Republicans of nome of the other States.” =The two former Democrab were William Mitrhell. founder of Kendallville and state representative in 1841 (Samuel E. Alvord. Alvord’s Wistoru of Noble County. Indiana (Logansport. Ind.. 1902). 154-166: Indiana Stole Sentinel .(weekly). AUR. 24. 1841) and Tbornaa II. Nelson. state representative 186041. IndroM Stde JoumoI (tri-weekly), Aug. 16. 1860. =Message to Congress on the Lecompton Constitution. Feb. 2. 1858. =Evenin# Courier (Madison). Dee. 20. Nov. 7. Oct. 18. 1866; Jan. 20, 1858. The New Republican Party in Ind~nu 193 ery faction in Kansas was a fair application of the popular sovereignty doctrine), the Republicans were eager to take ad- vantage of it. Regardless of former party affiliation, Re- publicans agreed that they could not afford to ignore such a good opportunity to win in 1858.28 Indeed, Garber did go so far as to suggest at the beginning of the anti-lecompton movement that the best way to make Kansas free was to join the seceding Democrats. Later, however, he returned to his earlier position that the Republicans might accept their support without making an alliance with them. Finally, he decided that the anti-Lecompton men should join the Re- publican party. He wrote: The Republican party is a planet, not a satellite. It has its own orbit, revolves around the Conetitutibn of the United States, attracting to and incorporating with it smaller political bodies, and it ie bound to be the great political party of the country.2’ The desire to attract these “smaller political bodies” to the Republican party was uppermost in the thinking of the Republicans as they drew up their platform in 1858. Al- though the resolutions denied boldly the validity of the Su- preme Court interpretation in the Dred Scott case and de- clared that Congress did have constitutional power to prohibit slavery in the territories (the Republican position since 1864), they actually promised nothing more than to use “proper and constitutional means” to prevent slavery extension. Unless the Supreme Court reversed the Dred Scott decision, which was not probable, even a Republican controlled Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories. So the position taken by the party was bold in words but would be mild in execu- tion. In fact, the party had not departed from the restrained phraseology of the state platform of 1856. A group of radical antislavery men led by George W. Julian, former Free Soiler, together with Hielscher and Will C. Moreau, former Democrats, demanded that the Philadelphia platform be re-affirmed. That platform asserted that Con- gress not only had the power to prohibit slavery in all the territories but was obligated under the due process clause of the Constitution to do so. The majority of the convention

Indianapolis Journal (daily), March 6, 1855 : “Memorandum of Interview. Burlingame k Calfax with Douglas. at hia residence, Dee. 14. 1867.” Sehupler Cdfax Collection. MS.. Indiana State Library. Indianapolis : letter of Colfu. quoted Hollister. Colfaz, 121. nEuening Courier (Madison), Nov. 28. 1867. Jan. 6, 21, March 6. 1868. 194 Indiana Magazine of History considered not only their own sentiments, which were more conservative than Julian’s, but also ‘the effect of such a resolution 88 he advocated upon the anti-kompton Demo- crats whose support they desired to win. In order to obtain their aid, many Republicans preferred to emphasize the de- nunciation of the action of the LeCompton Convention as a violation of the popular sovereignty principle, rather than to talk so much of the power of Congress to prohibit slavery extension. A crisis developed when Moreau.moved to amend the resolutions by striking out the one declaring that no state should be admitted into the Union before its constitution had been fully and fairly submitted to the people for ratification and substituting a re-affirmation of the Philadelphia plat- form.28 Morton, chairman of the convention, referred the motion to the resolutions committee. This meant that it would be lost so Moreau appealed from the chair’s decision. Great confusion ensued. The platform submitted by the committee was defended by several speakers from the Whig element, but Julian assailed it as a “milk and water” affair and criticized Morton’s ruling. At this juncture, as excitement mounted dan- gerously, Morton called one of the vice-presidents to the chair and took the floor to defend himself and the platform. He justified his ruling as being consistent with the rules of the convention and the platform, which he emphatically declared, contained the substance if not the form of the Philadelphia resolutions. Finally, by means of a pointed anecdote which by inference accused Julian of factiousness, he resolved the tense audience into laughter and the report of the resolutions committee was adopted.2a Thus Morton used the influence which his position gave him and exercised his facility in debate in favor of moderation rather than radicalism on the slavery issue and threw his weight on the side of those who considered it expedient to seek the aid of the anti-Lecompton Democrats. Another Republican of Democratic antecedents, John Young, the nominee for superintendent of public instruction in 1858, was especially eager to’ secwe a union of anti-le- compton Democrats and Republicans. His hope that the Democratic wing of the Republican party would be thereby

Indl.lupdlr Journal (daily), March 18. 18p8. quoting the Cinciyutl Commcrciaf. ”Ibid. March 6. 1858. **‘He reminds me, said Mr. Morlon, Of a cla who wan Ant for to Dray for a man who had been bitten by a rattlesnake. Hew through dl his brayer books and could flnd nothing to rult the aue. md he refund to go becauae his boola contained no form of prayer for a man dylng of snrke bitel’” The New R9publican Party in Indhm 195 sufficiently strengthened to render it dominant over the Whig and Free Soil elements is interesting. With victory in 1860 in mind, the desire to have the Republicans adopt the traditional Whig or Democratic principles appeared in more than one quarter. In order to encourage a union with the new insurgents Young went so far as to tell Stephen A. Douglas, leader of the anti-Lecompton movement, that Re-- publicans did not ,oppose the popular sovereignty doctrine but that they were opposed to the Administration's partiality for the South.3o These he expressed as his own views, not claiming that they were those of the Republican Party. As a further inducement, Young suggested that Douglas himself might well become the leader of the Republican Party and its presidential nominee in 1860. During the campaign he often spoke favorably of Douglas in the hope that he and his followers would join the Republican Party, but in this he was disapp~inted.~~ Andrew J. Harlan, who had cast his vote against the Nebraska Bill in 1854, also suggested to Douglas that he might become the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1860, but at the same time he warned him that the Re- publicans would fight their own battles with their own men in 1858.32 These men were probably influenced by Greeley's editorials in the New York Tribune which had many readers in the Northwest. Greeley was certain that Douglas had taken a step in the direction of Republicanism and was urg- ing the party not to oppose his re-election to the Senate. In seven districts of Indiana, anti-lecompton Democrats had a choice between the Republican and regular Democratic candidates for Congress, but in three of the southern dis- tricts (Evansville, Terre Haute, and New Albany Dis- tricts) the Republicans supported either an anti-Lecompton Democrat or an American candidate. In Garber's own dis- trict, there were three candidates for Congress-Republican, anti-Lecompton Democratic, and regular Demo~ratic.~~Thus,

"In 1864, he approved the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill but doubted the expediency of raising the slavery question at that time. In 1866, he left the Democratic party because he felt that Buchanan would show as much partiality for slaveholders as had Pierce. Young to Douglas, Indianapolis, April 6. 1868. Douglm Colleotion. University of Chicago. 11 Letter of John Young to Republican Convention, Indianapolis JoumaI (daily), Feb. 22. 1880. This idea of Young's was that of Horace Greeley. 8a Harlan to Dough. Marion, Ind., Jan. 18. 1868. Douglas Collection. "Eveninu Courier (Madison), Oct. 28. Nov. 6. 1868. The Indianapolis Joud. July 8, Aug. 6, 1868. approved of such aotion where Republicans had little chance of victory. 196 Indiana Magazine of History in the areas in which there was the greatest possibility for success the Republicans pursued an independent course with the hope of drawing votes from the Democratic opponents of the Lecompton Constitution, while, in the Democratic stronghold of the southern part of the state, they for the most part supported the candidates of other parties. Of the nine Republican candidates for Congress, three were former Democrats. Thus the Democratic influence in the party continued to be stronger in this direction than in other respects. For the third successive time, John U. Pettit was the nominee in the eleventh district. , who had been elected to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Samuel Brenton in 1857, was the candidate in the tenth (Fort Wayne) district** and Albert G. Porter was nominated in the sixth (Indianapolis) During the campaign, leaders from the Democratic wing of the party were very active. Garber and his state committee worked hard to organize the campaign. In north- ern Indiana, E. W. H. Ellis, whom the enthusiastic Journa2 editor described as “one of the best informed politicians in the West, and one of the most effective writers,” carried on the campaign through the columns of the Elkhurt County Times. Even his political opponents were forced to admit that he was “probably the shrewdest politician among the Indiana Especially vigorous efforts were made by Young, candidat6 for superintendent of public in- struction, and by Albert G. Porter, who was held to have “few equals in eloquence” and “no superior in industry.” This was high praise from an editor who was greatly dis- appointed that this young seceder from the Democracy de- feated his favorite, Defrees, for the congressional nomina- tion.aT Will Cumback, John U. Pettit, and others from the

“Case left the Demoerrtic party in 1864 because he oppc-scd its porltlon 011 the temperance question. He also opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Bill but BUPDOI~ of th8t bill was not made a test of Democracy in his district. Tb Standard (Fort Wame). Sept. 7. 21. 1864. Until 1848 when he voted for Van Buren he was 8 Whig but he voted for Democratic candidate# from 1848 to 1864. Ibid.. Oct. 6, 1864. -Porter 0p~08ed the Nebraska Bill but accepted it once it .becarpa law. Due to the troubles in Kansu he became convinced that the Admlnistratmn waa Drb slavery md in 1866 actively campaigned far Frhont. Porter’s speech in Indlanapollr Jcurnut (daily) Sept. 9 1858- Swmaphic+ Hwtoru of Emineut and Self-Mcd. Men of tb State df India& (BiAder’s title IS Reprercntative Men of Indbna) (Cin- cinnati 1880) diet. 7 267. He served on the Democratic date central commlttee In 1849 aAd 1852: StoU, ‘Hbtorv of Indiana Demoesoc~,108 : New Albany Ldger (dally), act. 25, 1852. Eucninp Courier (Madison), May 12, 1868 : Indianapolis Jourual (daily), Job 6, 1868: Indiana Sta& Sentind (dally), Nov. 22. 186% Indianapolis Joumai (dally). July 81, 1868. The New Republican Party in Indhna 197 same element in the party also participated in the canvass.SR Once more defeat met the party in Indiana save in the congressional elections. And once more victory was depend- ent on Democratic votes for Republican candidates in five out of seven of the districts carried by Republicans. Some of these were anti-LeCompton men and apparently many, es- pecially in Indianapolis and Lafayette, were Germans because the party did not stint its praise for the “gallant fight” of the Germans.Sa Once more Garber admonished the party against forming alliances from which nothing was to be gained. E. W. H. Ellis also pointed out the futility of alliances unsupported by good organization. He exclaimed in tthe columns of the Elkhart County Times : We are sick of this temporizing, milk-and-water, half-and-half policy. The Republican party already needs re-organizing-not here in the North [part of the state] where the party is firm, united, everywhere victorious-but at the centre and the South, where anti- Lecompton victories are achieved, and Republican principles are not exactly repudiated, but preached in whispers, or temporized and com- promised away, until the organization of the party is gone. We must change this order of things before 1860, or the result of the campaign will not even be doubtful.40 Perhaps, also, the Indiana Republicans needed to learn, as the party had already discovered in Illinois, that, if they were given the opportunity, the former Democrats in their ranks could infuse into the party a “spirit and energy which Whig traditions could never in~pire.”~’ The election of 1860 was an important one to the In- diana Republicans for two reasons. It was thought that Indiana together with Illinois and Pennsylvania held the key to victory in the national election. If the party could obtain the 114 electoral votes which Fremont captured in 1856 plus the votes of Pennsylvania and either Indiana or Illinois, vic- tory would be theirs. Therefore, the party leaders in Indiana felt a special responsibility for carrying the state. But even more was at stake, because the legislature to be elected in

=Morton, however, was almost completely inactive, making only one apeech after the meeting of the mnaresaional convention in his dlstrict. Grace Julian Ckrka. Gwrgs W. Julian (Indiana Hlstorical Collection& XI, Indianapolis. 1929). 194. Foulke. his hlonraDher. is silent on his political activity from the state conventlon of 18.58 until 1860. No reason for his inactivity in this campaign has y& been found. Lafayette Journal (daily). Oct. 15. 1858: Indlanapolls Journal (dally). Oct. 16, 1868. A large proportion of the Germans were Democrats. a Quoted in Eudning Courier (Madison), Nos. 2. 1868. UJames G. Blaine. Twentv Y~TEof Cmnreu (Norwich. Conn., 1884). I. 117. 198 Indiana Magazine of History that year would elect a United States Senator. As yet In- diana Republicans had not‘ captured a senatorship, a cir- cumstance which undoubtedly hampered their party’s growth. Indeed, in 1858, they did elect Henry S. Lane, a former Whig, and William M. McCarty, an anti-lecompton Democrat, to replace the Democrats whose election by a “rump legislature” in the previous year they held invalid, but the Senate refused to seat them.4z In fact, the winning of control of the legis- lature was considered to be of equal, if not greater, importance to the party than carrying the electoral vote because it meant not only that a Republican Senator would be elected but that the party could redistrict the state and thus guarantee its dominance for years to come.48 The old problem of how far to yield principle to ex- pediency in order to recruit voters still caused disagreement among leaders of the Republican party in Indiana. Should they abandon the original Republican principle of con- gressional intervention in order to win to their side Douglas Democrats? Should they even go so far as to adopt fie “Douglas” principle of popular sovereignty? The Dred Scott decision had rendered the Wilmot Proviso principle im- practicable as an issue and events in Kansas had demonstrated that slavery could be excluded from a territory under popu- lar sovereignty. Indeed, the unhampered operation of the popular sovereignty principle would continue to prevent the extension of slavery because the rapidly increasing popula- tion of the free states enabled them, rather than the slave- holding sections, to become the chief colonizers of new ter- ritories. Some editors of Whig background favored a policy of expediency. The Lafayette Journal actually advocated the abandonment of the doctrine of congressional intervention and the adoption of that of popular sovereignty,“ and was sup- ported by the Evansville Journal, New Albany Tribune, and other papers which favored Fillmore in 1856.46 Others, such as the Indianapolis Journal, would not go quite so far, but they were willing to maintain a discreet silence on the con- troversial point of the power of Congress for the time being. They insisted that, although popular sovereignty would make

a Indianapolis JOUmal (daily), Dec. 25. 1858. a Ibid., Oct. 2. 1860. rrQuoted In Indianu Stcrte fbntinel (daily). April 26. 1869. YIbid.. April 28. 1869. The New Republican Par& in Indiana 199 all territories free, an act of Congress was not only a con- stitutional method but the surest and quickest way of stop ping the spread of slavery.46 Yet they were willing to desist for a time from their attempt to win recognition of this ab- stract principle in order to gain a Republican victory by means of the union of all those opposed to the Administra- tion. Then, too, more immediate issues were at stake such as the revival of the African slave trade and the proposal that Congress enact a territorial slave code. On the other hand, some of the prominent leaders from the Democratic wing of the party, remained firm in their support of the original Republican principle. Garber held that Congress was “as fair a representative of popular sovereignty” as any and thought that the adoption of the “Douglas” prin- ciple would be “very He insisted that the people of a territory were “wards of Congress” and that it was the duty of Congress to educate them so that their decision on the slavery question when they formed a state constitution would be a “righteous” one. As always he opposed any coalition which necessitated the modification of Republican principles. He welcomed all who took the Republican position but pro- tested against coalitions between “incongruous elements.” These, he said, might win an election, but when the legis- lature met, the Republicans could not rely upon their tem- porary allies to follow Republican leadership. The result was that Republicans had to bear the responsibility for laws while they lacked any Teal power to control the legislature/@ John Young also took his stand with Garber that the time for compromise was past. He was no longer so friendly to Douglas in 1860 as he had been two years earlier. Instead, he wanted now to “fight under the plain Republican flag of ‘No more slave territory and no more slave States’.” Al- though he held that the Dred Scott decision should be obeyed, he protested against it as a “most dangerous and wanton departure from the sacred principles of liberty” and de- clared that he intended to “agitate till death” for its re- versal.‘@

* Indianapolis Journd (daily), April 16. 22. 26, May 26. June 8. 1869. *‘Rucninp Courier (Madison) quoted in lndianta State Sentinel (daily), June 10, 1869. “Eveninp Courier (Madison), NOV.11, 18, 1869. *Letter of John Young to the Republican Convention. Indinnapdl6 Journal (daily). Feb. 23. 1860. 200 Indiana Magazine of History

Will Cumback, too, opposed any compromise with Doug- las, declaring : I have no sympathy with this diluted Semi-Dou[g] lass-Republicanism. I take the doctrine contained in the Philadelphia platform as the Right Sort of political faith. As between Buehanan and Douglass I should dislike to be compelled to Select. I think the doctrines of both are alike odious to the North and they both alike would strike down human freedom everywhere for their own promotion.JO Oliver P. Morton likewise clung to the doctrine of con- gressional intervention even after the majority of the party decided to ignore it. During the campaign, he took the posi- tion that a positive law was essential to the existence of Slav- ery and that Congress could and should prohibit slavery in the territories. He found constitutional authority for his view in the clause granting Congress power to “make all needful rules and regulations for the go’vernment of the ter- ritory and other property belonging to the United States,”o1 and in the inherent right of the Federal Government to ac- quire territory. Moreover, he thought it was the duty of the Federal Government to see to it that the territories did “not contract the bad habit of slavery, polygamy or other great national and social vice.”s2 At Terre Haute he actually argued against popular sovereignty by saying that a territory could not have an inherent right to self-government. If it had such a right, it was sovereign and consequently had greater rights than a state which was restricted in some re- spects by the United States constitution. He held that a territory was a dependency to be governed by Congress for the common good of the whole nation.‘* However, such views were those of a minority of the party for as election time neared the pressure for the form- ation of a coalition with the Douglas Democrats and Know Nothings was so great that the name Republican was omitted from the call for the state convention issued by the central committee and state chairman Garber.&’ Moreover, the plab form omitted any mention of the principle of congressional intervention. In 1854 and 1856 the platforms had indirectly endorsed the principle by condemning the repeal of the

Letter to [Israel Waahburn]. Greensburg. Ind.. Jan. 19. 1859. Iarael Washburn Collection. Library of Conmew. Foulke. Morton. I, 79. mfbid.. 80. a Ibid.. 68: Indiana Herald (Huntinptnn, Ind.). April 18. 1860. “Evenifip Covripr (Madison). Jan. 18, 1860. The New Republican Party in Indiana 201

Missouri Compromise. In 1858, however, while explicitly as- serting the doctrine in defiance of the Dred Scott decision, the declaration was seriously weakened by the qualification that only “proper and constitutional means” would be used in preventing the extension of slavery. The greatest em- phasis was placed on fulminations against the Lecompton Constitution as a “gross outrage upon the rights of the people” and against the contention of Southern extremists that the Constitution of the United States carried slavery into the territories. The purpose was obvious. The party wished to get the votes of the anti-lecompton men. In 1860 the plat- form even more plainly assumed the position of Douglas. No mention whatever was made of the power of Congress to . legislate on slavery in the territories, and the statement was made that “we believe slavery cannot exist anywhere in this government unless by positive law.”5s This was the premise upon which the Freeport Doctrine was based.66 Again the outspoken leaders from the Democratic ele- ment bowed to the will of the Whig element. Once more the need to win allies triumphed over principle in Indiana, but it was probably wiser to face reality. As things stood, any at- tempt by Congress to prohibit slavery in a territory would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Moreover, with Kansas indubitably free, the question of whether Con- gress should give legal protection to slave property in a ter- ritory was far more pressing. And, in debate on that issue their arguments would be more effective if they assumed that the Supreme Court was right. If they could take that position, they could make the strong plea that since Con- gress lacked power to prohibit slavery in a territory it like- wise had no power to give it legal protection. In selecting candidates for state offices, the party also had in mind the necessity for winning votes formerly cast for the Democratic ticket. On the ticket were two former Democrats, two former Whigs, a Fillmore elector of 1856, an old Liberty Party man, and a young Republican.5T Ob-

6a William E. Henry, State Platforms of the TWO Dainamt Pditud Partia in Indiama. 2850-2900 (Indianapolis. 1902), 10. 19. 16, 20-21. ”At Freeport. Illinois, in 1868. Douglas explained that slavery could not exirl anywhere without the protection of locd police ledslation. Therefore, If the people did not want slavery* he said. they could exclude it by refusing to 900 laws givinp security to the property of nlave ownem. “Lane and William A. Peelle were Whigs: the Fillmore man was James C. Jones: the Liberty party representative was Jonathan 9. Harvey: and . who ran for supreme court reporter. was a young member of the Party. 202 Indiana Magazine of History viously it was designed to get votes of Democrats, Fillmore men and Free Soilers as well as Whig support. It should be noted that the large Whig element and the smaller Democratic element in the party were equally repre- sented on the ticket, each having two candidates. Likewise, as in 1856, important offices were given to former Democrats. Albert Lange was once more named for auditor. Oliver I?. Morton, the defeated gubernatorial candidate of 1856, was given second place on the ticket. A former Whig, Henry S. Lane, was nominated for governor. The insistence of the Whig element on the rotation of nominations is apparent in this arrangement. Morton, a former Democrat, had been accorded the honor of heading the ticket in 1856, so the Whigs claimed that right in 1860. There was an understanding, however, that Lane should be chosen United States Senator if the Re- publicans should win a majority in the legislature, which would, of course, make Morton governor.'* It seems that both men preferred to be Senator and that both had to be persuaded to run for the positions assigned to them.6g In the selection of candidates for Congress, also, the Whig element acknowledged the usefulness to the party of the Democratic wing. Four districts, or more than at any time since 1854, named men of Democratic antecedents. Por- ter was renominated in the sixth (Indianapolis) district. The others were J. L. Yatar of Greensburg, Thomas H. Nelson of Terre Haute, and William Mitchell of Fort Wayne.O0 Thus the Whig element found it expedient, if not necessary, to use former Democrats as candidates because they would strength- en the ticket by attracting to it possible bolters from the Democracy. On the other hand, Whigs preferred to keep the Repub- lican organization in their own hands. The preponderant element in the organization of the state convention was Whig. 'The temporary and permanent chairman (one man served in both capacities) and the vice-chairman were both former Whigs. Garber did serve as secretary and five other mem- bers of the Democratic element were on the large resolutions

"David TurpIe, Sketch of My Own Timu# (Indianapolfm. 1908), 188-184: Will Cumback to John Sherman. Greensburgh. Ind.. Feb. 4. 1861. John Sherman Collection, LIbrary of Congress. Cumback said that there wm a "aort of understanding wi% H. S. Lane that if he would run for Governor they would .give hlm the Senatorship. WFoulke. Mmbn. I. 66. -They were running for Conpeas from the fourth, seventh, and tenth di.tricth respectively. The New Republican Party in Indiana 203 committee.e1 However, only one of the fifteen members of the new central committee is known to have been of Demo- cratic antecedents.es Furthermore, only two of the thirteen presidential electors were former Democratsas while three of the same element were sent as delegates to the national con- vention to which at least fourteen of the Indiana delegates were former Whigs.04 Even the orators on the convention program were all former Whigs. Morton, who usually ad- dressed such party meetings, had been called home to attend court. The Democratic element, however, assumed its full share and more of the work of the campaign. Former Democrats were constantly in demand as speakers. Morton carried the canvass into every part of the state. In many places, he ap peared in joint debate with David Turpie, his competitor for the office of lieutenant governor.a6 Porter spoke in almost every community in his district. Lange, Harlan, Charles Case, H. W. Ellsworth, Cumback, Grose, E. W. H. Ellis, Moreau, R. A. Riley, and John U. Pettit were all engaged in the campaign. The roll includes the names of almost every leader of the party’s Democratic element. They spoke not once but many times. The Whig leaders were glad to have their services both because of their ability as speakers but also because of their possible influence on wavering Demo- crats. The Indianapolis Daily Journal recommended Moreau to its reademas “one of the most fluent and attractive speak- ers of Young Republicanism” and said that because he had “passed through the thorny ways of Democracy on his road to the true position” he could give “an ‘experience’ that will be worth hearing.”a6 Speakers who had formerly been Democrats penetrated the Democratic strongholds in the south. The Lawrenceburgh

aW. C. Morean. ChdrmM. will Cumback, Wllli~Gme. J. B. McFarland. and E. W. H. Ellis were the former Democrats; nine are known to have ken Wh1El1 .ad eight remain unldentified M to former political affillation. For an account of the convention. see Indianapolis Joud (daily). Feb. 28. 1860. John Schwartz of Lawrenceburg. Flve Whim and one Liberty Darh nmn were on the committee. Efforts to learn the politial antdents of Alexander €I.Connar, the chairman, and the seven other members have been unavailing. -Cumback and R. A. Riley. Cumback’s ~opularityk indhted by the fact th.t he was chosen eledcr-atlarge by acclamation. WC. H. Test Walter Mar& and J.me L. Yatar. Nine remain nnidenttfied. The Press and !&buns (Chicagd), May 26. 1860. characterized Yatar as a “hyd- working Republican” who had left the Democratic party in 1864. He ilgned the all for the People’s masa convention of July 13. 1864. and WM a member 02 tbe Zorvtb mnsressional diatrict committee in 1868. Indianapdii Jovmd (daily). June 19. 1864. July 14. 1868. .I TurDlc, Skctchea, 184. “Much 21. 1860. 204 Indiana Magazine of History

Republican asked that Ellsworth come to that city to lend his eloquence to the cause.87 In the latter part of June, Morton and Turpie spoke from the same platform in ten southern towns. To the southern counties also went Cumback and others. Evidently the state committee felt that these former Democrats could make a more forceful appeal to other Demo- crats than any other group in the party. It is also not too much to suppose that the most able speakers were sent to the south where the party had been weakest in previous elections. The services of men of Democratic antecedents from other states were also in great demand and the best cam- paigners in the party were sent into Indiana. Frank Blair from Missouri and Lyman Trumbull from Illinois, both able speakers, appeared before Indiana audiences and H. Kreis- mann from Illinois and Fred Hassaurek from Ohio talked to the German voters.e8 German voters, many of whom were Democrats, were particularly objects of Republican solicitude in 1860. They had been repelled earlier by the alliance of Republicans with Know Nothings but this was supposedly broken by 1858RR During the next two years the party bent every effort toward conciliating the foreign voters. Carl Schurz, a most popular orator who had fled to America after the revolution of 1848 in Germany, was brought into the state in the spring of 1860 to talk in the centers of German population.70 After a sur- vey of the state, he was very optimistic about the German Democrats. He thought that perhaps ten thousand of them could be won." When he returned later in the year, he found that considerable gains had been made in Terre Haute and elsewhere.'* It was in the Terre Haute district that Thomas H. Nelson (a former Democrat) made a most effective can- vass. The Volksbote at Evansville and the Staats Zeitung at Fort Wayne, both formerly Democratic papers, declared for Lincoln during the campaign and many individual Dem-

"Indianapolis Journal (daily), July 24. 1860. The columns of this paper were filled with notices of speeches by former Democrats during the campaign. Chicago Democrat (weekly), Sept. 22. 1860 ; Indianapolis Journul (daily), July 17, Sept. 21, 1860: H. Kreismann to Lyman Trumbull. Chicago. Aug. SO, 1860, in Trumbull Collection, Library of Congress. "0Kreismann to Wuhburne. Chicago, Sept. 3, 1860, E. B. Washburne Collection. Kreismann Paid that Colfax had neglected the Germans and that a majority of them were still Democrats in that didrict. 'OSpcechw, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Sehurr. edited by Fredrric Bancroft (New York. 1915). I. 110-111. 7'Schurn to J. F. Potter. Columbus. 0.. March 17, 1860. ibid., I. 107-108. "Schurz to his wife, Terre Haute. Aug. 16. 1860, Intimate I,etters of Carl Schurz, 1641-:869. editpd by Joseph Schafer (Madison. Wis., 1928). 219. The New Republican Party in Indkm 205

&rats also decided to vote for the Republican candidate^.^^ Charles Coulon, prominent German Democrat of Indianapolis was one of many. He was immediately called to do yeoman service for the republican^.^' In fact, so many Germans took the same stand that the Indianapolis Journal declared that the party was “largely indebted” to the German voters for its vi~tory.’~ Although party leaders talked much of the importance of organization, an outside observer, after spending ten days in Colfax’s district, reported that in organization the Re- publicans there were four years behind Illinoi~.’~However, one former Democrat, Moreau, did his part in starting a “Young Republican Club” movement.’’ October brought the state election and victory for the Republicans, a victory which was repeated in the following month when Lincoln electors were chosen. According to David Turpie his party’s defeat was not unexpected. 111 his estimation it was “principally due to the Breckenridge movement” and to the “ten or fifteen thousand . . . in- differents who invariably desert a failing cause and pass over to the winning But even he had to admit that many of the so-called indifferents were after all Democrats. He wrote : In some of the counties, especially in those of the northwestern part of the state, there were instances in which the whole county cabinet, elected two years before as Democrats on the regular ticket, had changed their party affiliations while in office, and had carried their friends and relations across our lines into the Republican quarters. At many of my meetings it was openly stated by persons known before as Demo- crats, by some of these, that Mr. Douglas was the greatest and purest statesman of the age; by others, that they had the highest regard and esteem for Mr. Breckenridge, but they said it was impossible for either of these gentlemen to be elected; they should vote for . Still they professed loyalty to the Democratic state ticket.79 Lincoln’s popular vote in Indiana was greater than that of all three of his opponents added together. Thus the Re- publicans did not win “due to the Breckinridge movement,” that is, to the division of the Democratic vote between Doug-

78 Indianapolis Journa4 (daily). June 30. Aug. 4. 1860. 74 Ibid.. Aug. 2, 1860. 7s Ibid.. Oct. 18, 1860. William E. Dodd. 7’Kreismann to E. 13. Wsshburne. Chicam, Sept. 3, 1860, Washburn Collection. 77 Indianapolis Journal (daily), March 21. 1860. Turpie. Slcstches. 188. 7@Ibid.. 181-188. 206 Indiana Magazine of Hiatory

Ious and Breckinridge Rather they were victorious because thousands of Democrats, or men who had formerly voted Democratic tickets, supported Lincoln. Although Democratic strength almost trebled in Indiana from 1852 to 1860, the combined vote of the two Democratic presidential candidates of 1860 represented a smallei percentage of the total vote than Pierce had received eight years before. Obviously the Democrats had lost ground. Had they been united on one can- didate and had they received their normal share of the in- creased number of voters, they could have won easily. It is even possible that Douglas, in spite of the split in the party, could have carried the state had not several thousands of those who usually voted for Democrats cast ballots for Lin- coln. The chief centers of Democratic insurgency were in nineteen counties which were, as Turpie pointed out, for the most part in the northern part of the state. The Republicans also carried the seven congressional districts which they had won in 1858.80 In all save the fifth district their victory was due to Democratic insurgency. Of the seven men elected to Congress, two-A. G. Porter and William Mitchell-were former Democrats. Yatar and Nelson of the same element were defeated. The Republican con- trolled legislature sent Lane to the United States Senate and Morton became governor. Thus the first Republican was from the Democratic element in the party. It is evident that the Democratic element contributed much to the success of the Republicans. There were always former Democrats on the ticketptate and congressional. Although the proportion of the candidates granted to the group varied and tended to decrease somewhat, the distribu- tion was always fair to them. During the first years, when their share was greater, they actually received extremely generous treatment from the Whig element which was large enough to control the selection of candidates. Moreover, they were usually accorded important of fices-governor, lieu- tenant governor, treasurer, auditor. The Whigs well knew the influence of the former Democrats on other waverers among their opponents. Certainly, election returns revealed the wisdom of their course, for there was always a goodly number of candidates who owed their success to the votes of

-Third and fifth to eleventh districts. The New Republican Party in Idha 207 insurgent Democrats or men who had customarily voted the Democratic ticket. The party was weakest in organization but even here it was the Democratic element which sensed the need most acutely and which took the earliest action. Failure resulted in 1854, but two years later Garber and others actually sue ceeded in organizing the Republican editors of the state. And it was a former Democrat who started the Young Republic- an Clubs in 1860. The influence of this element on party politics is dif- ficult to measure because its members were themselves di- vided on the best courses to pursue. Some leaders, like Hiel- scher, leaned to the left on the slavery question while others, such as Morton, threw their influence on the side of modera- tion. Still others, such as Young, were willing at one time to abandon entirely the principle of congressional interven- tion and to assume the views of Douglas. We have seen how at one time in the convention of 1858 Morton had a very decided influence on the policy of the party as set forth in the platform. There is no question as to the importance of the Demo- cratic element as orators and political debaters. Republi- can papers of the period are filled with notices of their speaking engagements. The former Democrats were fre- quently sent to the strongly Democratic areas. They were given these difficult assignments for two reasons. In the first place, they could make a stronger appeal to waverers still in the Democratic party than could a former Whig or Free Soiler, and secondly, some of the most able speakers in the party were in this element. The Republican party in Indiana was deeply indebted to its Democratic element from 1854 to 1860 in more ways than one, and acknowledged its debt by elevating its Democratic leaders to places.